Philosophy Versus Science

[Alan V]

[Happy Skeptic wrote:]
If the world included magic, science would be able to study it.  If it included miracles, science would be able to identify them and categorize under what conditions they happened, and create hypotheses about what might induce another "miracle" to happen.

[and you agreed:]

most of us are not philosophers at all [...] keep asking for evidence rather than one argument piled on top of another.

Here you show that although you are not a philosopher, you are still committed to metaphysical naturalism. 

Because when you ask for evidence, you are asking for the kind of thing that science would be able to study. And if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

There is all sorts of evidence that scientists would like access to, but which is beyond their ability to access.  They may speculate about it, but they don't jump to conclusions about what it must be, like religious people and philosophers tend to do.  They wait for evidence, and perhaps that evidence will never be forthcoming.  

Metaphysical naturalists jump to the conclusion that the world is nothing but material, and I am sure some atheists are metaphysical naturalists who are therefore required to explain themselves by philosophical means.  

As an intellectual minimalist, all I have to say in contrast is that the probabilities look heavily slanted against certain kinds of evidence for supernatural forces ever being accessed.  That allows me to embrace a materialistic worldview until it is shown to be inadequate.  I don't need to jump to any conclusions if I go by probabilities.