Naturalism is false

[ZackMartin]

Because the definition you have given for Methodological Naturalism is sufficient, once one defines the phrase “natural causes and events”. I imagine that we both understand what is actually meant by that phrase. To put it bluntly it means not attributing causes and events to the fictitious. The attribution can be to either a known source, or to an unknown source, never to a fictitious source.

But what one person believes to be "fictitious" another person believes to be real. Since a theist believes that God is real, then - viewing things from their viewpoint - God is not fictitious, and thus attributing causes and events to God is not "attributing causes and events to the fictitious", and thus - again, from their viewpoint - God is natural, and being caused by God is a natural cause and event, and that would make them naturalists, and a claim like "God made the earth in seven literal twenty-four hour days" would be a naturalist claim. Is that really the outcome you want?

A good definition of an idea, should be one which anyone could agree on, even one which doesn't accept the idea itself. That way, we can first agree on what we are talking about, before we move on to deciding who is right. Your definition is bad, because it basically amounts to "not attributing causes and events to things that don't exist", but different people have different opinions on what doesn't exist. So a creationist could, consistently, call themselves a naturalist, by your definition.

A good definition of "naturalism", would be one which could be applied correctly by someone who believed that naturalism was false, or who was agnostic with respect to naturalism. Your proposed definition fails that standard.

Sure, why not. Of course, I am not sure that such a change would have any impact on how science is actually done. What do you think the practical difference might be?

I don't think it would make any difference to the practice of science. But it would make a difference to the clarity of meta-scientific discourse.

Indeed, I prefer real versus imaginary, or nonfiction versus fiction. This due to the difficulty in pinning down exactly what one means by the word supernatural.

But "real" or "nonfiction" aren't much help either, since no one can agree on what is real or what is nonfiction. The best definitions are those which can be applied correctly by people of many different beliefs and worldviews; your definitions fail that standard.

This could be said about a vast quantity of words. I suppose such action would simply leave us mute.

The alternative is to be more precise about what you mean when you say it. If a word has multiple meanings, you should endeavour to clarify, wherever possible, which particular meaning you intend.

But naturalism seems to do the job just fine. I would agree that the word supernatural is fairly useless.

How? Why? I think the word "naturalism" causes all sorts of confusions. In particular it feeds the idea that "philosophical naturalism" and "methodological naturalism" have something to do with each other, when it is not clear that they do.

[robertb]

But what one person believes to be "fictitious" another person believes to be real. Since a theist believes that God is real, then - viewing things from their viewpoint - God is not fictitious, and thus attributing causes and events to God is not "attributing causes and events to the fictitious", and thus - again, from their viewpoint - God is natural, and being caused by God is a natural cause and event, and that would make them naturalists, and a claim like "God made the earth in seven literal twenty-four hour days" would be a naturalist claim. Is that really the outcome you want?

I am not talking about belief here Zak. In essence, I am talking about observable interaction with reality via the senses.

To your specific example, I do not know what God is so effectively an unknown. Before we can make any other determination about such an entity, perhaps you might define what exactly it is you are referring to.

A good definition of an idea, should be one which anyone could agree on, even one which doesn't accept the idea itself. That way, we can first agree on what we are talking about, before we move on to deciding who is right. Your definition is bad, because it basically amounts to "not attributing causes and events to things that don't exist", but different people have different opinions on what doesn't exist. So a creationist could, consistently, call themselves a naturalist, by your definition.

If said creationist could provide the data necessary to actually support their position, why not. The point is that I agree with you with regards to arbitrary distinctions. So why make one here?

A good definition of "naturalism", would be one which could be applied correctly by someone who believed that naturalism was false, or who was agnostic with respect to naturalism. Your proposed definition fails that standard.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Someone who believed that naturalism was false, or agnostic about it, could not make observations?

I don't think it would make any difference to the practice of science. But it would make a difference to the clarity of meta-scientific discourse.

Ah. I am not interested in meta-scientific discourse, but I can understand why those who are would seek clarity.

But "real" or "nonfiction" aren't much help either, since no one can agree on what is real or what is nonfiction. The best definitions are those which can be applied correctly by people of many different beliefs and worldviews; your definitions fail that standard.

That is the point of observation. I am not sure how a belief or a world view would impact upon the number of hydrogen atoms in a water molecule.

The alternative is to be more precise about what you mean when you say it. If a word has multiple meanings, you should endeavour to clarify, wherever possible, which particular meaning you intend.

A noble goal to be sure, but maybe language itself does not often offer us such an opportunity. We simply do the best we can.

