Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BEANO · 11-12-2002, 11:43 AM

hi cluth,

i apologize if i'm not being clear enough. i'm trying to cram a lot into a little bit of space. let's take this a little slower, and maybe i can make clearer what i'm trying to say-not only for you, but for others as well.

So far we have your assertion that there is a problem. Fine. I'll take it as a datum that you have asserted this. Is there any reason to think it's correct?[/QB][/QUOTE]

why, on a naturalistic veiw, am i obligated to be rational?

DeanWCasa · 11-12-2002, 11:45 AM

Beano,

This is simply Idealism vs. Materialism. You obviously are not familiar with Objectivism. Idealism and materialism are a rejection of basic axioms, which are: existence (the metaphysically given), consciousness, and identity, with causality as a corollary of identity. You can create as many tiny intellectual baubles as you want, but the facts remain. I would recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, it could save you a lot of time.

DeanWCasa
Out

Clutch · 11-12-2002, 11:48 AM

Goodness.

Beano, it's simple.

A) There is no supernatural.

B) Some things are meaningful.

Take (A) as a suitably general interpretation of naturalism; now, show that (A&B) entails a contradiction.

Put up... you know the alternative.

BEANO · 11-12-2002, 12:07 PM

hi xaran,

if you want to adhere to naturalistic determinism-i say fine. but then your assertion that we can reach some kind "truth" is simply a result of that same naturalistic determinism. you could not help but make that assertion given how you were "determined" naturalistically, any more then a christian (who is also naturalistically determined) asserts that God exists. why shouldn't that be a "truth"? in fact, there is no point to our arguing the point because the argument itself has been naturalitically determined, every bit as much as the "reason" you use to argue your point. neither should you believe that there is truth to be had, because your insistance on "truth" is also determined. thus, we simply hit a brick wall of relativism.

And even if it does, how do you know it is the Christian god that is giving us the foundation why not ZEUS?[/QB][/QUOTE]

i must admit that i cannot draw a comparison of the two. in my study of world religions i find that the greek gods and the judeo-christian God are not even in the same LEAGUE with each other. comparing these religious systems is like comparing a dodge viper with a stage coach. your asking me to compare the gas milage of the two-but the stage coach didn't use gas at all. greco-roman polytheism, buddism, hinduism, platonic duelism, and naturalistic determinism are not even making the same claims that christianity makes.

xeren · 11-12-2002, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:

have you ever read any david hume? if not, i suggest you do-it's fascinating. if so, how would you answer the problem of induction that he raises?

Wasn't Hume still a Naturalist, despite his views on induction?

Clutch · 11-12-2002, 12:22 PM

Was this your argument? Near as I can tell, you intended it to be one.

Premises:

Quote:

if you want to adhere to naturalistic determinism-i say fine. but then your assertion that we can reach some kind "truth" is simply a result of that same naturalistic determinism. you could not help but make that assertion given how you were "determined" naturalistically, any more then a christian (who is also naturalistically determined) asserts that God exists. why shouldn't that be a "truth"?

And conclusions:

Quote:

in fact, there is no point to our arguing the point because the argument itself has been naturalitically determined, every bit as much as the "reason" you use to argue your point. neither should you believe that there is truth to be had, because your insistance on "truth" is also determined. thus, we simply hit a brick wall of relativism.

The problem, of course, is that this is a non-sequitur; none of these conclusions follow from the set of these premises.

Philosoft · 11-12-2002, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:


sure. first, let me point out that the application of ANY presuppositional veiw (and EVERYONE "presupposes" a network of beliefs to support other beliefs) allows us employ certain assumptions that govern our way of veiwing reality. take the case of naturalism. this veiw PRESUPPOSES the non-existence of the supernatural, and thus, will use it as a basis for rationalizing everything.

Stop right there. Naturalism presupposes no such thing. Those who propose supernaturalism define it as a priori non-naturalistic. Further, absent a positive definition of "supernatural," you are stuck with the negative "non-natural." Thus, you are tautologically saying that naturalism presupposes the non-existence of things that are not natural. Try again.

