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

[olavisjo]

.
If naturalism were true then none of the following would exist.

1. Intentionality
2. Meaning
3. Truth
4. Moral Praise & Blame
5. Freedom
6. Purpose
7. Enduring
8. Personal Existence

But all of them do exist, so naturalism is false.
So some form of super naturalism must be true, and that super naturalism is what is commonly referred to as God.

Source: Time code 1:04:00 to 1:08:06 here...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university

[McCulloch]

.
If naturalism were true then none of the following would exist.

1. Intentionality[...]

Please explain to me how naturalism prohibits intentionality.

[austin12345]

If naturalism were true than we cant believe that it is true. If it is true everything we do and say and believe we are forced to do so. There is no search for truth reason or logic. Nomatter how hard we try we are forced to do believe whatever we think. We will believe whatever benifits survival do to evolution, but that doesnt make it true. So if someone says evolution is true you ant believe them becasue they are forced to say it and they have no evidence. If they say the do they are forced to believe that as well.

[Nickman]

If naturalism were true than we cant believe that it is true. If it is true everything we do and say and believe we are forced to do so. There is no search for truth reason or logic. Nomatter how hard we try we are forced to do believe whatever we think. We will believe whatever benifits survival do to evolution, but that doesnt make it true. So if someone says evolution is true you ant believe them becasue they are forced to say it and they have no evidence. If they say the do they are forced to believe that as well.

Naturalism
1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
2.
a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

In what way does this definition prohibit Intentionality? How does naturalism force anything?

#5 seems to conclude that conduct is prompted by natural desires or instincts. This would be against the proposal of a prohibition of intentionality. We can intentionally act on our desires and instincts or against.

[austin12345]

Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances.

Taken from the center for naturalism. It is one of fundamental beliefs of naturalism. There is not room for free will.

[Divine Insight]

.
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

Not by that definition it's not true.

Where are there any scientific laws that are adequate to account for all phenomena?

I've been a physicist my entire life and never heard of any such thing.

I know that scientists are dreaming of a "T.O.E." (a Theory of Everything), but to the best of my knowledge they aren't even close to having any such thing in hand.

Moreover, there seems to be a lot of misunderstand even in the scientific community (or perhaps it's just in the public's misunderstanding of the scientific community).

Many scientists are working on theories of "Quantum Gravity" in the hopes of melding together gravity and quantum mechanics for a better understanding of what we already know.

But even that would not be a "T.O.E." Quantum Gravity still will not solve the mysteries of the Quantum world itself.

Even a model of Quantum Gravity would merely meld gravity into the quantum picture but it's not going to make the mysteries of Quantum Mechanics mysterious vanish.

So where are these "Scientific laws that are adequate to account for all phenomena"?

When I see those in hand, then and only then, will I consider a term like "Naturalism".

This idea that science has nature in a bag is a joke!

It's nowhere near being in the bag.

They thought they had nature in the bag with Newtonian physics and they were dead wrong. Why they are jumping the gun twice in a row like this is beyond me.

There are no "Scientific laws that are adequate to account for all phenomena"

That's baloney.

[olavisjo]

Please explain to me how naturalism prohibits intentionality.

If the world were governed by naturalism we would all be like computers, we would faithfully follow our programming, it would be impossible to intend to do anything beyond what we were programmed to do.

In "The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality" Professor Alexander Rosenberg says...

• That the brain no more has original intentionality than anything else does is the
  hardest illusion to give up, and we probably won’t be able completely to do so till
  neuroscience really understands the brain.

[Jax Agnesson]

Even if we allow ourselves to restrict the definition of naturalism to the narrow one that denies free will, (a serious bit of liberty-taking) it's still not valid to decide something can't be untrue just because we wouldn't like the consequences if it was.

[olavisjo]

Even if we allow ourselves to restrict the definition of naturalism to the narrow one that denies free will, (a serious bit of liberty-taking) it's still not valid to decide something can't be untrue just because we wouldn't like the consequences if it was.

It is not that we don't like the consequences, it is because we observe that we have free will that we know naturalism is false.

You can respond to this post or not, the choice is entirely yours.