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]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Your programing can't say "freely do as you intend to do" if you do not already have free will independent of the program. What you have said is that your programing is telling just to run a specific program that is already in place. That is not free will. Also that wipes out having intentions since you must do what the program tells you to, even if that is to do as you intended.

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.

It can't be your intention if it is provided to you. It would always be just part of a program no matter how much it seemed like your intention. You would still just be going based off of a program that told you what free will is and that is not free will.

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.

There is a major issue here. Your intentions would always be to run your program no matter what. This also means that your program could be updated. That update could conflict with free will. Since your only intention is to run your program you would no longer have free will, assuming you had it in the first place. If we assume your program can't be updated then you can never know if you have free will or not because your program may never have been programed with it.

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.

Actually no it is not. If your free will exist independent of your programing then you should be able to choose not to follow your programing, to go against your nature so to speak. If your free will exist solely as a construct of the program then you can never violate your program which means in at least that one case you lack free will.

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

Very applicable. If your free will exist outside the program then there is no need for the program since you are already free to do as intended anyway. The only thing the program could do is tell you to run the free will that already is in place. In this case the program would always be subject to the actions of your free will and it would become a construct of your free will and therefore unnecessary.

[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.

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?

Actually I do know the answer. Science can't measure or test any of the items listed above. They are concept that don't provide data points. Natural laws would fail to measure them because they are subjective to each individual. Natural laws MAY be able to tell us how they are generated but they can't tell us why, or what they actually represent.

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

Those are natural events that science can explain how and why they happen. They also are measurable events that can have data points.

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

If it's explained tomorrow, then what?

You are assuming naturalism can explain these. I am saying it can't. There is no 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.

Purpose is very much a real thing. What is your purpose for eating, drinking, going to work, etc.? Purpose is a the reason something exist, is done, made, or used. Procreation is a purpose, but can we say it's the only one? If so then there would be no need to help the needy or try to cure disease since we could simply find mates who are capable of procreating.

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?

A person 6000 years who thought their life had meaning would be an example that meaning is something real. Science can't differentiate between the brain and the mind (spirit, soul, whatever you want to call it). So it could be from the mind which would make it fall completely outside the realm of science. Science doesn't get to decide what's important and what's not.

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?

Science can't classify them as coming from the brain or the mind so naturalism can't say they are outgrowths of our brain.

Racism is as much about simple stereotyping as anything else. Fear is not the only component, and possibly not the major component, in racism. Racism is a belief system based on the view that one race is superior to another.

Your last point is a simple example of survival instinct, nothing more and nothing less. Prey fears predator because the prey understands the outcome of an encounter between the two due to past experiences, and nurturing by parents.

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?

How did you conclude that we don't need purpose? They exist whether we discuss them or not. These exist whether anyone thinks about them or not. There are actions that can't be explained without using the supernatural. A person running into a burning building to save a person and in the process loosing his/her life is one example. Nature would tell us to leave and survive so this would go against natural instinct. Nature would tell us to preserve our own existence in order to survive. In order to do this a person has to go against what nature tells them to do. It can't be explained by naturalism because there is no natural law that defines self sacrifice for the welfare of another.

[Bust Nak]

I think you are misunderstanding me. Your programing can't say "freely do as you intend to do" if you do not already have free will independent of the program.

What's wrong with the free will that is built into the program?

What you have said is that your programing is telling just to run a specific program that is already in place. That is not free will.

It's not just to run a specific program. There is only one - I am that program.

Also that wipes out having intentions since you must do what the program tells you to, even if that is to do as you intended.

My body must do what I tell it to do. I am in charge.

It can't be your intention if it is provided to you.

It is provided by me. Not to me. It's what makes me, me.

It would always be just part of a program no matter how much it seemed like your intention. You would still just be going based off of a program that told you what free will is and that is not free will.

I am not being controlled by a program. I am the program.

There is a major issue here. Your intentions would always be to run your program no matter what.

Yep, that's what it means to have free will - running according to ones intentions.

This also means that your program could be updated. That update could conflict with free will. Since your only intention is to run your program you would no longer have free will, assuming you had it in the first place.

Sure, this can happen already via brain injury or drugs. If I were to get a head injury and my personality transform, then I am no longer the person I was. Surely the possibility of losing free will, would support the idea that I have free will to lose?

If we assume your program can't be updated then you can never know if you have free will or not because your program may never have been programed with it.

No reason to assume that.

Actually no it is not. If your free will exist independent of your programing then you should be able to choose not to follow your programing, to go against your nature so to speak.

It's impossible to willingly do something I am not willing to do, whether you want to think of your existence as something apart from your brain or not.

I love burgers, but I am not buying them for the time being due to the horse meat scandal. This is me doing something I am willing to do, I am just going along with my nature of not taking risk, of avoiding potentially bad food even when it's tasty.

But if not buying food that I love doesn't qualify as having free will, then what would?

If your free will exist solely as a construct of the program then you can never violate your program which means in at least that one case you lack free will.

I don't ever need to violate my program to exercise free will, because my program is me.

Very applicable. If your free will exist outside the program then there is no need for the program since you are already free to do as intended anyway. The only thing the program could do is tell you to run the free will that already is in place. In this case the program would always be subject to the actions of your free will and it would become a construct of your free will and therefore unnecessary.

While these are all potential consequence if free will exist outside of the program. It's not applicable to me because I don't believe free will exist outside the program.

[Ooberman]

Actually I do know the answer.

No, you assert you have an answer. You can't prove your hypothesis that those things require the supernatural. If you want to talk about something that has no data points, the supernatural is it!

Science can't measure or test any of the items listed above. They are concept that don't provide data points.

It doesn't mean that naturalism can't account for them.

Natural laws would fail to measure them because they are subjective to each individual.

Here I think you have a misunderstanding of laws. Laws are descriptive models, not prescriptive. We measure things and laws are noticed from those measurements.

Natural laws MAY be able to tell us how they are generated but they can't tell us why, or what they actually represent.

Perhaps because they don't represent anything other than what they are?
It may be an irrational question like "what's north of the north pole?".

Until you can show that your question has merit, and is solely tied to the supernatural, I have every reason to be skeptical of your "explanation" (assertion) that it is a supernatural 'thing'.

Just because something doesn't seem to have "data points" doesn't mean it can't be explained via naturalism. Science seems to work really well and support naturalism, but naturalism isn't just about science, necessarily. That doesn't mean, however, that it defaults to supernaturalism.

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

Those are natural events that science can explain how and why they happen. They also are measurable events that can have data points.

So, here you have no problem NOT asking "what is the meaning of lightning" but you must ask about Life and other things?

It seems you are not clear in how you are choosing your questions.

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

If it's explained tomorrow, then what?

You are assuming naturalism can explain these. I am saying it can't. There is no then what.

You are saying it can't without any evidence AND you still haven't shown that the inability to explain it is necessarily tied to a supernatural reason.

I am saying there is no reason to believe naturalism can't account for everything, just as it accounts for lightning and epilepsy. There is no inherent contradiction.

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.

Purpose is very much a real thing. What is your purpose for eating, drinking, going to work, etc.? Purpose is a the reason something exist, is done, made, or used. Procreation is a purpose, but can we say it's the only one? If so then there would be no need to help the needy or try to cure disease since we could simply find mates who are capable of procreating.

OK, here you say Purpose is the easiest thing to use as an example for your case, so I think we should stay with it. Why go with the more difficult examples?

My purpose for drinking is that if I don't I will die. The chemical processes in my body "tell" me that I need water to keep those processes going. I can override those feelings for a time, but eventually my body will either force me to drink or I will die. My "purpose" for staying alive is to a desire on the part of my body to stay alive. Without a desire to live, I'd probably die too early to procreate, since I would simply walk into the road one day without caring if a car was coming.
That desire to stay alive doesn't need to shut off the minute I have children, or if I can't.
Plus, I have a REASON to stay alive. I am a thinking animal that realizes life is precious, particularly to me.

These are various ways we can explain "purpose" under naturalism. I see no reason to invoke the supernatural.

Perhaps you can tell me why we need the supernatural to explain these things?



(I edited out the rest until we deal with the easiest example of "Purpose". I see no reason to muddy the waters with more difficult concepts until I can grasp this one.)

[charles_hamm]

Actually I do know the answer.

No, you assert you have an answer. You can't prove your hypothesis that those things require the supernatural. If you want to talk about something that has no data points, the supernatural is it!

I have shown that naturalism can't explain these things which is what we are discussing here. I don't need to offer supernatural explanations since the thread is about naturalism explaining these things.

Science can't measure or test any of the items listed above. They are concept that don't provide data points.

It doesn't mean that naturalism can't account for them.

Please explain. If you can't measure or test how can naturalism say with any certainty it can explain them.

Natural laws would fail to measure them because they are subjective to each individual.

Here I think you have a misunderstanding of laws. Laws are descriptive models, not prescriptive. We measure things and laws are noticed from those measurements.

This goes back to my previous point that you can't measure these so natural laws could not be used here to make the descriptive models.

Natural laws MAY be able to tell us how they are generated but they can't tell us why, or what they actually represent.

Perhaps because they don't represent anything other than what they are?
It may be an irrational question like "what's north of the north pole?".

The problem here is it wipes out the question "why". If naturalism doesn't know what they represent or why they happen then it can't possibly explain if they are important or not. The best naturalism could do is label these things outside the scope of naturalism which would defeat the entire purpose of naturalism.

Until you can show that your question has merit, and is solely tied to the supernatural, I have every reason to be skeptical of your "explanation" (assertion) that it is a supernatural 'thing'.

Just because something doesn't seem to have "data points" doesn't mean it can't be explained via naturalism. Science seems to work really well and support naturalism, but naturalism isn't just about science, necessarily. That doesn't mean, however, that it defaults to supernaturalism.

Everything I have stated has merit. I don't need to show anything. I believe you have every reason to be skeptical of naturalism since it provides no explanations for the examples listed.

So if naturalism isn't just about using science to prove there are natural causes for everything, what else do you use? I mean science fails to explain the examples listed here so it doesn't work too well with naturalism when you get outside physical events such as lightning or a hurricane. Actually it does default to supernatural. If a natural explanation is not found and can't be found then an event must be supernatural.

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

Those are natural events that science can explain how and why they happen. They also are measurable events that can have data points.

So, here you have no problem NOT asking "what is the meaning of lightning" but you must ask about Life and other things?

It seems you are not clear in how you are choosing your questions.

I have no problem accepting lightning because it is a physical event that can be quantified. No I don't have a problem because lightning is not a living entity capable of rational thought or emotion. I can't say lightning has a meaning. I can say it has a purpose, maybe more than one. My questions are crystal clear. They just don't fall in line with naturalism.

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

If it's explained tomorrow, then what?

You are assuming naturalism can explain these. I am saying it can't. There is no then what.

You are saying it can't without any evidence AND you still haven't shown that the inability to explain it is necessarily tied to a supernatural reason.

I am saying there is no reason to believe naturalism can't account for everything, just as it accounts for lightning and epilepsy. There is no inherent contradiction.

I have asked for evidence it can. I haven't been provided any natural laws that explain the items on the list. Once again if a natural explanation does not exist, then the cause must be supernatural. I am saying naturalism does not account for everything. There is no reason to believe it ever will. The contradiction between naturalism and the items listed lies in the fact that they are not physical events and therefore nature plays no role in them.

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.

Purpose is very much a real thing. What is your purpose for eating, drinking, going to work, etc.? Purpose is a the reason something exist, is done, made, or used. Procreation is a purpose, but can we say it's the only one? If so then there would be no need to help the needy or try to cure disease since we could simply find mates who are capable of procreating.

OK, here you say Purpose is the easiest thing to use as an example for your case, so I think we should stay with it. Why go with the more difficult examples?

