Jamie_L

I conclude that metaphysical naturalism is true.

To my knowledge, the natural world is all I have ever experienced. I have never experienced anything that appeared to have supernatural origins.

Science, which makes observations of the natural world using natural methods, has been overwhelmingly successful in predicting and explaining how the world works. Technology is purely the result of naturalism. Supernaturalism has never been harnessed to do anything in the world - even supernaturalists get healed at hospitals instead of temples, communicate via telephones instead of telepathy, predict the wheather via measurements and satellite imagery instead of psychic precognition.

Supernaturalism has no consistency - different people and different cultures define different supernatural systems, many of which conflict or contradict each other. Naturalism works everywhere you go.

Naturalism is not a belief statement, any more than it is a belief statment to say "I am sitting in a chair in front of a computer". While it is possible to concoct philosophical scenarios in which I actually am not sitting in a chair, that does not mean my conclusion is based on faith. I experience the chair, and therefore I conclude it exists. I experience the natural world and nothing else. Therefore I conclude that the natural world is all there is. People make supernatural claims, but they seem to go against my experience and against scientific knowledge in general, with little or no evidence to back up their claims. Therefore I find it irrational to believe those claims.

Is it really so unreasonable to assume that what we experience is true?

Jamie

CX

You may want to read "Dharma For Skeptics" in the <a href="http://unfacts.org/archive/religion/index.html" target="_blank">Religion & New Age Philosophy</a> section of my website. It is an ongoing series that hasn't been updated in a while, but it is interesting.

WJ

Jamie!

I think you are trying to make a distinction between phenomenology and humanism. On the one hand you're suggesting that which leads you to a particular belief is purely logical, yet natural phenomenon occurs everyday that produces technical advances which essences are not logical, or at least certainly unknown to the rational mind. In that sense you/we are not completely logical Beings because our cognitive processes [of Being] comprise both logical and illogical elements.


Otherwise, how do completely novel ideas appear in the conscious mind 'seemingly' out of nowhere?

Walrus

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

Taffy Lewis

What makes some object, property, or event 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'?

What puts the SUPER in 'supernatural'?

I have the feeling that for most people here the term 'natural' just refers to 'whatever there is' or 'anything actual or possible'. If that's so then theists would insist that God is natural.

The usual definition of 'supernatural' that people offer is 'not natural'. But that is a purely negative characterization. If something were supernatural what actual features would it have as opposed to what it would lack?

I think any inability to answer the latter question supports my claim that for most people here the term 'natural' means nothing more than the triviality of 'whatever there is' or 'anything actual or possible'. If one defines the term 'natural' so broadly that it includes everything actual and/or possible then it would be a definitional matter that supernatural objects do not exist.

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

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

Thanks for all the responses. I will attempt to hit the highlights of the responses. First I noticed many responded by commenting but avoiding the questions I asked. They are not trick questions and just because you post on the Sec Web doesn’t mean you have to agree with what the creators of the board have declared. I found this comment quite amusing,

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

How did I get that backwards? Did I wiggle the tongues of those who created this board and forced them to make such declarations? This is a declaration of the worldview, which they admit to promoting. It is a stand-alone statement making a claim about the reality we live in. It makes no reference to theism in coming to this conclusion. I am confident that I am asking these questions to people who consistently demand theists provide evidence for their claims. How is it when the shoe is on the other foot you demand I prove a negative? Is it okay if I suggest a skewed sense of fairness? Let me see if I have this right. If a theist makes a claim they have to provide evidence. If a naturalist makes a claim again the onus is on the theist to prove the naturalist wrong. Everyone is okay with this right?

David Gould writes,

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.

I’ll assume he supports the statement of the founding fathers of this website. However he misunderstands the nature of my questions. First I am not making any claims regarding metaphysical naturalism (MN). I am not claiming to be an aMN or a weak aMN. I know from experience that no matter what definition of naturalism I use there will be objections. Still we need some sort of baseline. I will submit this one knowing full well many will disagree.

Naturalism (philosophy), in philosophy, a movement affirming that nature is the whole of reality and can be understood only through scientific investigation. Denying the existence of the supernatural and deemphasizing metaphysics, or the study of the ultimate nature of reality, naturalism affirms that cause-and-effect relationships, as in physics and chemistry, are sufficient to account for all phenomena. Teleological conceptions, which suggest design and metaphysical necessity in nature, while not necessarily invalid, are excluded from consideration…

Naturalism as defined above in my opinion is self-refuting. When a proposition contains the seeds of it’s own invalidation it is not merely false it is in the words of Dirac not even false. If naturalism is false then its false. But even if it is true it is false. If the whole of reality can only be understood by science then the philosophy of naturalism lies outside science and therefore cannot be part of the whole of reality.

