That would be a philosophical naturalist, I think.
With regard to my brand of naturalism, I see it as favoring the
idea that there are physical regularities (seen as physical laws?)
in the world. I don't make assumptions about the source of these
regularities except to suspect that they are intrinsic to this
universe. That means that for any "event", I would seek to explain
it using a minimum of undemonstrated influences. As to what examples
might cause me to say, "this clearly isn't a natural event", I can't
honestly say until I see one. A sudden stop in the earth's rotation
and negation of all centripetal acceleration on the planet might do
it. Likewise, finding an accurate record (say, on a series of tablets
that were clearly left for us to find) that describes all the earth's
species, mentions when and where they were placed, and tells us how to
decode our DNA sequence to play back an interesting message, would
make me suspect that life on earth did not evolve here. Similarly,
if my motorcycle started requiring that I say three "Hail Mary"s before
it turned over or if it stopped raining everytime I pronounced "llama"
backwards, and I could rule out any pranksters, then I would definitely
think something else is at work.
I guess the counter-question to this is why would a "non-naturalist"
be unsurprised that apples fall if released in midair? What
examples would cause a theist to stop believing in a deity? And
how does a theist choose between "natural" and "interventionist"
explanations?
Personally, I don't see theistic naturalists and methodological
naturalists as operating all that differently. The difference
might be to where each attributes the source of natural laws.
Jim, I'd bet that you also try to understand events using
naturalistic working hypotheses first. What justification could
you provide for rejecting a naturalistic explanation in any particular
case? I think it is a question of personal thresholds.
[...From a book by Arlie Hoover...]
>Naturalistic smuggling is even more evident in axiology, the realm of
>values, not only in aesthetics, but especially in ethics....Naturalists
>claim they use only the scientific method; they exclude other kinds of
>truth. Yet when you come to ethics you can't establish OUGHT from IS.
Theism effectively kicks the question back one level but does not
eliminate it. Everything has its shortcomings and there is no
perfect solution, IMHO. FWIW - I do not claim that the scientific
method is the "only way of knowing". It's definitely a systematic
technique, but I do not claim that it's the only one available.
You do what you can with what you have. Pace Hubert Yockey, about
those things which you don't know, you really can't say (Hubert
says it in German, however).
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)