Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2014, 03:08 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Wow I am reading the thread

Is Quantum Mechanics a Science, Philosophy or Religion, or some new age mix of all 3?

And if I would have read this thread first and the replies I would never have started a Debate here on QM and the Mind.

I mean the title says it all really.

On one side of that Debate is QM is Science on the other side Philosophy, Religion, and "New Age" is all put in the same box.

*shudders*


Basically anything that contradicts materialism or linear thinking or determinism etc is woo.

I can imagine one of these skeptics talking to the inventor of the first television.

Moving pictures in a box? Based on what ?

Electrons

This isn't science its woo. You can't capture, transmit, and display moving images. How absurd. You must have no idea what an image is.Let me tell you how the eye works.

The retina is a membrane containing photo receptor nerve cells that lines
the inside back wall of the eye. The photo receptor nerve cells of the retina change the light rays into electrical impulses and send them through the optic nerve to the brain where an image is perceived.

Yes we will capture, transmit, and display moving images to this box.The images will display themselves on this screen.

That is non sequitur woo. An image doesn't exist until light rays are converted to electrical impulse in the brain.

Yes we will capture light and send this as electrical impulses to the tv then...

I thought you said you would capture images now you are saying you will capture light? woo woo woo. Don't play with semantics here.

Only the brain can capture images using the eye to capture light and convert that into electrical impulses.

Now you said that the brain would capture images then said the eye captures light.

That is semantics. We have shown that the brain can process images by converting light to electrical impulses. But where is your evidence that box can do that? Supernatural woo I tell you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 03:15 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Quote:
If your thoughts stop do you still exist?
Do your thoughts stop if you are sleeping? You are drawing conclusions from human scale experiences and emotions which are unjustified, IMO.

Could you please expand on this?

Many times my thoughts do stop when I am sleeping but I am aware the whole time. Other times when I meditate my thoughts will stop and again I am still aware the whole time.

Please explain what you think is unjustified.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 03:15 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Dodgy

The TV can be demonstrated to work. Woo, pretty much by definition, can't.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-07-2014, 03:28 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 03:15 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:Quote:
If your thoughts stop do you still exist?
Do your thoughts stop if you are sleeping? You are drawing conclusions from human scale experiences and emotions which are unjustified, IMO.

Could you please expand on this?

Many times my thoughts do stop when I am sleeping but I am aware the whole time. Other times when I meditate my thoughts will stop and again I am still aware the whole time.

Please explain what you think is unjustified.

I'm afraid I'm gonna decline for the time being. My comment about drawing unjustified conclusions related to the entire content of post #101.

For example you say this:
Quote:I have thoughts opinions and emotions. But I am not my thoughts and I am not my emotions any more than I am my opinions.

You could say that I am the person having my thoughts and emotions. But person is only a description of me in the sense that I have a human body and I have developed a personality.

But if I can develop a personality then I am not my personality. I am the observer. I experience my consciousness and I experience my body. My brain receives sensory input from both my environment and my body. My brain like a computer can process symbols into languages like English or like Math.

I am aware of these process because I am awareness itself. I am what is aware of thoughts. I am not thoughts themselves.

It's... just fuzzy. All this stuff about me and personality and introspection... and then suddenly we get to
Quote:You are still awareness.

You are nothing else but this awareness.

If the ultimate nature of the Universe or Fundamental nature of Reality is Awareness
then that is God

In Atheism God is suicidal
(Awareness chases every desire but the greatest desire is to cease to exist)

In Pantheism God is asleep

(Pantheism is somewhere between Atheism and Nihilism)
For some Atheist Annihilation is the ultimate reward for other Atheist awareness should annihilate in death but this process should take forever

In Reincarnation God is trying to wake up


Take your pick.

I can't prove any of them and the Atheist has no more claim to truth on this then the Pantheist or Reincarnation Paradigm.
The reasoning is all rooted in ideas about how people think and feel - it's just not hard. It's soft and yucky. It has no definition.

Like I said, I could pick it apart further but... a. I gotta go do stuff b. it's more of a comment from the general feeling I get from reading the post, than from anything specific - so ja, you are free to disagree with it - it's not that well backed up Wink

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 06:10 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
I see a conflict for the right to make conclusions about the world on verbal logic alone.
Do we have to prove our every step with science? Nope. We possess consciousness and our verbal accounts of consciousness are legitimate. Science can override what we say, but we are not obliged to prove our consciousness with science beforehand, we can just assert it.

The truth is, consciousness is physical energy expressing itself through any kind of a complex and orderly material structure - such as a brain, a computer processor, or who knows what else? Earth is 40 % quartz crystal and it has 200 electric storms going on at any time. The sun has its own complex processes too.

Everything, including consciousness, space and time is convertible to physical energy. What is energy, nobody knows, because it's always found in different physical objects.

Things like life after death can only depend on other physical mediums, such as if there are 4D or 5D universes alongside ours, their matter could double as our bodies when we die. I would even say these 4D or 5D universes are necessary for existence of the 3D universe.
The next thing you will think of is the problem of infinite regression. I have talked about this before with the concept of singularity as a solution to infinite regression and I thought I used this concept correctly but I was still criticized.
Are we allowed to talk about consciousness without being neurologists and about singularity without being physicists? I say we absolutely must, because new ideas require to combine concepts from different fields. I refuse to "STFU if you don't have the degree". If you have a degree from physics only, chances are, the problem is on your side because the topic is general.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 06:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Things like life after death can only depend on other physical mediums, such as if there are 4D or 5D universes alongside ours, their matter could double as our bodies when we die. I would even say these 4D or 5D universes are necessary for existence of the 3D universe.

a. If.

b. WTF?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-07-2014, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 01:05 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 09:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  a. If.

b. WTF?
Correct, if. A big if....
When thinking about the universe, we must ask ourselves - is this the only universe out there? If not, how many universes are there? If there's more than one, how are they arranged? Are they like bubbles in a jelly (but then what is the jelly?) or are they like concentric layers of onion? What shape does the universe have, anyway? Does it have edges? What's beyond the edges?

Now, I can't know anything about these things empirically. But you see, some models of the universe (or multiverse) create more questions, some less.
I can come up a possible model of the universe that is not the smallest model perhaps, but it answers all universe-related questions except just one, no extra evidence needed, thank you very much.
I have noticed that there is a relationship between every fundamental concept and energy. Even between consciousness, space, time, information and energy. Some are defined by science, some are logical, some are somewhere in between (cybernetics, systems theory...) - but everything boils down to energy. And then there's this singularity thing, quite baffling, which is like energy in the original state. It has no dimensions - or maybe it has infinite of them, but infinitely small, makes no difference. Baffling, I say. But it is less baffling than having a bucketful of jelly where each bubble is a full-blown universe.

For example, if scientists make a hypothesis that universes are like bubbles floating, colliding or exerting pull on each other, then they have a fuckin' lot of extra concepts to explain, where each universe comes from, what's the stuff between them and how can they pull at a distance or what is the membrane between universes made of, why they don't merge and what happens if the membrane bursts. They really need some Occam's razor.
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-...erses.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 12:40 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 11:27 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:That is simply incoherent. Since we know the universe is older than our awareness, your idea is a non-starter.

What are you talking about? What do you mean we know?

Based on what?

Your birthday? The history of mankind?

You can't just make statements like that without qualifying what you mean.

We know this as well as we know any fact about the physical universe - evidence.

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
26-07-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 02:15 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:Quote:
ATake your pick.

I can't prove any of them and the Atheist has no more claim to truth on this then the Pantheist or Reincarnation Paradigm.

Evidence. It's about evidence, not proof.

The evidence is all for consciousness being entirely brain-based.
There is absolutely no evidence for any other basis. None, nada, zilch, zip, zero.

So, yes, we do in fact have a better claim.

Finally a real argument ! After 11 pages of of people pontificating and using debaters tactics.

This argument does have a basis. It has been known a long time that science can trace back consciousness to the brain. One point for you.

But this does not answer all the hard problems of consciousness.

So? That doesn't mean that you get to make shit up. It just means that we haven't figured it out yet.

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
26-07-2014, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 04:49 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Please Bare With Me. I could have separated this into a part 1 and part 2 but I didn't.

But I promise you that no matter what your view is or how much you disagree with me that you will enjoy what I wrote.


Because of the responses I have gotten I decided to put my money where my mouth is. And so I went into a deep meditative state to see if I could see a way to explain my Metaphysical Position better. As I began to write this I did some research on Libet and looked at how both Science and Theology attempted to interpret the results and the Scientific view fit in nicely with my Metaphysical Naturalism.

So here is the result starting with the quote by morondog that got me started.

Heavily Edited For Clarity. Please Reload Page For Final Version


Quote:RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Dodgy

The TV can be demonstrated to work. Woo, pretty much by definition, can't.

Yes I agree. I was just trying to show an example of a closed minded skeptic. So suggested hypothetically a time before there were any television sets.

In the time before the first working television there would have been no evidence that it was possible. Of course there had to be scientist that had laid the ground work for such a device by creating break troughs on the principles needed for such a device to work.

I am not suggesting that before the first working television that most scientist had no ideas or understanding that would let them comprehend why this device was possible.

What I am suggesting is that there is a difference between skepticism and closed mindedness.

To the Creationist no matter how much evidence you give for Evolution or how detailed that evidence is they will not see it. Their skepticism has crossed the line into closed mindedness. This is because even the possibility of a different way of looking at reality is threatening to them.

It is not the rejection of new ideas or the challenging of new evidence and it's validity that I object to but the hostility to any new way of looking at things.

Now I am like you and most Atheist when it comes to the Supernatural or the Bible. I can be down right hostile when confronted with weak arguments and pushy Christians. But this is because I resent them using manipulation and claiming that they are using reasoning. I resent this and I become hostile when they challenge my open mindedness while attempting to manipulate me with things like Pascals Wager.

To add insult to injury they show every sign of being closed minded and so are being hypocrites.

The combination of hypocrisy and closed mindedness along with substituting manipulation for reasoning can bring out hostility in me.

I am not closed minded to Atheist although many Atheist who are closed minded or try to use manipulation by bullying me with debaters tactics do frustrate me. I may not agree with the conclusions of a lot of Atheist but at heart I am still an Atheist myself.

When I use God I am not using the word like a Theist would. Many Atheist on here rightly suggest that I should use another word. And I probably should. But once I have made clear that I am not a Theist it should just be accepted that I mean something else. That is you have to make certain that I am not even a tiny bit a Theist ...but after you have that should be it. And any hostility you have towards Theist should be dropped against me.

If you still feel that I am using an unnecessary term or that my arguments are weak then by all means challenge everything I say. But I have to point out at this point that I do not like the foolish woo idea of Supernatural any more than you do.

I made clear with the intent of my original post that I do not like Theist defining Metaphysical terms. And I resent that Atheist let them have their definitions as the quintessential definitions.So why would you think that I would like the invented terms they use that are exclusive to their religious outlook?

In other words if I resent a Theologians definition of Free Will being based on Moral Arguments for Free Will and their Biblical justification for all their definitions then why would I appreciate the term they made up to explain everything they don't understand? I obviously do not like their silly invisible man in the sky as an explanation of anything. I find it just as ludicrous and without foundation as you do.

So why would I even consider accepting their made up idea of the "Supernatural"?

I use the word God to piss them off and to take back Metaphysics. I use Free Will in the same way. I do not mean by Free Will what a Theist does but I still use it. I am taking the term Free Will back from them. It is like you gave a child a hammer to use to help their father build them a tree house and you catch the child about to smash your glass coffee table with it.Do you take the hammer away and throw it in the trash because of the obvious destruction it can do? No. You just take the hammer away and put it in a place they can't get to it. This is what I am attempting to do to Theologians with Metaphysics.

My beef isn't with you but with them. My problem isn't where the Atheist disagree with Theist but where they seem to coddle them.

Here you can have Philosophy.

We only use it as a language to justify our political position anyway and we got science for that.

Here you can have Metaphysics.

It only covers things that don't fit exactly with the given scientific facts we have so far. So we don't need it.

If science slows down in progress because we are not open to a paradigm shift that's ok.

It's better to get there slowly as possible then with sudden eureka(s) before the evidence is conclusive.

Once someone creates a fully functioning Quantum Computer that can easily run circles around a digital computer I will accept it but until then the whole idea is just talk and woo. If you ever demonstrate that a human brain can merge with a Quantum Computer because of QM effects in the brain have been demonstrated I will listen. Until then any talk of even the possibility of QM effects in the brain is woo.

If you give me evidence of QM effects on plants showing a connection between biology and QM I will simply point out that this only applies to Photo Synthesis and is therefore no evidence for QM effects on consciousness.

As for Free Will I don't need it because Theologians seem so happy with it to justify their Moral Agendas let them have it.

Ironically Sam Harris wants to take Morality away from Religion. See his book The Moral Landscape. I say why stop there? Take Free Will away from them too. They haven't only demonstrated that they can not handle the hammer but that they have no capacity for any tools.

If Science suggest that there is evidence for Determinism of the will then by all means work on a theory of Determinism. But don't let Theist get away with clouding your judgment because of what they might do if science comes out in favor of Free Will. And don't let your judgement be influenced by your political convictions.

Quote:Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to favor information that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Confirmation bias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the most common arguments against a scientific finding is confirmation bias: the scientist or scientists only look for data that confirms a desired conclusion.

Quote:The amazing case of N-Rays

To understand how N-rays came about, we need to go back to the late 18th century and consider the cultural milieu of the time. The major European nations had their chests puffed out with pride: they were great and they knew it. Each was so great that they were convinced that they were greater than any of the others. National pride itself was even something to take pride in and polish up on Sundays like some classic car.

Scientists were a part of this, and national pride provided a significant motivation for their work. The UK was very happy with the likes of Faraday, Maxwell, and others, while the Germans had Hertz, Plank, and Roentgen, who had just discovered X-rays. The French may have felt a little left out in all of this, because, although they were making major contributions, they hadn't made as big of a splash as, for instance Roentgen and his X-rays.

That is, they hadn't until Prosper-René Blondlot announced the discovery of N-rays. He was immediately famous in France, and very shortly afterwards, researchers from around the world confirmed that they too had seen N-rays. N-rays were an ephemeral thing: observed only as a corona around an electric discharge from certain crystals. They were only observed by the human eye, making them difficult to quantify.

But not everyone was convinced. Many researchers outside of France were suspicious of the number of claims coming from French labs for the properties of N-rays. In the end, an American scientist Robert Wood visited the lab of Blondlot to see it for himself. During one of the experiments he surreptitiously removed the crystal that supposedly generated the N-rays, after which Blondlot failed to notice the absence of N-rays. The N-rays failed to vanish when their source was removed.

You might think that the story ends there, but it doesn't. National pride was such that some French researchers continued to publish research on N-rays in French journals for a number of years. If we look back, we can see how the N-ray fiasco developed—the French needed something stranger and more useful than X-rays. But we can also see why it collapsed—the experiments were readily repeatable, and there was a large, diverse, and active scientific community ready to put their oars in. In the end, only a small fraction of physicists studying in the area of radiation were taken in, and only for a short time.

Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it
Ars takes a look into various areas of science to observe how confirmation …

by Chris Lee - July 13 2010, 9:15pm EDT

Sam Harris may have looked at real Scientific Evidence to come to his conclusions on Determinism. But this evidence was gathered by scientists that probably had no interest in settling the debate on Determinism.

Sam Harris acknowledges the Theological and Political Implications of Free Will and then goes on to use the experiments of Libet as proof of Determinism completely ignoring Libet's own conclusions on Free Will based on his scientific experiments.

And it has been pointed out that there is Bias in the views of people like Sam Harris by the Scientific community and by Libet himself.

Libet proposes (based on his work) a common-sense model of free will: our unconscious is a bubbling sea of velleities. We freely choose the impulses we wish to enact by prescinding from a veto, and we freely choose the impulses we wish to suppress by vetoing the act. Libet found experimental traces of the unconscious impulses (the readiness potential) and experimental confirmation of the freely chosen veto (the conscious choice unaccompanied by corresponding electrophysiological activity). He even noted that his experimental results validated a particular traditional religious understanding of moral choice -- that sin is in the act, which is freely chosen, not in the temptation, which can arise without our choice. He even proposed a neurophysiological model of original sin!

