Naturalism is false

[ZackMartin]

I have to thank Tassman for bringing me to this insight: Naturalism is false. I used to believe that methodological naturalism was true, and philosophical naturalism was false. Now I realise that methodological naturalism is false also. All forms of naturalism are false.

Naturalism is an incoherent, and false, philosophical theory. It has nothing to do with actually doing science.

Naturalism is based on a claimed distinction between the "natural" and "supernatural", but naturalists cannot give a coherent justification for making such a distinction. The deep incoherence of their making such a distinction, is that they insist such a distinction should exist, even while denying the existence of the supernatural. The nature-supernature distinction is incoherent and useless. Likewise, the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is meaningless.

They say that the "supernatural" violates the "laws of nature", but since no one knows for sure what the ultimate laws of nature are - all we know are our admittedly imperfect human approximations to them - no one can ever say whether a given observation violates those laws or not. And if we define it in terms of our knowledge of laws, then the orbit of Mercury was supernatural between 1859 (when it was discovered to violate Newtonian gravity) until 1915 (when Einstein published his theory of general relativity which could explain it), since for that roughly 55 year period it violated the laws of nature as we understood them at the time.

I don't even think "laws of nature" is a good name, since it gives credence to the false and incoherent nature-supernature distinction of the naturalists. I'd prefer to call them "the laws of observation", since they are the laws that govern what we do and don't observe. (If the laws of observation say that we will observe the rock to fall, then indeed we will observe it fall, and we will fail to see it rise.)

Same goes for the term "miraculous" - the term "miracle", as naturalists use it, is incoherent and useless. (That is not to say that the term is necessarily invalid as used by non-naturalists, who may well be using it in other ways; but the term as used by naturalists has no validity.)

Both "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism" are equally false. "Methodological naturalism" is not an accurate description for the scientific method - for deciding whether an idea is "natural" or "supernatural" plays no proper part in evaluating scientific theories. If the theory predicts what we actually observe better than competing theories do, then it should be accepted as science; the fact that someone has arbitrarily chosen to label some of the theoretical entities involved in that theory as "supernatural" is irrelevant.

Naturalists like to harp on that they have the evidence and their opponents don't, but they have absolutely no evidence for their natural-supernatural distinction, for their natural-non-natural distinction, or for their miraculous-non-miraculous distinction. All these distinctions are incoherent and unevidenced. Other incoherent and unevidenced distinctions advocated for by naturalists include the material-immaterial distinction, and the physical-non-physical distinction.

[seer]

I have to thank Tassman for bringing me to this insight: Naturalism is false. I used to believe that methodological naturalism was true, and philosophical naturalism was false. Now I realise that methodological naturalism is false also. All forms of naturalism are false.

Naturalism is an incoherent, and false, philosophical theory. It has nothing to do with actually doing science.

Naturalism is based on a claimed distinction between the "natural" and "supernatural", but naturalists cannot give a coherent justification for making such a distinction. The deep incoherence of their making such a distinction, is that they insist such a distinction should exist, even while denying the existence of the supernatural. The nature-supernature distinction is incoherent and useless. Likewise, the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is meaningless.

They say that the "supernatural" violates the "laws of nature", but since no one knows for sure what the ultimate laws of nature are - all we know are our admittedly imperfect human approximations to them - no one can ever say whether a given observation violates those laws or not. And if we define it in terms of our knowledge of laws, then the orbit of Mercury was supernatural between 1859 (when it was discovered to violate Newtonian gravity) until 1915 (when Einstein published his theory of general relativity which could explain it), since for that roughly 55 year period it violated the laws of nature as we understood them at the time.

I don't even think "laws of nature" is a good name, since it gives credence to the false and incoherent nature-supernature distinction of the naturalists. I'd prefer to call them "the laws of observation", since they are the laws that govern what we do and don't observe. (If the laws of observation say that we will observe the rock to fall, then indeed we will observe it fall, and we will fail to see it rise.)

Same goes for the term "miraculous" - the term "miracle", as naturalists use it, is incoherent and useless. (That is not to say that the term is necessarily invalid as used by non-naturalists, who may well be using it in other ways; but the term as used by naturalists has no validity.)

Both "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism" are equally false. "Methodological naturalism" is not an accurate description for the scientific method - for deciding whether an idea is "natural" or "supernatural" plays no proper part in evaluating scientific theories. If the theory predicts what we actually observe better than competing theories do, then it should be accepted as science; the fact that someone has arbitrarily chosen to label some of the theoretical entities involved in that theory as "supernatural" is irrelevant.

Naturalists like to harp on that they have the evidence and their opponents don't, but they have absolutely no evidence for their natural-supernatural distinction, for their natural-non-natural distinction, or for their miraculous-non-miraculous distinction. All these distinctions are incoherent and unevidenced. Other incoherent and unevidenced distinctions advocated for by naturalists include the material-immaterial distinction, and the physical-non-physical distinction.

Very good Zack...

[pancreasman]

There goes science. Ah well, I liked it until Zack destroyed it.

[ZackMartin]

There goes science. Ah well, I liked it until Zack destroyed it.

Science is healthy, science is fine. Science isn't naturalism and naturalism isn't science.

[Chrawnus]

Subscribin'.

[Chrawnus]

Also, the definition of miracle that I go by:

Miracle: An intervention in nature by a divine agent that is contrary to what is commonly observed in/about nature.

[ZackMartin]

Miracle: An intervention in nature by a divine agent that is contrary to what is commonly observed in/about nature.

I suppose the real relevance of "miracle" to this thread, is not yours or my or anyone else's ideas of what constitutes "miracles". It's naturalists concept of "miracles", in so far as they understand rejecting miracles to be an important part of naturalism.

My views are similar to Epistemic theory of miracles. I'm not sure that God "intervenes" in the universe. I think the universe, in all its aspects and components, is an immediate and direct product of the activity and will of God. Speaking of "intervention" implies that God leaves the universe alone most of them time, but occasionally lowers down and "intervenes", rather than constantly being active therein.

"Intervention" suggests the idea that God sometimes violates the laws of nature. I don't believe God ever violates the laws of nature. God has no need to. He wrote them, so if he wants to bring a particular event apart, he would have written the laws in such a way that the desired event occurs. This isn't the classic deist view of God creating the universe and then stepping back and leaving it alone - by contrast, God is constantly involved in the universe. But his involvement is so constant and so fundamental that the concept of "intervention" no longer makes sense, for "intervention" is when one stands back but steps in occasionally, not when one is constantly involved the whole time.

I think the definition of miracle is actually subjective, relative to our own psychology. Every event is God's action, but it's status as God's action is not clear to us normally; but a miracle is an event in which its status as the action of God is manifest to us. So the miracle is in the beholder, not in the event itself.

[Chrawnus]

I suppose the real relevance of "miracle" to this thread, is not yours or my or anyone else's ideas of what constitutes "miracles". It's naturalists concept of "miracles", in so far as they understand rejecting miracles to be an important part of naturalism.

My views are similar to Epistemic theory of miracles. I'm not sure that God "intervenes" in the universe. I think the universe, in all its aspects and components, is an immediate and direct product of the activity and will of God. Speaking of "intervention" implies that God leaves the universe alone most of them time, but occasionally lowers down and "intervenes", rather than constantly being active therein.

"Intervention" suggests the idea that God sometimes violates the laws of nature. I don't believe God ever violates the laws of nature. God has no need to. He wrote them, so if he wants to bring a particular event apart, he would have written the laws in such a way that the desired event occurs. This isn't the classic deist view of God creating the universe and then stepping back and leaving it alone - by contrast, God is constantly involved in the universe. But his involvement is so constant and so fundamental that the concept of "intervention" no longer makes sense, for "intervention" is when one stands back but steps in occasionally, not when one is constantly involved the whole time.

I think the definition of miracle is actually subjective, relative to our own psychology. Every event is God's action, but it's status as God's action is not clear to us normally; but a miracle is an event in which its status as the action of God is manifest to us. So the miracle is in the beholder, not in the event itself.

Intervention might not have been the best choice of word that I have ever made. I believe God is immediately involved in sustaining the existence of the universe and all it's "laws" (or whatever you want to call them) at each and every moment, so I when I say "intervene" I don't mean it in the sense of going in and "tinkering" in a universe that He for the most of the time leaves alone. Rather I mean it in the sense of Him dealing with the universe in a fashion that is uncommon, i.e not the way he usually deals with it.

