When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?
I don't think science presupposes that the supernatural does not exists, it just doesn't include explanations that don't objectively offer evidence of themselves. I think this is an important thing to do.
For example, when I go into the lab this afternoon to scientifically investigate the cause of a problem we are having, I'm going to assume that the cause was not supernatural. How can I find a solution to the problem if one of the possibilities is that a ghost pissed in the beaker last night? Its not so much that I assume this didn't happen, its that there's no reason for me to even offer this as a possibility. This is key to me finding a solution to our problem. I can't propose a solution of: "The problem could be either
this or a ghost pissed in the beaker last night so I don't know for sure".
It totally screws up the science to not assume that the supernatural isn't affecting it. Or to eliminate the double negetive, it totally screws up science to assume that the supernatural might be affecting it.
You seem to have some misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism.
Here is the wiki article on it.
quote:
Ontological naturalism is often called "metaphysical naturalism," the view that the supernatural does not exist, which entails strong atheism.
In contrast, methodological naturalism is the more limited view that the supernatural can't be used in scientific methods, or shouldn't be.
I agree with methodological naturalism but not ontological naturalism. I think that the supernatural exists but I think it is important to keep it out of science while it cannot be objectively evident. Its an important part of it and one of the reasons that
sciece works so well.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added subtitle
™ Version 4.2
