RichardMorey

Sorry, Luvluv. I missed this whole post. I'll respond to it.

By your definition of naturalism, you are required as a Christian to reject it. Yahweh would clearly be an entity which could not be reduced to "mindless natural processes." Therefore, your faith that there is such a being requires you to reject naturalism.

Dogmatism from m-w.com:
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

You cannot hide behind the word opinion. You believe that "naturalism" does not give a complete accountingof things. You thus fall into at least definition 2, and, in my opinion, definition 1 (unwarranted). You would not believe it and be here arguing about it if you were not positive about it. You've staked your "soul" on it, haven't you? That's pretty positive.

I have no "faith" in naturalism. As I have stated above, given the success of science and using logical induction, I merely choose science as the best option. I have no way of determining what will be explained and what will not.

Let me explain it this way:
You lose your keys. You do not remember where you put them You think, "I do not, prior to looking, know where my keys are. There is a chance that I will never find them (I could have put them in the trash accidentally, or dropped them down a gutter). However, I have found them when I have lost them in the past. The benefits of looking for them are great. So, I will start looking."
But where to start? Do you REALLY think that they are going to be in the first place you look? Maybe, but probably not. That does not keep you from starting the search.
You find your keys after an intensive 30 minute search, and all is well.

Most scientists and philosophers of science do not have this faith in science of which you speak. I think it is a straw man.

The statement "the mind is not explicable in natural terms" is a statement with a truth value. It is either true or false. "Pizza is good" is an opinion that does not require support. Your statement DOES require support, and so far all you've given is an argument from incredulity.
Explain your method of determining which phenomena will be explainable and which not - clearly you came to that opinion somehow, and I'm sure many philosophers and scientists would be interested in knowing how. It could save them a lot of time.

Given the fact that it seems that many phenomena are "reducible to mindless natural processes," as science has shown, where do you think the burden of proof lies? Does it lie with the people who think that phenomenon X is, or is not, explainable in terms of "mindless natural processes"?

And what does "natural" mean? (The "mindless" part is good, because that's an easy one to define.)

luvluv

RichardMorey:

The "issue" I was reffering to was the mind, not naturalism in general. Yes, as a Christian I believe in the supernatural. But I also believe in the natural. Therefore, I don't really have a problem with a naturalistic explanation of the mind.

Again, the opinion you are referring to was my opinion on the specific issue of a totally naturalistic explanation of the mind. My soul is not staked on whether or not the mind has any supernatural elements in it's operation.

Did I ever say that most scientists or philosophers of science had this faith in science? I said that IF someone had a strong enough comittment to naturalism (and science and naturalism are not the same thing) that this belief in naturalism could never be falsified because of the appeal to future knowledge.

Folks, fallacies apply to arguments, not opinions. Yes, I assume my opinion would fail as an argument, which is why I explictly stated (in capitalized words, no less) that it was only my opinion. It is kind of redundant to tell me that my opinion is an argument from incredulity.

My statement was not "the mind is not explicable in natural terms" my unedited statement was "IN MY OPINION, the mind is not explicable in natural terms". That, indeed, is a truth statement, but all that is needed for support is for it to actually be the case that luvluv's opinion is that the mind is not explicable in natural terms. This is indeed the case.

My method of determining my opinion? Reading, I guess?

For the third time, I am not here trying to prove supernaturalism. The very content of my original post should lead one to believe that I consider this an impossibility. I am simply mentioning that naturalism cannot be falsified so long as the naturalist can appeal to future knowledge of currently unknown natural processes.

Starboy

Your point is not clear. Atheism as a-theism doesn’t have a main argument any more than a new born baby does. Atheism is not a way to understand or explain our surroundings. When I claim to be an atheist is only tells you what I don’t think, not what I do think. To a person who has always been an atheist and has never had contact with theism, god is not only superfluous it is completely unknown. Trying to falsify atheism is like trying to taste triangular, it just doesn’t apply.

To make a statement that naturalism can’t be falsified is equally vague. Naturalism claims that the natural can be completely explained by reference to other natural phenomena. This may seem like a significant statement, but it is really a circular definition. If natural is defined as everything that we observe or imply from those observations then all explanations would automatically be natural. Naturalism essentially labels everything we know about as natural. Again trying to falsify Naturalism is like trying to taste triangular.

