NumberTenOx

Perhaps there is a circular problem with naturalism. If, for example, there was tested, concrete evidence of a supernatural process (e.g. prayer works), then it would be subsumed by naturalism as part of the way the universe works. A prayer particle: the pray-on.

Until then, this is all silly. Stating that you know the unknown (i.e. why there is something rather than nothing) is just semantics: you call the answer "god", but - theist - you have no knowledge or evidence of such a creature, other than the fact that none of us can really give a good accounting for the original cause. Naturalism just says "show me the beef".

Jayhawker Soule

That strikes me as more convenient than honest or meaningful.

Unless, of course, it isn't.

Jamie_L

Andrew:

You seem to be arguing that because we have not proven that supernatural stuff is not out there that we are incorrect in assuming that supernatural stuff is not out there. You seem to be claiming it is irrational to believe naturalism is all that there is if you cannot prove that nothing else is out there. That's expecting the impossible.

How can I possibly believe there is no Santa Claus if I haven't conclusively proven that no matter where in the universe you look, there is no Santa Claus? Isn't it irrational for me to state Satan Claus is a fiction when I can't show evidence that positively proves he isn't out there - somewhere?

You get my point.

Jamie

madmax2976

<strong> Wrong Andrew. Since the natural world constitutes all the evidence we can verify and examine, it is an extremely good reason to believe the “bigger ticket claim” that all that exists is a natural world. Furthermore, the supernatural is nowhere to be found and/or verified. This is overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalism.

<strong> In other words, if your claims are right, it would be irrefutable evidence that your right. Okay. Of course this will depend on which theistic claims your talking about. There are almost too many to count I think. Even if such a sentient being were proven to exist, it’s a long, long way from there to the specific, theistic claims of Christianity.

<strong> Yes, but I for one view this as an ad hoc, batten-down-the-hatches, knee-jerk, reaction to the success of naturalism. I know of no “theist model” that predicted that naturalistic answers would continue to push aside supernaturalistic ones. I know of no theistic model that predicted that supernaturalistic claims would continue to be unverifiable.

In essence, Andrew’s argument here is: “The fact that we find naturalistic explanations for all the phenomena that we actually can explain is evidence in favor of the supernatural.” I’m not sure you can get anymore illogical or contradictory than that. With this kind of reasoning, we couldn’t come to any reasonable conclusions at all. It would be akin to a muder trial where the accused had motive, there were witnesses who saw him do it, his fingerprints were on the weapon, his skin/DNA was in the victims fingernails, but the defense attorney claimed it was supposed to look that way, because he was framed and didn’t really do the deed, even though there’s no evidence that actually supports anyone wanting to frame him. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not very.

<strong> Except your claim would be against the evidence. Ours goes along with it.

<strong> Assuming there was a cause of the universe, there is no known supernatural cause either. All this would mean is that we don’t know the cause of the universe.

Of course I think Andrew wants to phrase it differently – he wants to say: “Since you don’t know a natural cause for the universe, it must be that there isn’t one and so its likely it had a supernatural cause.” Bzzzzt. Sorry, but no cigar.

<strong> Now take any of the above and actually explain one of them. Note that I will be looking for verifiable evidences, data, and so forth. Any theistic, imaginative speculations will be discarded, as they are not explanations but speculations. If you have no evidence to back up your offered explanations they will be summarily dismissed. When looking for explanations of things, I am entirely unimpressed by unsupported, unverifiable assertions. I suspect that’s all you will be able to present in the way of any “explanations” for the things above.

<strong> If those who are engaged in the pursuit can actually come up with solid evidence that can withstand critique, there will be no need to worry about what the “court” does or doesn’t do. No pleading will be necessary. No complaining will be needed. The proof will be in the pudding. No one is stopping the pursuers from confirming their claims or seeking evidence to support them, such they can be qualified as good scientific theories.

However I thnk you would be hard pressed to find anyone that actually would say the “inquiry” itself is unscientific. I think it more accurate to say there are those who would say that any current ID or creation models are unscientific. As none of them have been offered or published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, it seems even the authors of the models agree.

<strong> Simple. By demonstrating that the cause was supernatural.

This is where you continually fail to understand the problem Andrew. You seem to think you can support supernaturalism by offering only negative arguments. Uh-uh. That aint gonna cut it. Sooner or later your going to have to stop attacking naturalism and actually offer positive, verifiable evidence for your claims. After all these years I am acutely aware of how theists are extremely reluctant to do this. I understand why of course – there is no positive evidence. Thus the only thing for theists to do is to argue that naturalism doesn’t explain everything and therefore conclude that it can’t ever do so or that it has some perceived deficiency, thus keeping the door for supernaturalism open. We are presented with no positive evidence for any supernatural beings. We are presented with no testable, verifiable evidence of any supernatural forces. We are presented with no data we can analyze regarding these supernatural things. No video tapes or sound recordings are provided. No lab experiments are conducted. No verifiable description is given concerning the attributes of any supernatural types of energy.

The verification of just one supernatural event, force or entity would be enough to bring down naturalism. Now answer this: How could theism ever be falsified? If it can’t be, then it is a blatant double standard to ask the question as though it means anything.

E_muse

Greetings Andrew.

Indeed, with regard to the 'burden of proof' issue, the burden is on the one making the claim.

I would like to break down the quote from the opening page from Sec Web. I have to say that I find it very puzzling, for reasons you will see I hope.

Firstly, the quote seems to suggest that the statement used is the definition of metaphysical naturalism. I therefore think it right to assume, from this proposition, that what follows represents what metaphysical naturalists think. So...

... and so on. In other words, what is to follow is the view of metaphysical naturalists.

I find the next section more puzzling.

