Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 09-11-2002, 11:41 AM

I believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes and more. Must it logically follow then that this "more" is bunk? Could the case not be rather that naturalism is merely a limited way of understanding the world?
For example I could design my own alphabet which excludes the letter 'e'.
I still would be able to converse with "e-ians" in a limited way. For example If I wrote a book (and this has been done) eians would be able to understand it. But when they conversed with me and used the letter 'e' I would say they were speaking nonsense. This would cause them to become perplexed and try to come up with logical arguements proving the existence of 'e'.
I would simply state that they prove nothing. You have only opened up the possibility of all sorts of other strange letters such as @,#,$, and ^.
Wheather they exist or not is inconsequential to me. I have no need for the letter 'e' and can get along fine without it.

Grumpy · 09-11-2002, 11:54 AM

So, what you're saying is that it's impossible for people to rationally debate matters that boil down to arbitrary choices.

That's how I feel about religions. Or should I say "rligi@n$".

Mageth · 09-11-2002, 11:55 AM

Huh? My understanding of metaphysical naturalism is that it is a worldview that holds that nature is all there is. In other words, there is no "more." If you believe there's more, then you don't "believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes."

Read up on it <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/mission.shtml" target="_blank">here.</a>

K · 09-11-2002, 11:57 AM

Geo Theo:

That is perfectly fine. As long as you don't try to force your views on others or recommend adding non-naturalistic hypothoses into the realm of science, I don't think many people would care.

The exact same could be said if you believe in any other gods, ghosts, demons, elves, pixies, or similar supernatural entities for which there is no evidence.

If someone feels that supernatural explanations are best, that's fine. But without any evidence, expecting others to take those explanations seriously is going way out on a limb.

wade-w · 09-11-2002, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
I believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes and more. Must it logically follow then that this "more" is bunk?

According to Occam's Razor, yes. You are making an unnecessary assumption.


Could the case not be rather that naturalism is merely a limited way of understanding the world?
For example I could design my own alphabet which excludes the letter 'e'.
I still would be able to converse with "e-ians" in a limited way. For example If I wrote a book (and this has been done) eians would be able to understand it. But when they conversed with me and used the letter 'e' I would say they were speaking nonsense. This would cause them to become perplexed and try to come up with logical arguements proving the existence of 'e'.
I would simply state that they prove nothing. You have only opened up the possibility of all sorts of other strange letters such as @,#,$, and ^.
Wheather they exist or not is inconsequential to me. I have no need for the letter 'e' and can get along fine without it.


An alphabet is a convention that allows us to communicate, not something that exists independent of common agreement. It is only an idea. There are several alphabets, Greek and Cryllic are two that come to mind. Indeed, there are forms of writing in general use today that don't rely on an alphabet at all, such as Chinese ideograms.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

Rational Ag · 09-11-2002, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
[QB]I believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes and more. Must it logically follow then that this "more" is bunk? Could the case not be rather that naturalism is merely a limited way of understanding the world?

Yes, it's possible. It's always possible that our "detection" or our understanding is in some ways limited. However, it's far from probable. There has been very little evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists in any sort of repeatable, verifiable manner.

Quote:

For example I could design my own alphabet which excludes the letter 'e'. I still would be able to converse with "e-ians" in a limited way. For example If I wrote a book (and this has been done) eians would be able to understand it. But when they conversed with me and used the letter 'e' I would say they were speaking nonsense. This would cause them to become perplexed and try to come up with logical arguements proving the existence of 'e'. I still would be able to converse with "e-ians" in a limited way. For example If I wrote a book (and this has been done) eians would be able to understand it. But when they conversed with me and used the letter 'e' I would say they were speaking nonsense. This would cause them to become perplexed and try to come up with logical arguements proving the existence of 'e'.
I would simply state that they prove nothing. You have only opened up the possibility of all sorts of other strange letters such as @,#,$, and ^.
Wheather they exist or not is inconsequential to me. I have no need for the letter 'e' and can get along fine without it.

Your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to equate the abstract concept of language (communication, speech) with physical existence.

-Rational Ag

GeoTheo · 09-11-2002, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational Ag:


Your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to equate the abstract concept of language (communication, speech) with physical existence.

