Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pennywise the clown · 03-19-2002, 02:01 PM

Your introductory statement says: "...to promote and defend metaphysical naturalism."

What, pray tell, are you defending it from and why promote it if it's not a "belief system"?

Pomp · 03-19-2002, 02:07 PM

Who said metaphysical naturalism wasn't a belief system? You may be confusing MN with atheism in general.

Krieger · 03-19-2002, 02:13 PM

"What, pray tell, are you defending it from..."

We defend it from the twisted ravings of the theistic hordes.

Pennywise the clown · 03-20-2002, 04:29 AM

[Who said metaphysical naturalism wasn't a belief system? You may be confusing MN with atheism in general.]

But I thought only atheists believed in the "natural world". So you're saying atheists still believe in something?

[We defend it from the twisted ravings of the theistic hordes.]

Tut, tut, Krieger; that sounds a bit extreme doesn't it? Such a sweeping assessment contradicts the part in this site's statement about "tolerance".

Echo · 03-20-2002, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pennywise the clown:
Who said metaphysical naturalism wasn't a belief system? You may be confusing MN with atheism in general.]

But I thought only atheists believed in the "natural world". So you're saying atheists still believe in something?

I think you just answered your own question.

Atheism doesn't mean "believes in nothing". An atheist might have all sorts of beliefs- just not in the existence of god(s).

mac_philo · 03-20-2002, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pennywise the clown:
<strong>[Who said metaphysical naturalism wasn't a belief system? You may be confusing MN with atheism in general.]

But I thought only atheists believed in the "natural world". So you're saying atheists still believe in something?

[We defend it from the twisted ravings of the theistic hordes.]

Tut, tut, Krieger; that sounds a bit extreme doesn't it? Such a sweeping assessment contradicts the part in this site's statement about "tolerance".</strong>

"Only atheists" or "atheists only"?
If the former, you must be wrong, since lots of theists believe in the natural world.
If the latter, you must be wrong, since atheists believe many things that are not identical with the natural world. I believe that Tolstoy is superior to Dostoyevsky, that northern Wisconsin is more beatiful than the NE corridor of New Jersey, and several hundred thousand other things that are not "the natural world."

Pennywise the clown · 03-20-2002, 06:42 AM

Thanks for clearing that up Echo. Soooooooo, taking this a step further, what was "here" before the natural world.?

Mac: no I was getting at the "ultimate question".
Theists believe the natural world was created, atheists do not.

Back to my original question...

So is MN a philosophy? It would seem to be according to your introductory statement to this fortress of secular knowledge. Also, if you're promoting MN, isn't that as bad as promoting a religion?

Rational Ag · 03-20-2002, 07:47 AM

Atheism and metaphysical naturalism are not interchangeable. One can be an atheist and not be a metaphysical naturalist, so don't substitute one for another. I would hesitate to guess that quite a few atheists on this board would be naturalistic, but to presuppose that atheists discount the supernatural would be incorrect.

Metaphysical naturalism is a set of "beliefs" based on a rational, scientific, view of the universe that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws (as I understand it). As a set of "beliefs" goes, it isn't really defined, as it morphs and changes as our body of knowledge grows with a scientific understanding of the universe. It is more of a philosophy that disregards statements of fact and truth without reason and proof, and it's a philosophy that challenges itself at every turn in a search for the truth.

Some atheists and naturalists may believe that the world was "created", but I seriously doubt if they believe the Christian mythology version of it, since an overwhelming amount of evidence shows it to be untrue. But in response to naturalists not having a defined stance on how the world is created, I would assert that science doesn't define or declare facts on what it doesn't understand. Speculation, postulation, and theory generation are far from statements of fact. None of the theories are concrete or absolute, as science still has much to learn about our universe. Science has advanced our knowledge base at an incredible rate...there is much we understand now that we did not understand even just a few years ago. Given that, there is much more that we don't understand, and I see it as the duty of science to discover and understand that which we can't explain right now.

Atheists and naturalists defend our viewpoints here for several reasons. We discuss and defend our viewpoints to further our own understanding of the truth. We defend our viewpoints from the misconceptions stated about us by the religious right and other groups aimed at misrepresenting us. We defend our viewpoints from the society in which we live, which constantly repeats truth claims based on ancient Hebrew and Greek mythology.

Pennywise the clown · 03-20-2002, 08:09 AM

Rational Ag,

Your explanation of defense is well done and you are to be commended!

Beep! Beep!

