Originally Posted by
RevolverRob
One thing, that I believe scientists do very wrong, is not draw the distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. It is apparent, when you carefully read the earliest works on evolutionary theory, that this was an important distinction to those authors. Subsequently, the nuance between them has been lost and this distinction is no longer discussed at length or even part of the pedagogical training for many (most) scientists. This is a reflection of specialization and training that allows an escape from a broad liberal arts focus at the early stages of scientific careers allowing scientists who are in their early career stages to bypass understanding of the history, philosophy, and classical ethics of their fields.
Why do I start there? Because what you describe in your initial post reflects very much the thought process of individuals who are, by necessity or through lack of clarity between the concepts, conflating philosophical and methodological naturalism. Whether they be students confronted for the first time or established scholars confronted with evidence for the first time. Which, by the by, is not to say that you are not changing or you belief system is not being altered as you perceive new evidence, that can be and probably is quite true. Rather, what I am saying is, one way to deal with some of the conflict you elude to in your post, is by drawing this careful distinction and treating these two topics as separate, but related topics.
Philosophical naturalism is an a-theistic view, where Natural Laws can and does explain the entire existence of everything. It is a personal viewpoint of the universe, not a scientific construct. In this framework, there are no God(s), there is nothing that cannot, ultimately, be explained by investigation, though philosophical naturalists concede that some things, at present, cannot be adequately investigated, but suggest that they could be given appropriate circumstances.
Methodological naturalism, is the required framework, where scientists exclude the supernatural as explanatory mechanisms for studied phenomena. Because investigation of the supernatural falls outside the domain of scientific inquiry, we exclude supernatural explanatory mechanisms. In other words, "Casper the Friendly Ghost did it." is not a valid hypothesis for, "Why my beer bottle fell on the floor and broke when I was drunk." Where a valid scientific hypothesis for that phenomena is, "While intoxicated, the individual (me) had reduced capacity for physical control of my beer bottle, resulting in my dropping it or knocking it over and it breaking." The latter can be investigated through experimentation, the former (Casper) cannot.
It is, absolutely necessary, that methodological naturalism be invoked as the framework for scientific inquiry, not so with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism, like theism, or spiritualism, is, in many respects, a faith-based belief system. I've seen philosophical naturalists argue, this isn't the case their they system is evidence-based, but ultimately at the far ends of the spectrum it is faith-based that the laws and rules are adequately described and investigated to explain things currently beyond what is known.
Moreover, there is plenty of physical evidence to support that at least portions of narratives in Judeo-Christian-Muslim texts are real. There is no doubt, for instance, that King David was real, given substantial archeological evidence and even existence of a royal seal marking ring that bears his name and kingdom. The fact that this evidence was recovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, long after the Old Testament was written and codified (as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls), bears witness to the fact that the Bible and related texts are historical in nature and therefore have physical evidence to support them. The reality that the science supports the interpretations of these artifacts, also supports this.
My point here is - evidence is important in its appropriate context. Bear in mind that methodological naturalism allows you to investigate the physical evidence of the history of the universe and of Biblical texts, but does not (and cannot) tell you how to integrate that data in your personal belief system - only you can do that. The scientific method and mode of inquiry is the greatest gift that science has to give, more so than the knowledge it allows us to uncover. But science cannot, should not, and will not (while I am alive and a scientist), tell you what to believe.
For me - I am agnostic to the existence of higher "supernatural" powers. Because I believe that at present our ability to investigate the supernatural is non-existent. There are simply questions that cannot be investigated or answered using methodological naturalism. Until someone invents either an alternative, evidence and hypothesis based approach to inquiry that can bear evidence, or we refine our abilities, I believe we will have to wait on investigating "matters of faith". In other words, matters that one must "believe in" to find evidence for. An important distinction for me here is that I don't believe for or against any God(s). I do believe that if such omnipotent beings exist that they are beyond the physical comprehension of our brains and therefore outside of the realm of investigation for us.
Importantly, as a scientist, skeptic, and inquirer - I am able to sidestep philosophical belief issues in my own world view. I do not know, I cannot know, and therefore I will not know the answers to some questions. This, I am quite fine with, as a person. I don't lose any sleep over it, because I have accepted that my ability to know things is limited and therefore I allow myself to investigate questions that I believe I can answer adequately. It also means I do knot, cannot, and will not tell someone else what to believe - except if they deny the existent of evidence backed, verifiable, observations. At which point I take the tact of showing them how the evidence was collected, why, and how it was studied. Ultimately, I leave it with the recipient to decide if they believe it, but after I've shown them everything "behind the curtain", rational folks usually accept it with the assumptions and caveats provided. Irrational people cannot have their perceptions altered and are not worth continuing discourse with.
And that's basically it.
Reply With Quote
- Big Bang is the dominant hypothesis for what the origin of the universe looked like, based on the evidence we have. Though we cannot recreate such a cataclysmic event is actually mostly irrelevant, because for now the evidence we do have supports the idea of a large explosive event. That includes things like the density distribution of matter across our solar system (measurable) and the origination of certain types of elements (those that require immense heat and pressure). The explanation is only as good as the evidence that supports it and if we were faced with substantial alternative evidence, we would be forced to reconsider that hypothesis. Natural Laws are in many respect over-rated (yea the scientist just said that). 
