XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: sbalneav@alburg.net   
      
   In alt.atheism TheInquirer  wrote:   
   > On 27/12/2012 1:32 AM, DonH wrote:   
   >> "TheInquirer"  wrote in message   
   >> news:kbc16u$qro$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   >   
   >>      Only the empirical tests of the Scientific Method keep us relatively   
   >> sane.   
   >   
   >   
   > is it possible to have just the methodological naturalism without the   
   > philosophical naturalism?   
      
   Yeah, that's called science.  Science makes no claim that the natural *is* all   
   that there is, it says that we see no evidence for the supernatural, so we will   
   restrict ourselves to talking about the natural.   
      
   Many scientists may BE philosophical naturalists, and may even write entire   
   BOOKS expousing on their philosophical naturalism.  However, they're not part   
   of "science", but rather, fall under the realm of "opinion and/or entertainment   
   and/or philosophy".  No peer reviewed scientific paper, published in an   
   acredited   
   scientific journal will claim philosophical naturalism to be true.   
      
   --   
    __ _  | Book lovers never go to bed alone.   
   (_ |_) |   -- Unknown   
   __)|_) |   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)