Science is a form of naturalism but it is not a philosophy, it is a research program. It has set out the following:

1) What it will study – only that which can be observed or inferred from the observations (definition of natural)
2) The goal of the study – to accumulate scientific knowledge in the form of observations and explanations.
3) How it will evaluate its knowledge – only falsifiable explanations will be considered. Explanations that have broad agreement with observation and experiment will be favored over those that do not. Explanations that predict what can happen and what cannot happen will be favored over those that only explain what can happen.

When the first scientist set out on this program it was a very novel approach and there was no reason to think that it would do any better then the currently in vogue metaphysical philosophical approach. We now accept is as a sound because of the great successes it has had.

I think you miss the point. Supernatural religion does assume supernatural constructs that are important for explaining reality. These may be familiar to you, ghosts, spirits, angels, god, devil, demons and so forth. These are constructs that are used to explain natural phenomena and for many adherents must be accepted over natural explanations in order for them to maintain good relations with their religion. The classic example is the supernatural claims regarding Jesus and the resurrection. There are purely natural explanations for the salient facts but to accept them over the supernatural explanation would completely negate the whole point of Christianity.

Luvluv in the cases where Christians believe in totally natural occurrences and in supernatural occurrences, what makes them natural vs. supernatural is not the occurrence but the explanation. Unfortunately occurrences do not come with little labels letting you know where they came from. You accept them as supernatural because you accept the supernatural explanation for them, i.e. you invoke supernatural concepts to explain them. You do this because that is what your religion tells you to do.

In regards to your last sentence, it is only superstition when someone invokes supernatural constructs that you do not believe in. From the scientists point of view all supernatural explanations are superstition.

The only human endeavor that I am aware of that claims in any way that falsifiable is important is science, and science is not a philosophy, it is a research program to explore reality.

Starboy

luvluv

The "inasmuch" comments were not meaningless. If your atheism has nothing to do with the notion that God is superflous, then this line of reasoning does not apply to you. I have often seen atheism supported on this board because of the notion that God is superflous. If you believe that every occurance will one day have a totally naturalistic explanation, then of course God is superflous.

I think the existence of God, and angels/demons is important to Christianity but not in terms of explaining actual phenomenae. In Christian terms, they are mostly invoked to explain or give a background story to human behavior.

Off topic but the naturalistic accounts of the ressurection are less parsimonious than the ressurection (inasmuch as parsimony favors the least number of independant assumptions) unless you decide that ressurections CANNOT happen. This is justified as an inference from past experience, but "has not happened" does not equal "cannot happen". The ardent naturalist I am referring to holds that supernatural events CANNOT happen, but this can never be justified by inference.

(If you want to discuss this further, please start another thread.)

I actually think you are missing the point of the thread. This is not an attack on science or on moderate naturalists. It is only a statement about the efficacy of the position of naturalism. If it is a tautology, then this website should change it's mission statement.

You don't know a lot about me, or my faith, or you would know that this statement above is actually false. I do believe that ultimately, God is the cause of everything. But I believe that God has ordered the natural world in such a way as to not have to intervene at all, except to reveal to those who want to know Him that He exists. In my theology, miracles are reserved to occurances in which a person's personal decision for faith is involved. The only plain or arena where our two worldviews would contradict each other is as they would each explain the basis of religious experiences. I believe that religious experiences exist which are the actual result of God's intervention (even though I do not believe that every religious experience is a true one). We would probably do better to do less assuming as regards each other's beliefs. I do not assume that you are an ardent naturalist, and you would be mistaken to assume that I am an ardent supernaturalist.

No, from the NATURALISTS point of view all supernatural explanations are superstition. There are scientists, and good ones, with a religious worldview.

Science is based in various philosophies, however, and naturalism is a prominent one. It would be fair and well played if, in your opinion, philosophies do not need to be falsifiable. Only I would appreciate it if you do not try to turn this thread into a religion vs science thread, because that is not my intent.

Starboy

Er, so you imply that humans and their behavior are not natural and therefore supernatural constructs are needed to explain humans and their behavior? As a super naturalist you can’t get away from it. The supernatural is in your lexicon of explanative constructs. Unfortunately as stated before, events don’t come with labels on them telling you which explanations to apply. In this case of your use of supernatural explanations it is your religion that informs you which to choose, not nature.

Parsimony has nothing to do with it and is a concept that is NEVER used by scientists. The only authority in scientific disputes is experiment on nature. Even the craziest idea has to be considered if experiment on nature supports it. Parsimony, schmarsimony, more phony philosophy baloney.

