Naturalism is false

[robrecht]

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.

Yes, I probably do, but I didn't give it much thought because I only used it as a theoretically possible example, not a likely occurence. I have indeed seen an accomplished philosopher at first reject and then eventually accept a philosophical proof for the existence of God, but that indicates to me that much of philosophy (and of God) is personal and subjective. But it is funny to speak of God as natural, isn't it? From a theological perspective, it is an important insight into the 'nature' of the God some of us believe in. It is part of why the natural/supernatural dichotomy is such a problematic and inadequate distinction for some theologians and believing philosophers.

[robertb]

Yes, I probably do, but I didn't give it much thought because I only used it as a theoretically possible example, not a likely occurence. I have indeed seen an accomplished philosopher at first reject and then eventually accept a philosophical proof for the existence of God, but that indicates to me that much of philosophy (and of God) is personal and subjective. But it is funny to speak of God as natural, isn't it? From a theological perspective, it is an important insight into the 'nature' of the God some of us believe in. It is part of why the natural/supernatural dichotomy is such a problematic and inadequate distinction for some theologians and believing philosophers.

I quite understand your position. It only seems natural (pun intended) to classify anything that interacts with reality as natural. Perhaps those who came up with the word supernatural didn't actually think it through, or maybe they actually defined it exactly as I have, but felt this word to be a bit less disrespectful in polite society than simply using the word fictitious.

[robertb]

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



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.

If we lived in a "supernatural universe", wouldn't we say that it was perfectly natural?

You are describing the issue I believe that Zak was alluding to in his OP. The issue of the incoherency of some definitions of these words as applied to this topic, especially, it would seem, by philosophers...lol.

[magellan004]

Yes, I probably do, but I didn't give it much thought because I only used it as a theoretically possible example, not a likely occurence. I have indeed seen an accomplished philosopher at first reject and then eventually accept a philosophical proof for the existence of God, but that indicates to me that much of philosophy (and of God) is personal and subjective. But it is funny to speak of God as natural, isn't it? From a theological perspective, it is an important insight into the 'nature' of the God some of us believe in. It is part of why the natural/supernatural dichotomy is such a problematic and inadequate distinction for some theologians and believing philosophers.

I'd say that Material or Physical are other words for what Naturalists base their beliefs on.
Some people believe in a spiritual world and a physical world. Some people think only the physical world exists. I don't know if discussing all of the nuances of 'supernatural' will help addressing Zack's opening post. I don't mind the discussion but the thread is about the notion 'The physical world is all there is' - well, that's how I see it.

Is saying 'The physical world is all there is' a sane way of approaching science? It can't be because it rules possibilities out.

I see the 'naturalist' argument as 'If we could detect the non-physical then it would be physical so it wouldn't be non-physical.' I am not sure if that's right thinking either.

Magellan

[seer]

If we lived in a "supernatural universe", wouldn't we say that it was perfectly natural?

You are describing the issue I believe that Zak was alluding to in his OP. The issue of the incoherency of some definitions of these words as applied to this topic, especially, it would seem, by philosophers...lol.

Yes, and we do call it natural - but that definition is arbitrary, without foundation.

[robertb]

Yes, and we do call it natural - but that definition is arbitrary, without foundation.

In what sense? In the sense that words themselves are arbitrary?

[robertb]

I'd say that Material or Physical are other words for what Naturalists base their beliefs on.
Some people believe in a spiritual world and a physical world. Some people think only the physical world exists. I don't know if discussing all of the nuances of 'supernatural' will help addressing Zack's opening post. I don't mind the discussion but the thread is about the notion 'The physical world is all there is' - well, that's how I see it.

Is saying 'The physical world is all there is' a sane way of approaching science? It can't be because it rules possibilities out.

I see the 'naturalist' argument as 'If we could detect the non-physical then it would be physical so it wouldn't be non-physical.' I am not sure if that's right thinking either.

Magellan

I suppose I would word your last statement as, "If we could detect the non-physical, then the non-physical would be considered natural". At least that is how I view it, if I understand correctly what you mean to imply by non-physical in this instance.

[robrecht]

I quite understand your position. It only seems natural (pun intended) to classify anything that interacts with reality as natural. Perhaps those who came up with the word supernatural didn't actually think it through, or maybe they actually defined it exactly as I have, but felt this word to be a bit less disrespectful in polite society than simply using the word fictitious.

There is indeed a very interesting theological history of the term. It cost at least a couple of theologians their careers until they were eventuality vindicated decades later.

[seer]

In what sense? In the sense that words themselves are arbitrary?

The definitions are arbitrary since we have no idea if this really is a "natural" universe. We call it "natural" but that may not track with reality.

[robrecht]

The definitions are arbitrary since we have no idea if this really is a "natural" universe. We call it "natural" but that may not track with reality.

How could it not track with reality?

[robertb]

The definitions are arbitrary since we have no idea if this really is a "natural" universe. We call it "natural" but that may not track with reality.

I really do not understand what you are trying to say. It almost seems like you are ascribing some absolute meaning to a word, though I doubt that this is your intent.

[ZackMartin]

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.

Your definitions don't make sense. I've pointed out multiple holes in your definitions. You just seem to want to ignore the whole discussion though. Pointing out flaws in definitions isn't "strawmanning".

[robertb]

There is indeed a very interesting theological history of the term. It cost at least a couple of theologians their careers until they were eventuality vindicated decades later.

Interesting, I was not aware of that. Perhaps this had to do with a brute assessment of naturalism and was a reaction to it.

[seer]

How could it not track with reality?

If this universe was created by a non-natural force, then by definition it is not "natural." The reality is that it would be a supernatural universe.

[robertb]

Your definitions don't make sense. I've pointed out multiple holes in your definitions. You just seem to want to ignore the whole discussion though. Pointing out flaws in definitions isn't "strawmanning".

You have attached all sorts of baggage to the clear definitions I provided and then proceded to pound away on these, now, baggage laden terms.

I am sorry, I call that straw manning.