Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

The name of this particular forum is the existence of God. By and large the thought is the theist is proposing the idea of God and therefore the burden of proof or at least evidence falls on the claimant Very well. However in the case of the Sec Web its home page is making a claim that metaphysical naturalism can account for all. From the home page the following,

‘Our goal is to promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself…to disbelieve in the gods, as Emma Goldman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, purpose and beauty.’

My question is how many here support this view and are prepared to offer evidence on behalf of its claims? What scientific evidence or any evidence confirms the claim that our natural world is all there is? Or is this a belief statement?

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Automaton

Put simply:

Your metaphysical belief system - God/other supernatural entities = metaphysical naturalism.

David Gould

Andrew_theist,

I define 'succesful method for explaining the world' as being a method that can explain and predict observed phenomena.

1.) Metaphysical naturalism predicts that methodological naturalism will be the only succesful method for explaining the world.

2.) All supernaturalisms predict that some other method or methods will be succesful some of the time.

3.) Methodolgoical naturalism has thus far been the only succesful method for explaining the world. No other method has had any success at all.

4.) Thus, on the evidence that we do have it seems that metaphysical naturalism has been confirmed and all supernaturalisms disconfirmed.

I understand that tomorrow someone could use a supernatural method that successfully explains some aspect of the world. I await such evidence eagerly.

edited to add: while there is no way I can discount the existence of some other realm, if such a realm has no impact upon this one it acts exactly as it would if it did not exist. Occam's razor suggests that we choose the 'does not exist' option.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: David Gould ]</p>

Boro Nut

If you have never met a physical naturalism you haven't lived.

Boro Nut

Goliath

Andrew_Theist,

You seem to be confusing atheism with metaphysical naturalism--or at the very least, confusing atheism with strong atheism.

Since many atheists (including myself) make no claim whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of any god, we consequently have nothing to prove.

Sincerely,

Goliath

madmax2976

I would concur with the view that the natural world is all there is. However, I'm reluctant to go along with, "...is a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself". I'd need to see this expounded upon so that I can know what kind of thinking is behind it. It seems rather odd to me at first glance.

As far as the evidence that supports metaphysical naturalism - well, so far all of it does. I've yet to see any verifiable evidence for supernaturalism of any kind. To me this is overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalism. The best supernaturalists seem to be able to do is to infer the supernatural based on mystery's and unknowns. In and of itself that's fine, but if inference is all that supernaturalism will ever have going for it, it will remain a curiosity, but not much more.

One possibility: I haven't spent much time studying Buddhism. While most Buddhists are atheists, they are definitely not naturalists. It would be interesting to learn about what, if anything, Buddhists would offer to support their supernatural claims. I just suspect I wouldn't be able to get any straight answers out of any of them. They'd probably ask me what I meant by "supernatural" and down the primrose path we'd go...

WJ

David!

"I understand that tomorrow someone could use a supernatural method that successfully explains some aspect of the world. I await such evidence eagerly"

Some physicists say that an 'idea' just comes to them, then they test it and it sometimes seems to work. Or the idea itself solves whatever problem they are studying. I don't know whether framing it as mystical knowledge is appropriate, but I think it is commonly referred to as intuitive knowledge, creative thinking, and so forth.

But one has to wonder how the mind produces such thoughts or ideas that are truly novel. Is that what is meant by the beauty in/of metaphysical naturalism?

Or maybe the question that Andrew asks takes one back to, why should one "affirm" beauty, purpose, and all the rest to start? The answer may have to do with a some thing that is sensed or considered out of our control. A some thing that comes to us that is beyond the laws of nature, as used to explain the world itself. Maybe the result is a feeling that creates the affirmation itself.

I don't know, just thinking aloud...


Walrus

Vorkosigan

What scientific evidence or any evidence confirms the claim that our natural world is all there is? Or is this a belief statement?

Got the question backwards. What evidence is there that anything extra-natural is going on? Present your evidence, and we'll be glad to consider it. Otherwise, the verdict of the last 500 years of science is going to have to stand: there is no evidence that anything supernatural is going on.

Vorkosigan

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

WJ

Andrew!

I'm chomping at the bit. Ask Vork how he/she arrived at that conclusion. (What caused the Big Bang.... and so forth?) Vork must have supernatural/scientific knowledge. Quite ironic.

Just a thought.

Jayhawker Soule

As opposed to what, specifically?

Science cannot prove a negative. The claim of metaphyical naturalism is an inference driven by the on-going and remarkable success of methodological naturalism. The claim of theism is a presumption clinging to the necessarily provisional quality of that success.