10.22.10
Methodological naturalism and the eonic effect?
Methodological naturalism: does it exclude the supernatural?
The terms of the discussion are too vague to ask the question, and the data too absent to answer.
Methodological naturalism presumes to know what nature is, and current thinking is likely to be totally misleading.
This article seems to confuse ‘gods’, elements of nature (supposedly!) and ‘god’, beyond nature.
In general the whole thing is an exercise in mythology, scientific or otherwise.
As to evidence: consider the ‘eonic effect’: clear evidence of a ‘higher power’, of some kind. But we dare not bring in the term ‘god’. The term ‘higher power’ is already biased: but it need not refer to a divinity, not by a long shot.
The eonic effect shows that you can’t answer these questions easily. The claims for Old Testament theism historicism are dubious, but understandable in terms of the eonic pattern, or the data of the Axial Age. This looks like nature in action, but….
In fact, religious/scientific discussions are too biased to be able to define ‘methdological naturalism’.
The Gurdjieff Con » Bennett’s demiurge said,
October 22, 2010 at 12:29 pm
[...] http://darwiniana.com/2010/10/22/methodological-naturalism-and-the-eonic-effect/ We have discussed this question in another form here: the idea of the ‘demiurge’ in Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe. Bennett actually tries to get specific on some points: e.g. the claim that ‘bodies of ligtht’ are made of ‘conscious energy’, after the fashion of his outlandish, tho interesing, formulation of transcorporal beings. [...]