Have you ever seen a definition of the adjective "physical" in a physics textbook or peer-reviewed paper? If so, please quote that definition and cite the source.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is metaphysical naturalism a worldview that is ultimately based on faith?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Here is my argument:
Materialism arose at a time when atomism dominated the common thinking. Even when physics moved beyond such simple models, the concept of one billiard ball striking another and setting it into motion ruled the common mentality from the early 18th Century until well into the 19th Century.
A thing’s “nature” is identified in terms of observable phenomena. It is the nature of a horse to gallop, of a ship to sail, and of a man to think. Any perceptible phenomena will do as nature—but it is impossible to identify a thing by a nature that hasn’t yet been perceived.
Causation is the movement from the phenomena of “cause” to the phenomena of “effect.” In his essay concerning Human Understanding, David Hume assured us that what is a matter of “a matter of fact” is not exempt from also being a matter of inferring from “our memories and senses”:
“If you were to ask a man, why he believes any matter of fact, which is absent, (for instance, that his friend is in the country, or in France) he would give you a reason, and this reason would be some other fact, as a letter received from him, or the knowledge of his former resolutions and promises. A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude that there had once been men on that island. All our reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. And here it is constantly supposed that there is a connection between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Were there nothing to bind them together, the inference would be entirely precarious. The hearing of an articulate voice and rational discourse in the dark assures us of the presence of some person. Why? Because these are the effects of the human make and fabric, and closely connected with it. If we anatomise all the other reasonings of this nature, we shall find that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect, and that this relation is either near or remote, direct or collateral. Heat and light are collateral effects of fire, and the one effect may justly be inferred from the other.”
Natural materialism, a monism that discounts anything except nature and matter, stems from the idea that things beyond phenomena, things not accountable, do not fit into a comprehensive worldview.
On billiard balls, and other topics: Hume against the Mechanists:
http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp3_hill.pdf
On Cause and Effect, and Human Understanding:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/hume.htm
Why are you accusing me of these falsehoods? Just because I quoted your claims and pointed out your contradiction?
I haven't done any logic at all, nor have I ever studied any. Ever.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
What is your central clam if not what I just stated? Perhaps I have misunderstood your position.
You have NEVER pointed out any contradiction of mine. On the other hand, TWICE you have had to admit that I was correct in my assessment.
Show your fallacious reasoning again for us all to consider, why don't you?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
This cat changes his definition of "physical" based on the last few posts and how he wishes to strengthen his biases founded in ignorance and duplicity.
So, you acknowledge that you do not "argue" for any metaphysical thesis that is consistent with science (namely physics) since the 19th century? (The fact is that the fields described by Maxwell's field equations are not like one billiard ball hitting another billiard ball.)
What good is a metaphysical thesis that isn't consistent with modern science? Such a thesis doesn't conform to what we know about empirical reality.
On the contrary, science itself is a metaphysical thesis that I might argue for, given provocation. I'm rather fond of science.
What good is any metaphysical thesis?
Edit: If modern physics stands the test of time, it will as much as miracle as if Newtonian physics or Aristotelian poetics had stood the test of time.
My "central claim" on this thread is that no one here has logically argued that the thesis(es) of metaphysical materialism, physicalism or naturalism, as given by the various definitions quoted on this thread, is (are) either coherent or consistent with the findings and theories of modern physics.
Above you claimed:
To which I replied:
It was on Gambit's thread about entanglement that you acknowledged the objective existence of non-physical phenomena in modern physics, in accordance with your definition of "physical":
Obviously there is no definition of metaphysical materialism or physicalism so as to entail that non-physical phenomena exist.
So you have never seen the adjective "physical" defined in any physics textbook or scholarly paper?
it can mean anything because it isn't a term used or defined in physics or any other science.
"Science" is a method, not a thesis.
I would encourage you to do so--at least the Wikipedia article on syllogism--especially before claiming that you can logically argue or deduce something (such as a metaphysical thesis), or claiming the "perceptions" are "inferences".
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
And I explained that the term "physical" isn't an issue for anybody but you.
AND YOU AGREED!! Lol.
Dark matter and dark energy and quantum effects are REAL and produce measurable, predictable effects.
You're just arguing semantics. THIS ENTIRE TIME.
Your position makes no sense and has no effect on anything.
Are you claiming that things exist that aren't real?
Are you wanting things that are real, but you-and-only-you-consider-nonphysical to get some sort of special consideration?
What?
Let's say we all accept your problem and get all tingly and spookified and goosebumpy when taking about real things with measurable, consistent that you feel are nonphysical. What then? What's the point? What's your endgame? Just to quibble over how to divide up real things that are proven to be real?
AND YOU AGREED!! Lol.
Dark matter and dark energy and quantum effects are REAL and produce measurable, predictable effects.
You're just arguing semantics. THIS ENTIRE TIME.
Your position makes no sense and has no effect on anything.
Are you claiming that things exist that aren't real?
Are you wanting things that are real, but you-and-only-you-consider-nonphysical to get some sort of special consideration?
What?
Let's say we all accept your problem and get all tingly and spookified and goosebumpy when taking about real things with measurable, consistent that you feel are nonphysical. What then? What's the point? What's your endgame? Just to quibble over how to divide up real things that are proven to be real?
Repeating:
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
What "non physical" phenomena, Nous?
Energy, dark energy, dark matter, and quantum effects produce REAL, predictable, measurable, consistent results in the physical world. So, obviously those mechanisms are real and exist and work within the real, physical universe. How do any of those real, physical effects call into question metaphysical physicalism?
Are you claiming that naturalism or metaphysical physicalism deny energy, dark energy, quantum effects... What?
Energy, dark energy, dark matter, and quantum effects produce REAL, predictable, measurable, consistent results in the physical world. So, obviously those mechanisms are real and exist and work within the real, physical universe. How do any of those real, physical effects call into question metaphysical physicalism?
Are you claiming that naturalism or metaphysical physicalism deny energy, dark energy, quantum effects... What?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Why are you refusing to answer my questions?
Is it your intention to disregard anything except your own opinion?
Is it your intention to disregard anything except your own opinion?
If I put enough words to it, it's a thesis.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Willamena, Nous has built a cardboard castle on sand.
He argues as if "non physical" phenomena are all over the place and require an explanation not provided for by "physicalism."
Meanwhile, he can't point to a single "non physical phenomena," because everything he points to is accepted, proven, measurable, detected phenomena.....that have physical effects and are therefore as real as anything else......you know....real, actual, obvious. Which EVERY materialist accepts as obvious.
Nobody even knows what Nous is all worked up about.
He argues as if "non physical" phenomena are all over the place and require an explanation not provided for by "physicalism."
Meanwhile, he can't point to a single "non physical phenomena," because everything he points to is accepted, proven, measurable, detected phenomena.....that have physical effects and are therefore as real as anything else......you know....real, actual, obvious. Which EVERY materialist accepts as obvious.
Nobody even knows what Nous is all worked up about.
A metaphysical thesis that is (at least) consistent with the findings and theories of science can help to organize, summarize and interpret those findings and theories. In contrast, a metaphysical thesis premised on the idea that empirical reality operates like billiard balls knocking each around is of no more utility today than a theory that explains how all biological functions are just a matter of the movement of the four humors.