Is metaphysical naturalism a worldview that is ultimately based on faith?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The painting is neither beautiful nor ugly in and of itself so saying it is beautiful or ugly is illogical. You may say that in your opinion the painting is beautiful or the painting is ugly. That would be logical.Nonsense. A psychologist or psychiatrist may even be able to tell you why you subjectively think a painting is beautiful or ugly.LOL. Love is defined as "a strong feeling of affection" and as such objectively exists. Whether or how much "love" a person feels is subjective to the person.

atheistic reasoning:
- my opinion is the painting is beautiful
- the beauty is a love for the way the painting looks
- the love is an electrochemical process in the brain
- the electrochchemical process can be measured as fact
- therefore the opinion that the painting is beautiful is a statement of fact about love existing in the brain
- therefore opinion = fact

 

[ArtieE]

atheistic reasoning:
- my opinion is the painting is beautiful

Correct.

- the beauty is a love for the way the painting looks

Don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. Try rephrasing.

 

[Shad]

atheistic reasoning:
- my opinion is the painting is beautiful
- the beauty is a love for the way the painting looks
- the love is an electrochemical process in the brain
- the electrochchemical process can be measured as fact
- therefore the opinion that the painting is beautiful is a statement of fact about love existing in the brain
- therefore opinion = fact

Nope, merely the electrochemical process is a fact that produces an opinion. Opinion does not equal a fact since it is still a subjective, mind dependent, rather objective evaluation of the painting which is not mind dependent. Again you demonstrate you do not know what an opinion, subjectivity, objectivity and facts are. You argument is a non-sequitur.

 

[Willamena]

Isn't materialism merely withholding belief in anything until verifiable, empirical evidence comes about? If it is, then it is the opposite of faith.

No. That's agnosticism.

 

[Willamena]

We must perceive mathematical abstractions (e.g. points, lines, triangles, circles, etc.) in order to perform math. Perceiving these abstractions is not based on the senses because they are nonphysical or immaterial.

They are conceived, rather than perceived. Perception requires the senses.

 

[Willamena]

Define "physical". (Unlike the term "matter," "physical" isn't an adjective than any science needs or defines.)

...except physics.

 

[Willamena]

Something that theists tend to do is define materialism incorrectly. Obviously it isn't confined to only matter, as that would be absurd. Energy isn't even matter, which certainly exists in reality. The materialist believes that all of reality is material. "Physical" applies to anything that is perceived through the senses and/or is not intellectual or spiritual.

I disagree. Mathematics is a huge part of physics. Physicalism is a term that replaced materialism for a reason: materialism looks at only matter/energy.

 

[Willamena]

This is the only question I have for you right now: Do you or do you not understand that you are contradicting yourself by saying, on that one hand, that non-physical phenomena exists and is causal, and, on the other hand, claiming that "there is zero evidence contrary to materialism"?

That's no contradiction. I could say to you, "You are an a**h**e," and cause an effect. That cause is not physical, but symbolic. The symbolic most definitely exists and is non-physical.*

*Whether or not it gets to qualify as phenomenon is another matter.

 

[Willamena]

As to you striving with the idea of consciousness, it just doesn't bother me. Daniel Dennet has done some work, but it seems obvious to me that it's an artifact of the neural net. I thought must people understood that idea as fact. How many people are out there seriously considering that "the mind" or "the soul" is some mystical thing separate from the physical neurons? I mean, it makes for a convenient (albeit absurdly sloppy) argument for metaphysics on some back water Internet forum, but there's not people out there who seriously believe that "they" are something more than the electric fields generated by neuron synapses, are there? Not really.

All it takes is recognizing that "neural net artifacts" also fall into the same ontological image as everything else.

 

[Willamena]

"Materials" include everything being of a physical nature, and/or relating to or concerned with physical rather than spiritual or intellectual things.

Ah, that explains your earlier statements.

"Material" is actually not limited to the physical, which is why such things as spiritualism possibly arose in our history. The term "material" came about long before materialism was so fixed in the psyche.

 

[Willamena]

What are the premises of the inference? Is it a valid inference? State the inference.

Not "an inference," but the capacity for inference.

 

[Willamena]

I'm still struggling with the idea that assuming there is nothing beyond empirical experience involves "faith". Assuming there is something beyond does look like a matter of faith though.

There is nothing beyond empirical experience, because "is" is ultimately empirical.

We say "is" of something experienced.*

*Unless we stretch.

 

[Willamena]

That's the conclusion, not a premise.

Every premise is some prior conclusion.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Willamena]

You mean "is"

Not quite.

To admit that is the admit that there is something out there greater than inference, which can only be truth.*

*Fox Mulder was wrong.

 

[Willamena]

How is the claim, "All that exists is in this universe," lacking in faith? It obviously isn't an assertion that is deduced from evidence.

I would suggest it's a claim only deduced from evidence.

 

[Willamena]

...Which means one can only reach the conclusion the love or hate is there by choosing the answer it is there, where either answer that they are there, or not there, is equally logically valid. To be a regular human being capable of dealing with emotions, one needs to have an ongoing faith in the reality of love and hate, and the spiritual domain of all agencies of decisions.

They are there, but not by choosing, just by circumstance.

 

[Willamena]

To have a perception is not to draw an inference.

Interesting idea.

Inference is the act of “deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. . . . The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

A valid inference that concludes that nothing exists but that which a human can perceive with his senses would go like this:

P1: Everything that is is perception or an a priori consequence of perception (empiricism).
P2: Metaphysical naturalism (the idea that there are no non-natural causes) is derived empirically (things that exist exist spatially and/or temporally).
P3: Inference is the process of inferring something rationally.
C: Therefore, all things that exist are perceptible to humans senses inference is the premise of naturalism.

Can you fill in those blanks, and show that there is a valid inference by which to deduce that conclusion? I know of no premises that lead to the stated conclusion.

Done, in red above.

 

[Willamena]

Correct.Don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. Try rephrasing.

It seems pretty clear.

 

[Nous]

Done, in red above.
P1: Everything that is is perception or an a priori consequence of perception (empiricism).
P2: Metaphysical naturalism (the idea that there are no non-natural causes) is derived empirically (things that exist exist spatially and/or temporally).
P3: Inference is the process of inferring something rationally.
C: Therefore, all things that exist are perceptible to humans senses inference is the premise of naturalism.

You believe that you have stated a deduction here? Wow.

What sort of study of logic have you done? Any books or articles?

 

[prometheus11]

Nous, are you still trying to put forth the silly notion that just because we can't observe the cause of every effect that there must be some sort of "spirit?"