IvanK

Here's a thought, clown: try reading other people's posts.

So as to the question that's on the tip of your tongue, the one you're trying to dance around without stating, what do metaphysical naturalists believe about the origins and fate of the material universe, the answer is that they believe exactly nothing about them. Instead, they have theories about where the material universe might have come from and where it might be going that they attempt to prove or disprove based on evidence and reason. To take any naturalistic theory about the origin and fate of the material universe, then, and try to say "but that's what you atheists/materialists believe in, isn't it," is wrong.

As a philosophical pragmatist, I go farther. It matters not at all to me where the material universe came from, where it's going, why I'm in it, whether any god or gods exist, what they might want me to do, etc.. The only question that's important to me is, what should I do now, now that I'm here?

The area of philosophical inquiry that deals with the origin and fate of the universe and those in it is called eschatology. There is no such thing as a materialist or pragmatic eschatology. Materialism and pragmatism do not concern themselves with such questions as they cannot be answered using the kinds of evidence materialism and pragmatism acknowledge as valid.

Pennywise the clown

[Here's a thought, clown: try reading other people's posts.]

I did Ivan but my big red nose sometimes gets in the way. Beep! Beep!

[...the one you're trying to dance around without stating, what do metaphysical naturalists believe about the origins and fate of the material universe, the answer is that they believe exactly nothing about them. Instead, they have theories about where the material universe might have come from and where it might be going that they attempt to prove or disprove based on evidence and reason. To take any naturalistic theory about the origin and fate of the material universe, then, and try to say "but that's what you atheists/materialists believe in, isn't it," is wrong.]

I do like to dance and I must big to differ Mr. Ivan. Many "naturalists" swear that the universe is the product of one of their theories. Some to the point of being religious about it. I may be wrong in generalizing atheists, I may be wrong in generalizing all naturalists, and I may even look silly with these big shoes on; but, to borrow a Christian expression: many naturalists consider their theories as valid as God's word.

[The only question that's important to me is, what should I do now, now that I'm here?]

I'm picturing a big cream pie in your face or some seltzer down your pants! Methinks somone got off on the wrong side of his philosophy this morning and needs a good laugh. Beep! Beep!

"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants!"

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Pennywise the clown ]</p>

Rational Ag

I have a hard time speaking for those atheists that think the world was "created", since I do not beleive that. I personally think all matter and energy in the universe is existent, and always will be existent, and changes form between energy and matter. I don't agree with the argument that everything had to have been created, and everything created has to have a creator. If you follow that line of reasonining then something had to have created your version of God. You likely will state that God is existent and always has been existent. I come to the conclusion that the universe is existent and always has been existent, as all of the natural evidence I study points to that conclusion.

Either way we both assume something is eternally existent.

Rational Ag

I would argue that naturalists don't consider your mythology book "God's Word". And yes, many of them do apply a much higher value to the "theory of evolution", the "theory of relativity", the "theory of gravity", and so forth. Naturalists like myself have personally found evidence that suggests that the scientific method for analyzing theories through peer reviewed journals, repeatablity, testing, and research have proven these "theories" to be accurate.

We have not, however, seen any evidence that the God of the Christian bible exists. On the contrary, much evidence exists that the mythology in the bible is a result of the evolution of superstition and theocratic control of society.

-Rational Ag

IvanK

Many "religionists" swear that there are UFOs and that space aliens are either demonic or angelic. Some to the point of being religious about it. So what?

I stated that naturalistic materialism and pragmatism, as philosophies, do not address the questions of the origin or end of the material universe. Your OP misnamed naturalistic materialism as a "belief system." It is not. Those who lean toward it, however, may have their own belief systems apart from naturalistic materialism and/or pragmatism. If they tell you that those belief systems are a part of or based on their philosophical outlook, they are misleading you as well as themselves.

BTW all the snappy chatter in the world about cream pies and selzer isn't going to cover up the intellectual poverty of your arguments here, clown boy. If you want to be a funny philosopher, try cynicism sometime like Diogenes did.

Pennywise the clown

Rational:

If I'm a Christian will you guys toss me to the lions? I will put your fears to rest dear boy, I am most certainly NOT a Christian! I said "to borrow a Christian expression", nothing more. I am a spiritual/theistic clown that does not believe in organized worship. I have great respect for some facets of eastern thinking and leave it at that. How you get to your "higher power" (if there is one) is your business.

I just happen to be curious about this metaphysical naturism. I am still unclear about atheists who are MA's, but yet think the world was created. The creation would have to be done by a God, would it not? In that case, they would not be atheists. Perhaps someone full of wisdom--much like IvanK--can explain this idea to me?

Speaking of IvanK: sheesh! Tough crowd! I'll save the Groucho Marks routine for later.



[Many "religionists" swear that there are UFOs and that space aliens are either demonic or angelic. Some to the point of being religious about it. So what?]

My point is that if you stronly assert that the natural world is all there is, well, that is a belief. It may not be a God belief but it is a belief; which, in my opinion paints you in the same corner as a hardcore theist. What if evidence presents itself at a later date that a big blue hen laid a giant egg that turned into the universe as we know it. Your natural world theory would end up being egg on your face. (Get it? EGG on your face? I kill me!)

[Your OP misnamed naturalistic materialism as a "belief system." It is not. Those who lean toward it, however, may have their own belief systems apart from naturalistic materialism and/or pragmatism. If they tell you that those belief systems are a part of or based on their philosophical outlook, they are misleading you as well as themselves.]

