Naturalism is false

[Adrift]

Subscribin'.

I want to see where this goes.

I'm not sure if you guys realize this or not, but you don't need to post in a thread to subscribe to it. If you click on the words at the top of the thread that read "thread tools", a drop-down appears with the option to "Subscribe to this thread...". If you already knew this, just ignore me.

[robertb]

OK, so Wuthering Heights is a work of fiction - does that make Wuthering Heights supernatural? And Heathcliffe is a fictional character - is he a supernatural one? Hey, Al Bundy is a fictional character - is Al Bundy supernatural? And The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Constitutional Law is a work of non-fiction - is it therefore natural? US Constitutional Law seems far from being natural; and if a cultural object like that counts as natural, it's at least as natural as Wuthering Heights or Heathcliffe or Al Bundy are. However people use the "natural" and "supernatural" distinction, to try to link it to the "non-fiction"/"fiction" one is a vast oversimplification, and ultimately just wrong.

And, is a fiction anything that is false? Or is it something which is known to be false by its creators? The later describes most works of fictional literature, but does not describe most traditionally "supernatural" ideas like God or ghosts or angels or demons or so on - even if these beliefs are false, it seems they much more likely originated from honest mistake than deliberate fiction. But if anything that is false is fictional, then that means that disproven scientific theories are fictional, and thus by your equation of "fictional" and "supernatural", disproven scientific theories are supernatural. Take a scientific theory whose truth is still open - let's say string theory. It's not implausible to suppose, that within the next few years, some bright theoretical physicist might discover some easily testable consequence of this theory, which might be tested and found to be false, and thus string theory might be disproven. Would that make string theory suddenly become supernatural? Is phlogiston theory supernatural? How about the luminiferous aether?

If you can't coherently define "naturalism", why not stop calling yourself a "naturalist"?

In my fairly clear usage of the terms in question:
Supernatural is a subset of fiction. Fiction is not a subset of supernatural.
Natural is a subset of non-fiction, non-fiction is not a subset of natural.

I see no incoherency in my definition of naturalism with regards to the natural/supernatural divide.

Additionally, I nowhere state or even imply that things falling under either of those definitions must be static in their placement. I made it clear that I will always defer to observation. Again, there is nothing in my statement that would contradict a claim of naturalism on my part.

So, bottom line? Category error on your part.


However, I do appreciate your deference to observation above, thanks.

Sure there's a distinction between them. As normally defined, a "fiction" is an intentional and open work of deliberate falsehood, a creative work describing events that never actually happened, but which the audience will pretend (to a limited extent) are real for its enjoyment. (Sometimes the word "fiction" is extended to include non-open works of deliberate falsehoods, i.e. frauds, but that isn't the primary meaning.) "Non-fiction" means a work which claims to describe reality, and it is usually a requirement that the authors genuinely believe it describes reality - but of course, non-fiction books are often far from error free, and many non-fiction books will contain many false statements. Some non-fiction books are almost completely wrong. These distinctions are rather far apart from the natural-supernatural distinction. Most "supernatural" claims are generally considered non-fiction, because whether they are true or not, either the authors believe they are, or the authors are reporting (rather than endorsing) the beliefs of others. Go to a library; in which section are books on religion, theology, the paranormal, philosophy, metaphysics, and other supposedly "supernatural" topics shelved? Not in the fiction section - in the non-fiction one.

A very nice discussion of the literary applications of the term fiction and non-fiction, though rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Perhaps where you basically state that non-fiction, in general, describes reality whereas fiction does not, is pretty much all you need here. Again, I thought that was fairly clear from the context of my post.

You won't find me proposing a definition for those words, since I don't believe they can be coherently defined. But as I've explained above, there are good reasons to suppose that your proposed definitions are the wrong. (Since I believe they lack a coherent definition, my position is that all proposed definitions are wrong.)

Actually, I did not find your reasoning to be compelling at all. I think it missed the point entirely.

Whatever actual patterns, regularities or relations exist in nature independent of our knowledge of them. Do the laws of physics somehow exist "out there", in the universe, beyond our mental concepts of them? If so, then the ultimate laws of physics exist independently from our minds, but the laws of physics in our minds are just imperfect approximations to those unknown (and quite possibly unknowable) ultimate laws. And quite a few naturalists do believe that the laws of physics exist in this sense.

Of course, if you believe that physical laws are purely human constructs, and have no existence outside our minds, then there is no such thing as "ultimate laws of nature". But then, the attempt of some naturalists (e.g. Tassman) to define the supernatural in terms of "violations" of the laws of nature must fail, because then there could only be violations of our understanding of the laws of nature, and it seems peculiar to claim that the orbit of Mercury is "supernatural" or "miraculous", since it did for over fifty years violate our understanding of the laws of nature.

Well, I stated that I believe that the Laws of Nature are descriptive, so you can take this to mean that I do not hold to the view that these laws have any existence apart from that.

Sure, but then you can't define the supernatural as violating the laws of nature, as some naturalists propose, since by that definition observations of violations of the law of nature are impossible by definition. I have no problem with the concept of the laws of nature you are presenting; but many naturalists other than yourself do.

Well, this is part of my point - I don't believe the concept of "supernatural" is coherent, and thus any theory which relies on it - including naturalism - must be wrong. It's impossible to give a definition to it that makes any sense. You've tried, but your attempted definition produces all sorts of really peculiar consequences, as I've explained. If the concept can't be rescued, we are best to eject it.

I do not define the supernatural as violating the laws of nature. I actually said that such an event was not even necessary to refer to something as supernatural and gave an example of it.

Did they attribute it to God, or to the supernatural? One can believe in God without believing in the supernatural; I believe in God, but I don't call God supernatural, since I consider the word "supernatural" to be without any coherent meaning. I think this fuzziness in the way people use the term "supernatural" - some using it to refer to claimed violations of the law of nature; others using it to refer to actions by God that don't necessarily violate any laws of nature - is a sign of the term's fundamental incoherence.

Could have been the Great Pumpkin. It really doesn't change my point. And no, as per my definition, there is no incoherence.

That's not how many naturalists use the term miraculous. As I noted, I'm not talking about how I use the term, or even how other theists use the term, but how many naturalists use the term. And as many naturalists use the term, the term "miraculous" means a lot more than just "unexpected". The theory of relativity was unexpected - who would have thought that time slowed down as velocity increased? - but few would call it "miraculous". I certainly doubt many naturalists would.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point. When someone says, "What a miraculous catch!!!", what do you think they mean?

As I said, I'm not talking about the numerous ways in which theists or other religious believers use "miracle"; I'm talking about how naturalists specifically use the term. And they don't use it to mean simply "fictional" - Al Bundy is fictional, but he isn't miraculous.

Save for the fact that your attempt to define "natural"/"supernatural" in terms of "non-fictional"/"fictional" just doesn't work.

Except I was responding particularly to the exception you gave for the term miracle used by "non-naturalists".

And, on the contrary, my use of the terms actually work quite well. At least, you have not provided a real reason, beyond you might not like it, for me to actually reconsider my position.

[ZackMartin]

In my fairly clear usage of the terms in question:
Supernatural is a subset of fiction. Fiction is not a subset of supernatural.
Natural is a subset of non-fiction, non-fiction is not a subset of natural.

I see no incoherency in my definition of naturalism with regards to the natural/supernatural divide.

OK, but then you still haven't clearly defined those terms.

Supernatural = Fiction + ?

Natural = Non-Fiction + ?

What is the extra element needed to turn fiction into the supernatural? What is the extra element needed to turn non-fiction into the natural?

And I still don't see a clear definition of "fiction" and "non-fiction" from you either. I propose some definitions:

Fiction = deliberate and acknowledged falsehoods, created for purposes such as entertainment, or to convey a message in an allegorical or other non-literal form

Non-fiction = a work which seriously claims to describe reality, whether or not it actually succeeds in doing so

As I've argued before, given these definitions, linking the supernatural to the fictional, or the natural to the non-fictional, just doesn't make any sense. Of course, you need not accept my definitions, but if you don't agree with them, I'd like to see some others

Additionally, I nowhere state or even imply that things falling under either of those definitions must be static in their placement. I made it clear that I will always defer to observation. Again, there is nothing in my statement that would contradict a claim of naturalism on my part.

So whether something is natural vs. supernatural can vary over time? Can you give me an example of something natural that used to be supernatural, or of something supernatural that used to be natural?

A very nice discussion of the literary applications of the term fiction and non-fiction, though rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Perhaps where you basically state that non-fiction, in general, describes reality whereas fiction does not, is pretty much all you need here. Again, I thought that was fairly clear from the context of my post.

So you aren't using them in the literary sense? In which sense are you using them as? Is "fiction" simply a synonym for "false", and "non-fiction" is a synonym for "true"? So are scientific hypothesis that turn out to be false fictional? And if they are fictional, are they supernatural?

