Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

you are another nattering nabob of negativism

Agnew hobnobbed with the Nabobs.

Science is not a metaphysical thing, metaphysics is what used fill the lack of understanding.




The kind that would lock up Galileo, or ostracize Darwin, even though neither did anything to attack religion. Nor were they atheists.



Are you confusing materialists with materialism? Materialist are a type of naturalist, closely related to modern scientific ideas. It is not the worship of the material world or material goods, wealth, etc. Arguably Hinduism has an element of materialism in it depending on who you are devotee of.



Actually it has everything to do with these threads, becuase the people arguing against, are not simply arguing that point they are arguing about moral purpose, and they have a specific theology, with a specific story behind it. There is an objective behind asking the question, which they see it as a direct challenge to their theology, and this is part of their evangelism.

Let me ask you something? Who started this thread? Atheists? Scientists? If someone raises a point expect criticism. I have nothing against religious people, with personal convictions. I do have a problem with people who can't accept that others don't agree with them then complain when they receive criticism for it.

Then there is the implication that those that don't go along with the metaphysical argument are somehow less "virtuous" for it.

Then I expect that somewhere in your bag of materials you have a chunk of science that has been sliced up, inspected with a microscope, irradiated, electrically charged, dropped from great heights... etc. etc.

Stupidity, I suggest, is incomprehensible to the stupid.

Again, I say that this thread is about the philosophical credibility of Naturalism.

Then why do so many of them ask for 'proof'? That's been my experience anyway.



If this is the case, then why do so many of them get all hot and bothered whenever someone so much as says that he/she simply cannot accept the atheistic worldview (i.e. that there is no/are no god(s))? Why do so many of them take belief in God as a personal challenge or insult?



No, the burden of evidence (you see, you yourself are now asking for proof) lies with the person who makes a claim full stop. Ex. 'God exists', 'God does not exist'. It is up to the claimant to demonstrate to others why they should accept what is being claimed by that person, and it matters not what kind of claim it actually is.



There is no such thing as an 'agnostic atheist'. One is either an agnostic (existence of God remains unknown, but one is open to the possibility) or an atheist (one believes there to be no God). You can't have it both ways.



Here we go with scientific evidence again. Science can only show us that which exists within the realm it is equipped to actually deal with; that is, the physical universe. IF there is anything beyond our universe, science cannot tell us about it. The choice is NOT between 'science' and 'God', the choice is between a dogmatic adherence to a particular paradigm and an open-minded willingness to investigate what one does not naturally accept, but which one is willing to nevertheless consider real if there are good reasons for it. I believe in both science AND God, because the two are NOT mutually exclusive. This claim that one must choose between the two is just another atheistic fantasy that one often comes across on the internet.



Complete rubbish. Atheism is NOT the default position, for there is no default position when it comes to this topic.

EXACTLY! Why are so many bringing up issues that are not really relevant to this?

It may not be a 'metaphysical thing', but it certainly IS founded upon certain philosophical assumptions (ex. the reality of objective existence).



Oh no, not the Galileo myth again! Look, do yourself a favour, and actually investigate what really happened to Galileo, rather than just spouting what you may have heard from the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins. Darwin was not 'ostracised' - in fact, those who were reluctant to accept his ideas were those within the scientific community at the time.



Ok, let's go with how you define the terms here.



Who here has a 'specific theology'? I certainly don't, and I don't think anyone else here does either. Evangelism? Where on Earth did you get the idea that anyone was trying to win converts to a cause?



I did. I am not a Christian, don't care about what is commonly called religion, have no 'agenda', know quite a LOT about science (I recently completed a physics course, in the course of which my percentage result was 100), and you, sir, are trying to distract us with superfluous and patently false nonsense.

I have to say, I am really disappointed with the overall quality of the responses from the self-proclaimed atheists here. I really was expecting a challenge, but instead ended up with silly cliche's, bad argumentation, historical fantasies about 'poor atheists' being persecuted (ex. Galileo, Darwin), straw men, red herrings, and attempts to sidetrack the discussion.

This is just not good enough! Atheists, lift your game! You'll have to do much better than this if you want to be taken seriously. (Hint: A good place to start would be to actually know what you are talking about).

K.K., that's a joke, isn't it? I ask because I am not very good at detecting sarcasm and humour in print (or even with people in person before me, truth be told).

So we are 'thick' simply because we can see right through your pathetic attempts to convince us of your nihilistic philosophy. Well, congratulations, you have just demonstrated for all to see your profound immaturity and general cluelessness when it comes to actually presenting a coherent argument. Let's all just resort to senseless ad hominem attacks when we are losing an argument and have our backs to the wall (you know, the way you do so effectively).



Why an infinite regress of prior causes for a given phenomenon or event is actually impossible.

It's rather simple really. Atheistic cosmologists (like S. Hawking, to give a rather obvious and overused example) will tell us with a straight face that all we know of simply popped into existence from literally nothing. Now, quite apart from the sheer impossibility of this, the primary reason why certain physicists do this is because they know that if they were to say, 'oh, the universe actually arose from x', they would then have to explain why x existed (and how).
You see, the postulation of just another 'something' doesn't solve the ultimate riddle, for you then have to come up with an explanation for the explanation. Then you have to come up with an explanation for the explanation for the explanation... infinite regress. This is why we are told that (for example, gravity) is 'nothing', even though it quite clearly is something. The 'quantum vacuum', 'branes' and all the rest suffer from the same problem. What is needed is something that does not, in its own turn, require a cause. In other words, something that the philosophers call 'necessary'. It must also be self-explanatory (i.e. contain within itself the reason for why it is), atemporal (since it is not in any way confined by our physical reality), and at which the 'buck stops', so to speak. This is actually required, because there has to be something that underlies our reality that in turn does not need to be accounted for the way that all else that is purely contingent does.
We now know that our physical reality isn't temporally eternal (the 'beginning' being placed circa 13.7 thousand million years ago - you see, I DO know something about science! ), and the reasons for this are too many to go into detail here.