So yeah, intervention was a poor choice of words. Perhaps I made it a little more clear now.

[JimL]

I have to thank Tassman for bringing me to this insight: Naturalism is false. I used to believe that methodological naturalism was true, and philosophical naturalism was false. Now I realise that methodological naturalism is false also. All forms of naturalism are false.

Naturalism is an incoherent, and false, philosophical theory. It has nothing to do with actually doing science.

Naturalism is based on a claimed distinction between the "natural" and "supernatural", but naturalists cannot give a coherent justification for making such a distinction. The deep incoherence of their making such a distinction, is that they insist such a distinction should exist, even while denying the existence of the supernatural. The nature-supernature distinction is incoherent and useless. Likewise, the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is meaningless.

They say that the "supernatural" violates the "laws of nature", but since no one knows for sure what the ultimate laws of nature are - all we know are our admittedly imperfect human approximations to them - no one can ever say whether a given observation violates those laws or not. And if we define it in terms of our knowledge of laws, then the orbit of Mercury was supernatural between 1859 (when it was discovered to violate Newtonian gravity) until 1915 (when Einstein published his theory of general relativity which could explain it), since for that roughly 55 year period it violated the laws of nature as we understood them at the time.

I don't even think "laws of nature" is a good name, since it gives credence to the false and incoherent nature-supernature distinction of the naturalists. I'd prefer to call them "the laws of observation", since they are the laws that govern what we do and don't observe. (If the laws of observation say that we will observe the rock to fall, then indeed we will observe it fall, and we will fail to see it rise.)

Same goes for the term "miraculous" - the term "miracle", as naturalists use it, is incoherent and useless. (That is not to say that the term is necessarily invalid as used by non-naturalists, who may well be using it in other ways; but the term as used by naturalists has no validity.)

Both "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism" are equally false. "Methodological naturalism" is not an accurate description for the scientific method - for deciding whether an idea is "natural" or "supernatural" plays no proper part in evaluating scientific theories. If the theory predicts what we actually observe better than competing theories do, then it should be accepted as science; the fact that someone has arbitrarily chosen to label some of the theoretical entities involved in that theory as "supernatural" is irrelevant.

Naturalists like to harp on that they have the evidence and their opponents don't, but they have absolutely no evidence for their natural-supernatural distinction, for their natural-non-natural distinction, or for their miraculous-non-miraculous distinction. All these distinctions are incoherent and unevidenced. Other incoherent and unevidenced distinctions advocated for by naturalists include the material-immaterial distinction, and the physical-non-physical distinction.

Until and unless you can prove the existence of the supernatural then there is no distinction to be made between it and the natural. Science deals with observed empirical data not unproven beliefs.

[Hamster]

Until and unless you can prove the existence of the supernatural then there is no distinction to be made between it and the natural. Science deals with observed empirical data not unproven beliefs.

What scientific evidence would you accept that would cause you to come to the conclusion that "God is responsible for this event"?

[JimL]

What scientific evidence would you accept that would cause you to come to the conclusion that "God is responsible for this event"?

Evidence that doesn't exist solely in your imagination.

[Hamster]

Evidence that doesn't exist solely in your imagination.

Yes, what is an example of something you'd accept?


e: sorry initially misread

[JimL]

Yes, what is an example of something you'd accept?


e: sorry initially misread

I think that should be obvious from my previous answer. If it isn't something that can only be imagined, then it would need be observational, i.e. empirical evidence, and by empirical I don't include the claims that others make. If someone tells you that they walked on water, that is only empirical evidence that they can speak.

[Sparko]

I think that should be obvious from my previous answer. If it isn't something that can only be imagined, then it would need be observational, i.e. empirical evidence, and by empirical I don't include the claims that others make. If someone tells you that they walked on water, that is only empirical evidence that they can speak.

well there does go science down the tubes! Since you seem to only be willing to accept what you yourself have observed and not what anyone else has described, you have to reject everything in science that you have not personally done experimentation on. Scientific papers are only evidence that someone can write, after all.

[JimL]

well there does go science down the tubes! Since you seem to only be willing to accept what you yourself have observed and not what anyone else has described, you have to reject everything in science that you have not personally done experimentation on. Scientific papers are only evidence that someone can write, after all.

Duh!