madmax2976

Still waiting for Andrew to support his attacks against naturalism or withdraw them.... I wonder if we'll get either.

Vorkosigan

He won't support them. He'll just re-iterate them, claiming once again that the problem is naturalism vs theism, that naturalism is a faith-system, and all the other stuff we've trashed. Hopefully he'll go home and take a crack at the lists of books Metacrock and I gave him.

Michael

Andrew_theist

Greetings Max and Mike,

Obviously if we want this conversation can probably go on indefinitely. However if I have said something once I don’t think repeating it is going to help.

Why can't you accept that naturalism is a belief and you are a believer?

I don’t think you will find all naturalists or other atheists pleased with this thought though I personally agree. I would say most think of naturalism as an observed point of fact and not a belief or worldview at all. I think your version of naturalism is quite different from the Sec Webs version.

Our goal is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our world is all there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.

I will assume the word world above means universe. This statement above is at odds with current scientific theory that the universe was created or at least started about 15-20 billion years ago. The phrase ‘a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself’ is an article of faith that is contrary to big bang cosmology which is considered scientific fact. In short it is fundamental on the same order as declaring the world was created 6000 years ago (which I don’t subscribe to).

Mike has said that he has told me at least a hundred times that neither naturalism nor atheism is a belief system or worldview. Yet the stated goal of this board is to promote metaphysical naturalism and Max agrees it is a belief. Maybe it’s the word system that upsets Mike.

I am only aware of 3 reasons you provided. The primary one as I recollect was the success of science in explaining the world via naturalistic explanations. Please explain to me why this would lead you to conclude that naturalism is true? Theism is the belief that this natural world was designed and created. What is it about that belief that would lead to the failure of science to explain from nature? We know that cars and computers are designed and created. Suppose aliens unfamiliar with cars and computers came across one. Is there any reason to think they would not have success in explaining it via methodological naturalism? Of course not. Would this be proof that unguided mechanistic forces created computers and cars? (question to be answered) To you and Mike evidently it would be a good reason to think so and you would be mistaken.

The second one was historical precedent. As memory serves this was that advancing scientific knowledge has diminished what was previously attributed to the work of the gods. The basic belief of theism is the universe is created by an uncreated God. I don’t see where disproving rain and fire gods hurts the thought of theism or significantly advances the belief of naturalism. I don’t remember the third reason you offered.

I will not retract what I said regarding naturalism providing an objective basis for morality. This is not a slight against naturalists suggesting they live lives less moral than theists. Far from it, there are many naturalists whose high ethical living can put theists to shame. The point is what basis do we declare one moral as better than another? I see no basis in naturalism for stating that stealing and murdering is really wrong as opposed to being an opinion that it is wrong. In fact I could just as well argue it is right. I could argue that if I could kill everyone accept my family and friends that I would be better off. If we play a game and I cry foul to some activity this indicates there are rules. If there are rules to a game this indicates the presence of a rule maker. If rules are merely a matter of opinion than there are no real rules and what is the point in crying foul? (question to be answered)

Again I have provided reasons why a belief in theism is rationale. That those reasons don’t persuade either of you informs me of nothing new other than you still believe in naturalism as before the conversation. To continue to rail about demonstrating theism is to say I must provide much greater evidence for it than you have to provide for your belief in naturalism.

The other reasons I offered in favor of theism is the sudden appearance of the universe and the level of fine-tuning needed for any sentient life to appear. Of course you can assert some naturalistic explanation may come forth but this merely assumes the question being asked.

If either of you wish this conversation to continue it needs to be a two-way street. You continue to ask me questions while steadfastly answering only those you wish to.

1. What naturalistic explanation for the sudden appearance of the universe is equal or superior to a theistic explanation beyond preference for naturalistic explanations?

2. What naturalistic explanation is equal or better for the fine-tuning of the universe for sentient life beyond speculation that maybe this is the only way a universe could happen?

3. What basis in naturalism is there for thinking one moral is superior to another?

4. What naturalistic explanation is there to account for the appearance that we as sentient beings make decisions and choices beyond being forced by mechanistic causes?