As for “justified as an inference from past experience…”, I agree with you, but so what. Your distinction between an ardent naturalist and a naturalist is nothing. A naturalist of any kind would never consider a supernatural explanation. Sure you could put it forward it you wished, but it would not be considered. Considering such explanations is not in the naturalist program.

I don’t think I have missed the point. I think that you attribute more to naturalism then it deserves. I have always thought that the mission statement of this site was highfalutin. Reference to methodological naturalism is just confusing why not just say science. I suspect they did not want to alienate the philosophers among them. News flash for the administration of this web site, science is the most prevalent kind of naturalism by far in the world today.



I was not aware that I was making any assumptions about your faith. As far as I can tell, your religion consists of special “occurrences” for which it is Okay to accept supernatural over natural explanations. It is not that there aren’t completely natural explanations for such “occurrences”, it is that your religion informs you to use supernatural constructs to explain them and to accept such explanations as the “truth” of reality. If a super naturalist didn’t think such things they wouldn’t be a super naturalist now would they? You do appear to be a “TV dinner” super naturalist. You have compartmentalized areas of “truth” so they do not overlap, and you have reserved the entrée for your faith, but like all super naturalist you can’t see that the entrée is all in your head.

Yes but they all died a very long time ago, and most of them lived during a time when it would have been impossible for their ideas to rise to prominence if they did not tow the super natural line.

Of the competent supernatural scientists alive today, I assure you, none of them use supernatural explanations in their work. They reserve such explanations for the fantasy world they choose to live in on the weekends.

I have heard this sentiment echoed before. Of all the philosophers of science, of which I am aware, they all came way, way, way, way after the fact of science. At one time science was part of philosophy and was called natural philosophy. It wasn’t until scientists stopped with the philosophical nonsense and started requiring that scientific explanations had to be testable by experiment on nature that real progress occurred. Someone had finally figured out that there is only one reliable way to determine if something exists, look for the evidence. Scientists (naturalists) hold their views because there appears to be no need to invoke the super natural to explain our surroundings. Until the day comes when super natural explanations are required, your religious views are not fundamentally different from any other superstition.

Starboy

luvluv

As nothing you said is in any way relevant to the topic of this thread, I suggest we simply agree to disagree and end the digression.

Starboy

luvluv, as you wish.

luvluv

Against the better angels of my nature, I am actually going to reply to some of what you said.

I obviously do not mean that ALL human behavior requires a supernatural explanation (unless it turns out that the mind requires a supernatural explanation) but that SOME human behavior is actually the result of supernatural processes. My belief in God, for example, and the changes in my behaviour in accordance to Christian ethics.

A) We are talking not about science but HISTORY as regards the ressurection, and parsimony is about all that the historian has to go on when trying to reconstruct the past. There are no experiments on nature in history.

B) Scientists CONSTANTLY use parsimony in searching for hypotheses to falsify. It plays a major role in theoretical physics, for example. No one suggested that parsimony be regarded as the final arbiter of proof. As I said before, a lot of our conflicts emerge from you putting words in my mouth.

A) Whether or not I am a "TV dinner" super naturalist or not is no concern of yours.

B) This "in your head" comment suggests to me that you believe that supernatural occurances are impossible. How do you justify that belief? As an inference from past experience? But didn't you just say that this belief could never be justified by inference? That would mean you have to accept this by faith, wouldn't you? Unless you have actual proof that no supernatural event can possibly ever occur.

That's absurd. There are qualified, prominent, published scientists who regularly appeal to the supernatural. You may not agree with the ID movement, but some of it's adherents are eminently qualified. Paul Davies, Micheal Behe, Hugh Ross, all make appeals to the supernatural in their explanations of the universe. They are all alive. You may not agree with them, you might not even think they are particularly bright, but they are working, qualified scientists.


I really don't know what you are talking about. Science emerged from philsophers but philosophy of science came after science? For my money, Francis Bacon was the originator of the philosophy of science and of experimental science itself. Philosophy of science is as old as science. It is almost impossible to really gauge the results of science without a philosophy of science. There are scientific realists, who hold that our scientific explanations of events are actually what obtains, and nonrealists, who think that our explanations are simply abstractions of what really is that only suffice until we get a clearer understanding and are able to substitute one abstraction with another. These nonrealists hold that there is no way to ever arrive at a "true" explanation of any phenomenon, only to come up with increasingly accurate abstractions. These people (often) are scientists, and the implications this has for the position of naturalism are quite large. It suggests that what you regard as "reality" is nothing but an abstraction. Space, for example, doesn't really "curve" but that is the best explanation of what actually occurs that can be transmitted to the layman. If the nonrealists are correct, your world is as "haunted by demons" and inaccuracies as you assume mine is.

