These are SOME, yes only SOME of teh reasons I do not go for naturalism, which is NOT SCIENCE, but is a philosophical position of assuming there are natural explanations without proving them, such as abiogenesis.
Do you think that science and philosophy are unconnected?
Naturalism doesn't assume there are natural explanations without proving them. Naturalism is a metaphysical position. That is: it is a position about the nature of reality. Metaphysical positions are obviously not 'science' since science is about physical things not underlying metaphysical reality.
What strikes me as odd though, is that you list a sequence of things that are dealt with under the umbrella of
science (an epistemological methodology) and then use that to somehow argue for the weakness in the metaphysical position of naturalism.
If your argument is valid, it can be flipped around to undermine any particular metaphysics you prefer
to a greater extent than it undermines naturalism. That is to say, whatever epistemological methodology you decide is best, it almost certainly fails to explain more things than science fails at, and cannot explain as much as science has been able to. Therefore, supernaturalism/dualism is undermined.
To simplify: if naturalism assumes natural explanations without proving them then dualism assumes supernatural explanations without proving them, such as freewill, sin, biogenesis, cosmogenesis etc. You seem to special pleading for your own metaphysics. How do you get out of this?
What we don't agree on, is that your naturalist philosophy is absolute.
Why is it so problematic that we don't agree if science itself doesn't promote absolutes?
One of the most important within the philosophy of science is the Princple of Fallibilism. This has a long history, but it met up with science in a formal sense with the likes of Karl Popper's theory of knowledge, Critical Rationalism.
I'm not sure you mean 'absolute' though, since science does deal in absolutes (According to the scientific methodology, the truth is not relative but absolute, it doesn't matter what culture you are from, gravity is either caused by curvature or it isn't - though there are some schools that believe that science is at least partially relative).
Theories are largely just induction build-up. With the same facts, you can have a Creation-conclusion, but oh no - God forbid that God is able to have precious man be wrong in all his information-accumulation.
Hmm, with the same facts you can conclude Last Thursdayism. I even know a great argument which says that the most probable state of affairs was for the universe to have been created
at this instant (and not a nanosecond before).
However, just because you can make up your own epistemological framework or pick one out of a lineup and conclude all manner of surreal things about reality...that doesn't mean that epistemological methodologies are equal.
That's why philosophers argue a lot, but that you'll find that for the most part - the old ideas of dualism and idealism have been shown to be EPICALLY inadequate grounds upon which to base an epistemology. Epistemologies based on these can come up with wildly differring points of view on something as simple as 'what happens when we drop an apple on earth?'.
Science has developed a methodology that helps sort some of the wheat from the chaff. It isn't always right - but it does lead to practical solutions to problems and openings to new avenues of interesting research. Something other methodologies have practically demonstrated their failings.
If someone had committed a terrible crime against you or a family member (excuse the appeal to emotion, its utility is in driving a point home), would you accept the criminal's defence when faced with a pile of forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA, treadmarks, fibres, powder, blood stains etc etc): The forensic explanation is largely just induction build-up. With the same facts, you can conclude that a mischievous pixie committed the crime: Oberon forbid that pixies are able to have precious man be wrong in all his forensic conclusions.
Would you be happy if that argument meant that there was 'reasonable doubt' and led to him being released? If not, why does your argument not apply?
™ Version 4.2
