Christian

The naturalist worldview, if I understand correctly, includes a fundamental presupposition of only natural causes. Any supernatural explanation of an event is rejected a priori. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the position.

What basis is there for this approach? This seems like a highly biased way of processing information to me. Wouldn't make more sense to simply go whereever the evidence leads?

Science is no basis, since science is the study of the natural world. It does not even address the supernatural.

Is there some philosophical reason that the supernatural cannot exist?

Just curious. Thanks in advance for your explanations.

Respectfully,

Christian

Jamie_L

In my personal experience, I come to a naturalist conclusion based on first considering the possibility of supernaturalism and then rejecting it based on observations that there are no such supernatural activities.

I think very few people become naturalists for other reasons, THEN close their minds to any possibility of the supernatural.

Jamie

Rhea

I'm not qualified to comment on the "naturalist worldview" because I haven't read the manual. But my take on this question as an individual is...

to use a phrase coined by the Apple Computer Corporation:
WYSIWYG
What You See Is What You Get.

So if you can see it, test it, predict it - it's natural.
Now that means, what some people ages ago considered supernatural, we now consider "natural". E.g. "Acts of God" are slowly becoming known as "Natural phenomena", after passing through "Acts of Nature" and "Natural Disasters".

Moreover, this definition has moved from "natural" being both perceivable and understood to only requiring perceivable - as we humans have come to accept that just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it defies the predictable behaviors known as "nature".

In my opinion and experience, there have been more instances of ultimately finding the explanation based in natural phenomena and not a single one shown to be caused by actions which override or defy natural phenomena.

Therefore, my experience and observation leads me to conclude that the probability is that whatever I see is not supernatural, since I do not have a single data point in that category that is "explained by supernatural conclusively".

Based on this experience and observation, it would be foolish of me to assign something the cause of supernatural before receiving conclusive evidence. To do so would be to discard all of the observations I have to date.

So what does address the supernatural? How do we conclusively show that the supernatural was responsible for something? Without an answer to that question I have no reason to assign any phenomenon into that box.

So philosophically, the reason that supernatural is not chosen is that it does not cotain within in any reason to discard the natural explanation that has been successful so many more times.

The obligatory parenting example:
"Mama may I take the car without you along?"
"Darling, you have never driven a car before, why would I let you take it without me? I have no reason to believe that you can drive it."
"Mama why don't you believe I can drive the car alone?"
"Because all other evidence suggests that three year-olds do not drive cars safely - with or without their parents. I think it makes sense to have you prove you can drive the car in front of me before I throw out all the other evidence that points to your being unable to handle it, don't you think?"

My 2¢

GunnerJ

Christian,

As a side note, just because I;m curious, what is a "supernatural" event? How does one deliniate between "natural" and "supernatural?" My main reason for not considering the possibility of supernatural things is because the whole concept seems very flimsy (it can, in my experience, only be defined in terms of its opposite, for example.)

Rhea

By the way, you mentioned in the other thread, "drawing conclusions based on the evidence that is missing"

I hope I have described above that the evidence is not "missing". There is a cumulative understanding of the world that results from observation and experience, filtered through reason. That filter acts to predict the cause of a thing based on the experience and observation of causes of other things.

My filter of Reason™ has got an excellent track record of correctly predicting outcomes so far. I would have to have a conclusive reason to discard it. I will not step off a cliff and hope that gravity is working differently today. the evidence is not missing. The evidence is cumulative and points away from the supernatural. Inertia describes well what it would take to point in a different direction. (and inertia is pretty reliable )

Christian

Jamie,

What I don't understand is how not encountering the supernatural could ever be a valid reason for closing your mind to any possibility of the supernatural. Edison failed hundreds of times at making the first light bulb. It would have been foolish for him to then close his mind to any possibility of a light bulb.

There is a leap in logic there, a sort of step of faith that I don't understand. And I'm someone who has faith in God.

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea

Another thought - sorry to be a serial poster here...

Perhaps one reason why "natural" is chosen as the first thing to "test" is a philosophical, psychological inner need to live in a world that is predictable.

The idea that my world is unpredictable seems kind of uncomfortable. So, inertia again. If I've got something predictable, reliable and comfortable, why would I spin in the other direction? A force has to be applied to make that reasonable. That force would be one single, tiny conclusive bit of evidence for the supernatural.

To what should be the delight of supernaturalists everywhere, I understand there is a one million dollar reward available to anyone who can conclusively prove the existance of a phenomena that defies - that is, violates - the known natural operational pattern. The amazing thing is that supernaturalists won't even try to earn it!!!!

Rhea

I don't think minds are closed to the possibility. We simply have no reason to assume it without conclusive evidence.

The world operates identically with or without belief in the the supernatural.

My mind is not closed to it, I just don't have any expectation of it happening, so there is no reason to spend my life chasing it, and there is indeed plenty of reason to NOT chase it. The natural explanation comes knocking on _my_ door. I don't have to chase it down.

Sure it's possible that my 3yo son can drive my race car. But my experience suggests that it is _SO_ unlikely that I am not going to spend time testing the theory unless he evidences some other clue that the probability is suddenly higher (like reciting the firing order of an inline 6 and driving his trike on the top of a railing without falling). And I'm certainly not going to bring up the topic on my own!

MortalWombat

Replace "the supernatural" with "Leprechauns" and then re-read that sentence again and see if it makes sense. But Edison knew that light existed, and knew that electricity existed, and knew incandescence occurred by the passing of an electric current through a resistant filament. He was working with well known physical principles that had been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently. How is that in any way related to the supernatural?

Christian

Rhea,

They didn't give you a copy of the manual?

This I agree with, but there are things that actually happen that cannot be predicted or tested. "Unnatural" events if you will. If you encounter such an event, what merit is there to an approach which rule out supernatural causes to explain it?

Are you saying that anything that is perceivable is natural? That seems like an odd definition to me.

In my opinion it depends largely an what presuppositions the observer brings to the table. Sufficiently intelligent and creative people find the supernatural if they are looking for it, or find no trace of the supernatural if they are looking for that. I've known enough really intelligent people to realize that any position can be supported by logic.

With all due respect, isn't that intellectually lazy? To think that something could not possibly exist because you have not personally found any trace of it?

I agree with your first sentence, but don't understand how you reach the conclusion in your second sentence. In what way would assigning a supernatural cause to one event be equivalent to discarding all of the observations you have to date???

When the supernatural explanation is more reasonable than the natural explanation. Basically, apply common sense and if doing so suggests a supernatural explanation, then so be it.

You seem to be saying "it's always worked for me, therefore it must work in all situations and other methods must never work." It doesn't seem like a good reason to me.

I'm not suggesting you believe anything without evidence. I'm questioning why you should rule out a theoretical possibility before you even address the evidence at hand.

Respectfully,

Christian