Atheists: Naturalism

[HonestJoe]

If something (previously believed to be supernatural) is proven to exist, it becomes a part of the natural world.

A minor but key clarification there. It will have always been part of the natural world, even when no human beings knew, understood or believed that to be the case. We're not anything like as important to the universe as we like to imagine we are.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why?

Because it is an assertion that there is nothing beyond the natural world and its laws. I realize that the definition of "existence" is germane to the question of whether we can rule out the "existence" of entities or phenomena beyond the natural world, but I don't feel comfortable with that level of certainty given that our knowledge of even our own brains, for example, is so limited.

How can we, unable to definitively answer relatively basic questions such as the source of consciousness and the exact ways in which many psychiatric medications function, leap to the conclusion that there is nothing beyond the natural world and that we can conceive of the ways in which such a possibility could be the case and rule it out? Between that position and methodological naturalism, which, in my understanding, applies naturalism to scientific inquiry but doesn't touch on the metaphysical, I prefer the latter.

 

[Koldo]

The problem with that standard "because I can imagine it", is that what you imagine does not have to obey or conform to the properties and rules of reality, which, by the way, are not completely understood. The realm of what can be imagined is potentially infinite, but not everything that can be imagined is possible.

Since we don't know all the properties and rules of reality, it is at least tentatively possible. Another way to approach this matter is to say that the premise that 'everything that has an effect in the world leaves a trace' can not be ascertained.

 

[Kfox]

A minor but key clarification there. It will have always been part of the natural world, even when no human beings knew, understood or believed that to be the case.

So how is what they call the supernatural world different than the natural world?

 

[HonestJoe]

So how is what they call the supernatural world different than the natural world?

It isn't, that's the point. If something (anything) actually exists, it is part of the "natural world" by definition. Whether that thing (or the cause of it) was, at some point, labelled "supernatural" doesn't make any difference.

Consider something like lightning. Some people once believed that was magical energy thrown by gods. We now know it is electrical discharge of potential in the atmosphere. "Lighting is thrown by the gods" is the supernatural belief. "Lightning" is real, and so natural, but the "gods throwing it" isn't.

 

[Koldo]

Because it is an assertion that there is nothing beyond the natural world and its laws. I realize that the definition of "existence" is germane to the question of whether we can rule out the "existence" of entities or phenomena beyond the natural world, but I don't feel comfortable with that level of certainty given that our knowledge of even our own brains, for example, is so limited.

How can we, unable to definitively answer relatively basic questions such as the source of consciousness and the exact ways in which many psychiatric medications function, leap to the conclusion that there is nothing beyond the natural world and that we can conceive of the ways in which such a possibility could be the case and rule it out? Between that position and methodological naturalism, which, in my understanding, applies naturalism to scientific inquiry but doesn't touch on the metaphysical, I prefer the latter.

Let me put it this way:

The opposite of metaphysical naturalism is supernaturalism. Most religious folks have supernaturalism underpinning their beliefs, to the point that their god beliefs are intertwined with this framework. It is, however, the case that many theists are not absolutely certain that God actually exists and also uncertain whether the supernatural exists. For all sakes and purposes, these theists are still theists and supernaturalists though.

Likewise, being a metaphysical naturalist entails holding as true certain propositions, but not necessarily completely ruling out the possibility that this framework might be false.

As I see it, the actual difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism is not in ruling out the possibility that naturalism might be false, but rather the possibility that the latter allows for a supernaturalist to entertain naturalism temporarily when making use of the scientific method (which would otherwise be impossible).

 

[MikeF]

Since we don't know all the properties and rules of reality, it is at least tentatively possible.

No, it doesn't. Something is either possible or it is not, nothing tentative about it. If something is not possible within our current understanding then we can say it is not possible within our current understanding, nothing can be said in regards to possibility beyond that. We can be confident that we can imagine things that are not possible. Imagination alone does not enable possibility.

Another way to approach this matter is to say that the premise that 'everything that has an effect in the world leaves a trace' can not be ascertained.

Well, let's be careful here. Certainly every historical event or phenomenon does not leave a permanent and immutable trace or record of its occurrence. But unless and until it is directly observed or does leave a record of some kind, a causal chain from which to deduce or infer, an event that occurs or phenomenon that existed will be lost to us, in which case nothing can be said about it, it is unknown. Of course, imagined impossible things also leave no trace.

 

[Koldo]

No, it doesn't. Something is either possible or it is not, nothing tentative about it. If something is not possible within our current understanding then we can say it is not possible within our current understanding, nothing can be said in regards to possibility beyond that. We can be confident that we can imagine things that are not possible. Imagination alone does not enable possibility.

To be more rigorous, a proposition is logically possible if it is not logically contradictory. And that's it. And there's nothing inherently contradictory in stating that a supernatural entity could somehow exist, have effect on this world and leave no trace. I presented a scenario that contains no logical contradictions, and it is therefore possible.

Well, let's be careful here. Certainly every historical event or phenomenon does not leave a permanent and immutable trace or record of its occurrence. But unless and until it is directly observed or does leave a record of some kind, a causal chain from which to deduce or infer, an event that occurs or phenomenon that existed will be lost to us, in which case nothing can be said about it, it is unknown. Of course, imagined impossible things also leave no trace.

Sure. No disagreement on my part.

 

[MikeF]

To be more rigorous, a proposition is logically possible if it is not logically contradictory. And that's it. And there's nothing inherently contradictory in stating that a supernatural entity could somehow exist, have effect on this world and leave no trace. I presented a scenario that contains no logical contradictions, and it is therefore possible.

Logic (used correctly) is the process of deriving true statements from other true statements. We can create imaginary worlds, purely analytic abstract systems were we establish a set of foundational axioms, create properties and rules of interaction to be used within our purely abstract system, and in doing so, with the right axioms, properties, and rules, anything can be made to be logically true (or possible) within that abstract system. The possibilities open to the realm of abstraction are limitless, or at least only limited by our imagination.

If you base your logic on faulty premises, or premises that have not been established, and your intent is to conform and remain consistent within the possibilities of the real world, then your logic is flawed. Garbage In to the algorithm of logic will only produces Garbage Out.

From what true statements have you established "the supernatural" or what can be contained within "the supernatural"? Logic is wholly inapplicable here if your intent is to speak to what is possible in the real world. You are just making stuff up. Your logic can only be considered logically valid or non-contradictory within an imagined world of your own design.

 

[Koldo]

Logic (used correctly) is the process of deriving true statements from other true statements. We can create imaginary worlds, purely analytic abstract systems were we establish a set of foundational axioms, create properties and rules of interaction to be used within our purely abstract system, and in doing so, with the right axioms, properties, and rules, anything can be made to be logically true (or possible) within that abstract system. The possibilities open to the realm of abstraction are limitless, or at least only limited by our imagination.

If you base your logic on faulty premises, or premises that have not been established, and your intent is to conform and remain consistent within the possibilities of the real world, then your logic is flawed. Garbage In to the algorithm of logic will only produces Garbage Out.

From what true statements have you established "the supernatural" or what can be contained within "the supernatural"?

I am not quite understanding the nature of your criticism. The definition of any term is axiomatic in any argument, unless you want to argue over what's the proper meaning of a word.

Logic is wholly inapplicable here if your intent is to speak to what is possible in the real world. You are just making stuff up. Your logic can only be considered logically valid or non-contradictory within an imagined world of your own design.

I have no idea why you are saying any of this.

 

[MikeF]

I am not quite understanding the nature of your criticism. The definition of any term is axiomatic in any argument, unless you want to argue over what's the proper meaning of a word.

I have no idea why you are saying any of this.

I am saying that if it is your intent to talk about the real world and what is possible in the real world, and you wish to use logic in that endeavor, your logical conclusions must be derived from that which has been established to be true, not on unsubstantiated imagination. The "supernatural" is unsubstantiated, and therefore you cannot use it in logical arguments regarding the real world or evaluating possibilities in the real world. By the same token, you cannot use unsubstantiated entities in your logical arguments either.

 

[Koldo]

I am saying that if it is your intent to talk about the real world and what is possible in the real world, and you wish to use logic in that endeavor, your logical conclusions must be derived from that which has been established to be true, not on unsubstantiated imagination.

Why?

The "supernatural" is unsubstantiated, and therefore you cannot use it in logical arguments regarding the real world or evaluating possibilities in the real world. By the same token, you cannot use unsubstantiated entities in your logical arguments either.

I simply have no idea on why you think this way. How did you reach this conclusion?