Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 01-17-2003, 05:29 PM

oops

Goliath · 01-17-2003, 05:32 PM

luvluv,

Quote:

My point is that if you are committed enough to the philosophy of naturalism, you could simply say of any phenomenon you do not understand: "Oh, science simply hasn't explained that YET, but it will."

First of all, I am not a metaphysical naturalist. However, even if I were one, such a response from me (the "Oh, science simply hasn't explained this yet....") would not be a valid rebuttal to a proof of the existence of a supernatural entity, since a basic tenet of metaphysical naturalism is that nothing supernatural exists.

Again, if you can prove that just ONE supernatural entity exists, you can falsify naturalism.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv · 01-17-2003, 05:34 PM

RichardMorey:

Quote:

You err when you equate "naturalism" with the idea that everything is explainable by science. Though the two often go hand in hand, they are separate ideas. Perhaps there are laws that our methods cannot uncover. These laws would still be natural, but unexplainable by science.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Quote:

We could. There is no way that I know of determining whether we will know all that there is to know, and so the best way to go about things is to assume that things are knowable. If we fail, so what? The benefits of the continuation of the scientific endevour far outweigh the risks of working on it in vain.

I'm not arguing against methadological naturalism. Even though I am a Christian, I think scientists definitely should be methadological naturalists. I am not arguing that scientists should admit that God caused the Big Bang and move on to other questions.

This is a critique of the philosophy of naturalism. Nothing could ever be presented to an ardent enough naturalist that would force him to reverse his position.

Quote:

And I actually think that this is a great example of an argument from incredulity, and is therefore meaningless.

You guys just can't resist pointing out fallacies, can you?

That statement was obviously not meant as an argument against the possibility of a complete understanding of the brain. It was used as an illustration. The words "just my opinion" were meant to convey that.

Quote:

See above. Also, the logical principle of identity (A=A) would seem to be unfalsifiable. Do you reject identity

Obviously, certain first principles are necessary for our reasoning to have any basis. Naturalism is not a first principle. Apples and oranges.

luvluv · 01-17-2003, 05:36 PM

Golliath:

What would count for you as a supernatural event?

Goliath · 01-17-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
Golliath:

What would count for you as a supernatural event?

A supernatural event is either an event caused by a supernatural entity (ie a "god" (whatever that is)), or an event that has no natural explanation.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv · 01-17-2003, 05:39 PM

So what is your natural explanation of the mind?

Goliath · 01-17-2003, 05:43 PM

luvluv,

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
So what is your natural explanation of the mind?

The only explanation that comes to mind is that the mind is a product of evolution (although I don't know a lot about Evolutionary Biology...I'm a student of Mathematics).

If you can prove that all known natural explanations for the mind are false and that no natural explanation exists for the mind, then you will have falsified naturalism.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv · 01-17-2003, 05:49 PM

Golliath:

Quote:

If you can prove that all known natural explanations for the mind are false and that no natural explanation exists for the mind...

Hasn't that generally been conceded?

I know scientists are still working on the problem, but isn't the mind still pretty much a mystery?

But your last sentence "no natural explanation EXISTS for the mind.." is indicative of my point. There really is no way to establish that NO naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon exists. That would be proving a negative.

Further, why couldn't a person go on inventing naturalistic explanations forever? That way, they would never be forced to abandon the propostion that a naturalistic explanation exists.

Goliath · 01-17-2003, 05:50 PM

luvluv,

Quote:

There really is no way to establish that NO naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon exists

Unproven assertion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

RichardMorey · 01-17-2003, 06:16 PM

OK, luvluv, define naturalism - perhaps I am confused at what you mean by naturalism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2003, 05:29 PM	#21
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	oops

01-17-2003, 05:36 PM	#24
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Golliath: What would count for you as a supernatural event?

01-17-2003, 05:39 PM	#26
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	So what is your natural explanation of the mind?

01-17-2003, 06:16 PM	#30
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	OK, luvluv, define naturalism - perhaps I am confused at what you mean by naturalism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.