Here is one definition:
*Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only minds and mental contents exist. It entails and is generally identified or associated with immaterialism, the doctrine that material things do not exist*

Scientific materialism says just the opposite of subjective idealism.
There is an ontologically real extramental material cosmos.

You have this back to front, Dr. Bonnette.

"we don’t directly sense the external world at all."
That's what "sense" means, to employ a material causal sequence of events or sensory processes. It is direct in the sense that i hit a ball directly when I swing a bat and it makes contact. A Thomist might call the bat causally instrumental.

In another way you can call it indirect if you wish. The brain is not itself somehow in immediate contact with the external object. There is the causal chain of light, eye, nerves and all the details of that process.

All of which indicates, not subjective idealism at all, rather, just the opposite, material realism. This is what R. C. Sproul would call the Basic Reliability of the Human Senses.

The BRotHS is broadly accepted as a provisional postulate, a working axiom, not strictly provable, but so seemingly self evident as to seem unreasonable to deny. You may deny it if you wish, in which case you would be an idealist, not a scientific materialist.

Metaphysical or philosophical naturalism holds that only material exists, material being defined in its broadest sense.

Such material has its own ontological being. Human capacity to observe that material through the tools and methodologies of science is irrelevant to the ontological being of material.

" which excludes all supernatural beings, especially God."
The term "supernatural" is incoherent. If there exists a god then it is the most natural thing of all.

" The truth value of all scientific statements depends strictly upon empirical verification."
False. The truth value of scientific statements depends upon their correspondence to the real ontological state of affairs in the cosmos.

The real ontological state of affairs in the cosmos is what is true.

The likelihood of epistemological value of a scientific statement is estimated not only by empirical verification but also the coherence of the associated scientific theory.

" Since God is not empirically verifiable, He does not exist."
God is, in principle, empirically verifiable, on the assertion that god interacts with the material cosmos. God is, in principle, scientifically detectable and verifiable via god's interactions with observable material.

Dr. Bonnette, since you have so grossly misstated the naturalist position there is no reason to suppose your further analysis will be of any realistic value.

Consciousness, mind, thought is a process. These are dependent of material things. Atoms, cell, axions, synapses et al. Processes like these are not stand alone things that are metaphysically independent from matter. Much less can be demonstrated to be so independent.

Just asserting that we in fact do have direct knowledge of the extra-mental world (which naturalism denies) doesn't prove anything, or make your metaphysics better than any other.

That said, I am no longer a physicalist, and likely never will be again. I don't think it even makes logical sense to be a physicalist, unless one denies the existence of phenomenal consciousness...which is an absolutely bonkers thing to do.

Whining. The last retreat for the theist when they gave their arse handed to them on a plate. Well done, Dennis!
And so much for the: ".... You may have the last word" quip.
Theists. What a bunch!

Thanks for retelling something that is important for you. It’s a nice sentiment so for that it’s appreciated (your sentiment), not necessarily the story. :-)

Mike

Not every criticism of the Church warrants the label "anti-Catholic."

Particularly not John Paul II's I guess. Unless we are talking SSPX or SSPV or SSP ??

I can see that I did not make one thing clear, but I doubt that you will be mollified by my clarification. I did not intend to say the Catholic Church was on the wrong side of the scientific revolution, whatever that would have meant. I intended to say that in a key moment in the history of the scientific revolution, the Church was on the wrong side, just as in a key moment in the history of individual liberty, the Church condemned the Magna Carta. I was not attempting to characterize the Catholic Church today or in any other times except those involving the Magna Carta and Galileo.

I am bewildered that some are so defensive about the Church's treatment of Galileo when Pope John Paul II "rehabilitated" him in the early 1990s and apologized for his treatment.

Like any good anti Catholic historical revisionist you've left out the meat of the historical context here.

This is dangerously close to name calling and perhaps over the line. Not every criticism of the Church warrants the label "anti-Catholic."

Like any good anti Catholic historical revisionist you've left out the meat of the historical context here.

First, the Catholic Church was not on the wrong side of the scientific revolution and you are showing you're bias and revisionist historical lenses in saying so.

King John, who had swore allegiance to the papacy in 1215 as a papal fief to prevent the invasion of England from France, signed the MC then wrote to the pope and asked him to annul it. Viewing the rebellion of the barons in England, their collaboration with the French king and the intentions of France to invade contextually with the King's desire to avoid either invasion or civil rebellion and maintain power explains the papal bull and the pope's decision to honor the papal fief relationship. It wasn't because Pope Innocent was on the wrong side of the philosophical considerations of absolute monarchy. He was on the right side of absolute spiritual authority while respecting the temporal authority of the King and understanding the importance of a balance of monarchical power in Europe.

He was an shrewd and successful politician that probably saved the papal states (and Europe) from a 6th century type of collapse while at the same time expanding the influence of the papacy to never seen degrees. Did he abuse that influence? Sure, but I think that historically you might consider how different Europe would be without this influence and the stability it brought because you don't get to have your cake and eat it both.