This is interesting on many levels. Firstly you should be aware that I have never heard phrases like "materialistic naturalism" being used by actual scientists as part of their research, nor does scientific education (in academia) consist of being taught to only adhere to one particular philosophical view. Rather, it consist (roughly speaking) of learning about experiments, ideas and theories so as to allow scientists to gain new knowledge about the world and apply existing scientific theories in various situations such as to create new technology.
Maybe the term "materialistic naturalism" is not the best one to use. The idea that I'm trying to sum up is the concept that nothing exists outside the material universe - that matter and energy are all there is, and that the supernatural is not merely outside the realm of science, but is non-existent. That presumption has implications that are found in many disciplines, even theology. The higher critical movement of the 19th century, whose general line of thought still dominates among liberal theologians, was based on just such a presumption. Since the supernatural either does not exist or is irrelevant to our world (as in deism), miracles are impossible. We then start to interpret things about the Bible and religious history in that light - for example, as we discussed in another thread, the presumption that the Gospels must have been written after 70 A.D. because they speak of Jerusalem's destruction. True prophecy, after all, cannot happen. But as I pointed out over there, that reasoning is circular. The Gospels purport to tell of true prophecy occurring. We can't falsify them based on the presumption that prophecy can't occur.
So my point is that, while the presupposition of materialistic naturalism may not be advocated by name in academia and the sciences, the idea permeates the environment, and the upshot of that is that it's practically required to be an atheist to function in that arena - or, if one is a person of faith, to at least keep one's mouth shut about it. If you don't think that's so, I'd suggest looking into some of the cases of scientists whose research and reason have led them to believe that the universe was intelligently designed. Often, they are marginalized and ridiculed, and some have lost their positions because they didn't adhere to the conventional wisdom. This wasn't the case in times past. It was understood that science applied to the physical world, but there was no need to exclude the possibility of the supernatural. It was just seen as a realm where science had no application.
Secondly I see you prefix your entire argument with an "I don't think". In other words, your argument seem to only consist of your own speculations -- would it be an instance of "materialistic naturalism" which I have been indoctrinated with as part of my scientific education to ask why you suppose any of your accusations and sweeping statements are true?
I'd hope it's clear that whatever I write here is my own opinion - informed, I believe, by things that I read and observe and the thought that I have given to them. I'm not so arrogant as to insist that I couldn't be wrong or am beyond correction. Obviously, if new information came to light of which I am unaware, it might be necessary for me to change my opinions. My reading and observation to this point have led me to believe that what I write is true - can you say any differently about what you write? Isn't it your own opinion, based on your own study and experience, and subject to change if further information comes to your attention? Oddly, my experience with some atheists has been that this is not the case for them. I've had atheists demand evidence for the existence of God, and then, under questioning, admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince them to believe in God. That any evidence they would be shown would need to be reinterpreted under the presuppositions of what I have called "materialistic naturalism." Is that any less "fundamentalist" thinking than that of the most hard-nosed Baptist? At some point, it becomes a question of the will, not of the intellect.
Finally, I am all for there being more than one method for gaining new knowledge, but clearly all methods are not equally good (for instance asking the oldest man one knows or flipping a coin is not considered good ways to determine the validity of a scientific idea). Can you perhaps explain how your proposed alternative method works in practice and give examples of some of the discoveries which it has made which can be independently confirmed to be true?
I think I have already partially covered this in my previous remarks, but to reference it back to my earlier statements about scientists who were also Christians in earlier times: these scientists believed completely in science as method, and so do I. The means of rational inquiry offered by the scientific method are applicable in a wide range of disciplines. However, these same scientists also believed that there were things that science could not explain and could never explain. They believed in a higher form of knowledge gained by revelation from the One responsible for the existence of all those things that science can analyze. They never saw a conflict between the two, as seems to be the case today. They believed in an intelligent design behind the universe - I'm not talking about six-day creationism here, but the reasonable conclusion that when one sees a universe with an overwhelming appearance of design, one may conclude that there is most likely a designer behind that universe. It seems reasonable also to believe that such a designer cannot be analyzed or known by the same methods by which the universe is measured (i.e., the physical sciences), but would have to make its presence known through revelation.
You may be rolling your eyes about now, but that's what a majority scientists believed for many centuries. They saw no conflict between the physical sciences and the existence of God. They believed in both. As I have pointed out earlier, it's only in recent decades that this has changed in the scientific community, and I believe that this change stems more from ideological than scientific grounds. That's just my opinion, of course, and I can't go back over the last 30 years or so and trace every nuance of change in the philisophical thinking of the scientific community. But based on my own observations, this is how I see it.
