Naturalism

[olavisjo]

.
Is naturalism true?

• Naturalism
  • 2 : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance;
    specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

[Artie]

Do you understand that evolution can very well lead to non-selfish people? Yes or no?

Yes, but that is not the point.

That is the whole point.

The point is that evolution can't tell us that we ought to be non-selfish people.

Do you need somebody to tell you you ought to eat to survive? Do you need somebody to tell you you ought to drink to survive? Do you really need somebody to tell you that you ought to be non-selfish because it increases your chances of survival? Why in the world would you need somebody to tell you you ought to do or be these things? As any person understands that he ought to eat and drink to survive any moral person understands that he ought to live by The Golden rule because it increases his and everybody elses chances of survival.

Again, look up genetic fallacy.

I have and I don't understand the connection.

[Crazee]

It seems like things have purpose.

Purpose doesn't seem to be accounted for in the classical scientific approach.

Is there no meaning to anything?

Do we need something supernatural to account for purpose?

What separates purpose from cause and effect?

[olavisjo]

Do you need somebody to tell you you ought to eat to survive? Do you need somebody to tell you you ought to drink to survive? Do you really need somebody to tell you that you ought to be non-selfish because it increases your chances of survival? Why in the world would you need somebody to tell you you ought to do or be these things? As any person understands that he ought to eat and drink to survive any moral person understands that he ought to live by The Golden rule because it increases his and everybody elses chances of survival.

Who is to say that we ought to value survival, why not happiness or some other metric?
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did not value survival, they wanted the thrill of killing other students. Who are we to tell them that they ought to survive instead?
Naturalism has no basis to tell anyone what they ought to do.

[Artie]

Do you need somebody to tell you you ought to eat to survive? Do you need somebody to tell you you ought to drink to survive? Do you really need somebody to tell you that you ought to be non-selfish because it increases your chances of survival? Why in the world would you need somebody to tell you you ought to do or be these things? As any person understands that he ought to eat and drink to survive any moral person understands that he ought to live by The Golden rule because it increases his and everybody elses chances of survival.

Who is to say that we ought to value survival, why not happiness or some other metric?

Your whole religion is based on eternal survival in Heaven if you follow the morals of your god and now you are asking me "who is to say that we ought to value survival"!? You are kidding right? Being a Christian whose sole goal is to survive forever you of all people are asking me why we should value survival!? Religion is simply a way for evolution to make people behave morally and so survive longer by promising them they'll survive forever if they behave morally.

[Ooberman]

It seems like things have purpose.

Purpose doesn't seem to be accounted for in the classical scientific approach.

Is there no meaning to anything?

Do we need something supernatural to account for purpose?

What separates purpose from cause and effect?

Yes, I'm not even sure what they mean by purpose other than post hoc reasoning for why things are the way they are.

I don't see purpose in Life. I see Life replicating because that's what it does. If it didn't, it wouldn't.

I think they also don't mean "purpose" but "Purpose" - I think they intentionally define it in a way that requires a God to explain it. (as most of their definitions, like moral values).

[Waiways]

I think the discussion has moved quite a ways away from the OP. Somehow, survival, school shootings, and "Naturalism telling everyone what they ought to do" have gotten involved. In an attempt to right this debate, I offer the following argument: The universe is made up of patterns of matter/energy. Now, your argument states that truth and morality, among other things, are not explained by science.

A long time ago, some of these matter/energy patterns started to self-replicate. They went on to change based on their environment, and after a while, we end up with humans, who have this idea they call "morality." If we wait a while longer, we see one particular human, who writes on the internet "this idea I have could not possibly be explained by the laws of physics."

The point I’m trying to make is: Science can explain morality. The laws of physics don't account for what the moving patterns of matter/energy make, just their movements. Therefore, science just has to show that morality comes from the human brain, and humans are made of matter/energy. In short, physics and neurology.

Also, please show how arguments 1-8 are unexplainable by modern (or future) science, or retract your argument(s).

[austin12345]

[Replying to post 56 by Goat]

The universal acceptance shows that morals are objectively binding for everybody nomatter what culture that we live in or where we are from.
Also the fact that the majority of people who deny morality still act as the have them
There is a human intuition that some things are right and wrong.
Even people on your side like Sam Harris agree that these things exist without sufficient grounds for beleving in them

But I ask you, If somebody came and killed your closest family member would that be wrong? Or would you sit back and say whatever he didnt do anything wrong. I am just mad because of society telling me its bad but really its not?

[olavisjo]

You are kidding right? Being a Christian whose sole goal is to survive forever you of all people are asking me why we should value survival!?

Under Christianity there are many moral values and duties that we should respect, but under naturalism there is no reason why we should do anything, we are simply matter in motion and chemistry in action. We are just a relatively advanced primate with no moral significance.
Your incredulity tells me that you don't believe in naturalism.

[Artie]

You are kidding right? Being a Christian whose sole goal is to survive forever you of all people are asking me why we should value survival!?

Under Christianity there are many moral values and duties that we should respect,

Those moral values and duties evolved to enhance our chances of survival by cooperating and those moral values and duties were attributed to a god who supposedly said that if we followed those moral values and duties we would survive forever.

1. Organisms who cooperate have a better chance of survival.
2. Cooperation evolves a set of morals such as the Golden Rule for better cooperation and therefore better chances of survival.
3. Humans incorporate those morals in justice systems.
4. Humans incorporate those morals in a religion where humans say the god says that we should follow the evolved morals so we can survive happily forever.
5. Religion is a product of evolution to provide extra incentive to follow evolved morals which enhances chances of survival.
6. Evolution even evolved brains wired for belief to provide more incentive to believe in the gods and follow the evolved morals attributed to them.

[Bust Nak]

Truth can't be measure by accuracy. It is simply not possible because is based on belief.

That depends entirely on how you define truth. What you were talking about, telling the truth, I would call sincereity and not truth.

Crude lie detectors measure when a person knows the truth and attempts to say something other than the truth. They don't measure whether you believe what you are saying is true. Same for truth serum. It only stops a person from being able to lie. If that person believes that 1+1=5 then that person would still say that and would be telling the truth.

Correct. Which is why I used the term sincereity to seperate "telling the truth" and "the truth." Someone could be telling the truth and be entire inaccurate.

Naturalism can't measure concepts or feelings. It can't generate any sort of predictive model of how people will feel.

Sure we can, It's call psychology.

If something is unknown then how can you rule out supernatural as a possibility. Naturalism would have to acknowledge that supernatural events can happen and that would violate the very core belief of naturalism.

We rule out supernatural by adopting naturalism.

If would be bad science to rule out supernatural for say 15 things just because 1 was shown to be natural. Unless they are proven to be natural then they can be considered supernatural.

It's bad science to not rule out the supernatural, regardless of how many things was shown to be natural.