I didn't say methodological naturalism was "unacceptable" because it's "derived from philosophical naturalism." It is what it is. These are just doctrines. As such, they assume a great deal without validating their assumptions. They simply aver something — there are only natural causes in nature. No other causes can exist by definition. Thus the doctrine "reduces" the world to our expectation that it is the product of natural causes only.
If this were actually true, then all would be just hunky-dorey. Unfortunately, no one really knows whether it's true. At the end of the day, it is simply a faith statement. For the non-existence of causes other than natural ones has never been shown; I doubt it can be shown. Methodological naturalism just takes it for granted that the statement is true.
Thus an epistemological problem arises.... How sound can our knowledge of the world be, really, when we are already "editing" the world down to the size of our expectations, in advance?
What does "editing the world down to the size of our expectations" mean? We should have no expectations, or we should somehow be able to have them, but operate as if we didn't?
How does that work in practical terms, as a methodology? How do you even justify employing logic without "editing" the world down to your expectation that whatever it is you're investigating will have a logical explanation?
[[Unfortunately, no one really knows whether it’s true. At the end of the day, it is simply a faith statement. For the non-existence of causes other than natural ones has never been shown; I doubt it can be shown.]]
I gotta dissagree a bit here- there is enough evidence to show the need for an intelligence- enough evidence to present a strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case- We know nature isn’t capable of the foresight and anticipation seen in the compelxity of Metainformation, and it certainly couldn’t arise from chemicals- hence I think it can be quite strongly shown that an intellgient Designer capable of anticipating and planning was needed. Can we show the actual designer? No- but I think we can show His handiwork to a degree that creates a strong beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that an omniscient Designer was needed