If you mean "fictional"/"non-fictional" simply as synonyms for "false"/"true", why not simply just use "false" and "true" instead? Or if they mean something more than just "false" and "true", what exactly? I've already suggested a meaning that goes beyond "false"/"true" which is based on the literary and library uses of the terms, but you've rejected that as irrelevant. Fine then; propose another definition for "fiction" and "non-fiction", that goes beyond merely "false" and "true", but which is different from the one which I proposed but which you have rejected.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point. When someone says, "What a miraculous catch!!!", what do you think they mean?

If you asked them, they might well admit to using hyperbole, and say that they don't actually consider their catch a miracle at all, whether or not they actually believe in such things.

And, on the contrary, my use of the terms actually work quite well. At least, you have not provided a real reason, beyond you might not like it, for me to actually reconsider my position.

Unlike say Tassman, your positions on miracles and the laws of nature are largely non-objectionable to me. Unlike some other naturalists, you don't emphasise miracles in defining the supernatural, so that particular objection to naturalism doesn't work for you. I still believe however, that you can't give a coherent definition of natural/supernatural, but we'll see how you go in response to this post.

[robertb]

OK, but then you still haven't clearly defined those terms.

Supernatural = Fiction + ?

Natural = Non-Fiction + ?

What is the extra element needed to turn fiction into the supernatural? What is the extra element needed to turn non-fiction into the natural?

And I still don't see a clear definition of "fiction" and "non-fiction" from you either. I propose some definitions:

Fiction = deliberate and acknowledged falsehoods, created for purposes such as entertainment, or to convey a message in an allegorical or other non-literal form

Non-fiction = a work which seriously claims to describe reality, whether or not it actually succeeds in doing so

As I've argued before, given these definitions, linking the supernatural to the fictional, or the natural to the non-fictional, just doesn't make any sense. Of course, you need not accept my definitions, but if you don't agree with them, I'd like to see some others

So whether something is natural vs. supernatural can vary over time? Can you give me an example of something natural that used to be supernatural, or of something supernatural that used to be natural?

So you aren't using them in the literary sense? In which sense are you using them as? Is "fiction" simply a synonym for "false", and "non-fiction" is a synonym for "true"? So are scientific hypothesis that turn out to be false fictional? And if they are fictional, are they supernatural?

If you mean "fictional"/"non-fictional" simply as synonyms for "false"/"true", why not simply just use "false" and "true" instead? Or if they mean something more than just "false" and "true", what exactly? I've already suggested a meaning that goes beyond "false"/"true" which is based on the literary and library uses of the terms, but you've rejected that as irrelevant. Fine then; propose another definition for "fiction" and "non-fiction", that goes beyond merely "false" and "true", but which is different from the one which I proposed but which you have rejected.

If you asked them, they might well admit to using hyperbole, and say that they don't actually consider their catch a miracle at all, whether or not they actually believe in such things.

Unlike say Tassman, your positions on miracles and the laws of nature are largely non-objectionable to me. Unlike some other naturalists, you don't emphasise miracles in defining the supernatural, so that particular objection to naturalism doesn't work for you. I still believe however, that you can't give a coherent definition of natural/supernatural, but we'll see how you go in response to this post.

Let's make this a bit easier.

Natural = non-fiction = describes reality
Supernatural = fiction = does not describe reality.

And to clarify what I said regarding categorization, I meant to imply that it is possible to recategorize something based on new knowledge, not to point to any particular occurance of such. However, almost all of the occurances I can think of tend to move from supernatural to natural, again based on knowledge and attribution of causation more than anything else. Though I suppose that viewed from the right angle, those same occurances would necessarily contain elements that would, at the same time, move in the opposite direction.

Perhaps the creation of man might be an example. Moving the act itself into the natural realm, while simultaneously moving a "creator" into the supernatural realm. I'll consider it some more, i suppose.

[ZackMartin]

Let's make this a bit easier.

Natural = non-fiction = describes reality
Supernatural = fiction = does not describe reality.

Falsehoods fail to describe reality, but many falsehoods are clearly neither fictional nor supernatural.

e.g. theories under serious consideration by the scientific community, which happen to be wrong, but we don't know that yet

are they fiction?

are they supernatural?

So, if string theory turns out to be wrong, does that mean it is supernatural? Is it supernatural right now? Or does it only become supernatural when we disprove it?

Since South Park fails to describe reality, does it follow that it is fiction? Yes, most people would agree that South Park is fiction. Is it supernatural? Few if anybody would claim that South Park is supernatural.

Oh, but you've already told me, that not all fictions are supernatural? Fine then; what is the extra ingredient needed to make a fictional thing supernatural? What makes (in your view) God or ghosts or angels or demons supernatural, but Al Bundy and Homer Simpson merely fictional? Can you actually describe what this extra element is?

Isn't "describes reality" simply another way of saying "true"? And "does not describe reality simply another way of saying "false"? So, as you use the words, "fiction" just means "false", and "non-fiction" just means true? Why not then simply just say "false" and "true", instead of "fiction" and "non-fiction"? It would be less confusing.

So when you say you are a naturalist, then all you are really saying is that you believe that what you believe is true?

If that's the definition of naturalism, then everyone's a naturalist. Everyone believes in the truth of their own beliefs.

And if it's true of everyone, then we might as well dispense with the word entirely.

Face it, your attempts to define natural and supernatural aren't going very well.

And to clarify what I said regarding categorization, I meant to imply that it is possible to recategorize something based on new knowledge, not to point to any particular occurance of such. However, almost all of the occurances I can think of tend to move from supernatural to natural, again based on knowledge and attribution of causation more than anything else. Though I suppose that viewed from the right angle, those same occurances would necessarily contain elements that would, at the same time, move in the opposite direction.

Perhaps the creation of man might be an example. Moving the act itself into the natural realm, while simultaneously moving a "creator" into the supernatural realm. I'll consider it some more, i suppose.

So, what made the "creation of humanity" switch from being "fictional" to "non-fictional"? Was it when we went from the wrong idea to the right one? And so likewise, when we switched from wrong to right, did we switch from supernatural to natural? Does that mean that Newton's law of gravitation is more supernatural than Einstein's, since it agrees with reality less well??

Are you saying, that whenever a scientific theory is disproven, it becomes "supernatural"?

So phlogiston theory is supernatural? And luminiferous aether is supernatural? And if someone disproved string theory tomorrow, then string theory would become supernatural too?

So all you really mean by "supernatural" is "discarded scientific theory"? And all you really mean by "naturalism" is "rejection of discarded scientific theories"? That's a deep insight. Hey, by that definition, who isn't a naturalist? Who believes in phlogiston theory any more, anyway?

And when people claim that "methodological" naturalism is the foundation of science, all they are really saying is "make sure to chuck out the old stuff! it's all supernatural now"???? That's some really insightful foundation you've got there.

This position doesn't make a lot of sense.

[robertb]

Falsehoods fail to describe reality, but many falsehoods are clearly neither fictional nor supernatural.

e.g. theories under serious consideration by the scientific community, which happen to be wrong, but we don't know that yet

are they fiction?

are they supernatural?

So, if string theory turns out to be wrong, does that mean it is supernatural? Is it supernatural right now? Or does it only become supernatural when we disprove it?

Since South Park fails to describe reality, does it follow that it is fiction? Yes, most people would agree that South Park is fiction. Is it supernatural? Few if anybody would claim that South Park is supernatural.

Oh, but you've already told me, that not all fictions are supernatural? Fine then; what is the extra ingredient needed to make a fictional thing supernatural? What makes (in your view) God or ghosts or angels or demons supernatural, but Al Bundy and Homer Simpson merely fictional? Can you actually describe what this extra element is?

Isn't "describes reality" simply another way of saying "true"? And "does not describe reality simply another way of saying "false"? So, as you use the words, "fiction" just means "false", and "non-fiction" just means true? Why not then simply just say "false" and "true", instead of "fiction" and "non-fiction"? It would be less confusing.

So when you say you are a naturalist, then all you are really saying is that you believe that what you believe is true?

If that's the definition of naturalism, then everyone's a naturalist. Everyone believes in the truth of their own beliefs.

And if it's true of everyone, then we might as well dispense with the word entirely.

Face it, your attempts to define natural and supernatural aren't going very well.

In fact, your attempt to obscure the clear meaning of my words with a bunch of iirelevant baggage is what is not going well. Seems a bit pointless. In fact, I clearly defined both natural and supernatural, not only in the context in which I use these words, but with significant deference to possibility. In fact, I am not quite sure what your objection is, other than strawmanning my obvious position for some reason or another.

And, in fact, I do not use the words true and false because these words are unnecessary in this context. I am much happier dealing with fiction and non-fiction, as these two terms accurately portray my position with regards to the underlying definition of naturalism and my preference for observation over bluster.

So, what made the "creation of humanity" switch from being "fictional" to "non-fictional"? Was it when we went from the wrong idea to the right one? And so likewise, when we switched from wrong to right, did we switch from supernatural to natural? Does that mean that Newton's law of gravitation is more supernatural than Einstein's, since it agrees with reality less well??

Are you saying, that whenever a scientific theory is disproven, it becomes "supernatural"?

So phlogiston theory is supernatural? And luminiferous aether is supernatural? And if someone disproved string theory tomorrow, then string theory would become supernatural too?

So all you really mean by "supernatural" is "discarded scientific theory"? And all you really mean by "naturalism" is "rejection of discarded scientific theories"? That's a deep insight. Hey, by that definition, who isn't a naturalist? Who believes in phlogiston theory any more, anyway?

And when people claim that "methodological" naturalism is the foundation of science, all they are really saying is "make sure to chuck out the old stuff! it's all supernatural now"???? That's some really insightful foundation you've got there.

This position doesn't make a lot of sense.

Actually, that is not at all what I mean or meant. You are free to keep on digging if you wish, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I was referring to knowledge about the thing, not to the thing itself, of course.

[Seasanctuary]

And what exactly do you mean by that?

You're going to have to explain which part of what I said is unclear, since the way I put it — or equivalent forms like "fundamental reality is impersonal" — is about as simple as it can be phrased.

I reckon many naturalists would disagree with you. This is another problem with naturalism - it is so vaguely defined, no one can be sure what exactly it entails, what exactly it rules in or out.

Different things are meant by "naturalism." I don't get worked up about what the term really means. As a comprehensive worldview that's incompatible with so-called "classic Theism," the definition I'm giving is suitable. In the context of not factoring ghosts into the likely candidates for scientific research or explaining the theme of that TV show about the Winchester brothers, it's not suitable.

Maybe an example will help. Is naturalism true in the world of Harry Potter? Not in the "no magic!!" sense. But it's entirely likely with that world that magic is just the way nature works for them. Even if it happens to be mediated by spirits (trapped in wands, say), those spirits could be a part of a world that is, at bottom, impersonal. So I can read the Harry Potter novels as a fantasy version of naturalism.

[robrecht]

I do not know what God is. I know what some say that God is and what some others say that God is, etc., but I am not sure how they justify such claims, or if in fact the justifications that I have heard, from those that do, actually justifies such a claim.

It seems to me, for the purposes of this discussion, that I will remain agnostic as to any particular classification due to the fact that I am unsure what is actually meant by the term God.

I mean, if one is simply saying that the some unknown is God, then I suppose an agnostic position kinda makes sense. Other observations that you may like to propose not withstanding, of course.

Are you any more sure of what is meant by the term 'supernatural'? In other words, would you be able to repeat your statement above but substitute the word 'God' with the words 'the supernatural' If not, why not?

[robertb]

Are you any more sure of what is meant by the term 'supernatural'? In other words, would you be able to repeat your statement above but substitute the word 'God' with the words 'the supernatural' If not, why not?

Except I did define supernatural as meaning fictional.

As I said, I do not know what God is, as far as I can tell, this word might simply be interchangeable with the word unknown, thus making a particular classification impossible without further data. So making such a substitution exchanges a known with an unknown.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not sure if you guys realize this or not, but you don't need to post in a thread to subscribe to it. If you click on the words at the top of the thread that read "thread tools", a drop-down appears with the option to "Subscribe to this thread...". If you already knew this, just ignore me.

I didn't know that, but I kind of like using the "popcorn" smiley. Thanks for the info though.

[robrecht]

Except I did define supernatural as meaning fictional.

As I said, I do not know what God is, as far as I can tell, this word might simply be interchangeable with the word unknown, thus making a particular classification impossible without further data. So making such a substitution exchanges a known with an unknown.

Thanks. So would you say that the supernatural is more easily defined than God?

[robertb]

Thanks. So would you say that the supernatural is more easily defined than God?

Without a doubt.

[nightbringer]

If you're looking for an account of the necessary/sufficient conditions for something being either "natural" or "supernatural" then you're probably not going to have much luck. Still, in a rough and ready way I think we know more or less what we're talking about we use those words and related ones like "naturalism". If I'm speaking to someone who identifies as a naturalist I'm hardly going to be in much confusion as to the basic outline of their ontology.

[robrecht]

Without a doubt.

I think this means that the concept of the supernatural that you find easier to define (and classify as fiction) would also be classified as fiction by any thoughtful theist for whom the supernatural is every bit as undefined and unknown as is God. There are, of course, other theists who will no doubt disagree with me on this. Thanks for the discussion, by the way, I find this topic interesting and appreciate your taking the time.

[magellan004]

Let's make this a bit easier.

Natural = non-fiction = describes reality
Supernatural = fiction = does not describe reality.

From the Opening post - Zack's assertion was:

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

As far as 'doing science' goes:

We know that ghosts are supernatural.
According to Robertb ghosts are not real.
Science can investigate 'Ghosts are in this house.'
So Naturalism allows investigate of things that are not real.

Therefore I wonder what things a Naturalist scientist would see Theist scienctists investigating that are different from their (the naturalist's) scope.

Magellan