Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound
It is a methodology. And it is a foundation of the scientific method.
Actually they are separate concepts. To say that Naturalism is not related to philosophy is not true, becuase it was and is a philosophy movement (possibly an anti-philosophy movement) . It is closely related modern science nowadays, but that arguably only happened with influence of the desists, and materialism. It is possible to apply the principle of scientific method to hypothesis that are not strictly related to naturalism.
Science is driven observation of the natural world, so it is likely that naturalism would be a component, becuase observing the "super" natural hasn't happened in a verifiable way. The scientific method, in theory should be able to be applied to any hypothesis, but you can't set up an experiment for something that is not falsifiable.
It is a methodology. And it is a foundation of the scientific method.
The methodology of "assuming" a naturalistic explanation for what is observed.
You can be open to the possibility of a supernatural explanations, but you have conduct your experiments with the
assumption of naturalistic causes. To prove anything, even a supernatural cause, you have to knock down the alternative
explanations by seeking naturalistic agents for what is observed.
1],(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations
2],An artistic movement in 19th century France;
I refer to the thread title; "Naturalism is philosophically unsound".
It is impossible to argue about philosophy without even some idea of what it is.
I would contend that scientific method preceded doctrinal Naturalism by a looooong time.
Unfortunately also organized religion has done a lot to say that the only truth of the holy books of the west is the most simple and literal. That tends to lead people of this mindset to then see anything more philosophically complex as the results of apology.
...and I don't care about religion and their 'holy books'. Why do discussions like this always get sidetracked?
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't believe that prayer works either. I am not a Christian.
- Booming voice from the heavens.
- Reliable answers to prayer
- Unbelievers being struck down
- A holy book that accurately recorded historical events such as the evolution of life in such a way that people of the time it was written could not have known (or, if you like, genetic, geological, palaeontological and biogeographic evidence which supported the Genesis account)
- A natural occurrence which could not be explained (for example, if that flagella or the woodpecker's tongue really were irreducibly complex)
I could probably give you some more with a little thought. Now, if I may reverse the question - what would convince you there is no intervening deity?
You simply CANNOT be serious here! You are basically asking for God to be a magician, one that caters to your every demand for 'proof'. I do not myself know if there is an 'intervening deity', but I cannot rule out the possibility. It makes more sense than the belief that we are all just here because magic happened, a long, long time ago.
No, it is not 'obviously rubbish'. Why is it rubbish, and how is it obvious?
Now THAT is rubbish!
Occur within existing universes. What if there is no prior universe, one that already exists, for these events to occur within? You are basically saying that our own universe came from a prior one. This would lead to an infinite regress of physical universes.
So you believe in magic. Strangely enough, most atheists reject 'God' because, among other reasons, they claim not to believe in miracles. I guess a belief in magic is okay if one is using this belief to refute God.
I agree with Fnord, by definition science should not concern itself with meta-physics, except to try explain the behaviour of animals, through such belief systems the hold.
2. The creator cares what happens or even thinks at all
3. The creator wants to be worshiped
4. The creator cares about ritual
5. The creator is moral absolutist
6. The creator contradicts itself about being a moral absolutist and is hypocritical
7. The creator likes arbitrary rules the make no sense and have nothing to do with morality
8. The creator suddenly decided 4000 year ago, to create an arbitrary doctrine, in an arbitrary place, which is suspiciously like an offshoot Canaanite culture, and at first had five different versions doctrine, even multiple gods and even a wife of Yahweh, and only became monotheistic after Babylonian invasion.
9. The creator we will meet in the afterlife or there even is an afterlife.
10. The creator is happy to let pain and suffering happen in order to prove a point, when as a creator not just of the universe but of us could easily determine we lead good and moral lives, and has no reason to play this game, or we should even respect them for it.
viewtopic.php?t=266591#p6244088
viewtopic.php?p=6196991#p6196991
None of which have noting to do with explaining creation or the natural world.
PHILOSOPHY CAN SEEM UNNATURAL, IF A PERSON does not experience AND EXPRESS fully nuanced emotions.
Otherwise, PHILOSOPHY, IS THE MOST NATURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE HUMAN CONDITION; FULL PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN CONDITION, INCLUDING ALL 'METAPHYSICAL' EMOTIONAL POSSIBILITIES THAT ARE NOT currently NUMERABLE PER SCIENCE, IN BOTH fuller QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE MEASURE.
AND OMG, I've learned 'stuff' about the human condition here that I did not think is possible, per 'INTERPRETING minds'
that cannot SEEM TO understand this relatively simple truth of life.
And OG, 'it' POTENTIALLY explains so much about Hawkins, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the 'like'.
TRULY, IT'S fascinating to me, as if I had never come here, I LIKELY would not realize THIS is MORE FULLY possible.
Another great source for increasing my personal cognitive empathy, per what is possible, IS WHAT THIS SITE can be, per the human mind and body, in balance or NOT.
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
Let me try this one on you, Hogsy, to see what you recon about it; "philosophy is a system of disciplined thought".
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,150
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
I've always had a similar dislike for 'supernatural' - ie. it seems to suggest a break in nature's laws rather than rarely observed principles. Just reading some W. E. Butler yesterday I think he did he had a good suggestion - paranormal is the better term because it suggests just that; the rarely observed but most likely within the scope of natural law.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,150
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
...and I don't care about religion and their 'holy books'. Why do discussions like this always get sidetracked?
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
Let me try this one on you, Hogsy, to see what you recon about it; "philosophy is a system of disciplined thought".
THANKS FOR TRYING..
Philosophy, doesn't require verbal thoughts.
However, when it does, disciplined thought is the best way to go, in my opinion.
And to MORE FULLY understand the first line requires the REAL HUMAN intelligences of emotional regulation and sensory integration.
In other words, the touchy feely stuff.
And TRUST me, I understand that may be MOSTLY gibberish to one, in practical effect AND AFFECT.
BUT NEVER THE LESS, it is real human intelligence(S) that some folks are good at, and some folks are totally out of MIND AND BODY balance at.
On some emotional quotient tests the scores measure, 0 to 100, IN REAL LIFE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE.
At one point, when my 'Autism' IS 'severe', I score in the mid 50's.
The last time I check, I score 95.
And as far as the intelligence of sensory integration, one will have to get that tested at a 'CAMP FOR KUNG FU'. MORE OR LESS, per IF one CAN 'SNATCH THE MARBLE OUT OF MY hand',
or 'walk on rice paper' at 233LBS like me, without tearing it for metaphor, as no I do not have any rice paper but I can 'invisibly' sneak up on people, as I make no noise when I move, through thousands of hours of practice in the greater human skills of proprioception,
which some scientists now suggest is an important enough sense to be named the 6th sense, IN OVERALL, potential excellence IN MIND AND BODY BALANCE.
Westernized philosophy AND/or science has little REAL LIFE DISCIPLINED KNOWLEDGE ON TRULY THIS MOST IMPORTANT TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE(s), AS IT IS NON-VERBAL, AND WE LIVE IN A WORLD, overall, OF IDOLS OF WORDS, instead of ISA'S, per Instinct, Skills, and Abilities.
Knowledge is INSTINCT, AS well as metaphor for it, through words.
However, this is hands on stuff, and If you are a farmer if you do not have the emotional regulation stuff in Emotional Intelligence covered, chances are you might be fairly or very good at the sensory integration stuff, including proprioception, if you are still doing hands on FARMER stuff.
YES, A HEALTHY WAY OF LIFE that farm life can be; or cattle rancher, or whatever may be the details of THAT.
Sitting in front of a computer screen is the surest way to get truly 'ret*d' AT IT.
AND TRULY, it's disgusting to me that so many folks are getting labeled with Autism; yes, by professionals, more or less, because they've never developed the physical creative intelligence in REAL MOVING WAYS,
TO REGULATE THEIR EMOTIONS, INTEGRATE THEIR SENSES, AND INCREASE COGNITIVE EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING IN FOCUS AND SHORT TERM WORKING MEMORY, to become more fully functionally enabled
YES, MORE FULLY IN EVERYDAY LIFE AREAS OF IMPORTANT LIFE SKILLS AND ABILITIES TO GET ALONG WELL IN THIS LIFE, AS A REAL FLESH AND BLOOD, SOCIALLY cooperative success THROUGH ISA'S; YES, AGAIN, INSTINCT SKILLS AND ABILITIES.
WORDS alone, WILL NOT GET ONE to the destination of fuller mind and body balance.
And yes, per doctors report, I cure my Autism by mastering these fuller potential human REAL LIFE INNATE INSTINCTUAL, INTUITIVE GREATER SKILLS AND ABILITIES.
MEANWHILE some folks are going all on about how they HATE P.E.
YES, A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY IT CAN BE TO NEVER truly more fully develop creative human physical intelligence.
Interestingly, Gillberg who has described Asperger's syndrome, more specific to Hans Aspergers Case studies, suggests that the only SUBSTANTIAL difference between folks with Asperger's Syndrome and a full fledged psychopath, is faulty motor coordination.
I guess it makes 'em to fearful to do the bad stuff..
His idea, NOT MINE, OVERALL, as one of the people responsible for the fact that there IS ever a diagnosis, in the first place, FOR ASPERGER'S SYNDROME, and still is in Sweden, per his 'Gillberg Criteria' that does much better reflect Hans Asperger's case studies, than the U.S. classification ever did, IN THE DSMIV.