But the key is that "science" can never determine whether the realists or the nonrealists are true. Philosophy is ALWAYS prior to science. Simply in assuming that naturalism is true is a philosphical position that is prior to all scientific activities. And there can never be a purely naturalstic or scientific way of determining whether scientific realism or nonrealism are true. That's just a nickle's worth of free advice...

The point of this thread, for anyone paying attention, is that if you are as dogmatic about naturalsim as you seem to be, then such a day will never come, regardless of the inadequacy of a naturalistic explanation.

Could you explain, for example, a situation or phenomenon for which no naturalistic explanation is possible?

Starboy

Yes it is a slow night.

As I see it luvluv, since no one has come up with a practical test for determining if an “occurrence” was “made in heaven” or is natural, it does boil down to how you determine which set of explanations to apply to an “occurrence”. You seem to think that there is a set of “occurrences” for which only Christian supernatural explanations should be applied, even if they can be explained with “all natural” explanations or even by other supernatural explanations such as Hindu or Muslim. The naturalist has a much easier time of it, since for them there is only one way to explain “occurrences”.

Last time I checked historians were not allowed to used supernatural explanations either. After all they also document the histories of other supernatural religions as well. And historians are not without some ability to test historical claims. As to the resurrection, there is a difference between the purported salient facts and the explanation of those facts. Hypothetically, if your were a historian you may find that there is evidence to support the claim that Jesus was a historical figure and that he was nailed to a cross but you may find no reason to accept any supernatural claims regarding the event. Many historical figures receive this kind of treatment by historians all the time.

Sure I will grant you that parsimony can be used in the process of concocting a scientific explanation, but so can dreams, works of fiction, children’s rhymes and so forth. In and of itself it is not particularly significant to the scientific enterprise.



I have no idea if supernatural events are possible. As I stated before, until someone can come up with a practical test for determining if an event was “made in heaven” talking about it is a purely philosophical (=useless) exercise and has nothing to do with actual science.

In your opinion.

Philosophers have adopted Bacon after the fact. He was a visionary who thought little of philosophy and one who definitely bucked the philosophical trends of his day.

As for the balance of your comments, again more philosophizing that has no effect on the methods or explanations of science. You can make all the pronouncements about the reality of reality you like, but the explanations that predict the phenomena and the experiments that detect them stay the same until science discovers otherwise. Such sophistry exists to make philosophers feel like they matter.

If you look at one of my earlier posts on this thread I attempted to posit such a situation. It may not be adequate to the task but it was an honest attempt.

Starboy

luvluv

Starboy:

They are and they do. There are lots of qualified historians who believe, for example, in the Ressurection. I don't know where you are getting some of this stuff. You might think that a belief in the Resurrection disqualifies them from being an historian, but that is only because of your unfalsifiable (and utterly philosophical) naturalistic pressupostions.

That's just false, Starboy. Parsimony plays a large role in theoretical physics, for one. It is not simply a means of inspiration.

Then how do you justify saying that my beliefs are "all in my head"? Are you going to retract that statement or remain inconsistent?

It's not my opinion. They are qualified (all of them have PHDs), they have worked professionally in their field, and at least two of them are published (not sure about Ross).

That, my friend, would mean they are qualified.

Bacon believed that the only way to gain real knowledge is through empircal testing. This is a philosophical statement. Science can never prove that science is the only way to knowledge. And, as you have admitted, science cannot justify this claim from inferences. Therefore, Bacon's beliefs regarding scientific inquiry, like all beliefs underlying scientific inquiry, were PHILOSOPHICAL.


I'm not a philsopher, but this statement betrays an irrational disrespect for the enterprise. All knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is processed within a philosophical framework. You, sir or maddam, have a philosophy... and it likely cannot be falsified like your scientific theories. You seem to be a naturalist (unless you want to retract that statement about all my beliefs being in my head). Thus, it appears you have a dilema. Since, as you admit, ardent naturalism can never be justified purely by inference, then it appears you have an unfalsifiable philosophical (=useless) position underlying ALL your beliefs.