How? Why? I think the word "naturalism" causes all sorts of confusions. In particular it feeds the idea that "philosophical naturalism" and "methodological naturalism" have something to do with each other, when it is not clear that they do.

Thus I tend to avoid labeling myself as a philosophical anything. Too much baggage in opinion, I suppose.

[ZackMartin]

robertb: Maybe to try to shortcut this conversation: You define "methodological naturalism" primarily in terms of "observation". For you, "natural" really means "observable", and your "methodological naturalism" is not clearly distinguishable from "observabilism", or from operationalism.

You have one particular understanding of "methodological naturalism", but I'm not sure that everyone who calls themselves a "methodological naturalist" understands the term in the way you do.

I think my arguments aren't really aimed at your understanding of "methodological naturalism", but at what I believe certain other people's understanding to be.

But I still think you ought to question whether "methodological naturalism" is the right term for you. Because if other people define the term differently, then your own adoption of the term might lead to your beliefs being confused with theirs. Maybe, if you became aware of the different ways the term gets used, you might want to think about a more distinctive term for your own beliefs, to avoid any confusion.

I'm particularly hoping that someone like Tassman would contribute to this conversation, since I suspect he may understand "methodological naturalism" rather differently from what you do.

While you run away from "philosophical" anything, he has no problem in claiming to be both a philosophical and a methodological naturalist.

[robertb]

robertb: Maybe to try to shortcut this conversation: You define "methodological naturalism" primarily in terms of "observation". For you, "natural" really means "observable", and your "methodological naturalism" is not clearly distinguishable from "observabilism", or from operationalism.

You have one particular understanding of "methodological naturalism", but I'm not sure that everyone who calls themselves a "methodological naturalist" understands the term in the way you do.

I think my arguments aren't really aimed at your understanding of "methodological naturalism", but at what I believe certain other people's understanding to be.

But I still think you ought to question whether "methodological naturalism" is the right term for you. Because if other people define the term differently, then your own adoption of the term might lead to your beliefs being confused with theirs. Maybe, if you became aware of the different ways the term gets used, you might want to think about a more distinctive term for your own beliefs, to avoid any confusion.

I'm particularly hoping that someone like Tassman would contribute to this conversation, since I suspect he may understand "methodological naturalism" rather differently from what you do.

While you run away from "philosophical" anything, he has no problem in claiming to be both a philosophical and a methodological naturalist.

Perhaps so, however if I did call myself an observationalist, or operationalist, most people would probably look at me funny and ask what the heck I was talking about. Pretty much everyone knows what methodological naturalism is and, despite varying opinions as to specifics by various individuals, this term seems to describe my view well enough. I imagine that a multi-page argument between self-styled methodological naturalists with regards to one definition or other is probably not an unlikely occurance, but I suppose this is true for pretty much any label we might apply to these types of things.

[ZackMartin]

Pretty much everyone knows what methodological naturalism is

I'd suggest the vast majority of the world's population has never heard of it and has no idea what it is.

I'd agree more people have heard of it than operationalism (which is a real term used for a real position), not to mention "observabilism" (which is a coinage on my part, albeit a rather transparent one).

One would generally need some exposure to philosophy (whether philosophy in general, or philosophy of science in particular), to have heard of this. If you asked the average person on the street what "methodological naturalism" was, you'd get a blank stare.

[robertb]

I'd suggest the vast majority of the world's population has never heard of it and has no idea what it is.

I'd agree more people have heard of it than operationalism (which is a real term used for a real position), not to mention "observabilism" (which is a coinage on my part, albeit a rather transparent one).

One would generally need some exposure to philosophy (whether philosophy in general, or philosophy of science in particular), to have heard of this. If you asked the average person on the street what "methodological naturalism" was, you'd get a blank stare.

Indeed and a sad truth it is especially since people actually use it pretty much every day of their lives.

[seer]

And the key word is "If." Supernatural is a term defining an existence that is distinct from the natural world of the observation of our senses. The supernatural, "if" it exists, is not known by us to exist, so it is a term merely defining a belief, a belief which may be nothing more than an abstract concept. To say that "if the supernatural exists, it isn't," is a kind of pantheistic concept.

Well no Jim, if we believe in the supernatural in the classic sense (things are being redefined in this thread) then in the Christian understanding God has made things know to our senses. Parting of the Red Sea, changing water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead back to life, verbally speaking - a Hudson Bay blanket ; ). These would be observable events. As would creation itself - as a witness to a Creator.

