Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions. I fail to see how it qualifies as something that is evil and subversive.
From a Christian catholic perspective, it is evil and subversive of moral standards.
While that may seem true from a Catholic/Christian perspective, I suspect that many non-Christians and non-theists would disagree. Moreover, I also suspect that Christians hardly have a monopoly on morality.
True, a few would disagree but those who subscribe to the majority of the 'great' religions would agree; Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.
I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.
Is that a fact? What have I fabricate/ignored. I will admit that I denounce willful ignorance. Who wouldn't? And why should I show restraint at such willful ignorance? Why should anyone?
Just read what you posted here, deliberately ignoring the point about metaphysical naturalism and responding as though you were some dull freshman, lol.
I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.
Since science is, by definition, the study of natural phenomenon, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that naturalism is harmful to science? Even Galileo, by everyone's admission, a very religious man, recommended that in conducting scientific research, one must set aside scripture. How is a recognition of the natural world subversive or morality, and who's definition of morality is it subverting? You are not making any sense here. Science itself is morally neutral. Morality is the realm of fallible humans, not of the scientific method.
Metaphysical naturalism asserts more than science can prove. MetNat says NOTHING exists outside of nature while science says no such thing as those things are outside the scope of science.
MetNAt says there is no objective morality, that Truth is only a perceived quality of a concept, nothing more. It undermines the axioms of science that there is an objective Truth about everything, pretty much.
When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains.
??? Evolution makes no mention of what could possibly reside outside of our known universe. In fact, it says nothing about what could reside off-world of our own planet, though the universality of the laws of nature make it probable that other planets have similar life.
Lol, you intentionally distorted what I said, an example of your lies you toss out when it suits you. I guess you get too lazy to respond, or soemthing.
I said MetNat says there is nothing outside our natural universe, not evolution. Come on, you are not that stupid.
At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.
Did you have a point to make here?
Yes, well read it again and maybe you will spot it.
It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.
Except that science is not based on axiomatic reasoning.
Yes, it is.
BillHoyt once wrote:
The axioms of science are these:
1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. Their are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation.
More:
Basic assumptions of science
Every field of knowlege operates on various axioms specific to it.
The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.
And that's a problem because?
It isnt presented by me as a problem, at least not untill MetNat idiots come along and say something stupid like 'Prove that miracle happened with science!'
Cant happen and never will happen.
jimbo said:
But the supernatural can be witnessed, as I myself have personally witnessed such things.
And that's a problem because human witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
And yet the experimental process of the scientific method DEPENDs on people acurately and faithfully providing accounts of what they witnessed in the lab; and you are right, it is notoriously unreliable, for example, Piltdown Man, and the MIT verification experiments on Cold Fusion which were a complete fraud and they actually reported false data when the actual data confirmed LENR.
jimbo said:
The supernatural can be proven via records, video and situational and circumstantial evidence, for which a metaphysical naturalist would deny no matter what was presented since it violates the starting axioms.
Please provide us with at least one unambiguous instance where supernatural phenomenon was verified by the scientific method.
I already have; the Big Bang. Prior to the scientific theory, it was regarded as a miraculous event of creation and derided as 'magic' by secular heathenists. Once science proved it by natural law, it was proven to not be miraculous in the narrowest sense of the word, but providential instead.
