Daggah

You don't understand science. Science is not and never was about proving things to be true. However, no evidence has been found that CONTRADICTS the statement that the natural world is all there is. We have plenty of evidence that the natural world exists. We have none demonstrating the existence of a supernatural world. Therefore, logically, when considering where the burden of proof lies, naturalism is the default position, and the only logical one.

Even if theism DOES actually bring about those emotions, they're based on lies. What you're saying is that we should believe what makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I say, no, I have more integrity than that. Also, why is faith a desirable thing? Much of the bloodshed that's gone on in the history of humanity can be laid at the hands of faith, whether it be faith in the Judeo-Christian war god, or faith in corrupt dictators (like Stalin.)

"I have not sought during my life to amass wealth and to adorn my body, but I have sought to adorn my soul with the jewels of wisdom, patience, and above all with a love of liberty." - Socrates

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom." - Robert Green Ingersoll

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you." - Thomas Jefferson

Eudaimonist

Prove that this is a myth or fantasy.

Metaphysical naturalists consider a natural universe the most elegant, parsimonious, and intellectually honest interpretation of human experience. There simply isn't any good reason to think there are divine beings or a supernatural realm. We don't believe in the supernatural for the same reason we don't believe in a real Santa Clause -- because the evidence is lacking.

In other words, we are rational. We aren't looking to let our imaginations run wild and believe just any imaginary possibility. (Though imagination is valuable for other reasons, such as developing testable hypotheses, and for enjoying the ~fictional~ Lord of the Rings.) We honestly seek to understand reality as it really is, not pretend it is whatever makes us feel good.

Feeling good comes afterwards. IOW, truth first, then figure out how to find well-being.

penumbra

High Ideologue,

Thank you for your reply to my earlier question. Other priorities prevent me from from giving your response the attention it deserves at the moment. Maybe in a day or two if I can the time.

High Ideologue

Ok the above statements are lies and ignorance based on denial. You need to educate yourself. Read chapter 2 of the House of Ideology Manifesto entitled 'Scientific Methods'. It is available for you to read free of charge at http://www.4iam.org .

Your conclusion is that the natural world is all that there is. Mere existence of evidence in and of itself does not constitute proof of your conclusion. Your argument must be made using logically valid deductive inferences that lead from the premise {our universe is evidence} to your conclusion {the natural world is all that there is}. Deductive inferences eliminate all other possibilities. No one has done so as yet. Your argument is made using logically valid inductive inferences. What this means is that your making an argument where in the truth of your premises make it possible that its conclusion is also true. It is also possible that my conclusion is true.

Anyways, I wasn't questioning whether or not the natural world exists. Metaphysical Naturalists embrace the myth and fantasy that the natural world is all that there is. Why choose this myth and fantasy?

You are wrong. The universe can be interpreted as evidence demonstrating the existence of a supernatural world. The valid logical inferences made in support of this conclusion are inductive however and as such my conclusion is a possibility and not undeniable fact.

Are you saying here that by logical valid deductive inference we can conclude that the natural world is all that there is? If you are then I would like for you to write up a proof that eliminates all other 'supernatural' possibilities while at the same time accounting for the limitations in your abilities to use your senses and perceptions to gather evidence, make logical inferences, and draw conclusions.

Where is the proof to back up your blanket statement that theism is based on lies? This sounds like prejudice.

An idea is a thought, belief or expectation about self and world. The three types of ideas are truth, lie and myth. Knowledge of truth is based on scientifically reproducible discovery. Ignorance of lies is based on contradiction of knowledge of truth. Imagination of myth is based on the mystery of existence. Lies contradict truths. Myths compliment truths.

Are you capable of making a distinction between truth and knowledge based on discovery, lies and ignorance based on denial, and myth and fantasy based on mystery? If not, you are dismissed.

Scientists in various fields of study have found much to say about the theory that happiness leads to better health and health related behavior. There are completely new fields of scientific research that address the relationship between emotions and physical health. This scientific research seems to affirm the theory that optimistic thoughts, beliefs, and expectations about self and world have a positive influence on our health. Our various health behaviors, our immune functions, and our biochemical functions are believed by scientists to be improved by our optimistic thoughts, beliefs, and expectations about self and world in ways that make our bodies more resistant to illness and better able to recover from existing disease.