The clown has a question:

[Some atheists and naturalists may believe that the world was "created",]

If they do not believe Christianity, but yet believe SOME THING created the world/universe, how can they be atheists? Also, what do these rogue atheists believe did the creating?

Echo · 03-20-2002, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pennywise the clown:
[QB]Thanks for clearing that up Echo. Soooooooo, taking this a step further, what was "here" before the natural world.?

I have no idea what, if anything, was here "before" the natural world. It's an interesting question to ponder though...
would you care to propose a means by which I can discover the answer?

Quote:

Back to my original question...

So is MN a philosophy? It would seem to be according to your introductory statement to this fortress of secular knowledge. Also, if you're promoting MN, isn't that as bad as promoting a religion?

I don't think promoting religions is "bad." People like to share their opinions. I'm perfectly aware of this. I merely ask that they go away once I indicate that I am not interested.

03-19-2002, 02:01 PM	#1
Pennywise the clown Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: "We all float down here!" Posts: 34	Metaphysical Naturalism? Your introductory statement says: "...to promote and defend metaphysical naturalism." What, pray tell, are you defending it from and why promote it if it's not a "belief system"?

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

03-19-2002, 02:07 PM	#2
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Who said metaphysical naturalism wasn't a belief system? You may be confusing MN with atheism in general.

03-19-2002, 02:13 PM	#3
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	"What, pray tell, are you defending it from..." We defend it from the twisted ravings of the theistic hordes.

03-20-2002, 04:29 AM	#4
Pennywise the clown Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: "We all float down here!" Posts: 34	[Who said metaphysical naturalism wasn't a belief system? You may be confusing MN with atheism in general.] But I thought only atheists believed in the "natural world". So you're saying atheists still believe in something? [We defend it from the twisted ravings of the theistic hordes.] Tut, tut, Krieger; that sounds a bit extreme doesn't it? Such a sweeping assessment contradicts the part in this site's statement about "tolerance".

03-20-2002, 06:42 AM	#7
Pennywise the clown Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: "We all float down here!" Posts: 34	Thanks for clearing that up Echo. Soooooooo, taking this a step further, what was "here" before the natural world.? Mac: no I was getting at the "ultimate question". Theists believe the natural world was created, atheists do not. Back to my original question... So is MN a philosophy? It would seem to be according to your introductory statement to this fortress of secular knowledge. Also, if you're promoting MN, isn't that as bad as promoting a religion?

03-20-2002, 07:47 AM	#8
Rational Ag Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 136	Atheism and metaphysical naturalism are not interchangeable. One can be an atheist and not be a metaphysical naturalist, so don't substitute one for another. I would hesitate to guess that quite a few atheists on this board would be naturalistic, but to presuppose that atheists discount the supernatural would be incorrect. Metaphysical naturalism is a set of "beliefs" based on a rational, scientific, view of the universe that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws (as I understand it). As a set of "beliefs" goes, it isn't really defined, as it morphs and changes as our body of knowledge grows with a scientific understanding of the universe. It is more of a philosophy that disregards statements of fact and truth without reason and proof, and it's a philosophy that challenges itself at every turn in a search for the truth. Some atheists and naturalists may believe that the world was "created", but I seriously doubt if they believe the Christian mythology version of it, since an overwhelming amount of evidence shows it to be untrue. But in response to naturalists not having a defined stance on how the world is created, I would assert that science doesn't define or declare facts on what it doesn't understand. Speculation, postulation, and theory generation are far from statements of fact. None of the theories are concrete or absolute, as science still has much to learn about our universe. Science has advanced our knowledge base at an incredible rate...there is much we understand now that we did not understand even just a few years ago. Given that, there is much more that we don't understand, and I see it as the duty of science to discover and understand that which we can't explain right now. Atheists and naturalists defend our viewpoints here for several reasons. We discuss and defend our viewpoints to further our own understanding of the truth. We defend our viewpoints from the misconceptions stated about us by the religious right and other groups aimed at misrepresenting us. We defend our viewpoints from the society in which we live, which constantly repeats truth claims based on ancient Hebrew and Greek mythology.

03-20-2002, 08:09 AM	#9
Pennywise the clown Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: "We all float down here!" Posts: 34	Rational Ag, Your explanation of defense is well done and you are to be commended! Beep! Beep! The clown has a question: [Some atheists and naturalists may believe that the world was "created",] If they do not believe Christianity, but yet believe SOME THING created the world/universe, how can they be atheists? Also, what do these rogue atheists believe did the creating?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.