There should be naturalistic answers to these questions that are better than theistic one’s since Max claims as a belief system theism lags behind naturalism. If you can’t be bothered to answer any of my questions I will conclude our conversation is over and this is just a soapbox for you and Mike to stump from.

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

Vorkosigan

Mike has said that he has told me at least a hundred times that neither naturalism nor atheism is a belief system or worldview. Yet the stated goal of this board is to promote metaphysical naturalism and Max agrees it is a belief. Maybe it’s the word system that upsets Mike.

Perhaps it's that you can't read, for here is what I actually said on the page previous to this one:

• Metaphysical naturalism IS a belief. However, because something is a belief, does not mean that it is unsupported by evidence. You have confused belief with faith. The two are not the same. You hold your belief in spite of evidence, we hold ours because of it.

So, in case you are still confused: (1)atheism is a belief, not a system; (2) metaphysical naturalism is a belief; not a system; (3) neither is a faith statement in the way you think, since both are supported by reason, logic and evidence.

You're still stuck on the problem I referred to in the post above: the fact that something is a belief is not the same as it being a faith statement. The really great thing about belief in MN is that it is supported by evidence and logic, unlike any theistic position.

The phrase ‘a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself’ is an article of faith that is contrary to big bang cosmology which is considered scientific fact.

You apparently missed the key point of Max's response:

• As I've pointed out numerous times, the debate is about which worldview is more likely. In such a comparison, I believe the evidence shows that theism/supernaturalism lags far behind.

Max's position is the same as mine: that the evidence lines up in favor of metaphysical naturalism.

In any case, there is no "faith" statement involved in belief that the origin of the present universe lies in the Big Bang. It is supported by evidence and mathematical argument.

The primary one as I recollect was the success of science in explaining the world via naturalistic explanations......

Correct. The success of science, in which naturalism is a method, is powerful evidence in favor of MN.

....Please explain to me why this would lead you to conclude that naturalism is true?

In science, one adopts the position that supernatural entities cannot be used to explain events in the world. If there are supernatural entities, then why is methodological naturalism so successful?

Theism is the belief that this natural world was designed and created.

Andrew -- please -- in some theistic beliefs, the world was designed and created. In others, it arises spontaneously out of a formless mass, such as chi, while in others, it is considered to have existed forever. Why don't you stop saying "theism" and start saying "Christianity?" Yours is only one version out of many theisms.

What is it about that belief that would lead to the failure of science to explain from nature?

This is actually a good question, and I thank you for it. Although we have already answered it...

Naturalism does not assume answers it is trying to prove. So the naturalist, whether methodological or metaphysical, does not assume anything about the universe. It could well be an artifact. There is nothing intrinsic to naturalism that says the universe could not be Designed. Note, however, that naturalism DOES rule out any supernatural creator. It assumes in principle that any such creator would be explicable in a naturalistic framework.

Instead, the naturalist accumulates evidence and hopes to see the answer emerge from the data. There is no data anywhere that suggests the universe is Designed. That's the negative evidence. So there is nothing that compels us to adopt Design as an explanation for the origin of the universe.

On the flip side, there is positive evidence against Design, in the form of bad designs, the incoherence, arbitrariness and subjectivity of Design claims, and so on.

The basic belief of theism is the universe is created by an uncreated God.....

Andrew, not every theism believes this! Among the Lacadon Maya there are two brother gods. Among some Confucians, the universe arises out of the formless chi and its order is spontaneous and autochthonic (also true of some Taoists). Among the Bashongo, the Great God vomited up the various things in the world, no Design in mind. The Efik say there was a husband-and-wife team of pre-existing gods. Some Ainu consider both gods and demons pre-existing. In the Apache myth the darkness existed prior to the Creator, who emerged from it.

There are as many variations on creation myths as there are believing groups....how many examples do I need? NOT ALL THEISTS BELIEVE THE SAME THING! NOT ALL THEISTS BELIEVE IN ONE CREATOR GOD WHO DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!

