Evidence for God from Science

So then, what would be some examples of what MN could reveal about a crime scene?

There appear to be definition variations on "Methodological Naturalism" and this is perhaps not helping this discussion.

For example, one put forward by Wikipedia which separates it from assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism such that one is merely looking for unhindered natural explanations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodolog ... naturalism

Compared to the definition found at Rationalwiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism) which is very biased towards basing Methodological Naturalism upon Philosophical Naturalism.

Within this discussion, I have personally opted for the first definition. It would be helpful I think to know which definitions you all have in mind here.

As I understand it, Naturalism is the belief that everything occurs according to immutable laws of nature, which are not tweaked or adjusted to suit local circumstances. The difference between Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism is that the Methodologists go no further than to say that their discoveries appear to demonstrate Naturalism, while the Philosophers affirm that their discoveries are real, and describe an objective reality. In everyday life, there is little difference between the two. It doesn't matter if my journey to town really happens or not, nor, to take Kurieuo's crime scene, if the dead man and the bloodied dagger actually exist. Since we are immersed in this version of reality, we pursue it without reservation.
However, when it comes to cosmological observations regarding, say, the dimensions of the universe, or microscopic observations such as quantum theory, then the dichotomy between "real" reality, as opposed to "apparent" reality, becomes more prominent.
Remarkably, from both a Methodological Naturalism and a Philosophical Naturalism standpoint, Young Earth Creationists win hands down over Day/Age Creationists. If the universe really was created quite suddenly, complete with all its laws of nature and its appearance of antiquity, over only a few thousand years (or minutes for that matter), then it would be immune from any scientific discovery that appeared to demonstrate the contrary, and no form of Naturalism could deny it. The reason I deny it utterly is from a Theological, not a Naturalist, standpoint.
Day/Age Creationists, however, are caught in an ever-tightening net as they are forced to waver between Naturalism and Theology, desperately hoping that those last few vestiges of apparent interventionism will not fall beneath the relentless march of Methodology. The fact that the fossil record is incomplete, that there are few instances of fossils being direct ancestors of present-day organisms, the successive discoveries of one transitional form after another, the evolution of new species and the extinction of the old, even the mathematics behind the Big Bang; all these fit wonderfully into the mainstream scientific view of the development of God's plan, and are increasingly awkwardly accounted for by the interventionist ideas of Creationists, whose ideas of "kinds" of spontaneous creation have become larger and larger, and fewer and fewer in number, until I've no doubt that within a few years they'll be left with the five living kingdoms and man as God's sole personal contributions to his otherwise mechanical universe.

hughfarey wrote:As I understand it, Naturalism is the belief that everything occurs according to immutable laws of nature, which are not tweaked or adjusted to suit local circumstances. The difference between Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism is that the Methodologists go no further than to say that their discoveries appear to demonstrate Naturalism, while the Philosophers affirm that their discoveries are real, and describe an objective reality.

Regarding the bold bit, my definition of a Methodologist would not be someone who says that their discoveries support naturalism, but someone who accepts that their discoveries can only reveal things about the natural world, "natural" being things which are to some extent objective, observable and repeatable. A Philosopher, on the other hand, would say that the natural world is all that exists - that everything - every person, every object, every phenomenon - is a direct and exclusive result of physical laws.

A philosophical naturalist believes that the natural world is the only reality. A methodological naturalist believes that the natural world is the only objective, discoverable reality. A Methodologist should be open to things that are currently considered to be supernatural becoming considered natural at some point in the future if an objective way to study that thing becomes available.

Taking the concept of a soul as an example, a subscriber to philosophical naturalism would say "humans do not have souls". A subscriber to methodological naturalism would say "if humans have souls, then either souls should be open to objective study in some way, or else they are outside of nature - real, but intangible, ineffable and unknowable other than in subjective terms".

One thing to note is that, whilst theism and philosophical naturalism are mutually exclusive positions, methodological naturalism isn't excluded by either position. I've mad a venn diagram to try and explain this (and the rest of my post) better:

(All atheists are philosophical naturalists. No theists are philosophical naturalists. Some philosophical naturalists and some philosophical supernaturalists are also methodological naturalists.)

