Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound
The people who came up with the Stanford definition I link to seem to disagree with your understanding of the term, and it is that particular definition I have a problem with.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
Ah sorry Lintar I did not see your post. Well clearly I disagree with people who hold the view that the supernatural does not exist. However I suspect most people with whom I share my perspective, would say that they find the plausibility and probability of a supernatural realm (as generally understood) highly unlikely.
Your thoughts on the nature of other universes has provoked some thinking on my part. IE would they class as supernatural? This is something I would like to explore further. But not right now, maybe I will start a thread later on.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
Your thoughts on the nature of other universes has provoked some thinking on my part. IE would they class as supernatural? This is something I would like to explore further. But not right now, maybe I will start a thread later on.
A much more reasonable view. Hey, we're actually making progress here
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA we are using satellites to debate when we could sit down to a beer. I am in sunny Ballarat. And as such I am spoiled for choice having both 100M/bit cable and fibre optic at my door.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
Hey my view has never changed. If you read my posts you will see that this has been my position for years.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
Much obliged.
I'm not sure that your conclusion (nor parts of the linked article) is necessarily correct. There's no hard denial of the possible existence of the supernatural here, leaving the door open for the possibility of the existence of things outside physical reality that cannot interact with or affect reality.
It comes down to how you define reality. If we define reality as the physical Universe - that is to say, those things which can be measured and quantified - it doesn't necessarily follow that those things we imagine to exist outside the Universe are non-existent. But (as with much philosophical musing) there's more than a minute element of sophistry involved.
This isn't actually true. There are Naturalists who positively assert that there is no such thing as the supernatural, and there are those who assert that the supernatural might exist, but if so, they cannot interact with the physical Universe.
This is a non-sequitur. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, it merely refrains from unprovable or unmeasurable speculation. Neither does science (nor genuine scientists for that matter) claim to hold all the answers. Just because the breadth of scientific knowledge doesn't support a given hypothesis today, doesn't mean it won't tomorrow. For this reason, science and faith are not incompatible, but the same is true of science and non-faith.
This is why a scientist will not describe an unprovable hypothesis as "false", rather they would describe it as "unfalsifiable".
It seems like you're suggesting that the process of thinking is itself supernatural. Could you elaborate?
You'll have to provide some examples here. Most scientific Paradigm Shifts occur as the result of new findings. For example, the discovery that neutrinos have mass ran counter to the Standard Model, and partially informed the hypothesis that led to the pursuit of the Higgs Boson.
Are we back to solipsism here, or have I misunderstood your meaning?
Your thoughts on the nature of other universes has provoked some thinking on my part. IE would they class as supernatural? This is something I would like to explore further. But not right now, maybe I will start a thread later on.
A much more reasonable view. Hey, we're actually making progress here
I suspect that this exchange demonstrates the core of a common misunderstanding on this board, exacerbated by ideological partisans who seek to paint all non-theists as subscribers to a narrow world view that exists only in the imagination of said idealogues.
Atheists share one thing in common, they do not believe in supreme beings. Attempting to generalise beyond this is as sensible as swatting mosquitoes with a bazooka.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
Adifferentname just wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading your eloquent, rational and intelleually honest posts. We may not agree on god but at least you have shown that you are a person with whom a genuine debate can be had.
@whats up lintar the idea of a beer or glass of wine at "The Lake Views" scared you into silence As they say it is a very small world.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
Atheists share one thing in common, they do not believe in supreme beings. Attempting to generalise beyond this is as sensible as swatting mosquitoes with a bazooka.
I have never accused anyone of being an "atheist" but have roundly scoffed at stupid Materialists many times.
An "atheist", according to Word Web dictionary, is "Someone who does not believe in god; someone who believes that no deities exist".
As in "a-theist" a denial that any "theistic" possibilities exist.
Then we have the smug, all-encompassing justification for every ignorance and perversity; agnostic. "A-gnostic" simply means that you "cannot know".
It will take more than a bazooka to take out an epidemic of plague proportions.
I appreciate the sentiment. Likewise, I usually find your posts to be well-reasoned and rational - though we're all prone to the occasional bout of hyperbolic shit-flinging or outraged overstatement.
That you would surmise such is the result of either paranoia or an overinflated ego.
"Accused"? You have a moral objection to atheism?
The very fact that you categorise Materialists as "stupid" without providing one iota of reasonable supporting data marks you as a bigot.
As in "a-theist" a denial that any "theistic" possibilities exist.
Perhaps that clumsy definition is giving you problems. Let's use the OED definition instead:
atheist, n. and adj.
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
As you can see, atheists are defined by their response to a positive assertion of the existence of a God. Ergo, all theists are technically atheists.
