Naturalism is false

[robertb]

From the Opening post - Zack's assertion was:


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

How do you know that ghosts are supernatural?

What if, upon investigation, it is determined that ghosts are in fact auditory or visual hallucinations brought on by, perhaps, a highly emotional state in the observer.

Would you still refer to Ghosts as being supernatural? If so, why?

Let's start there.

[magellan004]

How do you know that ghosts are supernatural?

What if, upon investigation, it is determined that ghosts are in fact auditory or visual hallucinations brought on by, perhaps, a highly emotional state in the observer.

Would you still refer to Ghosts as being supernatural? If so, why?

Let's start there.

Perhaps my wording wasn't tight enough.
Ghosts are often defined as supernatural entities. I would say that most people/many people regard ghosts as supernatural beings. A story of a ghost is , I'd say, typically viewed as a story about the supernatural.

People have sighted ghosts so I don't think it's possible to determine that ghosts were never ever sighted.
People looking at lemons might turn out to be a visual hallucination but to therefore conclude that lemons do not exist seems a bit of a stretch.
Lemons are understood to be citrus fruit. Ghosts are understood to be supernatural.


My understanding of Naturalism is that Naturalism allows for lemons to exist but does not allow for ghosts to exist. And I am not sure where that rule comes from because , as you say, it seems quite OK and 'sciencey' to investigate ghosts.

Magellan

[robertb]

Perhaps my wording wasn't tight enough.
Ghosts are often defined as supernatural entities. I would say that most people/many people regard ghosts as supernatural beings. A story of a ghost is , I'd say, typically viewed as a story about the supernatural.

People have sighted ghosts so I don't think it's possible to determine that ghosts were never ever sighted.
People looking at lemons might turn out to be a visual hallucination but to therefore conclude that lemons do not exist seems a bit of a stretch.
Lemons are understood to be citrus fruit. Ghosts are understood to be supernatural.


My understanding of Naturalism is that Naturalism allows for lemons to exist but does not allow for ghosts to exist. And I am not sure where that rule comes from because , as you say, it seems quite OK and 'sciencey' to investigate ghosts.

Magellan

Hmmm, your argument seems a bit arbitrary to me, a no-true-Casper fallacy.

You say that many/most people regard ghosts as supernatural entities. Suppose that we have data that actually tells us that ghosts are auditory or visual hallucinations. Why would you consider popular sentiment superior to an evidenced based analysis? Isn't it quite possible, in this case, that popular sentiment might, in fact, be mistaken?

Finally, naturalism does not "allow" for anything to exist or not, doesn't work that way. Naturalism just tends to deal with what actually does, eg. my prior definitions.

[robertb]

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.

I think that it is, if anything, simply pragmatic to classify the supernatural as fiction. In fact, this leaves me with three basic classifications with regards to this discussion:

1. Natural, or non-fiction, or describes reality
2. Unknown
3. Supernatural, or fiction, or does not describe reality

In fact, everything starts, by default, in category 2, unknown.
Investigation of any particular thing then determines whether we categorize it as 1, 3, or leave it in 2 due to insufficient data.

The first thing you need, to be able to begin your investigation of anthing in particular, is some concept of what it is that is being referred to. If this is unclear, then of course, it stays in 2.

[magellan004]

Hmmm, your argument seems a bit arbitrary to me, a no-true-Casper fallacy.

You say that many/most people regard ghosts as supernatural entities. Suppose that we have data that actually tells us that ghosts are auditory or visual hallucinations. Why would you consider popular sentiment superior to an evidenced based analysis? Isn't it quite possible, in this case, that popular sentiment might, in fact, be mistaken?

Finally, naturalism does not "allow" for anything to exist or not, doesn't work that way. Naturalism just tends to deal with what actually does, eg. my prior definitions.

Like I said - it is possible that experiments show that lemons are illusory. I have no philosophy against a lemon or a ghost. I gather that a Naturalist does. If a Naturalist is happy to deal with all inquiries then I cannot see what a Naturalistic approach to science means.


Magellan

[robertb]

Like I said - it is possible that experiments show that lemons are illusory. I have no philosophy against a lemon or a ghost. I gather that a Naturalist does. If a Naturalist is happy to deal with all inquiries then I cannot see what a Naturalistic approach to science means.


Magellan

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to get at here.

Of course a naturalist should be happy to deal with all inquiries. Are you confusing the scientific process itself with the result of the process?

Perhaps you can try to clarify.

[robrecht]

I think that it is, if anything, simply pragmatic to classify the supernatural as fiction. In fact, this leaves me with three basic classifications with regards to this discussion:

1. Natural, or non-fiction, or describes reality
2. Unknown
3. Supernatural, or fiction, or does not describe reality

In fact, everything starts, by default, in category 2, unknown.
Investigation of any particular thing then determines whether we categorize it as 1, 3, or leave it in 2 due to insufficient data.

The first thing you need, to be able to begin your investigation of anthing in particular, is some concept of what it is that is being referred to. If this is unclear, then of course, it stays in 2.

Would you refer to this as methodological naturalism?

[robertb]

Would you refer to this as methodological naturalism?

Yes.

[robrecht]

Yes.

Is there any other kind? For example, philsophical naturalism?

[robertb]

Is there any other kind? For example, philsophical naturalism?

There is a philosophical school of thought called naturalism, yes. As with most philosophy, it tends to be hard to pin down and is, perhaps, a bit poorly defined. That is why I usually try to get down to the brass tacks, as it were. At least we then know what we are actually talking about.

[robrecht]

There is a philosophical school of thought called naturalism, yes. As with most philosophy, it tends to be hard to pin down and is, perhaps, a bit poorly defined. That is why I usually try to get down to the brass tacks, as it were. At least we then know what we are actually talking about.

Forgive me, I was uncharacteristically too brief. Would you consider yourself to be a philosophical naturalist and not merely a methodological naturalist. If so, is there any difference between the two with respect to a definition of supernatural?

[robertb]

Forgive me, I was uncharacteristically too brief. Would you consider yourself to be a philosophical naturalist and not merely a methodological naturalist. If so, is there any difference between the two with respect to a definition of supernatural?

I am not sure if I would call myself a philosophical naturalist, as this seems kind of vague. I suppose that, in principle, I would be classified as such, but it is not really something I usually give much thought to.

Regardling the philosophical definition of supernatural, usually defined in terms of what it is not, (not natural, thus not too helpful, I suppose), I prefer my own as it seems to work better with methodological naturalism. It limits the amount of a priori beliefs about anything in particular that I need to run with, other than the necessary a priori belief that my senses are at least somewhat trustworthy.

It is my view that anything that interacts with reality is to be considered natural. As only those things that interact with reality, ie. things that are observable, whether directly or indirectly, are things that we can gain actual knowledge about, imo.

How would you personally define the word supernatural, if I may ask?

[robrecht]

I am not sure if I would call myself a philosophical naturalist, as this seems kind of vague. I suppose that, in principle, I would be classified as such, but it is not really something I usually give much thought to.

Regardling the philosophical definition of supernatural, usually defined in terms of what it is not, (not natural, thus not too helpful, I suppose), I prefer my own as it seems to work better with methodological naturalism. It limits the amount of a priori beliefs about anything in particular that I need to run with, other than the necessary a priori belief that my senses are at least somewhat trustworthy.

It is my view that anything that interacts with reality is to be considered natural. As only those things that interact with reality, ie. things that are observable, whether directly or indirectly, are things that we can gain actual knowledge about, imo.

How would you personally define the word supernatural, if I may ask?

Sort of a trimmed down to fighting weight philosophical naturalism, I like that. Only a metaphor, not meant to imply that you are being pugilistic!

So, if a God were ever known to exist by rational means, and considered to interact with reality, he too would be considered natural, correct?

[robertb]

Sort of a trimmed down to fighting weight philosophical naturalism, I like that. Only a metaphor, not meant to imply that you are being pugilistic!

So, if a God were ever known to exist by rational means, and considered to interact with reality, he too would be considered natural, correct?

Certainly, though I do assume that by 'God' you mean an identifiable entity, by 'rational means' you mean observation and by 'considered to interact' you mean demonstrated interaction.

[seer]

Here is a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...8philosophy%29

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe. Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.

It seems to me that to suggest that this universe is "natural" or that "natural laws" are in fact "natural" one would have to assume a wholly material or natural genesis for the universe instead of a supernatural or intelligent genesis. But, at least at this point, that can not be proved. And if there was a supernatural source then strictly speaking we are living in a supernatural universe. These would not be laws and properties that could have come about from a purely natural process.