We are life forms in a self-consuming biosphere divided by a conflict of predator and prey. Life forms, states and ideological traditions are all playing a game of survival and sacrifice within our global culture. There is a symbiotic relationship between survival of states, survival of ideological traditions, and survival of individuals. Those ideological traditions that were capable of motivating individuals of a state to out work, out fight and out number competing cultures have come to dominate much of our global culture. That is why so many of these great religious traditions include a standard of conduct that directs members of communities of faithful believers work all the day, be fruitful and multiply, and fight evil. These great religious traditions have evolved towards being tools useful to states in motivating communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight, and out number the rest of the world. The state sustains belief just as belief sustains the state. I doubt if all religious discourse was eliminated from our global culture that the conflict of predator and prey would cease to divide our self-consuming biosphere. Laying all of this conflict and blood shed at the feet of faith seems to me wrong.

The important point here is: My faith is one of complete spiritual liberation. So what you are doing above is lumping me and my ideas, not to mention Taoism together with aggressive ideological traditions used by states to motivate communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight and out number the rest of the world. That is about as fair as my lumping agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, Metaphysical Naturalists and Humanists all together as a group. Learn to make a distinction and refrain from making sweeping generalizations about theists.

Starboy

High Ideologue, what is the difference between "truth" and reality?

High Ideologue

Don't you know?

High Ideologue

Allow me to clarify.

I quote from the index page of this site: Metaphysical naturalists defend and promote a non theistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all that there is; a closed system. What is the basis for this idea that the natural world is all that there is; a closed system? Is there truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery to prove conclusively that the natural world is all that there is; a closed system? No there is no truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery to prove conclusively that the natural world is all that there is; a closed system. So this idea is not truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery. Is there truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery that proves conclusively that the natural world is not all that there is? No there is no truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery to prove conclusively that the natural world is not all that there is. So this idea that the natural world is all that there is; a closed system is not lie and ignorance based on denial. Having eliminated truth and knowledge based on discovery and lies and ignorance based denials as possibilities the only other thing that this idea could be is myth and fantasy based on mystery. So what Metaphysical Naturalists are doing is combining a finite understanding of truth and knowledge based on discovery with a particular form of myth and fantasy based on mystery to fashion their perception of reality. I ask Metaphysical Naturalists again: Why choose to include this particular form of myth and fantasy based on mystery in your worldview over an extreme myth and fantasy based on mystery that produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable?

I can't argue with your right to have your opinion except to say that it is an opinion that are using to justify including one possible myth and fantasy in your Metaphysical Naturalist world view. That one possible myth and fantasy is that the natural world is all that there is. This is one out of a number, diversity and variety of possible myths and fantasies only limited by our creative abilities and powers of imagination. So in a sense you answered my question: You have told me that the particular form of myth and fantasy that you as a Metaphysical Naturalists have chosen to include in your worldview is fashionable.

I have given you plenty of good reasons why one might want to choose to believe there is a divine eternal essence to self and world: like for instance the emotive and physiological benefits derived from devoting energy, space and time to the idea of the divine immunity and eternal life of the soul spirit.

As I have written many times before our universe can be interpreted as evidence.

Well if you are so rational then why do you as a Metaphysical Naturalist include the myth and fantasy that the natural world is all that their is in your world view?

We are almost in agreement on this: Discovery of truth that produces the most powerful health possible first and then imagination myth that produces the most powerful happiness imaginable.

Daggah

This is ridiculous. You link to your OWN website to back up your assertion? All you're doing is repeating your assertion. You're not proving it at all. The ignorance here is yours.

I don't care about absolutely proving it's true. All I care about is not going beyond the bounds of rational inferences. Again, no evidence or decent argument exists in support of the existence of a supernatural world, that I'm aware of. So it is reasonable to conclude that the natural world is all there is.

This is merely an ad hominem, if you're just going to call it a 'myth and fantasy.' It's not a myth. It's not fantasy. Furthermore, naturalism doesn't posit the existence of anything that doesn't actually exist. How can that be a myth or fantasy?

It can also be interpreted as evidence demonstrating the existence of invisible pink cats flying around the moons of Jupiter. That doesn't make it true. Your inferences are as 'logical' as those made to come to the conclusion that the aforementioned cats actually exist. I.e., they're not logical at all, because they have no EVIDENCE backing them up.

No, I'm saying exactly what I said. There is evidence for the natural world's existence. There isn't any for the existence of the supernatural. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the supernaturalist, because the supernaturalist is making the unproven claims here. Therefore, naturalism is the default and only rational position.

There have been thousands of religions on this planet. All of them gave their followers the warm and fuzzy feelings you seem to love so much. These religions have also contradicted each other. They can't all be true. In fact, either only one of them is, or none of them are. So historically, the emotions brought about by religion have been based on lies.

And so therefore we should believe whatever makes us feel good? You're ridiculous. And you're also totally ignoring the comments I posted from people like Jefferson and Ingersoll who basically stated that disbelieving in mythology made THEM feel good. So if atheism and naturalism can bring about those same feelings - with the added advantage of being totally rational - what reason is there to turn to illogical theistic and supernaturalistic beliefs?

I wasn't making sweeping generalizations about theists. I was commenting on faith. Historically faith has proven itself to be a great evil. I don't give a damn if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That doesn't change the facts. Faith is a great evil in the world today.

Starboy

Hi HI, I am interested in your thoughts on the difference, if any, between "truth" and reality. I already know what I think.

Starboy

High Ideologue

The link to http//:www.4iam.org is to my site. On site is a link to the Manifesto. If you click on the link to the Manifesto you will come to a table of contents page listing the 69 chapters of the House of Ideology Manifesto. Chapter 2 is entitled 'Scientific Methods'. You accusation was that I don't understand science. My referring you and others to the chapter of the House of Ideology Manifesto is my way of demonstrating to others if not you that I do understand science. Apparently, you have ignored the reference I provided. As such the ignorance here is yours.

This is another statement that suffers from itosis: the disease caused by writers when 'it' is not clearly defined. Presuming for the moment that 'it' is the idea that the natural world is all that there is, you have just admitted that you can't prove absolutely that this idea is true. As such this idea is NOT truth and knowledge based on discovery. It is also not possible to prove absolutely that this idea is not true. So this idea is NOT lie and ignorance based on denial. The only other kind of idea this idea that natural world is all that there is could be is myth and fantasy based on mystery. As a Metaphysical Naturalist you have embraced a worldview that includes a myth and fantasy: that the natural world is all that there is. Why this myth and fantasy and not one of the other number, diversity and variety of possibilities? Why not choose to include within your world view a myth and fantasy with more reward emotional and physiological benefit such as a belief in a divine immunity and eternal life of the soul spirit?

I am not at all convinced of that. You make an inductive inference in your argument that the universe is evidence that the natural world is all that there is. Then you turn around and say that the natural world is all that there is the only rational conclusion. Do you understand that inductive inference only confer a possibility that a conclusion is true? If so then, why are you writing that the idea that the natural world is all that there is is the only rational conclusion. You admit that you can't prove that the natural world is all that there is absolutely. If you are really so rational then why are you trying to pass off one out of a number, diversity and variety of possible myths and fantasies based on mystery as irrefutable truth and knowledge based on discovery?

Our universe can be interpreted as evidence in support of a model of self and world that includes a divine eternal essence of self and infinite world. How do you propose that it is that finite scientists can use their finite fractal infernal temporal tools to quantify infinity, qualify divinity, measure the duration of eternity, and know all that there is? They can not. Just because they can not does not mean that an infinite divine eternal one does not exist. It means scientists can't and don't know because of limitations in their abilities to gather evidence, make inferences and draw conclusions. Scientists devote their energy, space and time to using the finite fractal infernal temporal tools of science to gather truth about what we can know. True scientists don't concern themselves with myth and fantasy. You are not acting here as a scientist. You are acting as ideologue. You are conferring favor upon one particular myth and fantasy {the natural world is all that there is} out of a number, diversity and variety of possible myths and fantasies only limited by our creative abilities and powers of imagination. Then you combine your favored myth and fantasy with your own finite understanding of truth and knowledge based on discovery to create a Metaphysical Naturalist worldview that you proclaim to be the only rational worldview. In essence what you expect is for me and others to accept your conclusion on the basis of personal prejudice.

It is reasonable to conclude that the natural world might be all that there is based on valid logical inductive inferences made from evidence gathered from our universe by our senses and perceptions.

It is also reasonable to conclude that in addition to the natural world there might be a divine eternal essence to self and infinite world based on valid logical inductive inferences made from evidence gathered from our universe by our senses and perceptions.

Both my conclusion, your conclusion and a number, diversity and variety of other possible conclusions are reasonable. What you have failed to do in any other way then appealing to personal prejudices is explain why you have chosen your conclusion about self and world out of all the other possibilities.

You are lying to yourself. I have already taken care to demonstrate that the idea that the natural world is all that there is is a myth and fantasy based on mystery.

I never said that naturalism is myth and fantasy. I said that the worldview embraced by Metaphysical Naturalist includes the myth and fantasy that the natural world is all that there is. I have already explained how the idea that the natural world is all that there is is a myth and fantasy based on mystery. The rest of what you have written is mainly a mantra like repetition of ideas I already addressed.