You may ask, at this point: why do Coyne and other materialists utterly misrepresent Libet's experiments? Why would materialists cite the work of a researcher who scientifically confirmed free will, and even confirmed the traditional religious view of culpability? Why would materialists cite experiments that confirm the opposite of their claims? Perhaps materialists don't understand the science, or perhaps they never bothered to try.

Quote:Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion?
Michael Egnor January 15, 2014 1:33 PM
Materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they deny free will. Libet was a neuroscientist at the University of California at San Francisco during the latter half of the 20th century who did pioneering research on the neurobiology of consciousness...

...Whatever their reason for misrepresenting Libet's work, materialists' invocation of research that validates free will is likely a consequence not of their acquaintance with the science itself (Coyne seems blissfully unaware of Libet's actual experiments and conclusions), but a consequence of the metaphysical biases that materialists bring to the issue. You can see the same metaphysical bias and denial of the plain implications of the science in their denial of teleology in evolutionary biology.

In The Journal of Conscious Studies Benjamin Libet published a paper titled "Do We Have Free Will?"

In his paper he points out a lot of the implications that Sam Harris has pointed out about how religion defines Free Will in relation to original sin and makes Moral Arguments for our responsibilities to society based on Free Will. But Libet draws the opposite conclusion on Determinism.

His conclusion is spelled out under the"Determinism and Free Will " part of his paper.

1.We have not answered of whether our consciously will acts are fully determined by natural laws that govern activities of nerve cells in the brain or whether acts and conscious decisions to perform them can proceed to some degree independently of natural determinism.
2. One crucial quality necessary for free choice is that there is unpredictability
3. Quantum Physics forces us to deal with probabilities rather than certainties of events and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits our complete knowledge of molecular activities in the brain

But you may say couldn't Theist use this to their advantage?

My answer is sure they could but they would fail for the same reason that Sam Harris fails in his attempt to prove Determinism with the same findings. This is because the evidence in question does not substantiate the conclusions drawn .

And bias is revealed undermining the credibility not of their findings but their assumptions about Libet's Experiments. Remember in this case neither Sam Harris or any Theologians have provided any evidence for interpreting Libet's experiments.

Although I am sure that Sam Harris has at least read papers on similar experiments. But even if Sam Harris has done his own work on this it still doesn't establish determinism because as far as I know Sam hasn't ever claimed to have observed different results and because of his Bias he ignores the implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on his findings.

So what have Theologians response to Libet?
Well first the issue is clouded with statements like

Quote:"Now let’s look at your three bullet-point questions. With respect to your first question, there is no consensus concerning the interpretation or significance of Libet’s results."
William Lane Craig

This is an odd statement for him to make if he is going to make a case for free will based on Libet. If the evidence is inconclusive then where is his conclusion coming from?

I will give him benefit of the doubt here and assume that he is just saying what I said when I said that there is no consensus on determinism of the will.

He then has this to say

Quote:Although Philosophy of Mind is not one of my areas of specialization, Raj, so that I usually refer people with questions like yours to the work of those who do so specialize, like my colleague J. P. Moreland, nevertheless, since the Libet experiments play such a pivotal role in Alex Rosenberg’s defense of naturalism, I did some poking around concerning Libet’s fascinating results in preparation for my debate with Rosenberg.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/libets-ex...z38bt2uUt5

At this point I would like to point out that Philosophy can not be his specialization in any field of Philosophy because Philosophy like Science has an inherent conflict of interest with any person that has Theological Bias. A Christian Theologian must accept Confirmation Bias as a basis for their employment. When a Theologian overcomes this Bias they are rejected from their peers. Look at John Shelby Spong. Is he still a Theologian? Yes. But is he a Christian Theologian? He would say yes but almost no Christian would agree with him and he is no longer part of the Theological community.

So back to Craig.

