From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>> ... 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. ... <<
Agreed
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.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 15:22:14 EST