Vlad,
It would be if it wasn't so serious.
Are you able to give a citation of anybodies which share your definition of Philosophical Naturalism?....Anybody?
Will the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy on Naturalism do?:
“So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.”
The, “possible (if not the necessarily the only…”) tells you that philosophical naturalism is not the absolutist position you claim it to be. That’s the more accurate definition of philosophical naturalism than your own, and it’s the one I’m happy to hold: I reject supernatural entities (because there are no cogent reasons to do otherwise) and I’m perfectly happy to accept that conceptually at least there may be other paths than science (or even than logic) to truths.
Even Rationalwiki follow mine......if it helps I shall quote them in future...
Is that right?
Here’s what RationalWiki actually has to say on naturalism:
“Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case (even in utmost issues of philosophy), but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)"
Did you see the “without taking a stand” there? That’s why methodological naturalism does not even purport to validate philosophical naturalism as you somewhat bizarrely complain that it fails to do.
It continues:
“Metaphysical naturalism, on the other hand, is what it means to extend scientific principles all the way into the farthest reaches of philosophy. Scouting future territory for the natural sciences to conduct research in (and defending naturalism generally), philosophical naturalism is what Richard Carrier simply describes as "science with less data",[4] operating in anticipation of scientific data where possible.”
Metaphysical naturalism in other words is what you actually seem to mean when you mischaracterise “philosophical naturalism”.
The article concludes:
“Metaphysical naturalism is more or less a basic precept of all modern analytic philosophy , which was itself formed partially in protest of the centuries of woo that had accreted in philosophy prior to the explosive triumph of modern science in the last 150 years or so.
Strict adherence to methodological naturalism creates a theoretical space in which positions like NOMA may be compatibly held by those who chose to do so. Methodological naturalism is, as such, the "minimum position" to which science is reducible[5] — and it still entails not giving the time of day to woo-meistry.
In that context, metaphysical naturalism simply means "closing" said NOMA/gaps space by taking the fight all the way against theology and accommodationism.”
What have you got?
See above.
All clear now?
Good.
OK, so let’s turn next to the point that’s
actually relevant here – your straw man problem. Even of you hadn’t misunderstood or mischaracterised the above, your basic problem is that
no-one actually makes the arguments you keep tilting at. Not once have I nor, so far as I recall, anyone else here argued for extreme physicalism, metaphysical naturalism or any other absolutist position.
Why then do you even bother with it rather than engage with what people actually
do say?
Seriously, why?