Quote:The more fundamental point, however, seems to me to be your point (a), which serves to answer your second question. As I contemplated Libet’s results, it struck me forcefully, this is exactly what the dualist-interactionist would expect. The soul (or mind) does not act independently of the brain; rather, as the Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles put it, the mind uses the brain as an instrument to think. So, of course, the soul’s decisions are not simultaneous with the conscious awareness of them. How could they be? Given the soul’s reliance upon the brain as an instrument of thought and the finite velocity of the transmission of neural signals, of course there is a time lag between the mind’s decisions and the awareness of them. In Libet’s experiment, since neural processes travel at finite velocities, of course it takes time for the mind’s decision to come to consciousness. This is exactly what we should expect on a dualist-interactionist view.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/libets-ex...z38bup1glg

I agree that he has made a point for dualism assuming we still accept materialism. But I think that Materialism is at the end of it's usefulness and most scientist only pay lip service to any type of materialism. This is proven by the new term that Scientific Philosophers now use Metaphysical Naturalism.

A lot of times Philosophers misuse this term to denote a form of materialism. But just as materialism is in it's last throes of death so is this term being misused in that sense. This is because there are more and more people like myself that have pointed out that Metaphysical Naturalism has replaced Materialism. The term Naturalism applies to nature and therefore the Material world. Metaphysics applies to all aspects of Reality including Quantum Physics. So Metaphysical Naturalism has to be a form of Philosophy that accepts all aspects of Reality except the Supernatural.

I like the term and I will be using it in reference to my own views more and more. Why? Because I do believe that QM does have Metaphysical Implications. But when I say this it is often misinterpreted as a belief in the Supernatural. By calling myself a Metaphysical Naturalist I am rejecting the Supernatural from Metaphysics while at the same time acknowledging that Naturalism by itself is insufficient to address questions on the nature of Reality.

Before QM the nature of Reality ended at the Material world. Natural could be used as a synonym for the material world. Before QM matter ended at atoms and that is all we knew and we assumed that any attempt to study atoms would result with the exact same results we have come to expect of matter. But what we have found is the nature of matter is far more complex and unpredictable and follows rules or fails to follow them in very strange unpredictable ways.

So where does this leave me on Craig and his conclusions?

His conclusion on dualism is unfounded. QM does not support dualism but what is known as the double aspect theory. The double aspect theory is a different type of dualism and it does not leave room for the supernatural.

Quote:In the philosophy of mind, double-aspect theory is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance.
Double-aspect theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is no different then Einstein of E=MC 2 where energy and matter are aspects of each other.

This double aspect is visible on all levels of reality down to the Quantum Level as indicated by Wave Particle Duality.

Dualism in the past has been used to justify a belief in the Supernatural because Dualism was only understood as indicating two different and separate substances interacting. As in mind/body dualism which contrasted the supernatural soul to the physical brain.

But Double Aspect theory when applied to QM shuts that down. We no longer have two distinct separate and different substances. We have real Physical Reality with Dual Aspects.

Since Metaphysical Naturalism can explain the mind as more then just Physical Process of the brain on a Biological level...

... and because this explanation involved another Physical Science on the Quantum Level

... Occam s Razor allows us an explanation that both takes into account the Dualism that William Craig mentions and still reject a need for Supernatural explanations as relevant or necessary.

The old Dualism is dead along with the old Naturalism based on Materialism.

Because of this it can be said that Metaphysics has helped in rescuing Science from the Supernatural woo of religion.

Metaphysics accomplished this by developing the idea of Metaphysical Naturalism which can be used as a bridge between both Science and Philosophy that is to narrow and well built for Theology to either cross or sabotage.

Because of this God may be in the same situation in Metaphysics as Schrodinger's cat is in Quantum Physics.

We can not find out if God is alive or dead until we open the box. But when we do we can be certain that this will result in the death of Theism.

Quote:Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion?
Michael Egnor January 15, 2014 1:33 PM



Libet’s Experiments and Determinism



Do We Have Free Will ?

Benjamin Libet


Journal of Conscious Studies



Brain might not stand in the way of free will

Updated 15:58 11 July 2013 by Anil Ananthaswamy



Hard problem of consciousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it
Ars takes a look into various areas of science to observe how confirmation …

by Chris Lee - July 13 2010, 9:15pm EDT




Principle of Falsification

Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: