madmax2976

You mean the whole other 8 or so planets we are actually able to view?

The "life as we know it" phrase exposes a serious weakness in any fine-tuning argument. There is no good reason to assume that life could only have arisen under the conditions which we observe.

<strong> Certainly. Imagining such things is easy. As for the constants being in a "fine balance", what is your evidence that these constants could actually have been any different than they are? Is this just an unsupported assumption on your part?

Tell me, why would you expect the universe to produce life forms that were NOT in tune with the constants of said universe? If that were to happen, then I would concur it would be good evidence of some kind of supernatural intervention.

<strong> Now where in the world did you dredge up this gobbledygook? Where does naturalism speak about whether life is important or not???

<strong> What is your evidence that the universe "seems to go out of its way" to do anything?? It seems a great majority of the universe is inhospitable to life, not the othe way around as you seem to be arguing.

<strong> Unsupported, unreferenced assertions regarding what some anonymous scientists hold or don't hold, or what they find "astonishing", are flatly unimpressive. I could dig up a few scientists from somewhere that would concur with just about anything. The question is: Have they published anything "astonishing" regarding their investigations in any scientific journals?

<strong> I have no doubt that there have been a few atheist scientists who have been persuaded by certain arguments. I know of one myself. I'm also sure that there are many scientists who have gone towards atheism based on the "strength of the evidence alone". So whats your point? Is this all a popularity contest? If you get enough scientists to agree with you, does this all of the sudden make theism true? If the majority of them don't currently agree with you, does this make theism false? Or is it false for now and will become true when you get enough numbers?

<strong> Gaps in our knowledge exist - thats the way it is. If you want to fill those gaps with "God did it", thats just fine. If I choose to fill the gaps with "nature did it", thats just fine as well.

The kicker is, is there anything that gives us indication which one is the more likely answer? I say naturalism has a lot more going for it than any supernaturalistic answer does. I have some good evidence for naturalism. Theists apparently have none for supernaturalism.

Jobar

E-muse wrote:
"I have already suggested that metaphysical naturalists ultimately cling to MN out of the ultimate desire for an accurate knowledge of the universe. It is held onto because it is the best of an incomplete bunch with regard to explanation. However, it would seem that incomplete explanation is considered better than none at all!"

What do Buddhists and metaphysical naturalists have in common? They don't cling to things as if they were final and permanent!

And yes, we know that MN is incomplete- we have no Theory of Everything. I simply repeat- show us something better. We all await such a thing eagerly!

E-muse again:
"However, MN exists because it gives people a more accurate explanation of the universe. Can MN be employed to discover why people desire a knowledge of the universe in the first place? Ultimately, this is the ground upon which the position stands."

Well, sure! It's abundantly obvious that knowledge is a hell of an effective survival mechanism for human beings, wouldn't you say? Wanting to know things is why we are the top macrofauna on Earth, not so?

I think we have here a basic misunderstanding. We do NOT hold MN as some sort of Faith. We do NOT consider it an absolute and infallible explanation of everything. We do NOT cling to it, as the Absolute and Final Truth! We accept it as the best working hypothesis to explain our existence and the universe around us. We- well, scientists- are constantly testing it. If anything is found which works better, we will start using that system, that metaphysic. Unlike Christians, or holders of any other "Faith", we do not cling to our system as absolute and final and unquestionable! Whatthehell do you think we call ourselves 'freethinkers' for?!

We *hold* beliefs, and ideas, and worldviews- but gently, with open hands and open minds. We do not grasp them jealously. (Well- ideally we don't. Atheists and scientists are human too! )

Andrew- your denigration of the weak atheist position looks extremely suspicious to Vorkosigan, and to me too. Care to justify it?

E_muse

And neither have I suggested that naturalists cling to MN in such a way, hence my reference to incomplete explanation and it being the best of an incomplete bunch.

What I have said is that people will cling to explanations, even if they are incomplete, because of their desire to have the universe explained.

Even a buddhist must cling to the idea that their approach to understanding is correct, otherwise they couldn't practice what they do!

Hopefully this gets discovered in the context of lively debate!

But in the past the 'knowledge' that has sustained humans has been the delusional belief in mythical sky gods - speaking as a naturalist.

Does it ultimately matter whether what we believe is 'true' or not, if it promotes our survival?

Science can help us fight to stay alive, but it cannot give us a reason to go on living.

If it does not know everything, how can it demand that the natural world is 'all that there is'?

Hence my reference to an incomplete explanation being better than no explanation at all.

I've also stated that Christian theism is an incomplete explanation.

The purpose of this thread was to explore the meaning of the mission statement of this website. This is what I have been doing.

I haven't mentioned jealousy at all.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

madmax2976

I guess we chalk this thread up to another poor attempt to attack or otherwise disparage naturalism. I've yet to see a single argument against naturalism stand up to even cursory analysis.

It will be a refreshing day when I observe a theist attack naturalism and actually be knowledgable enough about it not to resort to straw men or empty arguments that go nowhere. Of course, I don't expect such a day to ever come, but then again, the world is full of suprises.

I suppose the purpose of this thread was, "Hey everyone. If you don't completely agree with the Sec Web's opening statement, you shouldn't be here." Or maybe it was, "Hey, if you don't agree, you shouldn't call yourself a naturalist." I have no idea which.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

E_muse

I hope that no-one, even the most committed theist, would want to disparage or attack man's attempts to understand nature, or a naturalistic methodology that seeks to understand it.


The main purpose of the thread was to discuss the opening mission statement of this site. However, I think things went a bit off-topic.

No theist could consistently say that one should not be here if one does not agree with the site's objectives! They would have to be posting here in order to say it!

I think it is legitimate to question how well the mission statement of this site represents naturalism.

Jobar

E-muse, no one is even hinting that it's wrong to question our basic assumptions. Far from it! We welcome such things- but as has been noted, none of the questions presented in this thread seem valid or new to us. Even so, our discussion has been useful- speaking personally, I find I have a much clearer understanding of metaphysical naturalism, and a stronger commitment to it, than I did before.

Which I rather doubt was Andrew's intention when he broached the subject!

madmax2976

<strong> Certainly not. However experience has taught me there are often ulterior motives behind many theists questions. In this case I'm unclear as to what the point was even assuming that no one at all (other than those who wrote it) agrees with the Sec Web's opening line.

<strong> As you say, they did go off topic. Thus many other issues get introduced such as the constants of the universe and whether naturalism holds that life is "important", vague references to anonymous scientists are offered in support of design theory, attacks are made against "weak atheism", etc. These are all attacks against atheism/naturalism. However, I'm just noting that all of these attacks are extremely weak at best.

<strong> Actually it would be legitimate to question how well the mission statement of this site represents the naturalistic views of those who wrote it. Naturalists may differ in their views as much as any other group and any attempt to pigeon hole all naturalists would be quite misguided I think.