Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

Well it's admirable of you to admit you're not ready for potty training. Let us know when your diaper starts to itch.



Which version of the LCA argument? Again, you've provided nothing of substance. Make an assertion and back it up, otherwise your position can be dismissed out of hand as "lacks the courage of his convictions".



I'll provide you with one example, your first post in this thread. Anyone with an ounce of reason will understand why I haven't already quoted every single fallacy you've committed in this discussion, and why I refrain from doing so now.



Your opening statement in the thread is a clear shotgun ad hominem which leads directly into an unsubstantiated and vague strawman representation of any potential detractor as a "materialist" (which you commonly conflate with "Atheist"):



I doubt any reasonable person would accuse me of making a leap of faith were I to assert that the targets of this claim are those aforementioned Atheists - but that's not even relevant except as context for a larger picture, extant beyond the bounds of this thread. It is not necessary to identify the specific targets in order to call the foul in this instance.



This explains your piss poor debating skills. If you need some pointers, you need only ask.



When someone slips the occasional ad hominem into an otherwise logically sound and well reasoned argument, it can be overlooked. When someone posts virtually no positive assertions, refuses to back up contentions and resorts to ad hominem almost by default, it is a perfectly acceptable criticism of both the argument and the arguer to point it out.

You fall deep into the bowels of the second category.



We still haven't established which particular form of Naturalism is up for debate. As Lintar is the original poster, I suggest that it's up to Lintar to clarify this for us.

Yes, this is true. Philosophical assumptions (ex. the existence of objective reality) are the bedrock of all the sciences, and without which science would not even work.

Hey, I actually agree with this point

Yes, it certainly is the case that, 'there is no need for a diety inside our known and visible universe', but whoever suggested otherwise? Theists do NOT believe that God exists 'within the universe', for the God they believe to be real is responsible for that universe and (ultimately) all within it. Universes do not create themselves (nothing creates itself, actually) and so if one accepts the notion that the universe itself is not self-explanatory and eternal, then the only other option available is that something else, above and beyond our universe, was responsible for it coming to be.

No, wait, don't tell me - the claim about naturalism being philosophically unsound you dispute because you see no scientific evidence for it being so, and you do not consider argumentative evidence (i.e. logic) to be applicable to the claim. Am I right? So, you are basically saying that my claim that naturalism is unsound is itself unsound because you yourself fail to see that the claim itself (i.e. naturalism is unsound) is actually a philosophical claim, and not a scientific one.

Given certain true premises (ex. 'all that exists has an explanation, even if we do not currently know what that explanation is, for its existence, in either the necessity of its own being, or as a result of something external to it'), what follows logically in, for example a syllogism, is necessarily true. Naturalists like to believe that nature is all there is, and many if not most of them think this claim is a scientific one, when in fact it is not. They fail to recognise how false it is, if only because they can provide no justification for simply assuming there can be nothing beyond it. How do they know this? The simple answer is that they don't.

You yourself have now said twice that 'philosophy is not natural', whilst obviously failing to see that this claim itself is a philosophical one. You are using philosophy to denigrate philosophy.

Yes, I'll be more clear about this now.

According to the following source - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

"The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).

So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit’."

'Reality is exhausted by nature', it says. In other words, the 'supernatural' is, by default, non-existent. How, I ask, can anyone possibly know this?

That which we are capable of observing is, within the philosophy of Naturalism, equated with that which is real, true, and beyond which... well, there is no 'beyond' according to them. '...the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality', is just another way of saying that if the practice of science, with all it's never-mentioned limitations, doesn't support a given hypothesis then the hypothesis in question is non-scientific and therefore false. How can this position be justified?

What about mathematics, logic, and philosophy? Do they not form the very basis of what science actually is? Yes, they do, but according to this particular philosophy they don't really matter on their own. Scientific paradigms are based upon philosophical beliefs, not scientific ones. The belief that what we experience is actually real is not testable or falsifiable, and yet we all accept this (non-scientific) belief, but according to the strict tenets of Naturalism we shouldn't.

I wanted to add so much more to the above, but this stupid, useless computer is playing up. Internet services in this backward country is absolutely appalling, worse than it is on the moon.

We have not yet defined what you mean by naturalists. I consider myself to be one, yet I would not say "all that is, is natural". I say instead that, at present, all we can know is natural, and we cannot prove nor disprove the supernatural. However once someone claims the supernatural has entered the natural realm, then all known possibilities for this event occurring via known natural causes must be eliminated before anyone can begin to entertain the possibility that a supernatural event has occurred. Even then, once all known natural causes have been ruled out, it must be put into the "we don't know what happened" category. We simply cannot say that the event has been ruled out by "all there is to know".

Ruling in the supernatural because the event could not be explained via natrual causes has been shown to be fallacious throughout human history. In light of this I find it ironic that people holding to my posistion are now being attacked and characterised as small and closed minded by people who simply cannot "know" what it is they are claiming to know.

As for the practice of setting up a false axiom, based upon flawed logic, and then extrapolating this to show that evidence and knowledge gained via observation, math and experiment is wrong.

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.

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.

'Arthur', you are, like me, in Victoria. Are you having internet issues as well? I'm in Creswick.

I recently updated my profile, but the changes don't seem to have been saved (or something).

A much more reasonable view. Hey, we're actually making progress here

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.

Hey my view has never changed. If you read my posts you will see that this has been my position for years.

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?

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.

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.