Naturalism - the false argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2012, 08:03 PM
Naturalism - the false argument
An extremely annoying argument from superstitious
people is that empirical science is based on the naturalism (philosophy) and
thereby it has a metaphysical component. This is actually used very commonly to
put evolution and intelligent design at the same level of respectfulness. But
of course it is based on naturalism!!! How could it be otherwise!! How can one
do science, if one accepts the super-natural? How could someone refute a
conclusion like this: “Because god did it”! Imagine that you are in a
conference and the speaker is presenting data that contradicts itself. You will
certainly confront the speaker in the Q&A with that. And then he answers: “Given
that religious believes are now accepted in science, , I must say that this is
true because god did it!”. Sure this is mockery, but can you imagine science
beyond the naturalistic basis? Once again this is a non-argument coming from a
pseudo-science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 08:35 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
First of all, can I recommend paragraphs and slowing down a little bit, honestly I found that a little hard to follow.

(Also I just hate reading posts in that format, and because of how the quoting is, I cannot edit it in a way I can easily read!)

Getting on with the subject at hand and putting my gripes aside, lets get this party started.

If you are commonly having to defeat "ID is the on the same level as science" I recommend informing your opponent of the results of Kitzmiller Vs. Dover in the US, where Intelligent Design was ruled to be a mask from Creationism, and not a valid scientific study, and as such is not considerable on the same level as true scientific study, a la Evolutionary Biology, Physics, Chemistry and on and on the list goes. (You'll have to forgive me if that is a somewhat skewed interpretation of the ruling, but is a fairly accurate representation as per my knowledge of said.)

IF you are dealing with claims that since science is "materialistic/naturalistic" or can't be trusted because it is based on the "words of men", simply remind your opponent that every single mythological text in history has been solely written by men alone, and none convey any hint of evidence to suggest the contrary.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
26-11-2012, 08:45 PM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
For a reasonable person, the argument that I've used would be sufficient. But it is always important to increase the argumentarium.

On the format, I'm terribly sorry. I've posted it without the final format by mistake. Now I am struggling to edit it, because I don't find the option...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 08:47 PM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
You can certainly believe in the supernatural and even the metaphysical without a belief in a god. I have not completely dismissed these possibilities either, but I am a pragmatist, so I see no reason to have a belief until I am presented with more substantial evidence, which given the nature of metaphysical may very well be a logical contradiction. As for the supernatural, that is just things which happen for which we do not have an adequate explanation for yet. Radiation could very well have been thought of as supernatural a few hundred years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every supernatural claim has merit, but some of them may. It would be rather arrogant to think that we understand how everything works, or that all of our theories are correct. Hell, quantum physics is still very poorly understood...eh, I'm done...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
26-11-2012, 08:59 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 09:02 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
My point was that empirical science must be based on naturalism, must be materialistic. Simply because of the principle of empirical falsifiability, which clearly distinguishes science from pseudo-science. I am not denying the supernatural, no one can! I am simply stating that the supernatural cannot take part in a scientific explanation.

To explain a supernatural phenomena with a supernatural explanation you must use other tool than science. It can resemble sciece (paranormal science, per example) in the method, but you cannot call it science. On the contrary, if the phenomena has a materialistic explanation, than it is science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 11:29 PM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(26-11-2012 08:47 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Radiation could very well have been thought of as supernatural a few hundred years ago.
Yes and no. It "could have been thought of as supernatural" only because we didn't have a natural explanation, not because it was actually supernatural. I dislike this argument greatly because I hear it from theists who want to excuse their beliefs in unfounded ideas just because there isn't an explanation "yet" (skepticism is still a logical position, yes?). While you may technically be right because of the careful way you worded this, it's easy to draw a wrong conclusion from it.

Every single event that we've ever come to explain has a natural explanation, even the really weird ones. Through inductive reasoning, it's safe to say that all future explanations will also be natural, even if they *seem* supernatural.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 03:41 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
I really didn't go out of my way to carefully word anything to present a misleading statement. It's really simple..."supernatural" is things that are outside of our understanding of nature, once we understand nature differently it is no longer supernatural, it's natural, and we still have plenty of things we don't understand about nature. I'm not saying that we should wildly come up with ridiculous explanations without evidence, reason, or logic.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
27-11-2012, 04:05 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(26-11-2012 08:23 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  ...
IF you are dealing with claims that since science is "materialistic/naturalistic"
...

I think these two things are diametrically opposed.

Surely naturism is anti-material, no?

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-11-2012, 04:30 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
While the two are differing, I have seen them both be used against science and the principal that they can't be trusted due to being based in the physical world remains the same, at least in my experiences.


Anything else you object to?

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 04:33 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(27-11-2012 04:30 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  While the two are differing, I have seen them both be used against science and the principal that they can't be trusted due to being based in the physical world remains the same, at least in my experiences.


Anything else you object to?

D'you mean me?

If so, I object to you not reading my last post properly.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument ELK12695 32 2,845 06-08-2014 03:44 AM
Last Post: Shadow Fox
  Naturalism = Nihilism? nietzsche101 359 3,702 05-08-2014 01:37 PM
Last Post: Stevil
  The Satan Argument cre8ivmind 19 490 03-08-2014 09:31 PM
Last Post: Diogenes of Mayberry
  How would you deal with this argument? diddo97 49 804 24-05-2014 05:03 AM
Last Post: Rahn127
  The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible? WimpyPete 145 2,010 20-05-2014 02:38 PM
Last Post: WimpyPete
  A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument Reltzik 121 2,452 14-05-2014 05:49 PM
Last Post: Leo
  My thoughts on the whole Atheists vs. Theists argument Dobrev 11 374 09-05-2014 12:41 PM
Last Post: djhall
Forum Jump: