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

[Ooberman]

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.

We seem to be in fundamental disagreement with our respective directions we take here.

Naturalism, to me, doesn't mean we should, necessarily, be able to measure everything, but that we can give a very strong account of how things might operate under a model, and see that model play out. (After all, if naturalism is true, we are "just" Apes and lucky to understand even basic things about our universe.. but I think Naturalism as a philosophy is much stronger)

For example, I know the movements of football players can be measured, the size of the crowd can be measured, and we know a lot about psychology and what happens with crowds watching sports, but we can't predict the emotion of the crowd as to whether certain movements of the players will result in a "narrative" that excites or bores the crowd. We know a close game with exciting plays seems to make a difference, but we don't know if the crowd is "really" watching the narraitve like on TV, or whether the players feel they are really trying to make big plays or finding it very rote, and even boring.

However, none of those immeasurables (as of now) seem to be of supernatural origin.

I propose that Purpose, Meaning, etc., are no different than whether it was considered a "Great Game".

So, let's stop here for a second:

1. Why do you presume that everything under naturalism can't be measured?
2. Why do you presume naturalism fails if it can't measure everything? Doesn't it make it unknown, but still possible for natural processes to produce the effect?
3. Why do you presume all things immeasurable are supernatural?
4. Or, if some immeasurables aren't supernatural, why presume ANY are supernatural?

[charles_hamm]

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.

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

[charles_hamm]

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.

We seem to be in fundamental disagreement with our respective directions we take here.

Naturalism, to me, doesn't mean we should, necessarily, be able to measure everything, but that we can give a very strong account of how things might operate under a model, and see that model play out. (After all, if naturalism is true, we are "just" Apes and lucky to understand even basic things about our universe.. but I think Naturalism as a philosophy is much stronger)

Naturalism as a philosophy might be stronger as a belief system, but it would not be able to be proven by science. That would make it very similar to, if not the same as, a religion. Here's the problem with giving an account of how things might operate, I can do that too and just insert the word God for the reason on every one. It would hold up equally well if not better than naturalism on the things in the list.

For example, I know the movements of football players can be measured, the size of the crowd can be measured, and we know a lot about psychology and what happens with crowds watching sports, but we can't predict the emotion of the crowd as to whether certain movements of the players will result in a "narrative" that excites or bores the crowd. We know a close game with exciting plays seems to make a difference, but we don't know if the crowd is "really" watching the narraitve like on TV, or whether the players feel they are really trying to make big plays or finding it very rote, and even boring.

However, none of those immeasurables (as of now) seem to be of supernatural origin.

I propose that Purpose, Meaning, etc., are no different than whether it was considered a "Great Game".

What you saying however means that purpose, meaning, etc. are based on each individual which means there really can't be any encompassing reason for why some feel it was a great game and some don't. As far as them being no different, I would say that they are because a great game does not hold any added personal value for a person while meaning and purpose do.

So, let's stop here for a second:

1. Why do you presume that everything under naturalism can't be measured?
2. Why do you presume naturalism fails if it can't measure everything? Doesn't it make it unknown, but still possible for natural processes to produce the effect?
3. Why do you presume all things immeasurable are supernatural?
4. Or, if some immeasurables aren't supernatural, why presume ANY are supernatural?

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

2. 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.

3. I presume that all the things on the list are supernatural not only because they are immeasurable, but also because they are unable to be accurately predicted and are subjective to each individual.

4. 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.

[Ooberman]

Naturalism as a philosophy might be stronger as a belief system, but it would not be able to be proven by science. That would make it very similar to, if not the same as, a religion. Here's the problem with giving an account of how things might operate, I can do that too and just insert the word God for the reason on every one. It would hold up equally well if not better than naturalism on the things in the list.

There is no inherent contradiction between these two statements:

1. Naturalism obtains
2. Everything must be measurable.

We already know from Quantum Mechanics that we can't measure everything, God or no God.

The account that naturalism gives for the universe is that of the Best Explanation based on the fact that science continues to find explanations for all kinds of unknowns, yet none of them require a God.

So far the only people claiming a God is necessary are the ones who claim there are gaps in our knowledge, they are not offering any positive proof of God.

These are arguments from ignorance.

What you saying however means that purpose, meaning, etc. are based on each individual which means there really can't be any encompassing reason for why some feel it was a great game and some don't. As far as them being no different, I would say that they are because a great game does not hold any added personal value for a person while meaning and purpose do.

It may. Many people feel very strongly about the meaning of games, or the meanings of things impacting the outcome of a game. Superstitions, etc.

We don't think sprinkling chicken blood makes an athlete better, yet why are we seriously considering some God must answer other unknowns?

1. Why do you presume that everything under naturalism can't be measured?

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

Just because we can't measure it now doesn't mean it can't, necessarily, be measured.

2. Why do you presume naturalism fails if it can't measure everything? Doesn't it make it unknown, but still possible for natural processes to produce the effect?

2. 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 can say supernaturalism is just as possible as naturalism, just an unknown process of naturalism. Or, it could be something else. It's not just A or B, it could be C, D, E, F....

