question on naturalism

[ollagram88]

on what assumption(s) is naturalism based on?

why is it impossible for something "supernatural" or "non-material" to exist under naturalism?

[Furrowed Brow]

I don't really see naturalism as starting from an assumption or set of assumptions. It is more a methodology. Seek the simplest answer that explains the most physical phenomena. It is then a pursuit of intellectual rigour that accepts the removal of unneeded ontological fat from an explanation as a criteria of rigour. Also:

1/ The supernatural implicitly invokes a dualism which is inherently incoherent. How does the immaterial interact with the material? The corporeal with the incorporeal?

2/ supernaturalism fails to meet the basic criteria of the scientific method. Viz., make predictions, is falsifiable, you get more out of a theory in terms of explanation than you put in.

3/ This really follows on from 2. The introduction of additional ontological commitments is conceptually profligate. Naturalism seeks to be conceptually parsimonious.

[ollagram88]

not based on assumptions? excuse me for quoting wikipedia..

Naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.

would you agree with that definition? if so, you say it is a methodology (scientific methodology). what makes naturalism the only effective way to investigate reality? how can we be sure all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods (scientific)?

what if God was beyond "reality?" what if God is not something that can be studied?

i find this an interesting argument because God-like concepts across all cultures seem to portray God as something often undefinable and absolute, "as is," not confined to the same laws that physical reality is confined to, and often something difficult to express. i would say even such concepts as the Tao are portrayed as something not quite defineable, simply "a way." the nirvana seems to be some inexplicable feeling of joy that is a subconscious experience. what is evolution's explanation for why that sort of "God" is universal across many religions/beliefs?

it's also interesting that mythology can be seen as an expression, not a definition. mythological stories of how the world came to be was not necessarily a way of explaining how the world came to be, but a way of expressing a meaning to life not quite able to be expressed in explanations, but rather stories. we don't necessarily understand Jesus through textbook learning of what it means to be a Christian - Christianity ultimately centers around the STORY, the MYTHOLOGY of Jesus' life. again, i use mythology not as a false story but a way of expressing something unexplainable.

such a mythological view in fact goes hand in hand with being unable to truly "explain" God, which i find gives some credibility in toying with the notion that science can't quite "study" God - should such a concept "exist." this appears to be quite a typical God, and the fact that the anthropomorphic God seems to be slipping away seems to be more evidence that God should be something absolute and unexplainable. under this notion, God as an anthropomorphic idea, when taken LITERALLY, not MYTHOLOGICALLY, is understandably a fading idea.. there is also a trend for liberal (symbolic, mythological, metaphorical, etc.) biblical interpretations rather than literal interpretations. explanations?

how would evolution explain that phenomenon?

[Furrowed Brow]

would you agree with that definition?

It offends me not. Though I would add the falsification criteria.

if so, you say it is a methodology (scientific methodology). what makes naturalism the only effective way to investigate reality?

I underlined effective for emphasis. From my dictionary the first definition of effective

• 1. Producing a desired or intended result.

From the wiki quote - hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. As I say I’d add falsification to that list - if the desired result is to eliminate erroneous hypothesises. But I’m straining to think of what else could be added or what alternative methodology might exist that could be cogently cited as an effective methodology.

how can we be sure all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods (scientific)?

Well this methodology is inadequate to study all phenomena then we lack an effective methodology for studying some phenomena. And where we lack such a methodology we can saying nothing for certain, we can make no predictions, nor repeat our assertions and hope to see the same result, or say anything that can be falsified.

what if God was beyond "reality?" what if God is not something that can be studied?

Then any influence God might have on our existence cannot be put into an hypothesis that can be tested, repeated, or falsified; and neither can it be predicted. At which point God talk stops being socially meaningful - even if there were a God we cannot communicate to each other what that possibility means. The theist would be unable to say that God is like this or that or intends this or that or will judge us for this or that. The theist’s metaphysical baggage I.e. souls, heaven, incorporeal and so forth become meaningless.

I find this an interesting argument because God-like concepts across all cultures seem to portray God as something often indefinable and absolute, "as is," not confined to the same laws that physical reality is confined to, and often something difficult to express. I would say even such concepts as the Tao are portrayed as something not quite definable, simply "a way." the nirvana seems to be some inexplicable feeling of joy that is a subconscious experience. what is evolution's explanation for why that sort of "God" is universal across many religions/beliefs?

it's also interesting that mythology can be seen as an expression, not a definition. mythological stories of how the world came to be was not necessarily a way of explaining how the world came to be, but a way of expressing a meaning to life not quite able to be expressed in explanations, but rather stories. we don't necessarily understand Jesus through textbook learning of what it means to be a Christian - Christianity ultimately centres around the STORY, the MYTHOLOGY of Jesus' life. again, I use mythology not as a false story but a way of expressing something unexplainable.

But I don’t think you follow through on this thought far enough. For argument sake lets say God exists. Lets also say nothing we can say about God can be tested, no predictions can be repeated, nothing falsified. Myth then is a way of pointing to something more beyond what can be said. But the myth itself is false, and will mislead us if we try to understand the myth on other terms, because those terms in turn will also be false. If there is a indefinable god myths will fail to reveal anything about that God.

So I think you need to tease apart the notions of ‘indefinable’ and ‘unexplainable’ - if that is possible.

Lets take a couple of standard theistic claims

• God love us
  God hears your prayers

Myth? Metaphor? Literally true? If there is an undefinable God then the answers to these questions falls outside meaningful discourse.

there is also a trend for liberal (symbolic, mythological, metaphorical, etc.) biblical interpretations rather than literal interpretations. explanations?

how would evolution explain that phenomenon?

God talk taken literally is proving less socially useful and maybe gets in the way of getting layed .