Quote:

i used the example of the resurrection of Christ from the dead already, but i'll us it again here. the christian might say that it is strong proof of God's existence (as you say, "manipulating supernatural entities to explain anything"),

And the Norse pagan might say it's strong proof that Loki is tricking us into seeing things that aren't there by manipulating the photons before they strike our retinae.

Quote:

but the naturalist doesn't have to grant that. he could very well say that "strange things happen in the universe and someday we'll have a natural, law-like explaination for how dead people come back to life (manipulating NATURAL entities to explain anything).

Fortunately, per the resurrection of Jesus, the naturalist has much more common and robust naturalistic explanations at his disposal.

Quote:

my point is transcendental in nature-that is, the christian veiw of reality is necessary to our making intelligible not only reality, but our EXPLAINATION of it.

Naturally, if you presume there is something that needs explaining (why does the universe exist?), it follows that an explanation specifically crafted to explain exactly that will seem indispensible. What, then, is your justification for asking, "Why does the universe exist?" And why is "no reason" not an acceptable answer?

Quote:

of course, again, i don't expect the naturalist to grant this either, for in a naturalist universe there is NOTHING that "transcends" the natural order.

Again, naturalism does not proscribe this.

Quote:

therein the problem lays, for if NOTHING transcends the natural order, then sense and non-sense (both a part of this order) are equally valid.

I don't follow.

Quote:

if you protest to this (which i agree you should), then you'll need to propose a basis for WHY a protest is in order-given a naturalistic veiw of the universe.

What am I protesting?

Quote:

you asked for a reason why christianity should have greater explanatory power, but then go on to say "OTHER THEN..." i daresay that by the naturalistic conditions you've set to limit my explaination, you have shown your pre-commitment to naturalism. i need to ask-WHY would i not be allowed to maniplulate everything by way supernatural entities if i should choose to do so? what is the basis for your imposing such a restriction?

Scene: Jesus rises from the dead.

Possible supernatural explanations:

1) Jesus, through the will of God, goes from non-living human to living human.

2) Jesus, through the will of Allah (at the bequest of Mohammed), goes from non-living human to living human.

3) Loki, mischevious as he is, changes some photons so that it appears that Jesus is dead, when he's in reality still alive.

4) Loki changes some photons so that it appears Jesus is risen, when he's in reality still dead.

Obviously, I could go on like this for several pages. Now, what makes your scenario (no. 1) more likely correct? I bet your reasoning can be described with a phrase starting with "special" and ending with "pleading."

BEANO · 11-12-2002, 12:40 PM

cluth,

sorry for my slow response-my computer keeps bonking out on me.

how can we account philosophically for A? the definition for supernatural is something that transcends nature (i'm sure you already know that), but if you appeal to something outside of nature (laws of logic for instance) to show that "there is no supernatural", then you have assumed what you are trying to disprove. on the other hand, if you are claiming that "nature is all that there is", you have an epistological dilemma in using nature to show that "nature is all that there is.

as for proposition B, i'm very much confused on the nature of meaning in the naturalistic worldveiw. you would need to admit that "meaning" is itself "naturalistic" in nature. can we appeal to nature to find meaning?

BEANO · 11-12-2002, 12:47 PM

xaran,

Wasn't Hume still a Naturalist, despite his views on induction?[/QB][/QUOTE]

yes, he was. and he was a fine case-in-point of the way people will persist (by faith) in worldviews regardless of the lack of foundation to support that worldveiw. i wish i had that kind of faith!

