quote:
It appears to me that metaphysical naturalists do require faith. The faith that everything is and comes from natural explanations and that anyone who believes otherwise is not really competent.
It seems to me that if you're reduced to trying to pretend that your opponent's position ha the same flaws as yours then you pretty much know that your position is indefensible.
Firstly, there's no need for faith in the religious sense at all. Why should there be? Metaphysical naturalism isn't a dogma severely tried by the evidence. It doesn't even have a problem as bad as the Problem of Evil is for Christianity.
Secondly, let us note that the success of science tells us that a preference for natural causes has been a very good idea, and simply settling for theologically convenient conclusions has not. Even William Dembski has admitted that naturalistic explanations should be preferred.
Thirdly, I fail to see how you can claim that anyone who accepts naturalism must presume incompetence in the case of anyone who concludes otherwise. I suppose that this is just a foolish and dishonest attempt to mirror the fact that Young Earth Creationists must presume incompetence on the part of any scientists who conclude that the Earth or the Universe are very old. Which means virtualy every scientist active in the relevant fields.
Granted that incompetence is often demonstrated in the case of those arguing against naturalism, but a demonstration is a long way from an assumption.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