Kurieuo wrote:Question: Can Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) be performed purely using Methodological Naturalism to determine what actually happened? Why or why not?

Yes, effective CSI units provisionally exclude metaphysics and the supernatural, leaving just methodological naturalism. Always works for the TV show. But I'm guessing that you already knew one of us would say that, so why not just tell us up front what you are driving at?

Ooops. I didn't notice the recent postings after your 1st question about MN. Sorry about that!

Either of your wiki references seems OK as a starting point for defining "methodological naturalism". So for now lets go with the wikipedia definition that you've opted for.

Kurieuo wrote:So then, what would be some examples of what MN could reveal about a crime scene?

How about every "CSI", "The Mentalist", "Perry Mason", and "Dragnet" TV episode. Please give a crime solving example that a provisional assumption of methodological naturalism could not solve.

PerciFlage wrote: A philosophical naturalist believes that the natural world is the only reality.

....

(All atheists are philosophical naturalists. No theists are philosophical naturalists. Some philosophical naturalists and some philosophical supernaturalists are also methodological naturalists.)

I'm an atheist and I don't beleive that the natural world is the only reality, therefore not all atheists are philosophical naturalists.

Rubberneck wrote:

PerciFlage wrote: A philosophical naturalist believes that the natural world is the only reality.

....

(All atheists are philosophical naturalists. No theists are philosophical naturalists. Some philosophical naturalists and some philosophical supernaturalists are also methodological naturalists.)

I'm an atheist and I don't beleive that the natural world is the only reality, therefore not all atheists are philosophical naturalists.

True enough, I should have moved the atheist bubble downwards slightly to reflect the position of atheists who are also deists or spiritualists.

PerciFlage wrote:

Rubberneck wrote:

PerciFlage wrote: A philosophical naturalist believes that the natural world is the only reality.

....

(All atheists are philosophical naturalists. No theists are philosophical naturalists. Some philosophical naturalists and some philosophical supernaturalists are also methodological naturalists.)

I'm an atheist and I don't beleive that the natural world is the only reality, therefore not all atheists are philosophical naturalists.

True enough, I should have moved the atheist bubble downwards slightly to reflect the position of atheists who are also deists or spiritualists.

I'm not a deist or a spiritualist either.

Intriguing (or just a paucity of imagination on my part). What's the best reductive, simplistic label for you then?

PerciFlage wrote:Intriguing (or just a paucity of imagination on my part). What's the best reductive, simplistic label for you then?

Good question. I've no idea.

If I could point out a common mistake, though, in that not believing in one thing does not automatically mean you believe the opposite. It is possible to believe neither. That is my stance, so I'm neither a philosophical naturalist nor a philosophical supernaturalist.

So is it fair to say you're an atheist in a weak (lack of belief) as opposed to strong (definite belief against) sense?

PerciFlage wrote:So is it fair to say you're an atheist in a weak (lack of belief) as opposed to strong (definite belief against) sense?

Yes, if weak is the label you choose to use for it.

I don't believe God exists.
I don't believe God doesn't exist.

Disclaimer: some posters may find this boring.

Rubberneck wrote:

PerciFlage wrote:So is it fair to say you're an atheist in a weak (lack of belief) as opposed to strong (definite belief against) sense?

Yes, if weak is the label you choose to use for it.

I don't believe God exists.
I don't believe God doesn't exist.

Disclaimer: some posters may find this boring.

Isn't that agnostic, not atheist?

RickD wrote:

Rubberneck wrote:

PerciFlage wrote:So is it fair to say you're an atheist in a weak (lack of belief) as opposed to strong (definite belief against) sense?

Yes, if weak is the label you choose to use for it.

I don't believe God exists.
I don't believe God doesn't exist.

Disclaimer: some posters may find this boring.

Isn't that agnostic, not atheist?

Both, in a sense. The positions are not mutually exclusive.

That's my stance too - the atheism I had in mind when drawing my venn chart was the "I do believe god doesn't exist" kind. Even then, though, it would be possible for someone to be a hardline atheist as well as a deist or a spiritualist, but mapping all that out on a diagram is more than I can accomplish in five minutes with MS Word.

I generally opt for the label of agnostic if pushed, because in most people's minds atheism is exclusively of the hardline, Richard Dawkins kind.