Jobar

Andrew, I *believe* in metaphysical naturalism- which posits that all reality can be explained by natural, consistent, and at least mostly understandable natural processes. I *believe* that the speed of light is the highest possible speed that can exist. I *believe* that smoking cigarettes is bad for one's health.

Note, though- I have *Faith* in none of these. My beliefs are always conditional, and open to change if a preponderance of evidence indicates to me that I am wrong.

If you wish to convince me that any of the statements above are wrong, you simply have to have enough evidence to overtop the evidence I have seen *for* them. Note further- words and books, no matter how 'holy', won't cut the mustard. You must demonstrate!

Jamie_L

I didn't think I was talking about logic, but maybe I was. I'm not sure what you mean by natural processes that have illogical elements.

I will say, however, that there's nothing illogical about novel ideas, and that they don't appear out of nowhere. Brains take lots of information; store, analyze and combine them; and then produce output. "Novel ideas" are simply new ways of putting those pieces of information together. All this can be explained adequately by way of brain electro-chemistry which follows the natural laws of the world. I.E., "new ideas" don't constitute any big challenge to naturalism.

Jamie

Jamie_L

Quote Andrew:
Metaphysical naturalism is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is by its nature going to suggest some state of affairs - some truth. The nature of a hypothesis is you propose something, and then you attempt to verify it (which includes attempts to disprove it). That does not mean you accept it apart from empirical evidence. It means you PROPOSE it apart from empirical evidence. Then you seek evidence and compare it against the hypothesis.

In an intellectually honest pursuit, evidence is accepted based on the validity of the evidence, not on how the evidence fits your hypothesis. This is what I have done in evaluating naturalism.

So far, I have found no solid evidence refuting naturalism. All the evidence supporting supernaturalism seems to consist of individual testimony and hearsay testimony. Nothing backs it up. All this evidence appears to have other possible explanations. As I mentioned, evidence for the supernatural often contradicts other evidence for the supernatural.

All the evidence of my personal experience supports naturalism. Nothing I have experienced refutes it. Nothing I have been presented with refutes it.

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule

Sorry, Andrew, I didn't mean to 'lose focus'. It's just that I presumed that a negative assertion was the deductive consequence of any universal existential statement, i.e., all X is Y implies that there exists no X that is not Y. Furthermore, best I can tell, neither the universal existential statement nor its deductive consequence are verifiable.

"... our natural world is all that there is" is a universal existential statement. As such, it is not verifiable. It is, however, falsifiable, and I encourage you to make a 'focused' effort to do so. In the meantime, I stand by what I said previously: the claim of metaphyical naturalism is an inference driven by the on-going and remarkable success of methodological naturalism; the claim of theism is a presumption clinging to the necessarily provisional quality of that success.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

WJ

Jamie!

You said:


"I will say, however, that there's nothing illogical about novel ideas, and that they don't appear out of nowhere."

How, thru cognitive science or any other method, or why, say, is Michael Jordon as great as he is/was? (You may insert any other phenomenon of extra ordinary levels of achievement and creativity in any respective field you wish that you are familiar with.)

If the answer is that it is simply unknown, should we assume that the rules of logic and reason do not apply or cannot ultimately explain such achievement? Perhaps the easiest start is to understand the mind of an inventor or inovator. Methodology/logic wise, what separates a good inventor from a bad inventor, so to speak? Why can't another person train, practice, study, and so on the same material yet achieve the same results?

Walrus

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

tergiversant

Are there some facts about the universe which would be different if naturalism were false? If not, naturalism would seem to be the default position.
tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

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


"God is loving and just. Hell is neither."

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

Taffy Lewis

tergiversant:

That's a good question. What would have to actually be the case in order for naturalism to be false? What positive characterization could be given of a state of affairs inconsistent with naturalism?

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

In reading over the responses the thought prevails that this is an either or proposition that if naturalism is true supernaturalism is false or the other way around. This is not so. The worldview of theism holds we live in a natural material world that was created and designed for our benefit. There is no reason to think methodological naturalism would not be successful as a result. Therefore the success of naturalism is a poor reason to believe in the bigger ticket claim that all that exists is a natural material world. Most (though not all) naturalists and atheists concede that if the universe time and matter were created by a sentient being this would be irrefutable evidence of theistic claims. No one doubts that cars are made on purpose by design. Does anyone disagree that methodological naturalism as practiced in science is perfectly suited and capable of explaining how a car works?

Many responded that success in science assuming naturalism has lead to their belief in naturalism as a philosophy. I am attempting to show that such success is just as readily predicted in the theist model. I could just as well point to the success of naturalism as evidence this world is created, designed, knowable and stable precisely because a sentient being who knew our needs made it.

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.

Sure there is. You live in a universe for which there is no known natural cause.

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.

Theism or supernaturalism explains a great many things.

· Why there is something rather than nothing.
· Why a universe came into existence.
· Why we should find ourselves in a knowable understandable universe.
· Why we observe ourselves in a universe exhibiting an extremely thin parameter of variables that allow for any life.
· The idea of an uncreated agent upon which all other contingent events could spring forth from.
· Why things such as freewill, love, compassion and justice seem to be real.
· Why we are here.
· Why so many people claim and in some cases are willing to die for a belief in God.
· Why so many people continue to believe in something beyond mere materialism and naturalism in spite of the success of science to explain via naturalism.
I think naturalism is more concerned with how then why.

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.

There are those engaged in this very pursuit. However there are those trying to rule such out of court by saying such inquiry is unscientific.

[b]Andrew, I *believe* in metaphysical naturalism- which posits that all reality can be explained by natural, consistent, and at least mostly understandable natural processes.

Very well. When it comes to the existence of the reality we live in according to naturalism only two things are possible. We are here by natural causes or the natural cause is unknown. Given that how can your belief ever be falsified?

