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

[charles_hamm]

.
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

Those are all possible under naturalism. Your assertions are rebutted.

Can you tell me which scientific laws explain meaning, truth, freedom and purpose?

No, but it's not logically contradictory that science could explain them. (Plus, I couldn't explain the scientific laws that do a lot of things in this universe - my ignorance doesn't make your religion true).

But, more importantly, saying "God Did It" doesn't answer your question.

Can you tell me the Divine Laws behind those things?

Remember, a Law gives us great predictability. So, when you mention the reason God has for, say, meaning, then you must make it predictable that if certain conditions are true, then meaning obtains.

Why do we have meaning? Is it a supernatural energy in our brain, or is our brain supernaturally tweaked to naturally create meaning?

We can play this game all night.

The truth is: we don't know, and smarter people than us are puzzling over it. Theists don't get to win because they say "God Did It."




So, to answer your question properly, please tell me the reason science couldn't explain those things? Is there any logical reason, if there were no gods or supernature, that nature (whatever it is) couldn't explain those things?

Please answer this so we can continue.

Aah. I see it's the old 'answer a question with a question' philosophy. The easiest one is Purpose. Purpose is subjective to an individual. Even the purpose of the entire human race is subjective. Science can never tell any individual what his/her purpose is. The same goes for meaning. Meaning is an abstract concept that can't be measured by science. So it is logically contradictory that science can answer at least these two (and if I thought more about it I could probably give reasons for all).

BTW, you made the statement that all of the list was possible under naturalism so it is you who have to prove your statement. Shifting the burden of proof won't work here. And no, we can't play this game all night. I have church to go to and you have to present some laws and rebuttals for my above examples (said tongue in cheek of course).

[austin12345]

Thats the point. If God doesnt exist then there is no purpose nor meaning. Everything would be subjective to opinion and perspective. Nor would there be morals. It would all be depended upon subjective opinion. If you believe there is purpose or morality then God does exist.

[Nickman]

Thats the point. If God doesnt exist then there is no purpose nor meaning. Everything would be subjective to opinion and perspective. Nor would there be morals. It would all be depended upon subjective opinion. If you believe there is purpose or morality then God does exist.

This is wrong. I posted about the Piriha tribe that Daniel Everett went to teach about Jesus. They had no god, they had morality and social order, they had their own purpose and they also influenced Daniel's eventual atheism.

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a morality debate. We have thousands of them where your claims have already been refuted.

[austin12345]

I wont make it that but it does realate. But if there is no objective law giver there is not objective moral values. This is true because morality would be based on your opinion. What your saying is that they have morality. Sure they do but there is no bases for it being objective for any sense. They will just have a sense of cultural unity of right and wrong but nothing making it objective. If God doesnt exist then Rape and killing children for sport isnt wrong but just a sociobiological evolution. Our morality would then depend upon how our atoms move and how our seritonen and chemical are realesed but there is no real reason to beleive it was true. It would be our perspective. As micheal Ruse and Dawkins have said Morality is illusory on their view.

[Nickman]

I wont make it that but it does realate. But if there is no objective law giver there is not objective moral values. This is true because morality would be based on your opinion. What your saying is that they have morality. Sure they do but there is no bases for it being objective for any sense. They will just have a sense of cultural unity of right and wrong but nothing making it objective. If God doesnt exist then Rape and killing children for sport isnt wrong but just a sociobiological evolution. Our morality would then depend upon how our atoms move and how our seritonen and chemical are realesed but there is no real reason to beleive it was true. It would be our perspective. As micheal Ruse and Dawkins have said Morality is illusory on their view.

Who says there is a such thing as objective moral values? All morals are subject to the society who holds them. I have lived all over this planet and each culture has its own morals, some are the same, many are different. It all has to do with culture. Naturalism explains this well.

[Ooberman]

.
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

Those are all possible under naturalism. Your assertions are rebutted.

Can you tell me which scientific laws explain meaning, truth, freedom and purpose?

No, but it's not logically contradictory that science could explain them. (Plus, I couldn't explain the scientific laws that do a lot of things in this universe - my ignorance doesn't make your religion true).

But, more importantly, saying "God Did It" doesn't answer your question.

Can you tell me the Divine Laws behind those things?

Remember, a Law gives us great predictability. So, when you mention the reason God has for, say, meaning, then you must make it predictable that if certain conditions are true, then meaning obtains.

Why do we have meaning? Is it a supernatural energy in our brain, or is our brain supernaturally tweaked to naturally create meaning?

We can play this game all night.

The truth is: we don't know, and smarter people than us are puzzling over it. Theists don't get to win because they say "God Did It."




So, to answer your question properly, please tell me the reason science couldn't explain those things? Is there any logical reason, if there were no gods or supernature, that nature (whatever it is) couldn't explain those things?

Please answer this so we can continue.

Aah. I see it's the old 'answer a question with a question' philosophy.

I have to ask because we both don't know the answer, so it's not as easy as offering an answer.

I need to understand why you think natural laws, whatever they might be, can't possibly explain the emergence of those things?

To me, you could insert "lightning" or "epilepsy" into those assertions.

"Naturalism can't be true because it doesn't explain THIS!"

If it's explained tomorrow, then what?

The easiest one is Purpose. Purpose is subjective to an individual. Even the purpose of the entire human race is subjective. Science can never tell any individual what his/her purpose is.

Why can't we say our Purpose is to procreate and anything else is an illusion to get you to procreate?

Or, maybe there is no Purpose, so it's a non-issue. After all, what is "Purpose"? What is your Purpose? What is mine?

Can you explain what Purpose is? Maybe it's not a real thing, but we talk about it as if it is, like gods and fairies.

The same goes for meaning. Meaning is an abstract concept that can't be measured by science. So it is logically contradictory that science can answer at least these two (and if I thought more about it I could probably give reasons for all).

How does "God" explain it? Why would a Universe creator naturally, also, be a meaning maker?

Again, maybe "meaning" is like "art" - it's something we can talk about but it's not "real" in the sense that it matters.

Think of a person 6,000 years ago who believed life had meaning, or there was menaing in the clouds... so what?

Maybe science explains it simply as an outgrowth of a physical brain - we can think about our reasons for acting and mistakenly believe them to be important thoughts and reasons?

BTW, you made the statement that all of the list was possible under naturalism so it is you who have to prove your statement. Shifting the burden of proof won't work here. And no, we can't play this game all night. I have church to go to and you have to present some laws and rebuttals for my above examples (said tongue in cheek of course).

I believe naturalism can explain them as outgrowths of our ability to think.

Why does racism exist? It's an abstract thing, we can talk about it, but it's explained as a fear of 'the other' with a fixation on racial characteristics.

It exists, in a form, among other animals - many animals are fearful of other animals, or types, but because we can create words, we can make it seem like we are talking about something more grand than what the animals think.
Maybe we don't.
Maybe our ability to conceptualize is similar, but our language gets in our way?


I'm not seeing the great mystery. I think it's a fabrication. I think these concepts are mislabeled categories of thought.

For example, think of how many ways "Hell" is described in Christianity. Or the Trinity. I think these are abstract thoughts of something that doesn't exist, but we can talk about it in a way that SEEMS like they exist.

They only exist in as much as we decide to talk about them.

If we stopped talking about 'Purpose", we wouldn't wonder where it came from. We don't need it, so it's nothing of value anyhow.

(That is, our reasons for acting can be explained perfectly well without any appeal to the supernatural.)


And, I would like to know how the supernatural explains ANYTHING! If it's something beyond nature, how does it affect nature?

[Ooberman]

Thats the point. If God doesnt exist then there is no purpose nor meaning. Everything would be subjective to opinion and perspective. Nor would there be morals. It would all be depended upon subjective opinion. If you believe there is purpose or morality then God does exist.

Or, option C: we believe them to exist, but they don't.

Or, option D: they exist, but in a much different way than what we think.

Or, option E: Other.

[austin12345]

So on your view you have to hold that murder, rape child abuse, killing your mom isnt actually wrong. Its just what you think. Are you willing to agree with that?

[Nickman]

So on your view you have to hold that murder, rape child abuse, killing your mom isnt actually wrong. Its just what you think. Are you willing to agree with that?

Who is this directed towards?

[Bust Nak]

There is a slight problem with your statement here. If your programming says "freely do as you intend to do" then your programing already assumes you have free will and intentions prior to being programmed.

Yes as part of the programming.

If you didn't then your programming would need to program you with free will and give you intentions which means all you would be doing is going by whatever you were programed with.

Yep, doing things according to my intention is exactly what free will means.

That is not free will and since your intentions were provided to you, they are not really your own.

Yes they are. The program is me, I am the program. What is included in the program is what makes me, me.

To have true free will you would need to be able to disobey your programing.

Intending to not do what you intend to do, is not "will" let alone "free will." It's a logical paradox, if not an outright contradiction.

If you violated your programing then the question becomes, were you ever programed in the first place? If you did have free will then there would be no need to be programed. Free will could also allow you to choose not to be programed in the first place. Your scenario assumes you are being programed, but you had free will and intentions prior to programing. As I said above, you could simply choose not to be programed.

n/a

We might also be a brain in a vat and all this is an illusion, but not likely.

You have no way to judge how likely it is. You only have one data point, insufficient to draw any probabilistic conclusion from.

Argumentum ad verbum moretum.

Ad what now?