Metaphysical naturalism assumes the truth of its own proposition which it accepts apart from any empirical scientific evidence of its validity, then it only accepts and proposes those things which fit in that framework. Isn’t this a classical definition of circular reasoning? David says that naturalism predicts it will be the only successful method of explaining the world. It assumes this prediction and operates as if it were already true by excluding any other possibilities as unscientific.

If starting tomorrow all deaths are assumed to be natural causes isn’t it a foregone conclusion that all deaths will be ruled natural? Even if there is evidence of causes other than natural ones they will have to be chalked up to unknown natural causes. Thus naturalism is assumed in the gaps of our understanding. Employing this method we could achieve success of a 100%. All deaths are from known or unknown natural causes. Is this justification for concluding only natural causes cause death?

From MadMax,

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.

I’d like to see it expounded on as well.

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.

Again the philosophy of naturalism assumes the validity of its own proposition. If any phenomena defies naturalist explanations it is classified as unknown until a naturalist explanation comes forth. Or scientists feel free to indulge in speculation of any sort provided it assumes a natural answer. For instance it is unscientific to propose the cosmos was designed. It is scientific to propose an infinite number of universes to account why this one contains life.

From Reasonable doubt,

Science cannot prove a negative…

First I disagree of course science can prove negatives. In this case none such is needed.

‘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.’

This is a positive statement. One doesn’t have to disprove theism or supernaturalism to provide evidence for this statement. Let me repeat my questions so we don’t lose focus.

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>

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

Taffy Lewis

Andrew_Theist:

Shouldn't you determine what "naturalism" means before you ask for evidence in support of it?

Vorkosigan

What conclusion? Do you know of any evidence for the supernatural? If so, put it up.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This is a declaration of the worldview, which they admit to promoting. It is a stand-alone statement making a claim about the reality we live in. It makes no reference to theism in coming to this conclusion.

Neither did my statement. I asked you for specific evidence of the supernatural, not theism.

...evidence for their claims. How is it when the shoe is on the other foot you demand I prove a negative?

I am not asking you to "prove a negative." The reason some of us are metaphysical naturalists is that there is no evidence for extra-natural events, processes or entities.

You said it is a "belief statement." That's correct. But the difference between your beliefs and ours is that there is evidence and argument to support ours, and none to support yours.

If a naturalist makes a claim again the onus is on the theist to prove the naturalist wrong. Everyone is okay with this right?

Depends on the claim being made, of course.

One again, the success of methodological naturalism strongly suggests that its underlying metaphysical views are in fact correct. The positive evidence for naturalism lies in its explanatory power, its success in prediction, and its ability to ask questions that lead to further explanation and successful prediction -- to enlargement of human knowledge. No theistic/supernatural point of view can compete.

So support for metaphysical naturalism comes from negative evidence -- the lack of evidence, contradictoriness, incoherence and silliness of supernatural views -- as well as positive evidence -- the success of the program of methodological naturalism.

Vorkosigan

David Gould

Andrew_Theist,

You make the claim that your definition of naturalism is self-refuting.

I make the claim that it is not.

So there.

But seriously, I have given you a way to refute metaphysical naturalism - provide evidence for supernaturalism. This would falsify naturalism, which is the only way to fly.

I have provided evidence for naturalism and you said I misunderstood the question.

I still do, in that case.

Isn't the success of naturalism evidence that it is true?

If not, why not?

A theory can either have evidence found supporting it or evidence found that contradicts it. If it is contradicted, the theory falls. As more and more support is gathered, the theory becomes more strongly affirmed and yet is still one negative piece of evidence away from destruction.

What more can you ask for?

If you claim that metaphysical naturalist would not accept any evidence for supernaturalism, then you are wrong. I am a naturalist and I would accept evidence, such as someone predicting in great detail some event or series of events and claiming that they had been given the information by Jesus.

It would not be proof of supernaturalism but I think I would be forced to reevaluate my position.

madmax2976

<strong> Didn't you read what I said Andrew? The lack of evidence for the supernatural is what leads me to the belief in metaphysical naturalism. If I had verifiable evidence of the supernatural, my philosophy of naturalism would fall by the wayside. But contrary to that, all the evidence I can muster leads me towards natural causes for the phenomena we observe. Now you may disagree with my assessment of the evidence, but disregarding that for a moment, what is unreasonable about my reasoning?

<strong> This depends on what you mean by "defies naturalist explanations". If all you mean is that naturalism can't explain everything yet, that's hardly suprising or profound. Naturalism is in no jeopardy unless supernaturalism can actually explain the same phenomena. And note that by "explain" I don't just mean hypothesize, speculate or resort to conjecture. Naturalism could do that just as well.

<strong> If you want to speculate that the cosmos was intelligently designed and then label that speculation as "scientific", then go for it. When there is sufficient evidence to support this speculation, it can be submitted to peer reviewed scientific journals. Then we can see how/if any design theory holds up under critique.

I just hope the evidence is going to be more than, "Naturalism can't currently explain X, so we should conclude that X is likely the result of supernatural causes." Good scientific theories have much more than that going for them.