Is naturalism true?

[otseng]

Underlying many of the attacks on the Bible and Christianity is the belief that materialism is true. If materialism is true, then miracles, Christ rising from the dead, virgin birth, existence of supernatural entities, people receiving revelations, the Bible being the inspired word of God, people going to heaven or hell, etc would all be false.

A definition of naturalism:

According to Steven Schafersman, naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that;
1. Nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time;
2. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatio-temporal physical substance—mass–energy. Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle, can be explained and understood by science and philosophy;
4. The supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by supernaturalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

For debate:
Is naturalism true?
Why?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 59 by SallyF]

What you believe about Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not naturalism is believed on faith or not.

Naturalism has nothing but a vane hope with no evidence.

[otseng]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

To a high degree of confidence, naturalism provides a ‘consistent and overarching explanation for all facts’ (of the natural world), and, I would argue, also passes the truth test for correspondence, pragmatism (because it works) and consistency.

Can we go deeper into this?

What claims are made in naturalism that corresponds to the truth? How can we verify such claims?

For pragmatism, what does it mean that the idea of philosophical naturalism works? How would it differ from methodological naturalism?

[otseng]

But, the main point of debate is on metaphysical naturalism (or materialism). What does reality consist of? Is it only what is in "nature" or does it also consist of what is outside of nature?

I don't see why this need to be a separate conversation. What's wrong with, whatever is reality consist of, we label it "material." Whatever exist, we label it "nature?"

Show me a ghost and I would say "wow, so ghosts are actually natural" instead of "wow, so the supernatural actually exists."

So, this would mean everything is natural, which could include God.

[Diagoras]

From the Wikipedia article on naturalism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher, distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."

Probably useful to clarify that under this definition, I wouldn’t say I was a metaphysical naturalist. Can one be a methodological naturalist? I think so.

How can one define the natural world? Would it only be our dimensions of space and time?

There are a few definitions of it on that same Wikipedia article, but I thought it would be interesting and thought-provoking to explore exactly what we mean by ‘dimensions’. This linked essay has some great insights (both historical and ‘future-speculative’, if you will) and is worth the time to read all the way through:

https://aeon.co/essays/how-many-dimensi ... to-reality

Most definitions of naturalism ‘allow’ certain non-physical things like logic and mathematics, so at a stretch, having four, five, eleven or twenty four dimensions (even though they can’t be directly observed) shouldn’t mean they aren’t ‘part’ of the natural world - just a tiny, tiny part.

[Diagoras]

What claims are made in naturalism that corresponds to the truth? How can we verify such claims?

How about the claim that whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through science? Now, we’re in white swan/black swan territory here, but remember that I’ve already acknowledged that we cannot know anything as ‘true’ perfectly. As an explanation for all but the most extreme (Big Bang) and esoteric (string theory), naturalism is doing pretty well on the verification front. Not perfect, but as Dara O’Briain said, “Scientists know that they don’t know everything. Otherwise, they’d just...stop.�

For pragmatism, what does it mean that the idea of philosophical naturalism works? How would it differ from methodological naturalism?

Well, I suppose it doesn’t differ, really. What I’m trying to say is along the lines of, “Look, here we have an idea: the Cosmos is all of existence, ok? Now that might be right, or it might be wrong, because I can’t experience anything outside of the Cosmos. But if I build a special tool from that idea to go and properly look at the Cosmos, then I’d expect that tool to perform the task of looking reasonably well. And that’s what we observe.�

So the fact that the method works, plus the fact that the method is derived from the idea, leads me to the conclusion that the idea ‘works’.

Maybe I should start identifying as a ‘pragmatic methodological scientific naturalist’, just to be safe. “I operate on the assumption that the universe can be fully explained by natural laws. I know I can’t prove that 100%, but it doesn’t bother me.�

[JehovahsWitness]

I wouldn’t say I was a metaphysical naturalist.