OK, I see what your driving at.

[I stated that naturalistic materialism and pragmatism, as philosophies, do not address the questions of the origin or end of the material universe.]

Metaphysical naturalists subscribe to the big bang or any number of other bits of theoretical cosomology, do they not?

It would seem to me that metaphysical naturalism does indeed address the "origins" and the "end".

[BTW all the snappy chatter in the world about cream pies and selzer isn't going to cover up the intellectual poverty of your arguments here, clown boy. If you want to be a funny philosopher, try cynicism sometime like Diogenes did.]

Intellectual poverty, I'll write that one down. I like learning big words from people who obviously like to flaunt their superior intelligence. If I hang around here long enough I may be able to bring a smile to your stoic face and learn something in the process.

It sounds like you could use some positive thoughts Mr. Ivan. Medical studies have shown that all that anger can be harmful to one's health and I certainly wish you no ill. I have benefited greatly from meditation and would be happy suggest several books for you to get started towards "tranquillity".

Here is one:

"Meditations for Manifesting : Morning and Evening Meditations to Literally Create Your Heart's Desire" by Wayne W., Dr. Dyer

I give it a 5 beep rating.



[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Pennywise the clown ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I just happen to be curious about this metaphysical naturism. I am still unclear about atheists who are MA's, but yet think the world was created. The creation would have to be done by a God, would it not? In that case, they would not be atheists. Perhaps someone full of wisdom--much like IvanK--can explain this idea to me?

Pennywise, lots of atheists -- Buddhists, Confucians, pantheists, some mystics, and psychics -- see the world as coming into being through some supernatural power. Only a few atheists are total skeptics. Too many people erect a two-valued logic here that is unwarranted by facts.

Can you modulate your tone somewhat? Rational Ag's piece was very well written, and your own response reveals that you simply dipped into your well of ignorance for that last post.

BTW, if nobody has welcomed you, Rational Ag, welcome aboard.

Michael

Pennywise the clown

[Pennywise, lots of atheists -- Buddhists, Confucians, pantheists, some mystics, and psychics -- see the world as coming into being through some supernatural power. Only a few atheists are total skeptics. Too many people erect a two-valued logic here that is unwarranted by facts.]

Well boil me in oil and call me a french fry! I did not know that and thanks for clearing it up. Though how you can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural is lost on me.

[Can you modulate your tone somewhat? Rational Ag's piece was very well written, and your own response reveals that you simply dipped into your well of ignorance for that last post.]

I agree with your assessment of Ag's piece and said so. As for modulation...I was not aware I was in violation of your policies. I have seen profanity, sexual connotations, out right mockery, and a perverted picture (or two) of Jesus in your forumns. I guess if cream pies and seltzer water are in violation of your policies I need to re-read the rules.

As for wells of ignorance, well, I may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but your well of hypocrisy also appears to run very deep.

Rational Ag

Atheism, by definition, is a disbelief in the existence of God(s). I would assert, however, that one could very well believe in supernatural forces/bodies/unicorns/fairies/phenomena, etc, and not believe in God(s). God doesn’t have a monopoly on the supernatural. I guess that calls into question the definition of God, but for most people the definition of God involves a creator.

Personally, I don't put any stock in supernatural claims people make. I think most everything can be explained logically and rationally with naturalistic laws and understanding. That however, also starts a conversation on the definition of "supernatural" and "naturalist".

Although we may not currently understand all of the phenomena that reside within our universe, I think it can all be explained logically with naturalistic laws through science and reason. When something arises that we don't understand or can't explain, I would assume that it could be explained, we just haven't discovered the explanation yet.

I think of something as supernatural when we haven't figured out how it works or what's going on. Once we figure it out, it becomes a naturalistic principal.

One needs only to look through history for countless examples of science explaining the "supernatural" in scientific terms, taking the mystery out of it and explaining the natural laws that govern it. Lightning and disease are just a few of the many things of the world as we know it that used to be shrouded in superstition and the "supernatural". I like to think that we as a society are advancing (evolving even )away from the superstitious ways of our ancestors. Who knows, maybe in 50 years we will look back at some of the things we think of as "supernatural" today and laugh at them.

-Rational Ag

Vorkosigan

Well boil me in oil and call me a french fry! I did not know that and thanks for clearing it up. Though how you can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural is lost on me.

It may well be lost on you how certain Confucians, Buddhists, ESPers, pantheists and others may reject gods but believe in the supernatural, but they have no trouble. I can recommend some readings if you like, but Vol II of Needham's Science and Civilization in China has a good introduction to the various philosophies of the ancient Chinese with respect to science, and indirectly, naturalism.

It is a common error to confuse metaphysical naturalism with atheism. While all metaphysical naturalists are atheists, not all atheists believe in metaphysical naturalism.

I agree with your assessment of Ag's piece and said so. As for modulation...I was not aware I was in violation of your policies. I have seen profanity, sexual connotations, out right mockery, and a perverted picture (or two) of Jesus in your forumns. I guess if cream pies and seltzer water are in violation of your policies I need to re-read the rules.

I asked you to modulate your tone out of respect for the effort Rat Ag put into his answer. I have no status in this forum and my request carries no weight. Nevertheless, your reply was instructive. It's fairly lame to point at other posts and say "They behave like that, why can't I?" Even my seven-year-old doesn't dare use that argument with me. I'll take it as evidence for your own ethical stance that you reached for that argument so quickly.

Michael