What a Delusion Does To an Otherwise Intelligent Mind: Vic Reppert On Methodological Naturalism

I had initially written about Methodological Naturalism (MN) here. Unpersuaded, Vic wrote:

Methodological naturalism would rule out a supernatural explanation in any event.

Now if you want to see what a delusion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind you must read this! I asked if he really read what I wrote and he commented as follows:

Yes, I read that, but you don't actually explain how a methodological naturalist could discover a supernatural intervention if there were strong evidence for one. I've also looked at your list of what God could have done, and a strict methodological naturalism gives you an out for all of these.

What is needed is a defeasible version of methodological naturalism that allows for some point at which it is no longer reasonable to apply it. What you have to say is that we have good reason to apply MN to the actual evidence, but there are some possible pieces of evidence, which, if we had them, we would have to give up MN and admit the supernatural. But when someone says there is no method for detecting the supernatural, then I take it they mean what they say. If supernatural activity were to occur, we would be obliged to overlook it no matter what. Even if you argue that that's the only reasonable thing to do, you have to face up to the consequences of what it says.

My response:

Vic, there isn't a good reason to reject MN. Why would you ask that we must reject it when the preponderance of evidence supports using it in every area it touches? It's the only reasonable method to use. Your God supposedly created the world such that by using MN we have amassed a great deal of knowledge because of it. We MUST use it if we want knowledge. Science itself is based on it. There isn't any better method for gaining objective knowledge about the world. Your rationalizations that we could overlook the evidence for the supernatural are actually tiring to me. Your God produced the problem you must speak against. What's the best explanation that MN works so well? Given that your God wants us to believe and created the world in such a way that we must use MN to gain knowledge, the best explanation is that your God doesn't exist. You are trying to explain away the evidence once again.

Your God has failed you on two counts then. First, he created the world such that MN obtains if we want objective knowledge about the world. It's the only method to use if we want knowledge about the world, unless you can provide a better alternative. But there is none. Secondly, even though MN is the only method for gaining objective knowledge about the world it's still possible to gain knowledge about the activity of any supernatural beings (and or forces), as I wrote about. But even though this is possible your God failed to provided the evidence that he exists when we use MN.

Vic, tell us what best explains why MN works so well if your God exists and wants us to believe. Then explain why your God also failed to provide the evidence that MN could detect when using it. What your God did was to create the world in such a way that knowledge is gained by the use of MN but did not provide the kind of evidence of his activity that MN could detect.

So your class assignment Vic, is to explain why your God created us as reasonable people who must use MN to gain knowledge and yet failed to provide the evidence that reasonable people need to believe even though he could have done so.

If MN did not obtain or if your God did provide evidence that he exists using MN then you would be crowing about it, wouldn't you? But because the reverse is the case you must do everything you can to obfuscate what we find in order to believe. No wonder I say faith is irrational. You are a prime example of this, sorry to say. Come up to the adult table Vic. Grow up. Throw off the childish fantasy you live in and truly examine the implications of this for your faith

Cheers, nothing personal.