You need to provide a solid philosophical argument for why naturalism can't, in principle, account for all unknowns.

3. Why do you presume all things immeasurable are supernatural?

3. I presume that all the things on the list are supernatural not only because they are immeasurable, but also because they are unable to be accurately predicted and are subjective to each individual.

What is the difference between the supernatural and something unknown, then?

4. Or, if some immeasurables aren't supernatural, why presume ANY are supernatural?

4. 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.

But you have no direct proof for the supernatural. If we don't know, we say we don't know.

I can show you an endless stream of things proven by science that are natural.

Can you show me ONE proven thing that is supernatural? If you can't, you have no reason to presume supernaturalism over unknown natural processes.

[charles_hamm]

Naturalism as a philosophy might be stronger as a belief system, but it would not be able to be proven by science. That would make it very similar to, if not the same as, a religion. Here's the problem with giving an account of how things might operate, I can do that too and just insert the word God for the reason on every one. It would hold up equally well if not better than naturalism on the things in the list.

There is no inherent contradiction between these two statements:

1. Naturalism obtains
2. Everything must be measurable.

We already know from Quantum Mechanics that we can't measure everything, God or no God.

The account that naturalism gives for the universe is that of the Best Explanation based on the fact that science continues to find explanations for all kinds of unknowns, yet none of them require a God.

So far the only people claiming a God is necessary are the ones who claim there are gaps in our knowledge, they are not offering any positive proof of God.

These are arguments from ignorance.

There is a major problem with this logic. Naturalism must assume that all things can be answered. That is not a proven fact. There are gaps in our knowledge and that by itself is not reason to say God did something. It is also necessary to say that the unknowns can't be answered. Scientist hope they can find answers to all the unknowns in the world, but that will never be realistic. Also some of the recent so called answers are nothing more than speculations that scientist hope are correct and therefore would remove a need for God.

What you saying however means that purpose, meaning, etc. are based on each individual which means there really can't be any encompassing reason for why some feel it was a great game and some don't. As far as them being no different, I would say that they are because a great game does not hold any added personal value for a person while meaning and purpose do.

It may. Many people feel very strongly about the meaning of games, or the meanings of things impacting the outcome of a game. Superstitions, etc.

We don't think sprinkling chicken blood makes an athlete better, yet why are we seriously considering some God must answer other unknowns?

These two have nothing to do with each other. If you want to compare something, individuals do think praying can make them better so God must answer other unknowns.

1. Why do you presume that everything under naturalism can't be measured?

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

Just because we can't measure it now doesn't mean it can't, necessarily, be measured.

It doesn't mean we can either. If we lack the means to measure, test or explain something then science can in no way rule out the supernatural as a cause.

2. Why do you presume naturalism fails if it can't measure everything? Doesn't it make it unknown, but still possible for natural processes to produce the effect?

2. 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 can say supernaturalism is just as possible as naturalism, just an unknown process of naturalism. Or, it could be something else. It's not just A or B, it could be C, D, E, F....

You need to provide a solid philosophical argument for why naturalism can't, in principle, account for all unknowns.

Actually I don't. The assumption that naturalism can answer all unknowns at some point in time in the future is unfounded. What it sounds like is you are trying to reduce supernatural events to simple "we don't know yet, but they aren't supernatural" events and this can't be done. If something is supernatural then by definition naturalism can't explain it. In principle naturalism can't answer all unknowns because that would require us to first know how many unknowns there are and what they are. We don't even know that. Naturalism fails before it can start because nobody can say how many unknowns there are. If naturalism answers 60% of the unknowns we know about is that good enough to say there is no God? 50%? 40%? What is the minimum amount naturalism must, not possibly can, answer in order to rule out God. The only logical answer is 100% and that can never happen.

3. Why do you presume all things immeasurable are supernatural?

3. I presume that all the things on the list are supernatural not only because they are immeasurable, but also because they are unable to be accurately predicted and are subjective to each individual.

What is the difference between the supernatural and something unknown, then?

An unknown is something that mankind may be able to explain at some future time using only natural laws. Supernatural is something that is outside the laws of nature and cannot be explained using them.

4. Or, if some immeasurables aren't supernatural, why presume ANY are supernatural?

4. 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.

But you have no direct proof for the supernatural. If we don't know, we say we don't know.

By your own statement here then even naturalism must say supernaturalism is possible. That philosophy would apply to God as well, which means atheist and theist alike would have to say God may exist. That would be against the very belief that naturalism requires.

I can show you an endless stream of things proven by science that are natural.

Can you show me ONE proven thing that is supernatural? If you can't, you have no reason to presume supernaturalism over unknown natural processes.

If you look you could also find an endless stream of things that are a mystery to science. If you can't show where science solves these things then I have no reason to expect science to be able to solve them. If science can't solve them naturally then I have every reason to presume they are outside the scope of natural law and therefore supernatural.

[Ooberman]

There is a major problem with this logic. Naturalism must assume that all things can be answered.