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Pomp

Andrew,

I think naturalism is more concerned with how then why.


Very good point. In fact, I see this as one of the advantages of the naturalist view. Unlike the supernaturalist view, it does not beg questions (or, at least, not the particular question I have in mind).

Each of your proposed phenomena that supernaturalism explains better than naturalism contains the hidden assumption that there must be a teleological reason for everything. For example I, as a naturalist, am perfectly content to answer a question about "Why things such as freewill, love, compassion and justice seem to be real" with an explanation of how such concepts came about in the human mind. It is enough for me to know how human beings came to have such concepts without asking why they have such concepts, because to ask why presupposes that a volitional agent had some purpose for imbuing humans with such concepts.

Vorkosigan

In reading over the responses the thought prevails that this is an either or proposition that if naturalism is true supernaturalism is false or the other way around. This is not so. The worldview of theism holds we live in a natural material world that was created and designed for our benefit.

For crying out loud, Andrew, "theism" is not a worldview -- it doesn't even exist as a worldview! It's a term for describing a single common trait in a thousand different belief systems.

Further not every theistic worldview has the world created and designed for our benefit. In one West African system, the world was vomited up by the Creator god. It wasn't designed at all. So get it straight: Design is a particular feature of a particular theism -- yours.

There is no reason to think methodological naturalism would not be successful as a result.

There is no reason to think it would either. Since you know nothing about the Designer, you can make no claims about expectations.

Therefore the success of naturalism is a poor reason to believe in the bigger ticket claim that all that exists is a natural material world. Most (though not all) naturalists and atheists concede that if the universe time and matter were created by a sentient being this would be irrefutable evidence of theistic claims.

Come, come, we've been over this. Naturalistic design is entirely possible.

Does anyone disagree that methodological naturalism as practiced in science is perfectly suited and capable of explaining how a car works?

Yes, so what?

Many responded that success in science assuming naturalism has lead to their belief in naturalism as a philosophy. I am attempting to show that such success is just as readily predicted in the theist model.

Again, there is no "theist model," there are only claims of specific theisms. Among the Aztecs it was said:
[/list]Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom.[/list]
While the Norse noted:

• Odin is the All-Father. He is the oldest and most powerful of the Gods. Through the ages he has ruled all things. He created heaven and earth, and he made man and gave him a soul. But even the All-Father was not the very first.

That's right, something else created the gods in Norse myth.

Theisms are not the same. They do no all believe in Creator gods the way you do, and they do not believe in Creation the way you do. There is no "theist model."

In any case, you do not have a model. You toss out these terms, but you have never done your homework. You have no idea what you are talking about. Both Metacrock and I practically begged you to do some reading in the history and philosophy of science, so you could at least run the board you run properly, and not sound like an idiot when you talk. We even provided you with lists of books you should be reading, but so far I can't see that you've picked up any one of them.

A model is an interpretive framework that explains and predicts. A "model" is testable. It provides explanations for data that not only explain data, but also provide fruitful avenues for further inquiry. It gives verifiable predictions that are specific (not "the world has order" but "the new element will be stable at 112 degrees centigrade") At the level at which we are speaking, models ramify. And your model is neither testable nor fecund nor prediction-laden. Once we say "godidit" no further explanation is possible or necessary.

I could just as well point to the success of naturalism as evidence this world is created, designed, knowable and stable precisely because a sentient being who knew our needs made it.

Yes, that's why that being made 99.9999999% of it empty vacuum where no life can exist. And on a planet created for us, 80% of the surface is unusable. Great design, that; I wouldn't build a doghouse like that.

Vork: 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.

Drew: Sure there is. You live in a universe for which there is no known natural cause.

A completely bogus argument, Andrew. Are you saying that every single place where science has no explanation, godidit? That's ridiculous. You need to supply positive evidence that god made the universe before we'll accept it. There are plenty of creation possibilities that involve neither gods nor non-intelligent processes. For example, in many Chinese ideas, the universe emerges from the chi and everything appears as it is because each thing in the world has its own spontaneous order. No need for gods, but not naturalistic.

It's not "theism vs. naturalism." It is "theisms vs. naturalism vs. non-theistic, non-naturalistic views." I, and others, have exhaustively explained this to you on at least two forums. Even if you totally blew away naturalism, you're still stuck blowing away nontheistic creation claims, and theistic ones that don't fit your mold.. Naturalism is one claim among thousands.

Furthermore, this claim is untrue and dangerous. There are several proposed naturalistic explanations for the appearance of the universe. This argument is weak because it depends on a gap. As soon as science closes this gap -- and there is every indication it will -- then your claim here is null.

Theism or supernaturalism explains a great many things.

Andrew, "theism" explains nothing. It simply says "the universe is that way because that's the way it is. Godidit." That's not an explanation. It's a refusal to explain.

In any case, any supernatural explanation, from Bumba vomiting the world up to it arising from the formless void (as some myths have it), is just as good at "explaining" as your myth is. That is why []theists[/i] gave up theism as an explanatory strategy, and turned to methodological naturalism. Precisely because of this failure to provide useful explanations for anything.

There are those engaged in this very pursuit. However there are those trying to rule such out of court by saying such inquiry is unscientific.

ID IS unscientific. Propose a test of it, please.

Very well. When it comes to the existence of the reality we live in according to naturalism only two things are possible. We are here by natural causes or the natural cause is unknown. Given that how can your belief ever be falsified?

Easily. By discoveries of violations of natural laws caused by supernatural intervention.

It's a shame that after all the exchanges with you, you continue to make the same bogus claims that you did six months ago, and were nuked back then. "Theism" does not claim the world is designed, your particular theism does. Other theisms do not.

Vorkosigan