Naturalism - the false argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2012, 04:40 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
Here I thought my explanation of my words was appropriately in line with the objection...

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, 05:32 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(27-11-2012 04:40 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Here I thought my explanation of my words was appropriately in line with the objection...


OK.. Fair enough. My objection was nakedly immaterial.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 05:35 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument



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, 07:58 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
Hey, Tia.

Science must be based on naturalism: every phenomenon in the universe has a material explanation. The issue that you're facing is that naturalism IS a philosophy. You cannot empirically prove that it is true. Science cannot test the non-material because only material phenomenon leave empirical evidence. So even if science wanted to comment on the supernatural, which it does not, it couldn't. So all science operates under methodological naturalism. Simply put, methodologically we will operate AS IF naturalism were true. Thus science, which is awesome, is based on an unscientific philosophy. Inconvenient as that may be, it is the truth.

This, however, does not invalidate science. We know that there ARE material phenomenon that are consistent and measurable. If the supernatural governs these phenomenon, it's irrelevant to science. If the supernatural interfears with them, it's irrelevant to science because it's special case intervention and NOT a part of regular function.

So, if someone wants to say that science doesn't rule out God, they're right. If they say that science can't comment on God, they're right. If they want to say that God has superpowers and interfears with the daily operation of things, they're welcome to; however, they do not, nor cannot, have empirical evidence of this, meaning intelligent design is not the same as evolution because one is testable, the other is either revealed or theoretical; furthermore, it does not invalidate science because while science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it is exceptional at commenting on the natural. Evolution is a scientific process that cannot be denied. If someone wants to claim it has been manipulated or modified by God, more power to them. They just can't say it doesn't exist. They might as well say their nose doesn't exist because God makes noses.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 08:04 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(27-11-2012 04:05 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(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
People didn't get that this is the naked truth clothed in obscurity. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-03-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(26-11-2012 08:03 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  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.
I do not know of any religious beliefs that are now accepted by Science. There are beliefs and there are knowns.....or, there is faith and there are facts. Science can't argue with faith. Some of the faithful actually think that if Science can't disprove their faith, then it must be fact. That is a common problem with the strongly faithful, they confuse facts and faith. Facts and faith must be acknowledged as different worlds, and if you can convince the faithful, then there is nothing left to argue. A lot of faithful people I know accept Science, and then will tell me "I accept this on faith". This meaning that they acknowledge Science is not supporting their belief, but they choose to "take it on faith". To me that is really 'hope', most likely due to the human fear of a permanent death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:57 AM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(27-11-2012 07:58 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tia.

Science must be based on naturalism: every phenomenon in the universe has a material explanation. The issue that you're facing is that naturalism IS a philosophy. You cannot empirically prove that it is true. Science cannot test the non-material because only material phenomenon leave empirical evidence. So even if science wanted to comment on the supernatural, which it does not, it couldn't. So all science operates under methodological naturalism. Simply put, methodologically we will operate AS IF naturalism were true. Thus science, which is awesome, is based on an unscientific philosophy. Inconvenient as that may be, it is the truth.

This, however, does not invalidate science. We know that there ARE material phenomenon that are consistent and measurable. If the supernatural governs these phenomenon, it's irrelevant to science. If the supernatural interfears with them, it's irrelevant to science because it's special case intervention and NOT a part of regular function.

So, if someone wants to say that science doesn't rule out God, they're right. If they say that science can't comment on God, they're right. If they want to say that God has superpowers and interfears with the daily operation of things, they're welcome to; however, they do not, nor cannot, have empirical evidence of this, meaning intelligent design is not the same as evolution because one is testable, the other is either revealed or theoretical; furthermore, it does not invalidate science because while science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it is exceptional at commenting on the natural. Evolution is a scientific process that cannot be denied. If someone wants to claim it has been manipulated or modified by God, more power to them. They just can't say it doesn't exist. They might as well say their nose doesn't exist because God makes noses.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

In short, you're recognizing the difference between Methodological Naturalism, that we can't test for the supernatural, so we should create tests under the assumption that it doesn't exist, and Philosophical Naturalism, that, in fact, nothing exists except the natural. There are many theist scientists, and they are perfectly comfortable operating under the former without accepting the latter, but it is very difficult for one to accept the latter without operating under the former.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
Quote:In short, you're recognizing the difference between Methodological Naturalism, that we can't test for the supernatural, so we should create tests under the assumption that it doesn't exist, and Philosophical Naturalism, that, in fact, nothing exists except the natural. There are many theist scientists, and they are perfectly comfortable operating under the former without accepting the latter, but it is very difficult for one to accept the latter without operating under the former.
Yes, yes, and yes. Here's my $0.02, if that is true, which it is, how can a Theist scientist proceed with scientific methodology without having to adopt his worldview to a skeptical worldview for the purposes of study? He cannot. This discussion is relevant not only to science but to practical matters--how does a pro-lifer dispense abortifacients and etc., etc. Science is in modern times asking religious scientists to leave religion at the door and then freethinkers claim science does not disqualify or rationalize away evidence for God as absurd on its face. How could it not? Be honest, please!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
The scientific method asks all would-be scientists to leave all biases at the door. And pro-lifers need to be shot in the head should avoid occupations in conflict with their own morality - which is true for all - but pro-lifers should also try to understand wtf they're talking about. Angry

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Naturalism - the false argument
(27-03-2013 01:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:In short, you're recognizing the difference between Methodological Naturalism, that we can't test for the supernatural, so we should create tests under the assumption that it doesn't exist, and Philosophical Naturalism, that, in fact, nothing exists except the natural. There are many theist scientists, and they are perfectly comfortable operating under the former without accepting the latter, but it is very difficult for one to accept the latter without operating under the former.
Yes, yes, and yes. Here's my $0.02, if that is true, which it is, how can a Theist scientist proceed with scientific methodology without having to adopt his worldview to a skeptical worldview for the purposes of study? He cannot. This discussion is relevant not only to science but to practical matters--how does a pro-lifer dispense abortifacients and etc., etc. Science is in modern times asking religious scientists to leave religion at the door and then freethinkers claim science does not disqualify or rationalize away evidence for God as absurd on its face. How could it not? Be honest, please!
Did you mean how does a pro-choice justify abortion, when Science says life begins at conception? Well this one justifies abortion by giving the mother a chance to place the most importance on her life, ...and ...I admit.... I also have the importance of population control in the back of the decision somewhere.....maybe ..........? Scientists must leave beliefs at the door of the lab, they can't mix faith with knowledge, else..their findings would be a belief.......also the thinkers make no such claim about any evidence for the gods, as there has never been any evidence to consider.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: