balisongsong

The goal of the Secular web is to "defend and promote...the view that our natural world is all there is....",see home page.

Does any one know how the claim that the natural world is all there is was arrived at? What is the evidence for this claim?

Also,why does the Secular web make the assertion that the natural world is.."a closed system in no need of explanation and suffcient unto itself." All there any grounds for this assertion?

Philosoft

Considering the terms "non-natural" and "supernatural" are entirely vacuous, I'd say the II mission statement is accurate at best and redundant at worst.

Jamie_L

The best place to start in answering your question, bailsongsong, is the SecWeb library. There's some good articles relating to this that express the general naturalist view better than I can.

My practical stance is that, to my knowledge, I've never observed anything in my life that was not part of the natural world or that indicated there was anything other than the natural world. So, why postulate anything else?

Jamie

balisongsong

Philosoft,lets define our terms,other wise we will be talking past one another,as is often the case.
I dont use terms as "non-natural" or "supernatural".
However I understand these terms to mean 'that which is beyond space and time'
Based on this understanding of the terms,please answer my initial question.

Tom Sawyer

The evidence for this claim is that no one has ever observed anything that is not part of the natural world. If it can be verifiably shown that there is more out there, I'm sure the site admins would more than happily update their claim. Until then, they're justified in making that claim.

Everything in the natural world can be explained by the natural world with no need for any kind of supernatural intervention. That makes it a closed system (no outside forces acting on it) and sufficient unto itself (doesn't need anything else to explain it).

If you have more specific questions about these, check out the library or post it in one of the forums. Everyone here will be happy to answer any questions you have.

balisongsong

Jamie-L,when time allows I shall examine the sites library.
As to your "practical stance",;because you have not observed anything that was "not part of the natural world",a claim that is debatable in itself, 1.why do you assume that the only reality that exists is that which can be observed? What evidence do you have for this,other than the case you have never observed anything other than phenomena in the natural world? Why is empirical truth the only claim to truth? I understand that the scientific method,which includes observation,is adequate for examining objects,but what about the tremendous qualitative aspects of our world,such as love,freedom,ethical questions,policy making decisions etc.that are not subject to observation,that are not objects within space and time? 2. Are we to dismiss these because we cant observe them.
Basically Im asking two questions in thise reply,I have numbered them

Starboy

Peteyh, it is more than that. Science turns everything it discovers into the natural.

Starboy

balisongsong

peteyh,Id like to counter your claim and "evidence" by refering you to my reply to Jamie-S

Jonesy

Hold on there. You have limited your definition of the word 'natural'. For example, if somebody sees a ghost and nobody believes them - clearly, you have to grant that a ghost 'may have' been seen and therefore, since it was seen by a person that's already in nature, then the ghost is ALSO part of nature. What you would call the 'paranormal' world - is not really paranormal. It is also part of nature, except that PEOPLE DON'T GET IT and so choose to conveniently label it as 'not normal' (i.e. paranormal). What people should be doing to demonstrate human intelligence is to try and find out about this 'other' world, as simply dismissing it as 'para' normal is just being ignorant and taking the easy way that just happens to be supported by the ignorant majority.

You have to open your eyes and expand your definition of what classifies under 'nature'. nature is 'everything' - and this includes literally everything - whether you understand it or not. People who dismiss things because they are 'weird' are clearly ignorant - happy to play to the majority's blind approach that 'oh, this is new age bullshit, etc. etc.'.

One suggestion to the person from Phillipines that started the post (sorry, I forgot the name already) - you are correct in being curious. And you shouldn't be fooled when some people present to you limited versions of what 'nature' is. We haven't understood the letter 'A' of the alphabet of nature and we prove our ignorance and stupidity when we attempt to say that 'this or this is an accurate representation of nature'.

We need to open up to anything. And try and learn to not ridicule things or dimiss things that 'seem' weird. The only thing that's weird is that we don't understand something and choose to not investigate it further, instead labelling things as 'paranormal' or 'looney' or other terms.

I hope people read this and examine their own instincts when presented with some 'not normal' information - because this info is not really 'not' normal - you just don't know enough to be able to even 'admit' that it's existence may be possible. An example is the electric field around the human body and ghosts. Another example is when we dream at night. When we feel 'pain'. Can scientists program pain? Not at the moment. Or when you have 'deja vu'. Or the fact that every cell in your body is different from the other. Or that somehow, when you burn yourself, you take your hand away from the burning place - and isn't it amazing how fast the brain processes the info? Really amazing isn't it? And scientists on Earth don't know practically nothing about the human body.

I hope I'm not talking too much. But say what you want, you can't escape reality. And if reality includes phenomena that appear 'weird' - we can't escape it and have to embrace it. Get smarter instead of blindly being obedient to the prevailing 'logic' of the majority.

Philosoft

So what? You can cloak your concepts in whatever guise you like, they are still the same concepts.

<strong> My answer is the same, but I will try to rephrase. When you speak of "that which is beyond space and time," you are presumably talking about things which exist in a way that other things don't when we normally use the word 'exist.' It is not enough that you can simply assert that something can exist in this way. In order for me to have a concept of something that 'exists beyond space and time' you must give me an example of such a thing so that I can visualize it in my brain. Since you'll never be able to do that, I comfortably conclude the alleged concept is not a concept at all, regardless of your protestations otherwise.