Well, then I would suggest you find other 'religious acquaintances', for no one knows (how could they?) what, if anything, lies beyond physical reality. We can, however, put forward ideas though, ideas based upon what we do already know and what is philosophically sound and logical.

I don't want a political battle. This debate should be about what is true, demonstrable, probable, logical and so on. Politics should never enter discussions like this.

I understand that over in the U.S. there are people called 'creationists' who are trying to (apparently) subvert the teaching of science, and promote the nonsense contained within a book called 'Genesis', but the rest of the world isn't like that at all. If a politician in my country were to come forward with and say something like, 'I believe the Earth to be only 6,000 years old', absolutely no one would take him seriously. He would be laughed at, and then ignored.

So, let us all forget about 'politics' and concentrate on what really matters instead.

I agree with the first part of your response, about there being a false dichotomy here. As for deists (ALL of them?) treating God as the default option - well, maybe. Not knowing something should not lead one to conclude, 'Therefore God did it', but at the same time it needs to be acknowledged that a) science, as a practice, does have its limitations when it comes to ultimate questions, questions about what may lie - if anything - beyond our physical realm, and b) the recent behaviour of some scientists whom I won't name, regarding this issue, leaves a great deal of room for improvement. The arrogance and hubris displayed by them is almost certainly turning many people away from atheism, and giving science a reputation for impinging upon the jurisdiction of other disciplines that many believe it has no right to do (ex. philosophy, history, theology). When they say stupid things like, 'Science has shown us we have no need for God', one can only roll one's eyes

OMG you have so much common sense.

OMG that's refreshing here.

OMG I'm serious about that too.

Becouse theists claim to have it; we ask you to show it to us
Not "where is *the* proof" but "where is *your* proof", see the difference?


Not accepting our view is unfair; most atheists accept the theistic worldview as existing, they just don't believe it. Also, many are willing to change their views to theistic, if given significant evidence (or proof, using your definition)


No, here i did ment proof. you claim to have the truth, prove it by providing evidence.
At least you accept that the burden lies with the one making the statement; ergo: the theists. atheists dont state a negative, they just accept your positive off-hand (you are again confusing atheists with antitheists).
The atheist states: "i dont know, i will try to find out", the theist states: "i know, god did it". now, which of the two is making a claim?



Actually, you can, and have to be. gnostic is about knowing for sure, you can be a gnostic atheist (or antitheist), that knows there is no god, the gnostic theist who knows there is one, the agnostic theist, who doesn't know whether there is a god, but believes there is (these are very rare, but possible), and the agnostic atheist, who doesn't know but also doesn't believe


If you cannot prove god anyway, then why do thesist want us to prove against god? same question.
I myself never said the two were mutually exclusive. Also, you got your descriptions mixed up, science is the field that keeps on changing its mind when new insights are found, religion hasn't changed significantly since the dark ages, but rather adheres to dogma.
Science is all about investigation and not accepting naturally, you need to prove (provide significant evidence) your claims. A book written 1500 years ago does not qualify as 'significant evicende', or even as evidence at all.


Actually, it is, for science as a field of study (not for scientists, perse). Any claim made must have a good reason to be claimed. Scientific research involves a lot of "let's try to prove myself wrong", which applies to all fields. if you fail to do so, you ask others "prove me wrong". if they also fail, you have made a valid point, which will then be used as "the truth as we know it", untill a better explanation comes around.
Of course, you must first show that your idea works in the first place, using something that is not explained by any other currently accepted knowledge, and this is just where most theists fall short.


Do tell, becouse it actually has. Science can explain all of the so-called 'creation' without invoking a diety, except for the very first microsecond after the big bang (and said bang itself).
This is indeed not any evidence against a diety, but it does invalidate a lot of evidence for one.
As for anything outside our universe, well, sure. some diety can reside there, sparking the big bang, guiding formations and evolution, sure, i guess. But neither science nor religion can make any relevant claims in that direction, only guesses.


finally; this list i made were not personal attacks, just a few ground rules for discussions on this type of topic, since these are often mixed around or ignored.

you made it personal, so this response is too

Thinly veiled ad hominem is lame.

Naturalism as a philosophical school is not really required, becuase the credibility of philosophy itself is fairly limited. Even some philosophers make this argument.

There was time when Natural Philosophy was seen as analogous to science, but there was more of an overlap in the esoteric, eclectic and fanciful.

Philosophy is a 'soft' science at best, it a poor substitute for empirical science.

The only parts of Philosophy that stand on their own are the disciplines related to systems of living, for instance Ethics.

Dude, you came in here and said the words "Cosmological Argument" with a straight face. You were bemused when it was pointed out that it has been ripped to shreds so many times in introductory philosophy lessons that non-philosophers can point out the flaws easily. Then you couldn't wrap your mind around the idea that infinite regress might be possible even though it seems weird. Then you didn't realise that there are many philosophical arguments against the existence of a god, particularly an intervening one. Then you tried to claim that atheism isn't the null hypothesis? Do you even naturalism?