My Criticism of Metaphysical Naturalism
Here are a couple arguments against Naturalism:
Subjective experiences are important.
Emotions are important.
The spoken word is important
Ideas are important
Imagination is important
All of these underwrite progress, science, reason, Enlightenment, and any hope of solutions to the physical problems of this world. They are the pre-requisites to effective problem solving in the real world.
Also, the founding of America was about the importance of idealism (ie the notions of human rights and the ideals enshrined in the Constitution, etc…)
Scientific naturalism is best when its:
1) confined to what it does best (repeatable, etc…..)
2) words in tandem with other forms of knowing
3) And using scientific naturalism and demarcation to exclude various forms of knowledge is pretty retrograde. It would turn the clock back on tons of discoveries.
Other forms of data and sensing are important:
Storys & the arts express the unexpressible.
Stories, art, & the creative point to the non-physical
See the Case Against Physicalism (in 3 parts):
Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The case for idealism. Not a fan of Keith Ward, but I imagine this works:
The Triumph of Idealism
(includes video and transcript)
Alvin Platinga I believe has a decent indict of naturalism:
* See also the original post on Quora, which is hopefully better now that this is published.