[magellan004]

Thing is, I believe in God, an afterlife, etc. I just don't see what's the value in calling these things "supernatural". What do we gain by calling them that? Especially when it seems to be a very slippery term that different people define differently, and many people struggle to define at all.

People do use the term Supernatural. Throughout history people have found it a useful word to communicate. I have no objection to analysing whether their thoughts are reasonable, but you have to allow that there is a common conception (maybe not detailed) of Supernatural. The issue then becomes - What do people mean when they say Supernatural?' Maybe that is all you are asking. But I thought your Opening Post was more about people (Naturalists) dismissing the concept of Supernatural - Ghosts, spirits etc as a basis of scientific enquiry.

I think the original meaning of "supernatural" was based on the idea that the laws of physics can be broken, and that God (and possibly other beings) broke those laws sometimes. But you can believe in God, and you can even believe in God doing "miraculous" things, without accepting any concept of "breaking the laws of physics". Since, if you believe God wrote the laws of physics, he doesn't need to break them - if he wants something to happen, he just writes them in such a way that it ends up happening. Of course, some things that happen can violate our current imperfect understanding of the laws of physics - the orbit of Mercury used to do exactly that. But the supernatural was usually conceived based on the idea that there were some kind of "absolute" laws of physics, separate from the laws of physics as known by us at some time, and that the supernatural didn't just violate our understanding of the laws of physics, it even violated the absolute laws of physics they approximated to.

I think you are reading too much into 'Supernatural'. I'd say people use the term for 'Something that is not experienced normally, has no physical explanation, unusual.' That's not exhaustive, but it's a sense of 'Everyday vs something unexplainable'.
People in 0 AD had no regard to 'Laws of Physics'.

I personally can't see why the supernatural is beyond the reach of science. (Neither does Richard Dawkins) I think it's wrong to say 'Therefore anything that can investigated is not supernatural. '
Maybe we are saying the same thing in a different way? I think the interesting question is 'Why rule things out?' Why say 'This is beyond investigation.'? Why say 'My philosophy is such and such therefore I will not admit these ideas.'

*
My challenge to you, is to try to move beyond vague ideas that sound right, to more precise definitions. I'd suggest, that when you try to explore definitions more precisely, you'll find that even a seemingly straightforward "physical" is defined in lots of different ways, and some of these definitions make more sense than others. And a claim like "everything is physical" is not a single idea, it is actually many separate ideas, depending on how "physical" gets defined.

I agree with that comment. Again it gets back to the mentality of needing to rule things out. 'It's natural' , 'It can be observed by our senses' are shields against ideas.

Magellan

[JimL]

I'd suggest the vast majority of the world's population has never heard of it and has no idea what it is.

I'd agree more people have heard of it than operationalism (which is a real term used for a real position), not to mention "observabilism" (which is a coinage on my part, albeit a rather transparent one).

One would generally need some exposure to philosophy (whether philosophy in general, or philosophy of science in particular), to have heard of this. If you asked the average person on the street what "methodological naturalism" was, you'd get a blank stare.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Its like discussing whether or not there is a distinction between the real and the unreal. No, there is no distinction, because there is no unreal, there is only the real.

[magellan004]

Pretty much everyone knows what methodological naturalism is

What is it?

Magellan

[magellan004]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Its like discussing whether or not there is a distinction between the real and the unreal. No, there is no distinction, because there is no unreal, there is only the real.

It's the best discussion ever.

Magellan

[robertb]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Its like discussing whether or not there is a distinction between the real and the unreal. No, there is no distinction, because there is no unreal, there is only the real.

Munchkins?

or do you mean that there is no Unreal Tournament?

Or simply that this discussion is unreal?

But you are correct, I suppose, that there IS no unreal in the sense that things are real, or not. It is, however, a useful word none-the-less.

[seer]

It's the best discussion ever.

Magellan

Ever? ; )

[robertb]

What is it?

Magellan

:)

[JimL]

Well no Jim, if we believe in the supernatural in the classic sense (things are being redefined in this thread) then in the Christian understanding God has made things know to our senses. Parting of the Red Sea, changing water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead back to life, verbally speaking - a Hudson Bay blanket ; ). These would be observable events. As would creation itself - as a witness to a Creator.

He hasn't made them known to your senses, nor do you know if he has made it known to anyones elses senses. It is a belief, which is why you begin your statement with "if we believe." Anyway, above you are defining events that you believe to have been caused by the supernatural, you are not defining a supernatural existence itself.