Swamidass is Inescapably a Philosophical Naturalist

[Guy_Coe]

Well then there’s the folks who ring your doorbell for no good reason. They’re called “Jehovah’s nihilists.”

[Patrick]

@Ronald_Cram

In my view, the rigid, closed view of methodological naturalism is equal to philosophical naturalism. In other words, the view is not required by the normal practice of science. Many scientists, like Sean Carroll, don’t hold to it. It is a philosophical commitment that, while doing science, one cannot examine evidence that points to the supernatural. There’s nothing to stop such a person, while not doing science, to admit that God exists or that God raised Jesus from the dead.

This doesn’t make sense. Can you please explain what you are trying to say a little bit better. It is very confusing.

[Ronald_Cram]

What exactly is confusing?

[Patrick]

@Ronald_Cram

What exactly is confusing?

What is confusing, is how you describe scientists doing science. I have been part of “big science” for my whole career. Never a discussion of methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism while doing science. Everyone is too busy doing science to have such discussions.

@Patrick

There’s nothing to stop such a person, while not doing science, to admit that God exists or that God raised Jesus from the dead.

This never comes up in anything I have ever seen in science.

[Guy_Coe]

Well, I guess you mean, except on this blog, of course?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

I’m trying to accurately represent your view. You say that I haven’t, so then explain to me what I have misunderstood.

Have you seen this yet @Ronald_Cram?

@AJRoberts

I’ve been trying to follow the thread on MdN too. And think you’re spot on and have not misrepresented my position there. Cram seems to miss the distinction between doing science and thinking about data from a philosophical position outside the bounds of MdN.

@AJRoberts and I really are seeing this eye to eye. You know she is on staff with Reasons to Believe right?