[betty boop]

"...no wonder, nature is the only place science looks for answers!”

LOLOL!!! So of course, the answers will be "naturalistic" answers! Duh!!!

But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.

Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"

Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist?

Who do these guys think they're trying to kid, to fool, with such a "method?"

Thanks for patiently bearing with my rant, dear Alamo-Girl. And thank you so much for your excellent essay/post.

[hosepipe]

[ Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist? ]

Evolution(and various iterations of it) carried back to the ultimate source would be the earth itself, wouldnt it?..

And would be responsible for the "Spontaneous Humanation"(I just made that up).. of our species on this planet.. Or am I missing something.?.

If so then the Spontaneous Humanation of awareness beyond consciousness that could invent a God let alone inventing philosophies that would deny that God looks like a Chinese Fire Drill to me..

Did I get myself all confused on this?.. Help?.. Its so confusing.. I'm having trouble dealing with the possibility I'm a parasite on a little blue planet using resources that are in fact my father.. its so cannibalistic..

(basically rhetorical screed displaying, "Who's yo Daddy")

[cornelis]

For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material. Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"

Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist?

Polyphemus was a Cyclops. That's a one-eyed monster: kuklos + ops

[Stultis]

But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.

Naturalism (even "metaphysical" naturalism) hasn't been materialistic for centuries. Get over your shallow "new age" strawmen.

Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"

Jeepers. Talk about equivocation. The folks you're criticizing consistently distinguish between "metaphysical" (or philosophical) naturalism and "methodological" naturalism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.

Truly, the bottom line of metaphysical naturalism is "matter in all its motions" which is particularly bizarre IMHO considering we are still searching for the Higgs field/boson and, even if it is detected or made - the remaining 95% of the critical density of the universe is yet to be detected or made.

[Right Wing Professor]

Alamo-Girl extrapolates from methodological to metaphysical naturalism by saying that people who adopt naturalism as a mere working hypothesis often note that they never encounter a case where it is invalid, and thence extrapolate to naturalism as a metaphysical principle. I find that concession revealing, to start with. But arguing, never in thousands of instances having encountered an exception, that no exceptions are likely to exist, is hardly 'philosophy'; it's a valid application of induction that in any other case would be regarded as unexceptionable.