I don’t see where disproving rain and fire gods hurts the thought of theism or significantly advances the belief of naturalism.

Let's see....naturalism annihilates rain gods....but this doesn't (a) advance naturalism or (b) hurt theism.

Right.

Andrew, naturalism has cut gods down in droves. By the thousand. Look at your god -- you can't argue that it has any function in regulating the natural world, because that is obviously unnecessary. All you can do is say that naturalism has yet to evolve an explanation of how the universe got here, and then claim your god is responsible. In other words, this little gap in scientific knowledge is now the only breathing space for your god. Soon it will be closed, and then what will you do?

I see no basis in naturalism for stating that stealing and murdering is really wrong as opposed to being an opinion that it is wrong.

Congrats. No matter who says it, it is an opinion. Even in your case, you have just decided that your god's opinions are more important than your own.

However, the fact that it is opinion -- or value -- does not make it less potent or useful.

In fact I could just as well argue it is right.

Sure.

I could argue that if I could kill everyone accept my family and friends that I would be better off.

But then who would want to have interactions with you? And you would be locked up by those of us who wish to live in a loving, human-centered, tolerant, and safe society.

If we play a game and I cry foul to some activity this indicates there are rules.

No, it indicates that you don't like the direction of the game. In fact, in many games I've cried "foul" only to find I didn't know the rules.....or there weren't any rules.

If there are rules to a game this indicates the presence of a rule maker.

Yes. It is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Quite a fellow she is, renowned for her complex sociality.

If rules are merely a matter of opinion than there are no real rules and what is the point in crying foul? (question to be answered)

Er...this is really a naive view of subjective ethics. Why don't you take this over to the Moral Foundations and post it, or read ongoing discussions:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000078" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000078</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000103" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000103</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067</a>

The short answer is (although we are massively off topic, so please take this over to Moral Foundations) that morals are made by and between people, and crying "foul" enables those around you to know that you feel wronged, and negotiate with you regarding the event and its consequences, so that perhaps a mutually satisfactory outcome can be found.

However, this just demonstrates how feeble your understanding really is, because Andrew, many metaphysical naturalists are moral objectivists. One does not have to be a subjectivist and believe in MN. There is no relationship between the two.

To continue to rail about demonstrating theism is to say I must provide much greater evidence for it than you have to provide for your belief in naturalism.

No, Andrew, the reason has nothing to do with the amount of evidence for or against either. It is just that you have erected a false dichotomy. The choice is not "theism vs naturalism." It is a choice among thousands of different positions on the nature of the universe. Just shooting down naturalism isn't enough; even if you managed to disprove all other theisms, it wouldn't prove yours. You have to put forth positive evidence that there is a god and it really is the Canaanite Sky God Ya.

Imagine Detectives Mike and Andrew find a dead body. Mike says "Hmmmmm, there are many suspects." Andrew says, "no, there are only two, Nat and Theo." Meanwhile, Andrew goes about disproving Nat. Mike shrugs, saying to Andrew "even if you show Nat couldn't have done it, you still have to link Theo to the crime. And really, Theo is just an idea in your head about who did it. You still have to show who Theo is and how he or she did it, there are lots of possibilities there. Also, you have to rule out some other suspects you haven't even considered, like Psyche and Mystico. We have to go to a court of law with this, Drew, in order to successfully prosecute whichever Theo did this. So we need evidence that it really is your concept of Theo."

The other reasons I offered in favor of theism is the sudden appearance of the universe and the level of fine-tuning needed for any sentient life to appear.

Neither is evidence of anything. First, we don't know anything about the appearance of the universe yet. "Sudden" is a subjective term with no real meaning. What do you mean by it?

Second, no one knows the "level of fine tuning" necessary for life to appear" since we have no other universes for comparison.

Third, there is absolutely nothing in the universe to suggest that life is the reason for it. Please demonstrate that life is the reason the universe was created. You haven't done that yet. Even assuming you are correct, and the universe is fine-tuned for life, that doesn't mean it is deliberately so. It could well be fallout from some other desire of the Designer -- in order to get really cool rotating neutron stars, the Designer choose conditions that were conducive to life.

1. What naturalistic explanation for the sudden appearance of the universe is equal or superior to a theistic explanation beyond preference for naturalistic explanations?

Any naturalistic explanation is inherently superior to any theistic explanation, because the former represent falsifiable, testable claims that are supported by evidence and exist in a framework of theories, data, and other understandings about the nature of reality.

None of that is true of any theistic creation story.

Actually, there are several naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe. However, evidence currently available does not allow us to choose between them.

There are tens of thousands of versions of theistic origins. Which one is best supported by evidence, reason, and scientific knowledge?

2. What naturalistic explanation is equal or better for the fine-tuning of the universe for sentient life beyond speculation that maybe this is the only way a universe could happen?

Since you misunderstand so massively, there is little to be done here. The universe is not fine-tuned for life; life evolved to fit the universe. It is life that is "fine-tuned, not the universe. Your understanding is exactly backwards, like arguing that it is fortunate the Mississippi River is so designed to run right past New Orleans.....

3. What basis in naturalism is there for thinking one moral is superior to another?

There isn't any. Naturalism is NOT a religion or a belief system, Andrew, it is just a belief or philosophical stance about the nature of reality. It makes no moral claims and entails nothing about morality, hence there is no basis in naturalism for thinking one moral is superior to another. The basis for that lies elsewhere. Take it over to Moral Foundations and post it there, please.

4. What naturalistic explanation is there to account for the appearance that we as sentient beings make decisions and choices beyond being forced by mechanistic causes?

It's called "evolution." I suggest you read The Adapted Mind by Tooby and Cosimides, then explore the growing field of evolutionary psychology and cognitive science.

If you can’t be bothered to answer any of my questions I will conclude our conversation is over and this is just a soapbox for you and Mike to stump from

The sad part is, we have addressed these questions over and over and over and over. So let me recapitulate:

(1) Not all theisms are the same. some do not believe in creator god(s), others do not believe in Design.

(2) Metaphysical naturalism is a belief about the nature of reality. It makes no moral claims. It is possible to be a moral objectivist and believe in MN.

(3) Even if you completely destroy metaphysical naturalism, you would still have to destroy all non-theistic explanations for the origin of reality, as well as all competing theisms, all of which have different takes on this, and then provide positive evidence for your god. Remember, Andrew, the possibility exists that everyone is wrong and the real answer is one no one has thought of yet. That is why you must provide positive evidence for that the Canaanite Sky God Ya is the one and only god, not to mention positive evidence that life is the reason the universe was designed, and that the universe was designed, etc.

Michael

Andrew_theist

Greetings Michael,

I do appreciate the time and effort you take in replying. I will respond to your post but I think after this we will just have to agree to disagree. As you point out you are repeating the same thing over as I am. One point I would like to make is regarding definitions.

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. The ethical implication, since the naturalist denies any transcendent or supernatural end for humankind, is that values must be found within the social context.

Theism, religious belief in one Supreme Being who is the source and sustainer of the universe and at the same time is distinguished from it. As such, this belief is opposed to atheism. Theism is now usually understood to mean the doctrine of the one, supreme, personal God, in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Theism is distinguished from polytheism, which recognizes more than one god; from pantheism, which denies the divine personality and identifies God with the universe; from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of knowledge of God and suspends judgment on his existence; and from Deism, which, although etymologically equivalent to theism, is generally defined as acknowledging the existence of God but denying his providence and active presence in the life of the world.

Both of these definitions are from Encarta. Probably not the most exhaustive source but still sufficient enough for a discussion. In either event I am not inventing some meaning out of whole cloth. As you can see from the definition above of theism I don’t have to provide evidence for or against some bewildering array of theistic claims as you suggest.

I agree except I see it is the other way around

Again Mike I am supporting a common definition of theism as stated above.

On what basis does it rule out a supernatural creator? You start this paragraph by saying naturalism does not assume answers it is trying to prove then end it by asserting that naturalism rules out the supernatural and assumes any such creator would be explicable in a naturalistic framework.

More nonsense about me having to defend every god belief you can think of. Please refer to above. If I can defend common meanings of words so can you.

Again Mike you seek to hopelessly obscure the issue. There is no false dichotomy in the example you provide. People die for one of two reasons; natural causes or design. And that is the first thing detectives determine. If they think natural causes there is no need to look for a suspect. In the case of naturalism as defined above they are detectives who always determine natural causes. If a knife is found in the heart it must be a natural cause.

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.

And again according to the Sec Web

Our goal is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our world is all there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.

So your statement above,

Naturalism does not assume answers it is trying to prove.

Is whether you like it or not false.

The second way you obscure the issue is to define naturalism as anything that can possibly happen. So that if the universe is created by a being then that also falls under naturalism according to you. This means Mike it is your position that is unfalsifiable.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>

madmax2976

<strong> Well personally I'm not sure I completely agree with the Sec Web's little statement, however I think there is some latitude in it. Perhaps you noticed they did describe it as a "view", not a proved fact. Therefore your assessment that it's not offered as a belief seems to be way off.

As for what being a "closed sytem in no need of explanation" means, I'll let someone from the Sec Web deal with that, but I don't see how the big bang has anything to do with whether the universe is a closed system or not.

Again, I hope your not attempting your silly argument that naturalists all have to agree with one another on all the issues.

<strong> What I think upsets Mike is your continued fallacy that atheism = naturalism = methodological naturalism. I know he has said that atheism is not a worldview and that seems reasonable to me. Its a position on a particular question: Q. Do we believe any deity exists? A. No, we don't believe any deity exists. Fairly simple I think.

Metaphysical naturalism is a worldview that incorporates much more than that. I don't know of any place where he has claimed that it is not a belief, but perhaps you can point out such a quote and have him address it.

<strong> Well, for all the phenomena we observe and attempt to explain, if we can explain it at all, we end up with a naturalistic explanation. Using methodololgical naturalism we've been vastly more successful in explaining the world around us than any theistic method has ever been. No theism has ever demonstrated that it can explain any phenomena whatsoever.

With that evidence, we then combine the fact that no supernatural entities or forces have ever been demonstrated to exist, and that the supernatural explanations that have been offered have either been wrong or have never been demonstrated to actually be true.

To the point Andrew - if your theism was so great then there should be at least one subject where it can demonstrate its ability actually explain something. However what we find is that all theism's, including yours, can't even begin to compete with naturalism. All you do to support your own worldview is point to some mystery that has no current explanation and assume any theistic hypothesis you offer is actually true. In a comparison of worldviews, your theism doesn't even get out of the starting gate.

<strong> Again, as we compare worldviews with the evidence that is available to us, we see that theism is continually unsuccessful and naturalism is extremely succuessful at explaining phenomena. Whether you wish to accept it or not, this is evidence in favor of naturalism.

You yourself had to admit that the supernatural is "rare at best". Well then the question becomes, just how rare is it? Does it ever happen at all? If you want to incorporate a large part of methodological naturalism into your own worldview and claim its success is completely line with your own theism - that's fine, you can do that even though it appears as more of an excuse than an argument.

But regardless, we are justified in assuming with each success that naturalism acheives, and the continued failure of supernaturalism to ever actually explain anything, that the probability that any supernatural forces or entities exist at all is very low or even non-existant.

<strong> What does the creation of cars and computers have to do with anything we're talking about? I would have thought you could have come up with something better than completely fallacious anaolgies. We know cars and computers are created by humans Andrew because we have lots of experience with the creation of cars and computers. We have little or no experience with the creation of universes.

<strong> Mike is right. You are an ethnocentric. The basic belief of YOUR theism is that the universe is created by an uncreated God. But your theism is hardly the only theism that has ever been offered. The point would be that as theisms continually fail to be successful, we have prima facie reasons to assume that all theisms will fail to be successful. You haven't demonstrated that your own theism actually explains anything as yet.

<strong> Well, here at least you attempt some kind of an argument to support your claim. The point is that if your going to attack naturalism, then the onus is on you to actually give an argument to support your attack, not just lay out wild accusations.

Rather than just attack naturalism in the first place, it would be better to just lay out the questions we're attempting to answer. In this case the questions would be: How do we account for any moral views that we have? Do theists have a superior foundations for morals than naturalists do? - like that. This is much more conducive to your desire to have us approach the issue with equal responsibility.

With these questions on the table, then we can attempt to address them using our respective worldviews or whatever views we have that address the issues of morality, comparing them as we go along. Its important to note that under naturalism there are both objective and subjective moralists.

FYI, I am a moral subjectivist. If you ask me whether something is morally right or wrong, then I'm going to ask you to finish the question - right or wrong to whom? I see no reason to presume any morals as objective facts, since I have no evidence of such and its apparent to me that morals are a matter of personal opinion, even among theists. Its that simple.

If you want me to believe there is any such thing as objective moral facts then you'll have to give me an argument for them. If you want me to believe your deity somehow creates objective moral facts or othewise does something to morals that makes them objective facts, then you'll have to give an argument for that.

If you ask me if something is "really" right or wrong, then I'll take that to mean your assuming objective moral facts before you've proven they exist. But you'll have to prove they do exist before I can answer the question. Otherwise I'll just reinterpret the question - Is it really wrong - to whom?

Regarding you're example about killing your family off, you could indeed argue that you would be "better off". Of course I would argue that the chances are that you won't be better off. We could each give our reasons and I would either convince you or not. If I did - great. If I didn't - oh well - then we go to war and I use whatever means available to stop you. I'm not about to let someone like that run free in any society that I live in as its far too dangerous.

<strong> What reasons? Please list them. The only thing I've ever seen you offer is: naturalism hasn't explained "X" and then illogically conclude this is evidence that demonstrates your supernatural theism is actually true.

<strong> Completely wrong. We both want you to present evidence that theism is able to explain phenomena as well as naturalism does - or for that matter that it can actually explain anything at all. Mere assertions that it can will not qualify. Merely pointing out the existence of mystery's won't work either. Face it Andrew, you will have to actually provide positive evidence in favor of your theism - something you have not and apparently can not do.

<strong> No Andrew, it's a completely logical assumption based on the success of naturalism and the failure of any theism to ever explain anything. Please refresh my memory where you argued the appearance of the universe is "sudden" and what that's supposed to mean if anything. As for your fine-tuning arguments I have critiqued those sufficiently enough to cast considerable doubt on any conclusions you think you can make based on them. The Sec Web library has additional critiques as well - you should read them.

How the universe came to be, with all its complexities, is a question Andrew. Your hypothesis is that some supernatural deity created it. Other hypotheses are that it didn't "come to be" at all, but always existed, at least in some form. Other ideas may hold that it came about naturally. Still others hold that it doesn't exist at all. And there are still others as well.

The point being Andrew, is that your going to have to provide positive evidence for why YOUR hypothesis should be accepted as true and all the other ones should be disregarded. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you don't win by default - you'll actually have to support your offered hypothesis.

<strong> I'll be more than happy to compare worldviews regarding any subject you wish to discuss. As a matter of fact, its when we keep the comparison in mind that the superiority of naturalism demonstrates itself.

However when you attack naturalists and claim that they have no foundation for morals, then it is incombent upon you to actually present an argument for that claim. I have no problem defending my views of morality, but I'm not going to pretend the onus is on me to give an argument when you are the one doing the attacking, yet are failing to support your attacks. If you want to approach any subject and discuss it as equals, then you need to actually approach the subject as we both share an equal responsibility - not with you spouting off unsupported contentions.

<strong> Notice to Andrew - NEITHER worldview has "explained" the appearance of the universe. We can't even decisively conclude the universe did "appear". At best we can only marginally conclude it changed form - maybe. As for this "sudden" stuff I have no idea how you know the universe appeared "suddenly" assuming it even did appear. "Suddenly" in relation to what?