Now you're conflating smugness with honesty. Nobody can make an honest positive or negative assertion regarding any specific god or gods. In my experience, smugness tends to present in gnostics.
If by "epidemic" you mean "the free and honest expression of ideas" then I'm a proud, card-carrying plague-bearer, and thus far you've been firing blanks.
There is at this time another discussion taking place in the 'Politics, Philosophy and Religion' group about the existence/non-existence of God that is getting a bit bogged down, with people not really taking into consideration what is actually being said by those they disagree with (or maybe that's just my perception of the situation).
I'd say it's a measure of both. From my perspective, the discussion is bogged down by circular reasoning and unsubstantiated claims - but I can accept the possibility that comprehension failures are a factor too.
Let me stop you there. We've entered the realm of knowledge vs belief, which is something of a red herring. Characterising atheists as materialists is wrong in the first instance. Do you wish to argue against materialism or for the existence of a god or gods?
That depends entirely on the branch of naturalism these alleged naturalists subscribe to. If you're arguing against baseline naturalism, all you need to demonstrate is that supernatural forces can affect the natural world. If you're arguing against hardline naturalism, you need to demonstrate that supernatural forces exist in the first place.
a) refuses to acknowledge the philosophical basis of the claim itself, instead treating it as something that has been scientifically demonstrated to be true
Well no. It hasn't been scientifically demonstrated to be untrue - which is not even remotely the same thing.
How have you arrived at this conclusion? The scientific method is perfectly adequate as a means of measuring whether supernatural forces can operate in the natural world.
Please elaborate on this.
What is a scientistic assertion? Who made this assertion? The test of the scientific method is in its results and in the self-correction of science. Knowledge and understanding are found in the refinement of ideas, not the dismissal of findings that you find ideologically incompatible with your philosophical worldview.
You haven't really demonstrated that this is the case.
What useful discoveries have been made starting with the idea that "nothing is objectively real"?
So your position is effectively "You cannot prove that you are not a construct of a solipsist fantasy therefore God exists"? And you're arguing that the scientific method, rather than philosophy, is the wrong tool for the job?
If you stop there, you and I can simply agree and move on. The degree of plausibility is irrelevant if neither of us is making a positive claim.
You don't "know" anything. Solipsist construct, remember?
Now we've arrived at the heart of the matter. One does not study apples to disprove the existence of oranges. Rather, one examines the specifics of the positive claim that is made. It would be irrational to begin with "God may or may not exist" and then go on to claim that a specific god, with specific characteristics, positively exists.
Define what you mean by "atheistic arguments that work". Explain why you believe the LCA is credible. You're not really making a case to be argued against here.
God exists, YouTube theists like to proclaim, whilst at the same time asserting that all other gods are fictional and that the true path to enlightenment and truth can only be found if you follow their specific deity.
Seriously, you're suggesting that Youtubers are somehow representative of atheists? Why should we care about the claims of vloggers? Are these vloggers making a genuine positive claim, or are they simplifying their position for effect? Are they making a genuine argument or is "God does not exist" shorthand for "I have yet to be convinced of the existence of any specific deity"? Are they making a philosophical statement on the nature of existence? What does any of this have to do with materialism or naturalism?
However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.
Please elucidate
A sentient First Cause is central to the argument put forward, as it's an essential component of the LCA. Perhaps you've failed to understand the "matters in hand"?
It's time to either piss or get off the pot.
There's quite a lot to respond to here, but I'll try. First things first.
1) 'Let me stop you there. We've entered the realm of knowledge vs belief, which is something of a red herring. Characterising atheists as materialists is wrong in the first instance. Do you wish to argue against materialism or for the existence of a god or gods?'
Response: Every single atheist I have ever met has also been a materialist, a person who also rejects the supernatural in general. Now, I perfectly understand that atheism is, strictly speaking, nothing more than a rejection of gods in all their forms, but I have to say that atheists (perhaps not ALL of them, but the overwhelming majority) also accept other things as being given (ex. that near-death experiences have a perfectly natural, neurochemical explanation and are not glimpses of an afterlife). If there are any atheists who are NOT materialists as well, then point them out for me.
2) 'That depends entirely on the branch of naturalism these alleged naturalists subscribe to. If you're arguing against baseline naturalism, all you need to demonstrate is that supernatural forces can affect the natural world. If you're arguing against hardline naturalism, you need to demonstrate that supernatural forces exist in the first place.'
Response: The branch of naturalism is the basic, baseline definition of the term. The link I provide a couple of pages from here (the Stanford article) basically covers what I mean. I didn't say I really did 'believe' in the supernatural, but the whole point of this thread is to show that not only is baseline naturalism a philosophy of reality that is highly suspect, but that the supernatural cannot be ruled out simply because we happen to believe that the physical reality we are so familiar with is all there is (and because it is the only reality we currently have access to, although there are those who say they can see ghosts for example, but let's not get into that now. That's a different discussion).
