(December 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: Near parallels of proto-methodological naturalism evolved in cultures without any conception of your god or anything remotely comparable.
Example and evidence please.
(December 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: It is possible for certain religious concepts to initially encourage methodological naturalism from the top down as a means, in its unwarranted confidence, to further support itself; just as it is also possible for the belief in Santa Clause to encourage the systematic mapping of the North Pole to enable you to visit.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that scientists like Bacon developed methodological naturalism to further support his belief in God? If not, I guess I just don't see your point.
(December 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: But even if they did so encourage the development of useful things, that is no proof for the validity of their tennants, indeed it is not even an argument for such.
Indeed. And I don't think I ever argued any such thing. You commented that "no theory of god has produced much without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism". My point was that Bacon's theory of God produced methodological naturalism and, therefore could be considered to have produced all of what methodological naturalism has produced as well as methodological naturalism itself. It would then seem to follow that at least Bacon's theory of God produced more than methodological naturalism itself has produced.
(December 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: The things are useful by themselves. The case for methodological naturalism is complete without the assumptions of that religion, just as the case for systematic mapping of north pole is complete without the assumption of santa clause.
Maybe so, but it seems that methodological naturalism did not come to be apart from certain assumptions about God. (Unless you can provide the evidence asked for above.)
(December 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: That argument is already maximally risible ...
Why? I find it curious that you would hold a position that Bacon's thinking that lead to methodological naturalism is somehow laughable whereas the result of that thinking, methodological naturalism, is superior and usable to prove his original thinking incorrect.
