Amos

True, but to remove the "super" from the "natural" is to place the intellignet design within nature. Once we do this we must also do away with evolution because we now have nature in charge of its own destiny.

Jayhawker Soule

I agree: Agnostic in One - Agnostic in All
Precisely. There is simply no way to shove the Genie back into the lamp.
Would you likewise maintain that it also does not allow such attributions?

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

Jayhawker Soule

Not only do I understand that sentence, I think that I actually agree with it. This has me more than a little worried, Amos.

sandlewood

You’re right. I agree with you then. If the god you’re agnostic about is defined as being knowable, then I wouldn’t think you’d have to give up naturalism to be an agnostic.

Perhaps then another question is whether god, or anything for that matter, can be unknowable. If something is knowable then we can eventually classify it as part of nature. It something is not knowable, in what sense would one mean that? Is it unknowable only to humans? If humans evolved another million or billion years could they know it? Can some alien race know it even if humans cannot? Claiming something is unknowable is very tough to do I think.

But don’t some people define an agnostic as one who believes the existence of God is unknowable in principle? If you believe something can be unknowable then perhaps that gives meaning to the word supernatural. In that case you may have a clash between agnosticism and naturalism. But personally, I don’t see any reason to think anything is unknowable. So given that, I would agree with you. Yes, I was surprised I understood it as well , but the assumption is made that there is intelligent design which I disagree with. And I didn’t get the next sentence:
Why do away with evolution? Evolution is nature in charge of its own destiny. Or more accurately, and to remove the anthropomorphism, nothing is in charge of nature’s destiny.

Buffman

Amos

Yup! Nature is the designer. However, humans are the ones who decide whether the design is intelligent or not...depending on the intelligance of the human.

R.D.

Would you likewise maintain that it also does not allow such attributions?

Yes! (However, the word "allow" troubles me.)

Buffman

Amos

It is not that difficult to understand but what follows is that nature has no mind to select and so each of the organism found within nature must have its own intelligence and so compete with each other for survival.

Jayhawker Soule

Given the following two sentences ...<ol type="1">[*]Philosophical naturalism does not require any attribution to the "possibility" of supernatural explanations.[*]Philosophical naturalism does not allow any attribution to the "possibility" of supernatural explanations.[/list=a]... the former dismisses the supernatural as a necessity but not as a possibility, while the latter is intended to explicitly preclude it.

Amos

</strong>

What is wrong with intelligence as opposed to chance? All sentient beings have an instinct and the instinct is the memeory of their soul and if they have a soul they must have a conscious mind which is used to feed the soul for the purpose of survival and adaptation. So there you have the intelligent design of animals within nature.

If you disagree with the intelligent design you would have to assume that the migration of birds is a chance event and that would never be possible. The same is true with fish (I am thinking of the salmon run here) and once we have intelligence isolated innature we can just place it on the slippery slope to justify whatever we do not understand about animal behavior. Of course! Creation is the active ingredient that is responsible for the changes within nature and to the casual observer it comes a cross as evolution. Once again, nature does not have any intelligence to select apart from the intelligence that is found within the living organisms found in nature.

Yes, remove anthropomorphism but do not make the mistake by assigning a mind to nature for the purpose of natural selection (a mind that exists outside of the organism within nature). The organisms within nature use their own mind for the purpose of adaptation.

We now get the situation that nature is the negative stand against which adaptation must find intelligence which is thusly born out of the controversy between nature and the species involved.

Nature is dumb and evolution is dumber.

Jayhawker Soule

I don't know what that means. I would, however, suggest that there is a difference between the two statements: <ol type="1">[*]The character of God is unknowable.[*]The existence of God is unknowable.[/list=a]Assume for the moment that YHWH is "real" (whatever that might mean). We can imagine all types of fantastic occurrences through which he might make himself known, e.g., manifesting himself as a thousand foot tall human-appearing deity who abrogates the laws of nature (such as gravity) at will. You would 'know' his existence or, at the very least, be prettu sure of it, and you would damn sure take his word for the rest.

So long as one can speak of the "laws of nature", we can define a supernatural agent as that unencumbered by such laws. Whatever the quantum reality of your car, if some levitating giant transforms it into lime jello because 'you did not what was good in the eyes of the Lord', that is not a natural act.

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