Re: Methodological Naturalism

From: Howard J. Van Till (
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 15:08:30 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: Gen 1 and Concordism"

    From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>

    >> ... But there is something perverse in taking standard usage, like
    "methodological naturalism," and claiming it not to be different from
    metaphysical naturalism, as PJ does. ... <<


    As for Griffin's distinctions, they do not apply to my point. Methodological
    naturalism is compatible with all 4 of his positions, but identical with
    none, as you recognize.

    Agreed again.

    As for your amendment, all philosophical ontology involves metaphysics, and
    ontology is often claimed to be the primary part of metaphysics, almost to
    the exclusion of other subdivisions. So your terminology does not adequately
    differentiate the two. Actually, Griffin's third category is not properly
    metaphysical, for it is agnostic or noncommittal where metaphysics here is
    almost necessarily dogmatic.

    OK, let's just recognize that Griffin's "minimal naturalism" is not
    sufficiently comprehensive to qualify as a complete metaphysics or
    worldview. It does, however, make some very important statements as far as
    it goes.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 15:22:14 EST