Methodological naturalism vs Ontological naturalism

[Confused]

Ruse (Darwins and its Discontents) defines these as:
Methodological naturalism: the working assumption that all physical events can and must be explained by laws- even if, as a person, one is not committed to ontological or metaphysical naturalism.
Ontological naturalism: the philosophical or religious belief that there is something more than material nature.

The common question I hear, most recently in the latest first cause thread, is should every explanation meet the criteria of natural laws? Scientist usually insist on the pragmatic here and say "methodological naturalism works and since taking its approach, problems that seemed insoluble have eventually given way to solutions". But it is still pervasive today to accept the stand that since no other theory currently explains some things (the "first cause", God, origin of life), why not accept a metaphysical theory?

So the questions here are quite simple, yet seem to never really find a way out of some peoples logic.
Why only consider Methodological Naturalism to explain our universe, life, etc....? Is it really the best way to explain things or can we appeal to "imaginary" causes (from a metaphysical realm) to justify explaing things that methodological naturalism hasn't anwered yet?

Edited: Compliments of Undertow, many thanks.

Can any ontological or metaphysical naturalism theory ever really be objective?

[Undertow]

Do people just want to label thier ideas with science to give them authority or something? There are some things that science can not explain yet I'd argue the purpose of science isn't simply to know everything. It's to form working models of reality for use by the human race and our progression. If someone wants to answer the questions of life with god, so be it, but would we really achieve results if we insert supernatural causes into natural phenomena? We're trying to be objective and utilise knowlege for our benefit, not just so we can say we've filled the hole with an answer.

If someone offers a philosophical theory for the beginning of the universe, the creation of the first life, the existance of god, etc, great. It's just tagging it as science kind of defeats the purpose of what science is trying to achieve.

So I suppose I am taking the pragmatic approach here, but I'd argue because science is a pragmatic methodology.

[Confused]

Do people just want to label thier ideas with science to give them authority or something? There are some things that science can not explain yet I'd argue the purpose of science isn't simply to know everything. It's to form working models of reality for use by the human race and our progression. If someone wants to answer the questions of life with god, so be it, but would we really achieve results if we insert supernatural causes into natural phenomena? We're trying to be objective and utilise knowlege for our benefit, not just so we can say we've filled the hole with an answer.

If someone offers a philosophical theory for the beginning of the universe, the creation of the first life, the existance of god, etc, great. It's just tagging it as science kind of defeats the purpose of what science is trying to achieve.

There are several threads in the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum which presuppose the truth of some of the assertions of the ontological naturalism. The first cause, the big bang, etc....

That is my point exactly. Can ontological or metaphysical naturalism be objective. Drats, now I have to edit my OP.

[Undertow]

Do people just want to label thier ideas with science to give them authority or something? There are some things that science can not explain yet I'd argue the purpose of science isn't simply to know everything. It's to form working models of reality for use by the human race and our progression. If someone wants to answer the questions of life with god, so be it, but would we really achieve results if we insert supernatural causes into natural phenomena? We're trying to be objective and utilise knowlege for our benefit, not just so we can say we've filled the hole with an answer.

If someone offers a philosophical theory for the beginning of the universe, the creation of the first life, the existance of god, etc, great. It's just tagging it as science kind of defeats the purpose of what science is trying to achieve.

There are several threads in the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum which presuppose the truth of some of the assertions of the ontological naturalism. The first cause, the big bang, etc....

That is my point exactly. Can ontological or metaphysical naturalism be objective. Drats, now I have to edit my OP.

Ah, ok. Hmm. To be honest metaphysical or philosophical arguments aren't my strong point but I can't see why some arguments can't be objective. I'll tell you what; present me with a simplified argument or tell me what I should google and I'll give you an answer.

[Confused]

Do people just want to label thier ideas with science to give them authority or something? There are some things that science can not explain yet I'd argue the purpose of science isn't simply to know everything. It's to form working models of reality for use by the human race and our progression. If someone wants to answer the questions of life with god, so be it, but would we really achieve results if we insert supernatural causes into natural phenomena? We're trying to be objective and utilise knowlege for our benefit, not just so we can say we've filled the hole with an answer.

If someone offers a philosophical theory for the beginning of the universe, the creation of the first life, the existance of god, etc, great. It's just tagging it as science kind of defeats the purpose of what science is trying to achieve.

There are several threads in the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum which presuppose the truth of some of the assertions of the ontological naturalism. The first cause, the big bang, etc....