3) 'Well no. It (i.e. the philosophical basis of the claim that nature is all there is) hasn't been scientifically demonstrated to be untrue - which is not even remotely the same thing.'
It's not about science, it's about philosophy. The claim that nature is all there is because it is all that we ourselves are aware of, can't be 'demonstrated to be untrue' using science, because it is not within the scope of the scientific method to actually address this question in the first place. If something really does exist beyond physical reality, then we will have to approach the issue with a bit more ingenuity and imagination, above and beyond just simply doing what we usually do (and no, I'm not suggesting we resort to 'psychic powers', astrology, intuition or any of those other methods that have clearly failed).
4) 'How have you arrived at this conclusion? The scientific method is perfectly adequate as a means of measuring whether supernatural forces can operate in the natural world.'
The scientific method can only deal with that which can be measured, weighed, classified and repeated. It cannot deal with one-off historical events, subjective personal experiences, morality, beauty, qualia, consciousness, and anything else that occurs outside the currently accepted materialistic paradigm. To say that it has these limitations is not a criticism of it, but an acknowledgement of the fact that the limitations it has are there for good reasons, for the specific function it serves (i.e. to uncover how things within our universe work, and why).
5) 'Please elaborate on this' (i.e. the fact that evidence takes many forms).
Well, there is of course the usual physical traces that one usually thinks of when one hears the word 'evidence' (ex. DNA evidence at a crime scene), but what about historical evidence? Repeatability is stressed when it comes to performing experiments, but some things just cannot be repeated and yet we accept they nevertheless occurred. Personal recollections of an event, for example, are not amenable to any tests that one could perform, and yet the objective existence of the past (another philosophical notion) is one that virtually no one denies.
Then of course there are the inevitable conclusions that one reaches from premises that are accepted as true, mathematical proofs, et cetera. That's what I meant.
6) 'What is a scientistic assertion? Who made this assertion? The test of the scientific method is in its results and in the self-correction of science. Knowledge and understanding are found in the refinement of ideas, not the dismissal of findings that you find ideologically incompatible with your philosophical worldview.'
Scientism is a philosophical worldview. '2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)', from the following link - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism
It's basically the belief that any and every conceivable issue, problem, mystery and so on, can be dealt with by using the scientific method.
7) 'If you stop there, you and I can simply agree and move on. The degree of plausibility is irrelevant if neither of us is making a positive claim' (in reference to God).
Yes, I cannot say for sure that 'God exists'; the term 'God' is one that I myself would prefer not to use, due to its religious connotations. I am, however, making the claim that the belief that nature is all there is (i.e. there is no supernatural realm) is one that is unsustainable, if only because we simply cannot know this. How can we be so sure that, for example, reality really is real and we are not just characters in some kind of simulation, as some have seriously suggested? What kind of scientific test could be performed to determine this? Any sentient characters within such a simulation would be completely oblivious to the fact that the world they thought was so real actually wasn't.
'You don't "know" anything. Solipsist construct, remember?'
I do know that I exist. I don't accept the Solipsist position - at all.
9) 'Now we've arrived at the heart of the matter. One does not study apples to disprove the existence of oranges. Rather, one examines the specifics of the positive claim that is made. It would be irrational to begin with "God may or may not exist" and then go on to claim that a specific god, with specific characteristics, positively exists'.
If at any time I made the claim that God really does exist, then I take that back. I have tried here, and elsewhere, to show that something analogous to what we usually call God is at least plausible, although I cannot prove that God really does exist (obviously). I am of the view that, all else considered, the existence of God is far more plausible than its non-existence, and for reasons given here and elsewhere.
10) 'Define what you mean by "atheistic arguments that work". Explain why you believe the LCA is credible. You're not really making a case to be argued against here.'
What I mean't was, athiestic arguments that give good reasons to seriously doubt that the very notion of God itself is flawed (ex. it contains self-contradictory attributes, like a square circle). I have yet to come across any arguments put forth by any atheists that are actually convincing, or even raise serious doubts about the whole idea. Their efforts have, thus far, been rather mediocre, to say the least.
Yes, I am usually busy at 3am.
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).
This is from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs ... nd-the-psr
Ok, I'll start off to help you along. Premise two is presumptuous, or at least it appears that way. Why must the explanation be God?
Ding ding ding...
This is but one definition of "God".
Why?
I'll accept that any "god" must be transcendent (though I'd like to point out this means most theists are wrong about their conception of god). I'd like to see some evidence that "god" actually created the laws of physics. I'd also point out that there are many works of art in which the creator participates, but that's a red herring.
Does Moreland have any proof for his claim?
Evidence?
Reasoning?
You might be starting to spot a theme here...
1) That isn't a widely accepted definition of "god".
2) You can't say something "must exist" without evidence for it
Come back when you can demonstrate that the universe requires a Prime Mover.
1) 'Ding, ding, ding...'?
Okay, moving along.
2) 'This is but one definition of "God".'
Yes it is, but my own understanding of what 'God' must necessarily be, in order to fulfil the function we require (i.e. explain why things are the way they are) is all I am interested in. I don't care about Jesus, or any of the other historical characters and myths that one comes across among those who are religious. Perhaps the word 'god' should be ditched altogether, and something more neutral substituted ('ultimate foundation of reality', perhaps).
3) 'I'll accept that any "god" must be transcendent (though I'd like to point out this means most theists are wrong about their conception of god). I'd like to see some evidence that "god" actually created the laws of physics. I'd also point out that there are many works of art in which the creator participates, but that's a red herring.'
Yes, I am also of the view that most theists are wrong; or at least they are if they really do believe what they say they do. You want evidence that 'god' created the laws of physics. Well, there is what is known as the 'Anthropic Principle' that many theists use to argue that there must be a God of some kind (usually their own, of course).
4) 'Does Moreland have any proof for his claim?'
Tell me what you know about the concept of infinity, because any answer I give to this will be very long and detailed, and perhaps require a thread of its own. If you just 'Google' his name and add the words 'infinite regress', 'infinte regression' or 'crossing infinity', you should get what you are looking for. He has some good YouTube clips as well (though you have to put up with a lot of Christian mumbo-jumbo as well, unfortunately).
5) 'Evidence?' (that there must be something timeless and immaterial that sustains existence)
Well, I thought I had already done this here. Apparently not.
(I'll continue this in the next post, because I am typing text here and my fingers are going much faster than text is appearing on the screen - the same problem I had yesterday, and I want to be sure I don't lose what I have written here)
Evidence that there must be something timeless and immaterial that sustains existence -
It has been argued by many theologians that in order for physical reality to be sustained in existence there must necessarily be 'God' (or a modern-day equivalent to what they had in mind) that does this. It goes like this.
Entities, processes, phenomena and so on are either contingent (i.e. they exist the way they do, and at all in the first place, because something else brought it into being and/or sustains its existence), or necessary (i.e. that which exists does so because it cannot fail to do so - ex. the rules of logic, mathematical truths).
The universe itself is now generally considered to be an example of the former, not the latter. It 'began' in the sense that it has not always existed, could have been otherwise (ex. with different values for the fundamental constants), and could have failed to exist at all, in any form. The belief that it is actually eternal, is actually false. Steady State is dead (along with its proponents - Hoyle, Bondi and Gold), the evidence for the universe - i.e. ALL that we know of, the 'multiverse' having no evidence for it - being limited in extent and time now overwhelming (for example, it resolves Olber's Paradox, which an eternal universe cannot do).
So. We've established that the universe itself is contingent. Upon what though? What brought it into existence, and why does it not magically pop out of existence? I mean, if what some say is true, that entities like universes really can just pop into existence without any reason or cause, could not they pop out of existence just as easily? I'm guessing they could, but, strangely enough, we never - ever - see anything like this actually happen (and I'm not just talking about universes here).
Admittedly I myself do not believe that nature does, or even could, behave this way. I don't believe that all we observe just magically happened and is inexplicable, but that does not change the fact that the contingency of physical reality counts as evidence that 1) it did NOT 'create itself' - nothing does this, 2) come from literally nothing, and 3) have a cause that itself requires a cause, which in turn requires a cause, which in turn... to infinity. What is needed to call a halt to an never-ending sequence of causes is something essential and necessary, something that has within itself the explanation for why it is. Otherwise one will be condemned, for all eternity, to seek out the real reason as to why things are the way they are, why we even exist, and why reality even makes sense in the first place.
The cosmos is orderly, explicable, manifests lawlike behaviour, can be quantified, makes sense... in other words, the evidence points us to a universe that is not at all simply the end result of a sequence of 'accidents' that just happened to be beneficial for us. To believe that 'it just happened', and for no reason, without a cause - a truly inexplicable universe - is to believe in the literally impossible. If you truly believe this you will believe anything at all.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
Who me!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! Perish the thought.
Most certainly I can agree with the "outraged overstatement". In Six years of posting on this site it was only last week that I resorted to calling someone a "f*****g Idiot". But then I have not in all my time here come across one such as David. Your blow by blow characterization of his debating technique was as accurate a critique as I have seen on this site.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx