otseng,
I've gone back and re-read the thread, since it seems to me as though I only partially understood the point you have been making (and which
JehovahsWitness has also made), i.e. that
metaphysical naturalism is a faith-based philosophy.
Where I think I've had difficulty is in how the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism is 'constructed' (for want of a better term).
If a suitable definition of naturalism just contains "all properties of the universe are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature", then that's basically 'methodological'. It's only when the strict "there is no god" aspect is added that it seems to become 'metaphysical' naturalism.
I'm also still not entirely sure whether the "no god" aspect is a premise or a conclusion in this philosophy - or something else entirely. We could state, for example:
A)
Premise: all properties are reducible to nature
Conclusion: therefore, there is no god.
B)
Premise: there is no god
Conclusion: therefore, all properties are reducible to nature
From a logical standpoint, there are obvious problems with either, and that's likely why there probably are no metaphysical naturalists, just pragmatic methodological ones.
(Incidentally, I say 'probably' because I cannot prove with 100% certainty that they don't exist...)
However, when I leapt in, I hadn't really grasped the importance of the "no god" aspect, so was effectively ignoring it (acting like a good methodological naturalist, one might say...!) and this probably led me in circles for a bit. However, I feel I've reached a better understanding of naturalism now, so a worthwhile exercise, thank you.
On a separate note, just one small niggle with a recent post:
"There are also other areas where science needs to reach into the metaphysical"
I worry that you are not differentiating between "aspects of nature for which we have theories but no evidence" with "aspects of nature for which we have no means of studying".