And if you are familiar with Tony Atwood, from 'down under', the only therapy he really offers for Asperger's syndrome is emotional regulation through CBT, Cognitive Behavioral therapy, AND that is of limited value without increasing creative physical intelligence, along WITH THE CBT.
AND LAST I CHECKED, HE IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THAT.
BUT YES, HE HISTORICALLY studies with Gillberg, and Lorna Wing, all working together to bring recognition to the work of Hans Asperger, and the namesake diagnosis, so tied in to this website.
Anyway, more special interest stuff from me..
I enjoy studying all of the human condition, not just 'one or two' parts of it..
With all due respect, I'm just trying to help folks understand more of it, as truly I DID CURE MY AUTISM, AND THAT IN ITSELF IS KINDA a REAL LIFE MIRACLE THINGY, relatively speaking, per the 'BIG SOCIETY' SCARE OVER THE 'A' WORD.
And Autism, the disorder, is comprised of very diverse individuals with differently caused similar symptoms but I JUST BET THAT IF MORE PEOPLE ENHANCED THEIR CREATIVE physical intelligences by 'getting off of screens', perhaps they could be dancing with flesh and blood humans, particularly the younger ones, every dam week, instead of BEING glued to words on a screen, in kinda ONLY AN approximation of what life can be WHEN IT'S SIMPLY AMAZING IN TOUCH FEELY STUFF..
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
let's clear up a few things (which may or may not be in this thread already, they are in every other one about this topic)
1) Atheists don't ask for 'proof', they ask for 'evidence', which is subtilly but significantly different
2) Athiests do not claim that there is no god, those are anti-thesists. An atheist doesn't believe in 'no god', he does not believe in 'a god', again, subtle but significant difference
3) The burden of proof *is* with theists, you are the ones making the positive claim, and the ones claiming to have proof as well; show it.
having said that: i count myself as an 'agnostic atheist'; i don't believe in a god, but i'm not sure.
my conclusion is simple though: any so-called 'evidence' for the existence of god is either ambiguous, internally inconsistent, intellectually dishonest and/or demonstrable false.
this is ignoring the fact that most of the evidence consists of proving the current scientific understanding to be wrong.
it might very well be, but that would only prove god if there were 2 options: science or god. however, science isn't one option, but the search for those options.
you are correct, it is not possible to prove that there is no god; but all that an atheist has to do is invalidate the evidence for him; in science, the default assumption is "nope, (probarbly) not true". as long as there is no evidence that can only be explained by a diety, i'll keep my assumptions to the scientific default, but i am surely willing to be convinced otherwise; try me
it might very well be, but that would only prove god if there were 2 options: science or god. however, science isn't one option, but the search for those options.
Yes, this^^^^^. It's a false dichotomy. Neither scientists being wrong about X nor scientists not knowing everything gives evidence of God. Science is a process. But Deists treat God as the default which must be true if scientists can't give an explanation of a phenomenon. "I don't know" should not automatically lead to "therefore it must be God".
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
Agreed Janissy, but it is a futile effort trying to get this through their thick heads. Another fallacy is that we are ideologically opposed to the existence of God. As I have said repeatedly I do not dismiss the possibility rather I dismiss gods probability/plausibility. Why would I be ideologically opposed to the heaven of the contemporary Christians, of course I wouldn't, but by the same token I do not believe in make believe. which is what is going on here.
Stories are made up to fit a belief, never a finer example than "an infinite regression is impossible (why?) and therefore something must have caused everything else, and that thing must be sentient (why?) and this sentient thing is not made up of the same fundamental particles that makes everything else (why?).
Unlike our religious acquaintances I and every non religious person be they a street sweeper or an astrophysicist that I have come across does not claim to know what, if anything, lies beyond our universe. They do however want to know. What the religious do not get is that bafflement and unknowing is the usual state for people trying to figure this out, coming up with hypotheses which fit our current knowledge is the only way forward and eventually we may manage to crack open this particular closed door to our knowledge. Compare this to the religious mindset who are so certain that they know the answers. Except they don't, the answers change with scientific knowledge and are bent to fit the latest findings, or they simple refuse to accept the latest findings and carry on their merry way.
_________________
"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
Stories are made up to fit a belief, never a finer example than "an infinite regression is impossible (why?) and therefore something must have caused everything else, and that thing must be sentient (why?) and this sentient thing is not made up of the same fundamental particles that makes everything else (why?).
I would just like to remind you that this thread is about philosophy and Naturalism. There are plenty of other threads where Materialistic mindlessness is lauded as the sum of all (non-existent) wisdom.