Naturalism assumes, in principle, all things can be explained via natural processes. There is no problem with this.
Likewise, theism assumes, in principle, that all things can be explained via theistic processes.

That is not a proven fact.

Right, hence our discussions and debates about both.

There are gaps in our knowledge and that by itself is not reason to say God did something.

Right. In fact, there is still no reason to posit a God.

It is also necessary to say that the unknowns can't be answered. Scientist hope they can find answers to all the unknowns in the world, but that will never be realistic.

Surely there is nothing wrong with hoping to have all the answers.. I'm not sure what you are arguing?

Also some of the recent so called answers are nothing more than speculations that scientist hope are correct and therefore would remove a need for God.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

These two have nothing to do with each other. If you want to compare something, individuals do think praying can make them better so God must answer other unknowns.

This isn't proven at all. I think you are going far afield.

It doesn't mean we can either. If we lack the means to measure, test or explain something then science can in no way rule out the supernatural as a cause.

I've already told you that Quantum Theory already proves there are things unprovable, regardless of whether God exists or not.

You need to provide a solid philosophical argument for why naturalism can't, in principle, account for all unknowns.

Actually I don't. The assumption that naturalism can answer all unknowns at some point in time in the future is unfounded. What it sounds like is you are trying to reduce supernatural events to simple "we don't know yet, but they aren't supernatural" events and this can't be done. If something is supernatural then by definition naturalism can't explain it. In principle naturalism can't answer all unknowns because that would require us to first know how many unknowns there are and what they are. We don't even know that. Naturalism fails before it can start because nobody can say how many unknowns there are. If naturalism answers 60% of the unknowns we know about is that good enough to say there is no God? 50%? 40%? What is the minimum amount naturalism must, not possibly can, answer in order to rule out God. The only logical answer is 100% and that can never happen.

This is completely irrational.

How does naturalism fail when natural means are already proven, yet no supernatural process has been proven?

I'm really seeing a lack of correlation between your claims.

Supernatural is something that is outside the laws of nature and cannot be explained using them.

Like what?!

What are you claiming IS supernatural? Please offer one thing you know is supernatural and not an unknown?

By your own statement here then even naturalism must say supernaturalism is possible. That philosophy would apply to God as well, which means atheist and theist alike would have to say God may exist. That would be against the very belief that naturalism requires.

1. No, naturalism doesn't "say" supernaturalism is possible. Naturalism is a philosophical position that rejects supernaturalism.

One can be a naturalist, but still believe other things are possible.

Just as you can be a Christian but still have a belief that you might be wrong.

If you look you could also find an endless stream of things that are a mystery to science. If you can't show where science solves these things then I have no reason to expect science to be able to solve them. If science can't solve them naturally then I have every reason to presume they are outside the scope of natural law and therefore supernatural.

You are appealing to the gap again.

Answer the question:

What is one thing that is supernatural? Saying it's in the gaps of our knowledge is just saying it's something we don't understand.

That doesn't give you a reason to posit the supernatural.

What is something supernatural? What have you verified as supernatural?

Again, I can give you millions of things accepted to be natural. Things you'd accept.



You really need to provide an argument FOR the supernatural that isn't based on an argument from ignorance.

[austin12345]

[Replying to post 40 by Bust Nak]

Its not question begging at all. First thought thats just the point. Morality isnt just some chemical reaction in the brain so testing what is right and wrong scientifically is impossible. But you dont make a value judmgment based on the data that everybody believes something is right or wrong.

When we think of murder we dont think it is wrong just because we deem it wrong. We all just know it is. There is no explanation for it on naturalistic view. The only way to account for it is God.

Some Reasons for believing that they exist are:
Nearly across the planet all cultures have the same moral values and duties.
The people who deny objectivce morality usually still live moral lives
There is a human intuition that things are right and wrong
majority of philosophers agree in objective moral values and duties
Even people like sam harris who has no grounding for them

(got the reasons from http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveM ... ues.htm#II)

I wasnt trying to show that people agree that 2+2=4 and that makes it 4. I was trying to show that moral deniers are like those who say it doesnt equal four.

Its not question begging because my argument is the the fact that their opinion isnt moral. That there is a deeper objectivity and that if morals dont actually exist, their view of right and wrong isnt actually right or wrong.

[McCulloch]

When we think of murder we dont think it is wrong just because we deem it wrong. We all just know it is. There is no explanation for it on naturalistic view. The only way to account for it is God.

A good number of atheist scholars have accounted for morality without God. Sam Harris discusses this in his book, The Moral Landscape.
from Wiki:
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".

[austin12345]

Well I already see a problem with that. What makes us humans flourish and prosper isnt necessarily good. This has nothing to do with objective morality. Now I have not read this given but for your discription again it wouldnt necessarily be good. But William lane Craig gave a great rebuttal to this argument that Harris proposed that I do know

[southern cross]

[Replying to post 49 by austin12345]

Ya just gotta admire that WLC, he can incinerate a strawman faster'n he can mak'em