If either worldview had ever actually explained the universe, we wouldn't be having this debate. What we have are hypotheses Andrew - possible explanations to address the existence of the universe. If you want people to actually accept your hypothesis as the correct one, then you'll have to offer positive evidence for that conclusion. The same would apply to me as well. As we go along we can compare our worldviews to see which, if any, has a higher probability. It may be that one of us right, that neither of us is right, or that we simply don't have enough information to confidently decide either way.

<strong> That would depend on the naturalist. As a moral subjectivist I don't believe any moral is objectively "superior" to another. I believe that certain morals make us more successful than others and I would hold certain morals as preferable for certain subjective reasons. Superiority itself seems to be a subjective criteria, unless you can provide argument for an objective sense of "superiority".

A naturalist that holds to objective morals, and there are some, would have to answer that question for you themselves.

<strong> What "mechanistic causes" are you referring to? How exactly do they "force" anything to happen? Please explain.

Furthermore, how do you "explain" it? Note that I'm not looking for mere assertions from you, but for actual explanations. If you can't actually explain these things, I fail to see why I have to be able to, or why you think you win by default if I can't.

<strong> The first part of your statement here is ridiculous. Theism "lags" behind naturalism in that it fails to ever explain anything while naturalism is able to explain many things. Your attempting to confuse the issue by claiming naturalism should be able to currently explain anything you come up with - which is completely illogical. Nice attempt at a straw man though.

I'll be more than happy to answer whatever questions you have Andrew, but if your questions are based on straw man arguments, then I'm going to rightly point that out first.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Greetings Michael,
I do appreciate the time and effort you take in replying. I will respond to your post but I think after this we will just have to agree to disagree.

Naturalism (philosophy), in philosophy, a movement affirming that nature is the whole of reality and can be understood only through scientific investigation.

Only the first half is correct. There is nothing in naturalism that entails that science is the only way to understand reality. It is merely the best way we currently have.

Teleological conceptions, which suggest design and metaphysical necessity in nature, while not necessarily invalid, are excluded from consideration.

This is also incorrect. The Designer could have been a naturalistic being, who designed the universe using naturalistic processes. Once again the false dichotomy you've erected rears its ugly head.....

The ethical implication, since the naturalist denies any transcendent or supernatural end for humankind, is that values must be found within the social context.

This is also incorrect. There might be ways of deriving values that do not rely on the social context. Once again the false dichotomy you've erected rears its ugly head.....

Theism, religious belief in one Supreme Being who is the source and sustainer of the universe and at the same time is distinguished from it.

As I have already shown with many examples, this is simply one brand of theism.

Theism is now usually understood to mean the doctrine of the one, supreme, personal God, in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Theism is distinguished from polytheism, which recognizes more than one god; from pantheism, which denies the divine personality and identifies God with the universe; from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of knowledge of God and suspends judgment on his existence; and from Deism, which, although etymologically equivalent to theism, is generally defined as acknowledging the existence of God but denying his providence and active presence in the life of the world.

ROTFL. Andrew, Polytheists and Deists are theists.

Both of these definitions are from Encarta. Probably not the most exhaustive source but still sufficient enough for a discussion.

They are insufficient, alas, for your point. Encarta is simply wrong. There are many forms of theistic belief. Mirriam-Webster defines it as "belief in the existence of god or gods."

In either event I am not inventing some meaning out of whole cloth. As you can see from the definition above of theism I don’t have to provide evidence for or against some bewildering array of theistic claims as you suggest.

Why, yes you do. For example, both you and the Kikuyus believe in a transcendant god, but your creation myths are different. In the Kikuyu version, the world exists prior to N'gai. Which one is right? What evidence allows us to choose?

Again Mike I am supporting a common definition of theism as stated above.

Even if thise statement is correct, there are many possible theisms under your definition. Which one is correct?

In any case, other dictionaries give other definitions. However, I will be happy to accept your definition, if you can show with evidence and argument that your particular version of theism is the correct one.

On what basis does it rule out a supernatural creator? You start this paragraph by saying naturalism does not assume answers it is trying to prove then end it by asserting that naturalism rules out the supernatural and assumes any such creator would be explicable in a naturalistic framework.

No, I offered a naturalistic creator as one possibility (indeed, a better one, since the universe is so poorly designed an omnimax creator is ruled out). Naturalism is supported on the basis (1) its explanatory success and (2) no evidence for gods. Naturalism started as an explanatory strategy by thinkers who realized that the supernatural explained nothing. It had failed. The success of science reflects the correctness of this strategy. Note that all scientists had to do was find things that in principle could not be explained within a naturalistic framework. Unfortunately no such thing has ever been found.

More nonsense about me having to defend every god belief you can think of. Please refer to above. If I can defend common meanings of words so can you.

Andrew, theism is "a belief in god or gods."

Mirriam-Webster
<a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" target="_blank">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary</a>
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Dictionary.com
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=theism" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=theism</a>
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

<a href="http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~ralph/OPTED/v003/wb1913_t.html" target="_blank">http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~ralph/OPTED/v003/wb1913_t.html</a>
Theism (n.) The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism, pantheism, or polytheism.

Webster 1828
<a href="http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_d:/inetpub/wwwroot/cgi-bin/webster/web1828=theism" target="_blank">http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_d:/inetpub/wwwroot/cgi-bin/webster/web1828=theism</a>
THE'ISM, n. [from Gr. God.] The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism. Theism differs from deism, for although deism implies a belief in the existence of a God, yet it signifies in modern usage a denial of revelation, which theism does not.

<a href="http://www.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=theism" target="_blank">http://www.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=theism</a>
1. theism -- (the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods)

I could go on. Your Encarta dictionary appears to be an outlier. However, I will be happy to accept it, since you are no better off than before, given all the theisms that can fit your more restrictive definition.

Again Mike you seek to hopelessly obscure the issue. There is no false dichotomy in the example you provide. People die for one of two reasons; natural causes or design.

Actually, according to you, there are no natural causes. It's all Design.

In any case, you are still stuck. Please provide some positive evidence for theism, and rule out all other possible world views. You've attempted to dodge the real problem, which is that the choice is not between theism and naturalism, but --to use your definitions -- between theism, deism, polytheism, pantheism, and a hundred other beliefs. Disproving naturalism leaves you hundreds of beliefs to disprove. Nice try to dodge Andrew, but I'd like to see you address this point head on. Show why we should accept theism as a better explanation than pantheism, ESP, powerful aliens, polytheism, monism....show it, don't talk about it, and don't dodge.

Our goal is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our world is all there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.

So your statement above,

Naturalism does not assume answers it is trying to prove.

Is whether you like it or not false.

This is highly disingenuous little bit of quote mining. You asked about science and naturalism, and I responded:

• Naturalism does not assume answers it is trying to prove. So the naturalist, whether methodological or metaphysical, does not assume anything about the universe. It could well be an artifact. There is nothing intrinsic to naturalism that says the universe could not be Designed.

You were asking about Design in your question, and I was answering in regard to Design. There is nothing in metaphysical or methodological naturalism that rules out Design. Metaphysical naturalists, based on evidence developed by methodological naturalists, rule out Design by supernatural beings. Design by a powerful natural being is not ruled out by naturalism, but there is currently no evidence to suggest it.

The second way you obscure the issue is to define naturalism as anything that can possibly happen. So that if the universe is created by a being then that also falls under naturalism according to you. This means Mike it is your position that is unfalsifiable.

No, it means you have not yet grasped your problem. There are several positions:

1. The universe is uncreated. It arose, evolved and will die someday, entirely through processes uncaused by an sentient entity.

2. The universe is the result of processes initiated by a being(s).

Now, with (2) above, the range of possibilities is vast:

a) the being(s) and processes are both in principle entirely explicable through naturalistic frameworks.

b) the being(s) and processes are both supernatural and in principle inexplicable through naturalistic frameworks.

Note that (a) and (b) above offer hundreds of different possibilities. I only pointed out that the ridiculous dichotomy you've created fails because it does not grapple with all of the possibilities.

Michael