3.1: Agreed. For me, metaphysical is just that part of physical that lies outside the realm of the verifiable. I think that over time, things move from the metaphysical into the physical (metaphysical entropy, if you will) as the opportunity to apply the scientific method avails itself. Its really all about cause and effect. Effects with unknown causes tend to be classified as metaphysical events or, at least, its an easy way to "process" and accept the event. Ultimately, all things become physical at some level since we are not capable of processing much of anything that lacks a physical component. Even Heaven and Hell are reduced to pleasure and pain at some level.
3.2: Any
justification for believing anything metaphysical lies in the ability of the belief to predict future events or explain current events. My belief that God commands the sun to rise each morning is perfectly justified since he has never failed to make it so (its predictive and explanatory). Now that I understand the sun doesn't really rise at all (the earth spins), the belief is shattered. Therefore, as a more reasonable explanation is provided, beliefs gravitate from the metaphysical to the physical and the realm of the metaphysical is incrementally and irreversably depleted.
3.3: No. It all boils down to the success of predictability - the likelihood or frequency that the assumption that the chair is there when you return is proven correct however justified or unjustified the belief that it was there in your absence. I believe that eclipses are God punishing us by withholding "His" light from us (mooning us, if you will). Bob, however thinks that it happens when Thor hurtles his battleax across the heavens and it blocks out the sun for a mintue. We can both justify the event (not enough people in church/forgot to sacrifice a virgin to Thor) but neither of us can predict the next one. When Newton comes along, causality/predictability become known and the metaphysical is diminished. However, there is nothing to say that Newton took into account all variables (as Einstein showed). And it may turn out that Einstein's models are not perfectly predictive. Until all variables are known (one can never be sure that there is not one more unknown variable), the idea of irrefutable predictability remains a goal and not a state. Therefore, validity can never be absolute.
3.4: That's an odd question. If there was no good reason to believe it was true (lack of explanatory value/ evidence of its falseness and/or no predictive value) then why would anyone believe it was true in the first place? Dogma would appear to be the subject of this question and, therefore, outside the scope of the discussion.
Its tough to focus on this at work so I'm not sure if I'm furthering the thread or messing it up. I sense some weaknesses in some of my points but can't take the time to sew them up so I fully expect you to blow a hole in the side of them