-Rational Ag

Uh, No I'm not. I am equating the existence of an abstract concept (God) with another abstract concept (language).
Actually I am pointing out the inibility of people with certian worldviews to be able to comprehend a certian abstract concept. I am equating the limitedness of this worldview to a person with a limited language. "E" doesn't have to be a letter it could be a word that is absent from some peoples vocabulary. The fact that they have no word for it is not a rational basis for denying its existence anymore than a person could deny the existence of the letter 'e' just because they don't use it.
Your vocabulary is limited to "physical existence"
and concepts designative of things dwelling only within physical existence.
Therefore you say God does not physically exist. I agree he does not exist physically. But unlike you with your limited vocabulary, I have ways to account for his existence you don't possess.
Back to my analogy:
A person with a limited vocabulary could seek to decipher the meaning of the missing word through the context of how it is used.
But not if you place arbitrary restrictions on your self that prevent you from even considering the concept the word designates.
Such as:
Rule number 1.
Words can only designate things that exist within the physical universe and the space time continuum.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]

WinAce · 09-11-2002, 01:47 PM

The problem as I see it:

(1) every single farking piece of evidence I've ever seen put forth in support of the 'more' doesn't stand up to skeptical scrutiny and is painfully demolished.
(2) I don't like to believe in strange things on no evidence.
(3) The only reason people believe anyway is because they can't realize how severely lacking and ambiguous the evidence is. In my opinion, they've been completely brainwashed by irrationally gullible human cultural influences into accepting a standard of evidence they would *never* accept for a real-world claim.

This includes 'evidence' such as getting a conclusion first, then using confirmation bias to support it (prayer). Or automatically assuming one explanation in lieu of the more parsimonious ones (miracles and God did it).

Vorkosigan · 09-11-2002, 01:47 PM

Therefore you say God does not physically exist. I agree he does not exist physically. But unlike you with your limited vocabulary, I have ways to account for his existence you don't possess.

The same is true of Frodo or Conan, Theo. You might have "ways" but those ways do not make your fictional god real, any more than they make Kane or Elric real.

Words can only designate things that exist within the physical universe and the space time continuum.

This is certainly not true of metaphysical naturalism or atheism. The word "god", for example, designates a fictional entity of vast power that exists outside the space-time continuum.

Vorkosigan

K · 09-11-2002, 01:48 PM

Geo Theo:

I don't think you'll get any arguments here if you're simply claiming that God is an abstract concept. I agree wholeheartedly. It's the people who think that God exists outside of our minds that atheists tend to have trouble with.

09-11-2002, 11:41 AM	#1
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	existence of 'e' I believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes and more. Must it logically follow then that this "more" is bunk? Could the case not be rather that naturalism is merely a limited way of understanding the world? For example I could design my own alphabet which excludes the letter 'e'. I still would be able to converse with "e-ians" in a limited way. For example If I wrote a book (and this has been done) eians would be able to understand it. But when they conversed with me and used the letter 'e' I would say they were speaking nonsense. This would cause them to become perplexed and try to come up with logical arguements proving the existence of 'e'. I would simply state that they prove nothing. You have only opened up the possibility of all sorts of other strange letters such as @,#,$, and ^. Wheather they exist or not is inconsequential to me. I have no need for the letter 'e' and can get along fine without it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 11:54 AM	#2
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	So, what you're saying is that it's impossible for people to rationally debate matters that boil down to arbitrary choices. That's how I feel about religions. Or should I say "rligi@n$".

09-11-2002, 11:55 AM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Huh? My understanding of metaphysical naturalism is that it is a worldview that holds that nature is all there is. In other words, there is no "more." If you believe there's more, then you don't "believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes." Read up on it <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/mission.shtml" target="_blank">here.</a>

09-11-2002, 11:57 AM	#4
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Geo Theo: That is perfectly fine. As long as you don't try to force your views on others or recommend adding non-naturalistic hypothoses into the realm of science, I don't think many people would care. The exact same could be said if you believe in any other gods, ghosts, demons, elves, pixies, or similar supernatural entities for which there is no evidence. If someone feels that supernatural explanations are best, that's fine. But without any evidence, expecting others to take those explanations seriously is going way out on a limb.

09-11-2002, 01:47 PM	#8
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	The problem as I see it: (1) every single farking piece of evidence I've ever seen put forth in support of the 'more' doesn't stand up to skeptical scrutiny and is painfully demolished. (2) I don't like to believe in strange things on no evidence. (3) The only reason people believe anyway is because they can't realize how severely lacking and ambiguous the evidence is. In my opinion, they've been completely brainwashed by irrationally gullible human cultural influences into accepting a standard of evidence they would never accept for a real-world claim. This includes 'evidence' such as getting a conclusion first, then using confirmation bias to support it (prayer). Or automatically assuming one explanation in lieu of the more parsimonious ones (miracles and God did it).

09-11-2002, 01:47 PM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Therefore you say God does not physically exist. I agree he does not exist physically. But unlike you with your limited vocabulary, I have ways to account for his existence you don't possess. The same is true of Frodo or Conan, Theo. You might have "ways" but those ways do not make your fictional god real, any more than they make Kane or Elric real. Words can only designate things that exist within the physical universe and the space time continuum. This is certainly not true of metaphysical naturalism or atheism. The word "god", for example, designates a fictional entity of vast power that exists outside the space-time continuum. Vorkosigan

09-11-2002, 01:48 PM	#10
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Geo Theo: I don't think you'll get any arguments here if you're simply claiming that God is an abstract concept. I agree wholeheartedly. It's the people who think that God exists outside of our minds that atheists tend to have trouble with.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.