My purpose for drinking is that if I don't I will die. The chemical processes in my body "tell" me that I need water to keep those processes going. I can override those feelings for a time, but eventually my body will either force me to drink or I will die. My "purpose" for staying alive is to a desire on the part of my body to stay alive. Without a desire to live, I'd probably die too early to procreate, since I would simply walk into the road one day without caring if a car was coming.
That desire to stay alive doesn't need to shut off the minute I have children, or if I can't.
Plus, I have a REASON to stay alive. I am a thinking animal that realizes life is precious, particularly to me.

These are various ways we can explain "purpose" under naturalism. I see no reason to invoke the supernatural.

Perhaps you can tell me why we need the supernatural to explain these things?



(I edited out the rest until we deal with the easiest example of "Purpose". I see no reason to muddy the waters with more difficult concepts until I can grasp this one.)


You've already invoked a concept that nature can't provide an explanation for. You called life precious. So what would be the purpose behind staying with your wife, if you are married, after the age at which she can have children? Is it love? If so nature has no explanation for that either. Is it commitment? Once again, no natural explanation. Why not leave to find a woman to procreate with?

If survival is the only purpose in life then how can a person go against that natural instinct to risk his/her life for someone else?

[Bust Nak]

Please explain. If you can't measure or test how can naturalism say with any certainty it can explain them.

Sure, we can. Everthing listed in the OP can be observed directly (well, maybe not "enduring" since I have no idea what it means for an adjective to exist.) Truth is the easiest, just see how accurate an individual statement reflect reality, data for meaning and purpose for example can be collected by polling people.

[charles_hamm]

Please explain. If you can't measure or test how can naturalism say with any certainty it can explain them.

Sure, we can. Everthing listed in the OP can be observed directly (well, maybe not "enduring" since I have no idea what it means for an adjective to exist.) Truth is the easiest, just see how accurate an individual statement reflect reality, data for meaning and purpose for example can be collected by polling people.

Since truth is a belief how can you actually measure whether a person is telling the truth. If I believe, and have never been told otherwise, that 1+1=5 then I am telling the truth when I answer that question. I am not correct with my reply, but I am telling the truth.

[austin12345]

[Replying to post 25 by Nickman]

Well there are things like Objective values. For example everyone agrees that killing people for sport is wrong. You may say what about those who do? Well they are morally blind, just like the person who thinks that 2+2=5 or that red is actually blue. These people are mentally defective with no moral sense. But people with working rational faculties all agree that there are some things that are truly morally wrong.

Otherwise even the cultures view of right and wrong isnt right but based on opinion.

[Nickman]

But people with working rational faculties all agree that there are some things that are truly morally wrong.

Otherwise even the cultures view of right and wrong isnt right but based on opinion.

The bolded portion is exqctly what leads me to the conclusion that there is no absolute moral law giver and no such thing as true objective morals. Humans figure out what is right and wrong without any need of an absolute law giver. It rational thinking that provides us with real morals. This is something that the authors of the bible didn't use when they wrote the laws down which go against this rational faculty. For them it was moral, for us their laws are immoral.

[Bust Nak]

Since truth is a belief how can you actually measure whether a person is telling the truth. If I believe, and have never been told otherwise, that 1+1=5 then I am telling the truth when I answer that question. I am not correct with my reply, but I am telling the truth.

So by truth you are not talking about accuracy but sincereity. We can study that too by observing human behaviour and our brains. We know enough to make crude lie detectors and truth serum.

Well there are things like Objective values. For example everyone agrees that killing people for sport is wrong. You may say what about those who do? Well they are morally blind, just like the person who thinks that 2+2=5 or that red is actually blue.

I can put apples in a basket to show 2+2=4, and I can put red and blue filters over lightbulbs and measure their wave length to show they are different. what kind of experiment could you do for morality that can avoid getting someone to make a value judgment in deciding right from wrong?

These people are mentally defective with no moral sense. But people with working rational faculties all agree that there are some things that are truly morally wrong.

People's agreement can't be appealed to if you want to show something to be objective. I don't need anyone to agree that 2+2=4 or that red isn't blue.

Otherwise even the cultures view of right and wrong isnt right but based on opinion.

That assumes what is right is not the same thing as people's opinion. Your argument is question begging.