I really am totally thrown as to why the term 'world' has been used here rather than the less ambiguous 'universe'. Certainly not if the term is being used in the sense that it is commonly used .. with reference to this earth in particular. If this is the case then the above statement is blatantly false even in a natural sense. The natural world exists as part of a solar system, galaxy and larger universe.

The same goes for the statement that our 'world' is a closed system. If we're referring to the earth here, then clearly it isn't.

Even if we apply the term 'world' used here to the whole universe then we cannot even say it is true then... not with any degree of absolute certainity.

This statement isn't even logically coherent. Mainly because the statement, '..in no need of an explanation..' is being used in the context of a statement that is seeking to explain the world in a particular way and where such an explanation is necessary to promote the view being put forward!

How can anyone seek to defend metaphysical naturalism and offer 'no explanation' of the world in so doing.

The mission statement later goes on to say that it seeks to promote the avid pursuit of science and philosophy. But how can you hold the view that the world requires 'no explanation' and at the same time promote these other ideals as they are all disciplines that seek to explain it in some way? How does such a view promote the scientific pursuit to develop the M theory for example?

Freud suggested that religion always plays an important role in the context of any healthy society.

I wonder who was right?

The view seems to be trying to run away from the need to explain the universe (which seems in conflict with its other ideals regarding science and philosophy). I'm not sure why it tries to do that.

Within hardcore naturlism man is nothing more than a highly complex arrangement of matter (indeed, the brain being the most complex form we know of).. and all his thoughts and ideas are nothing more than a phenomena of that arrangement.

Yet it must be noted that, in the form of man, matter questions why and how it exists. It also desires accurate answers .. not just answers. It cannot do it (as far as we know) in any other form. The desire to promote the avid pursuit of science and philosophy is the strongest evidence of this fact. So is the pursuit of metaphysical naturalism as a more accurate explanation of the world in favour of less accurate theistic answers.

So in one sense, through the process of evolution, matter has arranged itself in such a way that it demands an accurate account of its own existence further emphsizing the blatant inaccuracy of the view that the world is in no need of an explanation.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

So, the positive evidence for naturalism is its ability to explain the world accurately.

However, the opening page of the Sec Web states that metaphysical naturalism is the view that the natural world needs no explanation.

This seems to emphaize the self refuting nature of the statement.

David Gould also wrote:

So how does this tie in with the claims of the opening page of this website.. which is actually what the OP was about?

Again, he wrote:

So metaphysical naturalism is here undoubtedly being validated on the strength of its explanatory power.

Therefore, the claim that metaphysical naturalims is the view that the natural world needs no explanation seems quite clearly false.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Philosoft

E_muse,

You must be aware you are badly equivocating meanings of "explanation." I presume the question you think needs explaining is a form of "Why is/are we/universe/matter/anything/something here?" I also presume by "why," you might mean "for what purpose." This is the explanation MN maintains is unnecessary. If, on the other hand, by "why," you mean "by what mechanism," MN is the only game in town.

<strong> I don't know. Are you thinking about sex right now?

<strong> Actually, we're trying to distance ourselves from the erroneous presumption that the universe needs an existential explanation.

<strong> Fine, just make sure you're asking the right question.

Philosoft

</strong>

Actually, it's being validated on the explanatory strength of methodological naturalism.

<strong> You are confused, I think. Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that methodological naturalism is the correct approach to studying the world, due to metaphysical naturalism's a priori assumption that the observable universe is all that exists.

tergiversant

The existence of "something," that is, space/time and matter/energy, seems to me eminently more probable under naturalism than supernaturalism. There is nothing about supernaturalism which implies the existence of such (quintessentially natural) phenomena. Perhaps there would be a timeless, massless, spaceless realm of “pure spirit,” or any of a quintillion other possible non-natural scenarios.

Supernaturalism’s only recourse is glaringly ad hoc, “Supernatural God dabbles in making natural stuff, via mysterious ways, for reasons unknown.”

See above. Moreover, modern physics appears to be getting closer on this one.

In any other kind of universe, we would not “find ourselves.”

See above.

Naturalism posits that the universe itself is non-contingent. Certainly this explanation seems more parsimonious to me.

They are real, in fact. So what?

Our parents doinked. What could be more natural than that?

The fallacy of appealing to popular belief is almost too easy a target to shoot at, but I would mention that many people are willing to die for false and/or immoral beliefs, such as faith in Allah, Satan, Buddha, David Koresh, Elvis, Kurt Cobain, salvific UFOs, and so forth...

I suppose they all exist, and are everything their followers claim them to be.

Again, the fallacy of appealing to popular belief is almost too easy a target to shoot at, but I may as well ask, in what prior situations have the majority of people been found to be mistaken about matters of fact?

Here are a few examples:
- Round earth vs. flat earth (divine design)
- Heliocentrism vs. geocentrism (divine design)
- Universal gravitation vs. heavenly beings (divine design)
- Evolution vs. special creation (divine design)

Anyone else see a pattern emerging here?

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">OKLAHOMA ATHEISTS</a>


[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

E_muse

No, I'm purposefully not limiting my meaning of the term 'explanation' to those you have described above because neither does the opening statement of the SEC WEB website .. and it is this that is under discussion.

The term explanation applies to any formulated reply to a question, regardless of whether it is a 'why' or 'how' question. And so, from yourdictionary.com...

Of course, all of this applies to the scientific method.

The opening page of SEC WEB simply states that the natural world is in no need of an explanation full stop. It doesn't define which explanations are valid and which are not. I thought that it was the accuracy of these opening statements that was under discussion.

Your comments suggest a rewording. Perhaps, "The natural world is in no need of any explanation that falls outside of methodological naturalism".

Secondly, it also seeks to promote the avid pursuit of philosophy. Isn't philosophy concerned with the 'why' questions?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>