Atheists: Naturalism

[Rival]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical one. I don't rule out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science, and I believe metaphysical claims only concern science when they include measurable or observable aspects (e.g., denial of evolution).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical one. I don't rule out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science, and I believe metaphysical claims only concern science when they include measurable or observable aspects (e.g., denial of evolution).

^ this (provisionally)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My take on it:

Natural laws are inferred from our observation of what exists. The supernatural is defined as that which is beyond our natural laws.

This means that the supernatural is that which cannot be inferred to exist by observation. The universe must consist only of:

• Things that we know about and recognize as natural.
• Things that we don't know about, but if we did, would recognize as natural.

IOW, by the "standard" definitions in wikipedia, I can't see how anyone could be anything other than a metaphysical naturalist.

 

[Rival]

My take on it:

Natural laws are inferred from our observation of what exists. The supernatural is defined as that which is beyond our natural laws.

This means that the supernatural is that which cannot be inferred to exist by observation. The universe must consist only of:

• Things that we know about and recognize as natural.
• Things that we don't know about, but if we did, would recognize as natural.

IOW, by the "standard" definitions in wikipedia, I can't see how anyone could be anything other than a metaphysical naturalist.

But the majority of people aren't, so I'm not sure your conclusion follows.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sure, lots of religious people, even theistic ones, are metaphysical naturalists because they don't believe the object of their worship, reverence or study is separate and distinct from or above nature, but is nature. It's just that for nature worshippers what constitutes 'nature' includes more things than a lot of non-nature worshippers, like gods and spirits. (I think I've seen @Quintessence have discussions on that point, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

In Taoism, as I understand it, everything that exists is interactive. Everything has a give and take, everything can push and pull, and everything has a nature to push and pull things according to their abilities, and everything is connected in a whole of movement. The Dao is not supernatural because the Dao is describing nature. So to someone like me the idea of an unmoved mover, or something that exists which is untouched by nature, makes no sense. Even utilizing augury or fortune telling, the intent is to look for where the movements within nature are right now, and try to see where they're going in the future. Supplicating nature itself for answers.

Now granted, metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism and physicalism are all distinct concepts with some overlap, and I may fall into one but not the other that a lot of atheists do.

 

[MikeF]

Neither. Naturalism, however you define it, is not something to which I self-identify.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the majority of people aren't, so I'm not sure your conclusion follows.

I think that the majority of people don't approach naturalism the way your quote in the OP describes... or at least, there's some conflict in their approach.

Even though natural laws are formed by inference from observation, I think most people who believe in the supernatural would still consider ghosts/magic/angels/gods/etc. to be supernatural even if they were thoroughly observed and understood.

OTOH, if asked to explain what they think the line would be between where "natural" ends and "supernatural" begins, they wouldn't be able to say.

I think some of it is a monist/dualist dichotomy: they believe - I think - that if everything about the universe were known, we'd end up seeing that there's a distinct "natural" realm and a distinct "supernatural" realm, each with its own laws, characteristics, etc., justifying a dualist approach. OTOH, naturalists just categorize everything in a monist model: if it exists, it's deemed natural... and while there's all sorts of variation within what's natural, it ought to be considered all part of one category, not two.

... or at least that's how the conversation ought to go based on how the issue is usually framed.

But the conversation between naturalists and supernaturalists is never "let's consider this list of things we agree exist and argue about whether we should split them in two categories or lump them into one." The discussion almost always ends up about epistemology: "where should our evidentiary bar be?" ... with naturalists arguing for a higher bar and "supernaturalists" arguing for a lower one.

 

[Rival]

I think that the majority of people don't approach naturalism the way your quote in the OP describes... or at least, there's some conflict in their approach.

Even though natural laws are formed by inference from observation, I think most people who believe in the supernatural would still consider ghosts/magic/angels/gods/etc. to be supernatural even if they were thoroughly observed and understood.

OTOH, if asked to explain what they think the line would be between where "natural" ends and "supernatural" begins, they wouldn't be able to say.

I think some of it is a monist/dualist dichotomy: they believe - I think - that if everything about the universe were known, we'd end up seeing that there's a distinct "natural" realm and a distinct "supernatural" realm, each with its own laws, characteristics, etc., justifying a dualist approach. OTOH, naturalists just categorize everything in a monist model: if it exists, it's deemed natural... and while there's all sorts of variation within what's natural, it ought to be considered all part of one category, not two.

... or at least that's how the conversation ought to go based on how the issue is usually framed.

But the conversation between naturalists and supernaturalists is never "let's consider this list of things we agree exist and argue about whether we should split them in two categories or lump them into one." The discussion almost always ends up about epistemology: "where should our evidentiary bar be?" ... with naturalists arguing for a higher bar and "supernaturalists" arguing for a lower one.