"Metaphysical naturalism"

I don't that there are any here, since nobody thus far has addressed the question of how metaphysical naturalist differs from the theist when it comes to fundamental methodology
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 537#982537

As I said, if naturalism makes any statement at all about god or the supernatural it by definition must be a faith statements, which just makes them atheists with glasses.

[JehovahsWitness]

Maybe I should start identifying as a ‘pragmatic methodological scientific naturalist’, just to be safe. “I operate on the assumption that the universe can be fully explained by natural laws. I know I can’t prove that 100%, but it doesn’t bother me.�

I don't think anyone should be bothered by statements of faith even if, like yours, the facts indicate we are is eons from even coming close to doing what one believe will happen one day.

All belief is comforting in some way,

JW

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 57 by SallyF]

Yea, like there theory that we are all nothing more than some alien computer generated game. Wait, wait, it seems like I have seen this movie somewhere before. Oh what was that movie called again, oh yea the matrix. The matrix writers were much better.

Or maybe we are nothing but some random energy inside some boltzmann brain some where in the multiverse.

You can have faith that science will one day come up with a solution to the universe question. Make no mistake about it naturalism is based on faith. Naturalism is just another religion just like all the rest of the religions in the world.

Imagining (we're good at that here) that Naturalism is a religion …

Naturalism is NOT just like all the rest of the religions …!

Naturalists do not have a god that breeds with human virgins.

Naturalists do not have a genocidal god that throws tantrums

Naturalists do not believe in magic foreskins and talking animals.

Naturalists do not believe in a human blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Naturalists do not believe the Divine Leader is going to return to the planet of his creation with legions of angels to exterminate non-Naturalists

So, following on the response to this post …

I take it we are agreed that Naturalism is NOT a religion like Christianity or any other religion.

I take it that since the Christian references in this post are not denied or refuted, they are acknowledged as correct.

And it seems to me that - given the discussion here to date - so-called "Naturalism" can be just whatever folks choose it to be …

So it becomes rather pointless trying to determine whether it's "true" or not.

Possibly better to put the spotlight back onto the possibly fictional god-man Jesus …

You know, given that this is a site devoted to debating Christianity and (other) religions …

And we have agreed that the various flavours of "Naturalism" are NOT religions.

[otseng]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher, distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."

Probably useful to clarify that under this definition, I wouldn’t say I was a metaphysical naturalist. Can one be a methodological naturalist? I think so.

Yes, I had brought up this distinction in post 12. I was hoping someone would be willing to defend metaphysical naturalism.

Most definitions of naturalism ‘allow’ certain non-physical things like logic and mathematics, so at a stretch, having four, five, eleven or twenty four dimensions (even though they can’t be directly observed) shouldn’t mean they aren’t ‘part’ of the natural world - just a tiny, tiny part.

From the article:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-many-dimensi ... to-reality

"So far, we have no evidence for any of these additional dimensions – we are still in the land of swimming physicists dreaming of a miniature landscape we cannot yet access – but string theory has turned out to have powerful implications for mathematics itself."

So, though mathematical models can posit additional dimensions, other dimensions cannot be supported through any evidence. So, even if other dimensions do in fact exist, there's no empirical evidence to support its existence. And it's not just limited to 24 dimensions. Cosmologist Sean Carroll at Caltech posits there are over 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion possible dimensions!

[otseng]

As an explanation for all but the most extreme (Big Bang) and esoteric (string theory), naturalism is doing pretty well on the verification front.

Maybe I should start identifying as a ‘pragmatic methodological scientific naturalist’, just to be safe. “I operate on the assumption that the universe can be fully explained by natural laws. I know I can’t prove that 100%, but it doesn’t bother me.�

Yes, methodological naturalism would hit its limit at the extremes. Whether we consider the beginning of space and time or what is beyond the event horizon or particles that cannot be separated by the largest particle colliders, we run into the limits of science. There are also other areas where science needs to reach into the metaphysical (string theory, fine-tuning).

So the fact that the method works, plus the fact that the method is derived from the idea, leads me to the conclusion that the idea ‘works’.

I accept methodological naturalism works, except when it doesn't, as noted above.