Philosophical Naturalism? Who you?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Metaphysical naturalism, also called philosophical naturalism , is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, meaning those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling.
Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon , nature. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.
Many contemporary thinkers adopt a naturalist view of the mental realm because they are fully persuaded that we will be unable otherwise to explain how mental processes can causally influence non-mental processes, how the nonphysical can affect the physical, how the mental and spiritual supernatural realm can affect the material natural world (or if it can actually have any effect on it in any way).
| Many professional, academic and scientific careers, and reputations, have been made and destroyed solely on the basis of an acceptance or rejection of these principles and precepts, as a kind of litmus test of intellectual integrity and professional competence imposed by the philosophical and scientific communities (see ostracize) . |
Two categories of Philosophical Naturalism
There are different varieties of Metaphysical Naturalism, but they are usually separated into two general categories:
Physicalism (or Materialism)
The belief that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical. Thus, everything that has ever been observed is in actual fact the product of fundamentally mindless arrangements or interactions of matter-energy in space-time, and it is unreasonable to believe anything else exists.
Pluralism
| Naturalism is inconsistent with any kind of Theism and is compatible with Atheism. The direct opposite of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, which accepts the existence of such things as supernatural beings, magical objects, Platonic forms or the existence (for example) of love, or of evil, as a cosmic force. |
"Methodological naturalism"
In science, the assuming of naturalism as a valid approach in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism . Thus, in contrast to metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Compare Agnosticism.
Philosophical prejudice
A modern prejudice drawn from philosophical naturalism holds that " if it's not scientific, it's not a fact, and has no reality; and if it's not a part of nature, it doesn't exist ". This belief is held by many ordinary persons who with simple unquestioning faith believe in the reliability of the scientific method as the sole means of establishing truth. They dismiss all supernatural interventions in human history, and the possibility of divine revelation and miracles, by categorizing these phenomena as having only a psychological genesis ( wishful thinking ). And from this assumption all reports of them, as being phenomena directly caused by supernatural agency, are represented as being ipso facto (by that very fact alone) solely a record of the product of ignorance and primitive thinking, misinterpretations of natural phenomena, superstition and delusion,
" which any rational person of intelligence can safely dismiss as entirely unreliable nonsense, since all the available empirical evidence acceptable to legitimate and impartial researchers proves scientifically beyond any reasonable doubt that the supernatural cannot possibly exist.
Photo credit: https://civitashumana.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/inflation-and-the-multiverse.jpg
Tags
Who is online
199 visitors
"This belief is held by many ordinary persons who with simple unquestioning faith believe in the reliability of the scientific method as the sole means of establishing truth. They dismiss all supernatural interventions in human history, and the possibility of divine revelation and miracles, by categorizing these phenomena as having only a psychological genesis (wishful thinking). And from this assumption all reports of them, as being phenomena directly caused by supernatural agency, are represented as being ipso facto (by that very fact alone) solely a record of the product of ignorance and primitive thinking, misinterpretations of natural phenomena, superstition and delusion."
Anyone with a smidgen of logic can see how flawed that statement is. People who believe in the scientific method do not do so with "unquestioning faith". In fact, scientific method demands skepticism, it asks to be challenged, and the conclusions drawn are always considered the "best explanation thus far" accepting that at any moment their hypothesis could be proven incorrect and be updated as the tools with which we're able to examine and observe the physical universe advances.
"The scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition which has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept . It involves formulating hypotheses , via induction , based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings".
My comment was intended as an "opener." It is in quotes. It is lifted from the last paragraph in the article above it. Which reads in paragraph entirety:
Now, does this change your perception of the comment? The driving point is philosophical naturalists see science as the be all that ends all to establishing truth, therefore from the beginning they are biased against supernatural explanations.
There is no such thing really. A supernatural 'explanation' is simply unfounded speculation. It is pure imagination.
Are you expressing a fact or an opinion now? Please explain.
Fact by definition. That which is supernatural is beyond our ability to understand. Therefore we cannot offer anything 'supernatural' as an explanation.
We can pretend to explain natural phenomena as 'supernatural' and ignore the inherent contradiction. But ultimately when we claim something is a supernatural 'explanation' it is simply an admission that the 'explanation' offered is nothing more than the product of human imagination.
That does not mean a supernatural explanation for something is necessarily wrong. It simply means supernatural explanations have no foundation.
Two points:
1. You wrote @1.1.4: "That which is supernatural is beyond our ability to understand." Then, you proceeded to do your best to explain what that which is supernatural is.
Is it beyond explaining or not?
2. To begin discussion with a prejudged supposition that no human can understand the supernatural is to beg the question and express bias.
see @1.1.4
Then you implicitly claim that a human being can understand the supernatural.
Having faith in something that would be 'supernatural' is not understanding the supernatural. It is belief sans evidence - no more credible than belief in magical creatures of mythology.
You ask a lot of questions. Do you also answer questions - something other than 'I just know' or equivalent?
This is what discussion is made of. Something so far which has not truly happened here.
Do not ignore that it is your POV:
That which is supernatural is beyond our ability to understand.
In your case: What is there supernatural to discuss?
Looking up at the article, you position seems 99.99 percent thereabouts:
Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.
You state you are holding out for direct evidence of the supernatural only, you have argued (above) an unwillingness to accept indirect evidence as valid. (If I have misstated your position let me know where and how). This may be a deficiency on your part, one which stifles an ability to have an open-minded discussion of the supernatural.
I do not see an answer to my questions:
Instead (predictably) you argue that everyone who requires direct evidence of the supernatural is just closed-minded. Well, sorry, but when someone makes extraordinary claims such as supernatural entities who create the universe, weak circumstantial offerings such as 'I feel His presence' or 'the Earth seems designed for us' or 'but the Bible says ...' is not going to cut it.
Failure to support your position is your problem. Merely labeling as closed-minded those who are not convinced by the lack of evidence and lack of reasoning presented thus far is not an argument. It is, in effect, a tacit admission of failure.
See your replies to me @1.1.4 and @1.1.6 (for emphasis).
There is nothing supernatural which can be properly discussed with you. You simply are not open to such discussion. That is your problem. I simply am shining a spotlight on it.
Furthermore, the focus of this article is philosophical naturalism. God, Jesus, Bible, Church, and Faith are not up for a debate.
You ask questions, refuse to answer questions and then complain about others being closed-minded, etc.
Let's see if anyone else has the patience for this. My supply of patience is now gone.
Apparently, you adore a privilege of creating your own narratives. That's okay, when you can do it. I do not have any "patience" for that sort of thing right now.
Perhaps, I will present a timely article on God and ET where we can explore "narratives" freely—without being negatively sanctioned by a group's owner.
Follow the evidence to where it leads. Evidence and logic are the best tools we have on our path to truth.
Believing in something without good evidence is wishful thinking.
Dismissing that which has not been proved impossible is faulty logic.
The very best we can do in life is conclude likelihood of facts based on what we observe interpreted through sound logic.
Please elaborate on the meaning of your quote. It is not clear to me, sorry.
Having evidence and logic is a great way to get to truth, indeed!
For example, one cannot dismiss the possibility of a creator entity because there is no proof that such an entity could not possibly exist.
Let's clear up something:
I believe in the concept and probability of natural and supernatural existences. Do you between in both types of existences or only one? In which case?
We will do better to understand each others' points of view.
I believe in the concept and certainty of natural and super natural existences, just like I believe in the concept of physics and quantum physics. We have zero evidence of any "supernatural" existence, but we have lots of evidence of nature that is super amazing, aka "super natural".
You talk about supposed "supernatural interventions in human history" but refuse to accept the reality that not a single one has ANY actual proof or evidence. It's like trying to convict someone of a crime that no one can confirm actually happened, no one can confirm the accused was there, and you have zero physical evidence of either, we're just supposed to "trust" the openly prejudiced prosecutor. "Liberals killed Gods son in the library with the candlestick! If you don't believe me, just read my book "Mr Green Liberals killed Gods Son" which explained in detail how he purposefully and willfully attacked Mr. Jesus Body with the candlestick! Mr. White saw it happen, right after he was marching with tiki torches and some wannabe Nazi's".
You know my position.
I do not believe in that which is unevidenced. I need to be convinced - I do not accept as true (or even likely true) that which is simply told to me by other human beings sans supporting evidence and logic.
Dismayed Patriot explained this quite well @2.1.2
You know good and well this is not what is being asked as regards the supernatural. So, can you be serious? You take the time to comment, why not write something well thought out?
Before you extend yourself to commenting about supernatural in the spiritual sense, can you answer this question seriously so we all can explicitly know your point of view?
A. Do you believe in both natural and supernatural existences, or only one?
DP certainly seemed serious to me. What makes you think he was not serious? And clearly he answered your question. He does not believe in supernatural existences because there is zero evidence of the supernatural.
As you state you need to be persuaded. We all do at some point in time. Moreover, barring delusion or criminal agenda, we must have received evidence (direct/circumstantial) enough to satisfy our needs. The question becomes what form does persuasion take for you: direct or circumstantial evidence/s.
The "ready" consideration is, in the article above do you see your current state or POV? Please explain.
Since you apparently need it spelled out for you, no I do not believe in a spiritual supernatural. I am not claiming I know for certain there isn't something that some humans would define as "spiritual supernatural" in this wide universe, I simply have never found anything that proves one exists thus I do not believe in it. Everyone who believes in the spiritual supernatural does so on pure unfounded faith, a belief without evidence, and I no longer have such faith and find life is far more fulfilling since I admitted that to myself. The thirty years I spent studying the bible, teaching and indoctrinating others even when I was having a crisis of faith, and others around me kept telling me to "fake it till you make it" just to stay in the close knit religious community I was raised, made me feel dirty and used. I was pushing something intangible on others, telling them I knew what was right because it said so in an ancient book I was raised to believe was the word of God. It took me a long time and several reads through it cover to cover before I realized there was no way the things condoned in the bible could be coming from an all powerful spirit being creator.
If people weren't indoctrinated in religion from birth, I doubt very highly that a majority of humans would be religious. The default is disbelief until a claim can be proven, but with religion the default is belief until the unsubstantiated claim is disproven which is the most ass backwards logic on the planet.
DP can answer for him or herself, yes?!
Already answered in my first response @2 and then @2.1.4. I second DP's response @2.1.3.
Direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence of a creator would be our own existence. That does not distinguish between the case of a sentient creator and undirected emergence. Circumstantial evidence can at best pique interest. It is not real evidence and thus direct evidence is always necessary.
And I can weigh in on any comment made.
Religion has zero evidence to give, so not sure what evidence you're talking about. What believers "receive" that is enough to satisfy their needs is "Well my daddy told me it was true, and my daddy's daddy told him it was true and my daddy's, daddy's, daddy told him it was true, so I believe...".
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be allowed to believe as they wish. I just have to shake my head in dismay when I see so many people make claims of evidence in an attempt to convert others to their cause but are unwilling or unable to produce the actual evidence eventually telling skeptics that its a matter of faith and if you don't "want" to believe then nothings going to convince you because only those who "want" to believe are given their own personal "evidence" which is different for every believer. That certainly would be a nice tool to use in sales if you could "Trust me Mrs. Smith, my product will cure all your ailments, all you have to do is rub it on your toes and then wish really, really, hard. If you don't believe strongly enough then it won't work, so wish with all your might and you'll be cured! Just hand over your $20 a month for 36 months to receive your vial a month of blessed miracle water! And remember, if it doesn't work, it's your lack of faith and not our problem!".
Oh wait, I guess that example isn't just a fantasy...
1. Everyone?! What about direct spiritual connection and circumstantial evidences drawn from the past? Do they count?
2. In reading the article above, do you see your point of view expressed?
But, should you.
If I choose to, yes I should. Expect others in a public forum to do likewise. If the comments are relevant to the discussion and are within the normal rules of decorum for NT then all is cool. In forums such as NT people will make comments of disagreement - this is not an echo chamber.
