Jayhawker Soule

Can one be an agnostic with respect to theism and any less ambivalent with respect to phylosophical naturalism without reducing the term "naturalism" to some meaningless tautology? I would think that any allowance for the possibility of God(s) inherits, at a minimum, an equal allowance for the possibility of past, present, and/or future supernatural phenomena.

Jobar

ReasonableDoubt, am I correct in restating your question as "Is it possible to define God(s) naturalistically?" You seem to be saying that theism requires supernaturalism- is that your meaning here?

Jayhawker Soule

No. If I define God as a goldfish, with precisely those attributes of a goldfish, the efficacy of my communications may suffer but naturalism should emerge unscathed. The question is whether or not agnosticism with respect to God(s) mandates, at the very least, agnosticism with respect to the Supernatural. The third and excluded alternative would be to redefine "natural" in such a way as to render "supernatural" an oxymoron.

sandlewood

Would that be a goldfish that created the universe?

Edit: Didn't mean that to be funny. It was a legitimate question.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

No. To repeat. If I define God as a goldfish, with precisely those attributes of a goldfish, the efficacy of my communications may suffer but naturalism should emerge unscathed. I assume we agree that universe creation is not a goldfish attribute.

Amos

The difference here lies in our understanding of nature as naturalists. If we see God in nature the supernatural exists and if we are one with nature the supernatural is removed. That is the same as me saying that there is no Trinity in heaven where the Godhead has become one with our understanding of it (left and right brain with the spiritual interaction between these two).

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Kent Stevens

If you are unsure about God existing then you are also unsure about nature being all that there is. Someone who is an agnostic about God existing is also an agnostic about atheism or naturalism.

The agnostic is sitting on the fence. On one side they can not fully endorse theism. On the other side they can not fully endorse naturalism.

sandlewood

The reason I asked is because I don’t think you would then be agnostic with respect to Theism, at least not necessarily. Theism usually defines a god as something that created the Universe. I don’t think you get to define it yourself. So I guess it depends on the definition of god.


Well, yeah, if you define God as something supernatural. But “seeing God in nature” is a vague phrase. How do you see something supernatural? How can you confirm it objectively?

I think “supernatural” is a funny word. Nature is supposed to include everything in the universe that we know about and can perceive. In nature, we observe the patterns by which it works (natural laws) and use them to make predictions. If there were something else outside the Universe, then we would learn about it and its patterns and it would then be classified as part of nature. If ghosts existed, would they be supernatural? If ghosts could be detected (they can if you can see them) and they didn’t follow the known laws of nature, then we would adjust the laws of nature to include ghosts. The ghosts would then be natural, not supernatural. So I don’t think there is any such thing as supernatural.

Jayhawker Soule

As with ghosts, so too with God(s). How does this not render "metaphysical naturalism" meaningless doctrine based on tautology?

Buffman

Can one be an agnostic with respect to theism and any less ambivalent with respect to phylosophical naturalism without reducing the term "naturalism" to some meaningless tautology?

NO! One can not claim to be a theological agnostic without reducing "naturalism" to a meaningless philosophy.

Accept the "possibility" of one supernatural phenomenon and you must accept the possibility of other supernatural phenomena. Philosophical naturalism does not require any attribution to the "possibility" of supernatural explanations. That is why it is called "Naturalism."

However, my opinion is based on my definition of "theological agnosticism" vice "philosophical agnosticism."

(Phrase added for clarity...hopefully.)

(DAMN! Typo.)

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>