That is my point exactly. Can ontological or metaphysical naturalism be objective. Drats, now I have to edit my OP.

Ah, ok. Hmm. To be honest metaphysical or philosophical arguments aren't my strong point but I can't see why some arguments can't be objective. I'll tell you what; present me with a simplified argument or tell me what I should google and I'll give you an answer.

The general thought is that some things cannot ever hope to be answered by Methodological naturalism and that for these things, "why insist on explaining the world through blind law when you might as well believe that something else might stand behind everything". It is generally applied most when we try to explain why something has happened one way and not the other (guy picked you to rape rather than your friend). Most often, the theory presented is the only theory existing since methodological naturalism hasn't offered one due to its limitations (first cause of the BB, cosmological constants of our universe, conscience, consciousness).

[Undertow]

Do people just want to label thier ideas with science to give them authority or something? There are some things that science can not explain yet I'd argue the purpose of science isn't simply to know everything. It's to form working models of reality for use by the human race and our progression. If someone wants to answer the questions of life with god, so be it, but would we really achieve results if we insert supernatural causes into natural phenomena? We're trying to be objective and utilise knowlege for our benefit, not just so we can say we've filled the hole with an answer.

If someone offers a philosophical theory for the beginning of the universe, the creation of the first life, the existance of god, etc, great. It's just tagging it as science kind of defeats the purpose of what science is trying to achieve.

There are several threads in the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum which presuppose the truth of some of the assertions of the ontological naturalism. The first cause, the big bang, etc....

That is my point exactly. Can ontological or metaphysical naturalism be objective. Drats, now I have to edit my OP.

Ah, ok. Hmm. To be honest metaphysical or philosophical arguments aren't my strong point but I can't see why some arguments can't be objective. I'll tell you what; present me with a simplified argument or tell me what I should google and I'll give you an answer.

The general thought is that some things cannot ever hope to be answered by Methodological naturalism and that for these things, "why insist on explaining the world through blind law when you might as well believe that something else might stand behind everything". It is generally applied most when we try to explain why something has happened one way and not the other (guy picked you to rape rather than your friend). Most often, the theory presented is the only theory existing since methodological naturalism hasn't offered one due to its limitations (first cause of the BB, cosmological constants of our universe, conscience, consciousness).

I'd agree with that. There are a ton of things which the objective methodology of science can not and does not answer. As for the first cause of the big bang, I don't think science can offer explanation for this nor does it as technically, the big bang singularity itself would be the point at which nature began to exist and thus spew evidence in the form of microwave radiation etc throughout the joint.

[QED]

I'd agree with that. There are a ton of things which the objective methodology of science can not and does not answer. As for the first cause of the big bang, I don't think science can offer explanation for this nor does it as technically, the big bang singularity itself would be the point at which nature began to exist and thus spew evidence in the form of microwave radiation etc throughout the joint.

A famous French philosopher by the name of August Comté emphatically stated, in 1835, that no matter what advancements science might achieve, we would never be able to know the chemical composition of the stars. He was already out of date when he made this bold statement as spectral lines had recently been discovered. There are certain limits on the transfer of information and these might impose limits on understanding -- but not necessarily. Neither is there a law, other than man-made, that limits what may be inferred from the information we can access.

But what happens when we are tempted to infer teleology from our metaphysical naturalism? Studying any object in the absence of its complete context is likely to produce ambiguous results. This is a serious problem for anyone wishing to be objective about matters relating to purpose.

[Undertow]

I'd agree with that. There are a ton of things which the objective methodology of science can not and does not answer. As for the first cause of the big bang, I don't think science can offer explanation for this nor does it as technically, the big bang singularity itself would be the point at which nature began to exist and thus spew evidence in the form of microwave radiation etc throughout the joint.

A famous French philosopher by the name of August Comté emphatically stated, in 1835, that no matter what advancements science might achieve, we would never be able to know the chemical composition of the stars. He was already out of date when he made this bold statement as spectral lines had recently been discovered. There are certain limits on the transfer of information and these might impose limits on understanding -- but not necessarily. Neither is there a law, other than man-made, that limits what may be inferred from the information we can access.

But what happens when we are tempted to infer teleology from our metaphysical naturalism? Studying any object in the absence of its complete context is likely to produce ambiguous results. This is a serious problem for anyone wishing to be objective about matters relating to purpose.

You do make a good point. I hope I didn't give the impression that what we know at the present time to be out of reach of science can't ever be reached.