> An extremely important, quick point:
>
> A number of people seem to be using the terms "metaphysical naturalism" and
> "methodological naturalism" interchangably, even while using both of them in
> the same note and apparently trying to distinguish between them.
>
> Pretty much no one but the most militant atheists believe that METAPHYSICAL
> naturalism is important to science.
>
> Very many people, including many staunchly conservative Christians, believe
> that METHODOLOGICAL naturalism is important to science, either in principle (as
> being essential to -natural science-, as distinct from philosophy and theology)
> or just presumptively, for practical reasons (science has worked best under it;
> so we are free to drop it, certainly, but -only- when something -demonstrably-
> more useful comes along).
>
> So -no-, a plumber, mechanic, or scientist need not at all be a metaphysical
> naturalist, or even work "as though metaphysical naturalism is true" in a
> precise sense of those terms, to be a methodological naturalist in his
> day-to-day successful work.
Yes. Distinction noted. I agree with you that I was sloppy in not keeping
the difference clear.
Lloyd Eby