No, you talking to something in your head, as real as that might be to you, is not "evidence" that can be shared with anyone else. And no, "circumstantial" evidence is not enough to prove something as significant as the answer to the biggest question that humanity has been trying to answer since our ancestors first became self aware.
You're welcome to your personal opinion and can consider your "spiritual connection" as evidence, but it's not something you can present in court and expect to be believed. "God spoke to me..." is just as crazy as "The ghost of Abraham Lincoln spoke to me...". If God was actually speaking to people you'd think he would have given them some hints as to the truth about the universe that his believers could point out and say "Hey, God told me that matter and energy are synonymous, that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. No, instead religion and those who claim God has spoken to them give constantly inconsistent descriptions of how the natural universe works, many believing the earth was flat, that it was the center of the universe, that the sun went around the earth, all things that any creator actually speaking to his people would have been able to debunk thousands of years ago.
TiG wasn't actually responding for me, he was simply defending me against your claim that what I wrote wasn't well thought out or serious. He was able to see my point, it wasn't hidden, and he said so. He wasn't telling you how I felt or what I thought, he simply had decent enough reading comprehension to understand what I said and why I was parsing the difference between "supernatural" and "super natural".
"Naturalism is inconsistent with any kind of Theism and is compatible with Atheism. The direct opposite of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, which accepts the existence of such things as supernatural beings, magical objects, Platonic forms or the existence (for example) of love, or of evil, as a cosmic force."
I would consider myself a naturalist, humanist agnostic atheist. I welcome actual evidence that can be verified and repeated, but I hold disbelief for any claims of the supernatural without actual empirical evidence. I'm not claiming God as defined by many religious persons absolutely doesn't exist, I simply see no evidence of such a being and thus can no longer carry water for organized religion. If there is a spirit being out there, I don't believe it looks anything like the fantasy beings invented by man over the last few thousand years of recorded history.
What is not real about circumstantial evidence? Accumulate circumstances and it can and does powerfully make a case!
Are you addressing the issue of this discussion or off on some personal resentment tangent? Please discuss the article.
I established already -answering your earlier question- that only direct evidence is real (to me):
Now you ask me why indirect (circumstantial) evidence is not real (to me)? You are repeating questions via paraphrase that have already been directly answered.
Are you asking about the criteria for determining guilt in a court of law or are you asking my opinion about the kind of evidence to hold that a sentient entity created the universe?
DP is actively 'speaking' here. It is easier for me if I address him directly, and you directly. It makes great sense this way.
This is presupposition on your part. You have not discussed anything at-length with me to make such a presumption. Circumstantial evidence is enough to sufficiently prove any number of questions and issues of this life.
I know you asked TiG this question, so don't get upset because I'm adding my two cents, but what's not "real" about circumstantial evidence are the conclusions drawn without actual physical evidence. To say "This rock exists on the ground before me, therefore I posit that it's circumstantial evidence that Rockbiter from the Never Ending Story was here eating rocks!" is patently ridiculous, yet that's exactly what believers do. "We complex humans exist, therefore I posit a more complex invisible all powerful spirit being must exist!". And the number of humans, the complexity, it's just more rocks on the ground that do not in any way provide even "circumstantial" evidence of a fantasy creature having been here.
Better approach is for you to deal with the natural dynamics of a public forum. Imposing special rules with special channels of communication is not going to work.
As a naturalist, you trust in your five senses. Of course, we all should do so. However, if you as an atheist are going to hold any kind of unbiased discussion with a theist, you should enter it with an open mind.
But I'm not claiming to be unbiased, I am biased by the study I've done, the books I've read, my years of studying the bible. I enter these discussions with an open yet informed mind, not an empty one begging to be filled with unfounded theory being passed off as "circumstantial evidence" of magical creatures.
It would appear you're trying to push a biased narrative taking all these definitions from "Conservapedia" where fantasy, rumor and conjecture are passed off as fact. So you are also entering this discussion with your own biases and continue to defend a position you've already taken proving you're far from open minded. I'm willing to admit, as I did above, that I accept that possibility that something humans would define as "spiritual supernatural" might exist. I simply don't believe in it because I see no actual evidence of such, but I'm not claiming it can't exist. Are you willing to admit freely that such supposed "spiritual supernatural" may not exist? Are you willing to accept that the concept of God you cling to may not be true?
Emphasizing the key question.
The more cumulative indirect evidence amassed as facts, the better the inferences. And there does exist a standard in courts of law that defendants can be found guilty on such conclusions alone—without direct evidence.
No special rules. Just being civil and reasonable. But if you feel that your voice is somehow more qualified to speak for others, have at it. I may choose to ignore it, nevertheless!
You want to discuss USA law and courtroom standards of evidence?
You asked me for my position. I gave it. Belief in something as grand as the sentient creator of the universe requires direct evidence. At least for me. If you are trying to encourage me to 'believe' on (weak even) circumstantial evidence you must realize that is a waste of time.
Circumstantial evidence are corroborating facts which accumulate to form the foundation for a conclusion. It is not a fiction.
First, I was not speaking for DP. As DP himself already explained to you, I was correcting your misinterpretation of his post.
Second, where do I suggest my voice is more qualified to speak for others?
Observe how you are slowly but surely devolving what could be an interesting discussion into crap.
We have yet to have an authentic discussion, in my opinion. I posted a point of view from a website like so many others do on this site. If you can point to an area, or a line in the article which on its merits are inaccurate do so. Otherwise, if you can not invalid the story; it is a collection of valid statements.
Do not contribute an ad-hominem attack; do not shoot the site as messenger, please.
We all should expect to set aside personal biases in support of wholesome discussions on NewsTalkers. This should come as no surprise.
I can positively state that I am not a philosophical naturalist as explained in this article. I have already explicitly evidenced I am a theist. Question is this:
Do you care to freely admit you are a (philosophical) naturalist?
I am not asking you to believe anything, TiG.This article is about philosophical naturalism actually.
This is a personal attack. Ad hominen or discrediting tactics are not allowed in this group. Please do not do it.
You cut & pasted a conservative opinion page from a website pretending to be a repository of facts. It lists the definitions of differing philosophical positions, there is no real "point of view" other than the flawed conclusion it draws regarding supposed "philosophical prejudice" which I addressed in my very first comment.
Is there a point I should consider right now?
No. Per the seed:
That is a belief system that (without justification) holds that existence is that which we understand - that there can be no dramatic surprises that would change our entire view of reality. That our basis understand of reality through science is fundamentally correct and could not be placed on its ear by new evidence.
That is not my position. My position is what I wrote in my very first post @2:
Then maybe it is best to not focus on how the legal system deals with circumstantial evidence. You asked my position on evidence. I gave it. You then proceeded to push on the value of circumstantial evidence. Given you had my position already there was no reason to try to prop up circumstantial evidence other than to try to change my position.
You have your answer. So what point do you wish to make?
It is an observation regarding what you are writing - there was nothing personal about it.
Your comment @2.1.37 is yet another installment.
This is a sufficiently unambiguous answer, which gets to the core of the question. Bravo!
I thought I covered it quite well in my first post @2. For example, this sentence:
That rather clearly states that one cannot dismiss ideas no matter how crazy they sound without proof. In other words, nobody is omniscient thus that which is not proved impossible remains logically possible.
Of course, the mere fact that something has not been proved impossible does not mean it is likely.
The physical properties of physics and chemistry are all that can be proved to exist so why would it be a stretch to state that we are constructed of these materials and properties? To me, that is a very logical an obvious idea. I am guessing that some people view this idea as threatening and even heretical because of their religious beliefs.
Epistte, I seem to be asking everyone who has written so far to respond to the article. Would you consider yourself a philosophical naturalist?
Yes, I would consider myself to be a philosophical naturalist. It is the logical default stance until other properties can be proven to exist.
You get my vote for a simple direct response. Bravo!
The natural order of things existing is a good ground of "default." No doubt.
However, it is not quite this absolute statement:
We can imagine gods to exist but until that can be proven they are still only myths and existential ideas. An intelligent person doesn't base their life on myths and wishes.
You did not comment on this quote:
"Philosophical naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
Please be clear: You agree with this quote absolutely?