BEANO · 11-12-2002, 12:56 PM

everyone,

you guys are keeping me pretty busy. i had only intended to spend about an hour discussing these important issues. thank you all for the interesting dialog, but i need to quit for now-i have a lot of school work to do, and a paper to write on the topic of why good people suffer (perhaps another interesting discussion). i'll try to get back later with more responses to your responses. anyone can feel free to e-mail me if you wish for what would be a more personal debate. crkealiher@hotmail.com

beano.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2002, 11:43 AM	#31
BEANO Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WI Posts: 16	hi cluth, i apologize if i'm not being clear enough. i'm trying to cram a lot into a little bit of space. let's take this a little slower, and maybe i can make clearer what i'm trying to say-not only for you, but for others as well. So far we have your assertion that there is a problem. Fine. I'll take it as a datum that you have asserted this. Is there any reason to think it's correct?[/QB][/QUOTE] why, on a naturalistic veiw, am i obligated to be rational?

11-12-2002, 11:45 AM	#32
DeanWCasa Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 5	Beano, This is simply Idealism vs. Materialism. You obviously are not familiar with Objectivism. Idealism and materialism are a rejection of basic axioms, which are: existence (the metaphysically given), consciousness, and identity, with causality as a corollary of identity. You can create as many tiny intellectual baubles as you want, but the facts remain. I would recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, it could save you a lot of time. DeanWCasa Out

11-12-2002, 11:48 AM	#33
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Goodness. Beano, it's simple. A) There is no supernatural. B) Some things are meaningful. Take (A) as a suitably general interpretation of naturalism; now, show that (A&B) entails a contradiction. Put up... you know the alternative.

11-12-2002, 12:07 PM	#34
BEANO Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WI Posts: 16	hi xaran, if you want to adhere to naturalistic determinism-i say fine. but then your assertion that we can reach some kind "truth" is simply a result of that same naturalistic determinism. you could not help but make that assertion given how you were "determined" naturalistically, any more then a christian (who is also naturalistically determined) asserts that God exists. why shouldn't that be a "truth"? in fact, there is no point to our arguing the point because the argument itself has been naturalitically determined, every bit as much as the "reason" you use to argue your point. neither should you believe that there is truth to be had, because your insistance on "truth" is also determined. thus, we simply hit a brick wall of relativism. And even if it does, how do you know it is the Christian god that is giving us the foundation why not ZEUS?[/QB][/QUOTE] i must admit that i cannot draw a comparison of the two. in my study of world religions i find that the greek gods and the judeo-christian God are not even in the same LEAGUE with each other. comparing these religious systems is like comparing a dodge viper with a stage coach. your asking me to compare the gas milage of the two-but the stage coach didn't use gas at all. greco-roman polytheism, buddism, hinduism, platonic duelism, and naturalistic determinism are not even making the same claims that christianity makes.

11-12-2002, 12:40 PM	#38
BEANO Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WI Posts: 16	cluth, sorry for my slow response-my computer keeps bonking out on me. how can we account philosophically for A? the definition for supernatural is something that transcends nature (i'm sure you already know that), but if you appeal to something outside of nature (laws of logic for instance) to show that "there is no supernatural", then you have assumed what you are trying to disprove. on the other hand, if you are claiming that "nature is all that there is", you have an epistological dilemma in using nature to show that "nature is all that there is. as for proposition B, i'm very much confused on the nature of meaning in the naturalistic worldveiw. you would need to admit that "meaning" is itself "naturalistic" in nature. can we appeal to nature to find meaning?

11-12-2002, 12:47 PM	#39
BEANO Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WI Posts: 16	xaran, Wasn't Hume still a Naturalist, despite his views on induction?[/QB][/QUOTE] yes, he was. and he was a fine case-in-point of the way people will persist (by faith) in worldviews regardless of the lack of foundation to support that worldveiw. i wish i had that kind of faith!

11-12-2002, 12:56 PM	#40
BEANO Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WI Posts: 16	everyone, you guys are keeping me pretty busy. i had only intended to spend about an hour discussing these important issues. thank you all for the interesting dialog, but i need to quit for now-i have a lot of school work to do, and a paper to write on the topic of why good people suffer (perhaps another interesting discussion). i'll try to get back later with more responses to your responses. anyone can feel free to e-mail me if you wish for what would be a more personal debate. crkealiher@hotmail.com beano.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.