This is helpful.

 

[Koldo]

I'm a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical one. I don't rule out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science, and I believe metaphysical claims only concern science when they include measurable or observable aspects (e.g., denial of evolution).

Do you see metaphysical naturalism as entailing completely ruling out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science?

 

[Koldo]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, I am a metaphysical naturalist.

1) I have never come across existing thing that I would label as supernatural.
2) Upon investigation of what people both consider to exist and label as supernatural, I either see no reason to believe it exists or see no reason to call it supernatural.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, I am very much a metaphysical naturalist (although I would prefer to name it antisupernaturalism).

Mainly because it is a good benefit for the cost. Methodological naturalism would perhaps be more prudent by a certain perspective... but I just don't see the point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you see metaphysical naturalism as entailing completely ruling out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science?

I am a metaphysical naturalist. As far as I am concerned, the question of whether there may or may not be "entities or phenomena..beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science" is completely moot, for a very simple reason. And that reason is this: if science can neither observe nor verify such an entity, then that entity can have no effect on the real world, as every such effect must leave a trace - a reaction. If they cannot have effect on the real world, then they do not exist with respect to the real world.

 

[Koldo]

I am a metaphysical naturalist. As far as I am concerned, the question of whether there may or may not be "entities or phenomena..beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science" is completely moot, for a very simple reason. And that reason is this: if science can neither observe nor verify such an entity, then that entity can have no effect on the real world, as every such effect must leave a trace - a reaction. If they cannot have effect on the real world, then they do not exist with respect to the real world.

Imagine, for example, that god Z created young Earth Y (and the entire universe W) that seems like, even upon extensive examination, it is actually really old and also that it occurred naturally without any supernatural intervention. A perfect illusion of sorts. God Z left no trace of his existence anywhere. God Z both had an effect on the real world and it is not observable and verifiable by science.

 

[HonestJoe]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

I find it something of an artificial distinction. "Supernatural" is defined as something beyond nature but I'd argue that if something is shown to be real, it is natural by definition (we just didn't previously understand it). There are loads of things people have believed to be supernatural in some way that we now understand and know aren't. Some of the things that are currently labelled as supernatural (by those who believe in them and those who don't) could well turn out to be real, and therefore natural (or a result of existing natural processes).

In general, I feel the whole concept is just yet another tool to differentiate between "them" and "us" without having to explain why "they" are wrong while "we" are right. We all live in the same reality and we're probably all wrong about how it actually works.

 

[Rival]

I find it something of an artificial distinction. "Supernatural" is defined as something beyond nature but I'd argue that if something is shown to be real, it is natural by definition (we just didn't previously understand it). There are loads of things people have believed to be supernatural in some way that we now understand and know aren't. Some of the things that are currently labelled as supernatural (by those who believe in them and those who don't) could well turn out to be real, and therefore natural (or a result of existing natural processes).

In general, I feel the whole concept is just yet another tool to differentiate between "them" and "us" without having to explain why "they" are wrong while "we" are right. We all live in the same reality and we're probably all wrong about how it actually works.

You might be a bit hasty in assuming a definition of 'real', here.

 

[viole]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am a metaphysical naturalist. The reason is simple. We know

1) that many things perfectly operate under the assumption of blind and a-teleological mechanisms.
2) even more, we have, in fact, much more success in explaining things under the assumption of naturalism, than under the assumption of supernaturalism.
3) the supernatural hypothesis is very unreliable. And, statistically, a losing position. in the history of mankind, we have a plethora of phenomena, previously thought to be supernatural, to be upgraded to having a naturalistic explanation. The contrary never happens. Can you mention a phenomenon that had a clear natural explanation, and it has been downgraded to a supernatural one, later on?

therefore, the supernatural is superfluous, and epistemically useless. And there are therefore no rational reasons to believe in its existence. Plenty of emotional ones, but the rational support is nil. And since reason is much more epistemically reliable than emotions, which usually reduce to, ultimately, wishful thinking, the superiority of metaphysical naturalism is philosophically compelling.

in my humble opinion.

ciao

- viole

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you see metaphysical naturalism as entailing completely ruling out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science?

In general, yes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Imagine, for example, that god Z created young Earth Y (and the entire universe W) that seems like, even upon extensive examination, it is actually really old and also that it occurred naturally without any supernatural intervention. A perfect illusion of sorts. God Z left no trace of his existence anywhere. God Z both had an effect on the real world and it is not observable and verifiable by science.

I can imagine all manner of things -- give me an infinite amount of time, I'll imagine an infinite number of them. But why bother? Would they all be "true" because I imagined them?

Does it not make more sense to simply look around you, with every tool at your disposal (even inventing new ones so you can see better), and see what there is?

 

[Koldo]

In general, yes.

Why?