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

[leibowde84]

Did you bother to read the very first line of the article? It explicitly states that "dark matter can NOT be seen or detected by any of our instruments." (source: "How Do We Know Dark Matter Exists?" by Fraser Cain on March 12, 2015, "Universe Today")

Did you miss where it says that it can be detected via it's gravitational effects? Those effects are an example of the evidence supporting the existence of Dark Matter.

"Oh, it’s there. In fact, pretty much all we know is that it does exist."

 

[Gambit]

Completely different meanings. They are related. They are not the same. I ask again. How are they the same?

I have already explained to you that metaphysical naturalism and scientific materialism are used interchangeably. Please do not ask me again.

 

[leibowde84]

I have already explained to you that metaphysical naturalism and scientific materialism are used interchangeably. Please do not ask me again.

She didn't ask whether they were used interchangeably. She asked WHY they can be used interchangeably. How are the meanings identical?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have already explained to you that metaphysical naturalism and scientific materialism are used interchangeably. Please do not ask me again.

I edited the post.

Still dont make sense. Probably someone else can explain it. Anyone can change wiki definitions

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He didn't ask whether they were used interchangeably. He asked WHY they can be used interchangeably. How are the meanings identical?

Thank you.

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you.

Sorry about using "he". that was an accident. I edited my post though.

 

[Gambit]

You could argue that metaphysical naturalism is based on a lack of faith, just relying on empirical observation and not speculating about the existence of supernatural stuff.

Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) cannot (even in theory) be validated by methodological naturalism (science). That's why it is ultimately based on faith. (All metaphysical beliefs are ultimately based on faith). The fact is that most atheists are materialists. Why is this significant? Because the worldview of atheistic materialism is as much based on faith as the theistic worldview.

 

[Gambit]

She didn't ask whether they were used interchangeably. She asked WHY they can be used interchangeably. How are the meanings identical?

Perhaps you can explain it to her.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry about using "he". that was an accident. I edited my post though.

/looks down/ ha. Didnt catch that. Youre good.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) cannot (even in theory) be validated by methodological naturalism (science). That's why it is ultimately based on faith. (All metaphysical beliefs are ultimately based on faith). The fact is that most atheists are materialists. Why is this significant? Because the worldview of atheistic materialism is as much based on faith as the theistic worldview.

Supernaturalism involves speculation beyond the empirical, while naturalism doesn't. I'm still not seeing how naturalism is faith-based since there is no speculation about stuff which cannot be directly experienced through the senses.

 

[leibowde84]

The fact is that most atheists are materialists.

From my experience, this couldn't be further from the truth. But, can you provide a source for this?

 

[leibowde84]

Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) cannot (even in theory) be validated by methodological naturalism (science). That's why it is ultimately based on faith. (All metaphysical beliefs are ultimately based on faith). The fact is that most atheists are materialists. Why is this significant? Because the worldview of atheistic materialism is as much based on faith as the theistic worldview.

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

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) cannot (even in theory) be validated by methodological naturalism (science). That's why it is ultimately based on faith. (All metaphysical beliefs are ultimately based on faith). The fact is that most atheists are materialists. Why is this significant? Because the worldview of atheistic materialism is as much based on faith as the theistic worldview.

Materalism doesnt need faith. Its just saying that everything that exists physical not supernatural. It takes faith to believe there IS supernatural causes.

Naturalism talks about causes. It says supernatual is absent in the causes of the physical world. That takes faith because we Dont Know if that claim is true.

The first talks about the physical world itself.

The latter talks about the cause or origin.

We dont need faith for whst exists in front of us.

We may need faith for what we claim is causes by X when we simply Do Not Know.

Thats why they are different even though related.

How you make them the same I have no clue. This I got from dictionaries and encyclo. etc rather than Wiki

 

[Gambit]

Supernaturalism involves speculation beyond the empirical, while naturalism doesn't. I'm still not seeing how naturalism is faith-based since there is no speculation about stuff which cannot be directly experienced through the senses.

I just explained it to you. Did you not bother to read my previous post?

By the way, we clearly have nonsensory perception. If we didn't, we could not do mathematics.

 

[Gambit]

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

Materialism is the belief (that's what the "ism" means) that only the material exists. This is a metaphysical belief, not a scientific fact.

 

[Nous]

Isn't materialism merely withholding belief in anything until verifiable, empirical evidence comes about?

Note the definitions provided in posts #5 and #7. The first says that materialism is a thesis that holds "that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations". No one is has ever empirically verified that there exists nothing but X, have they?

BTW, what are "natural principles"? How does one test that hypothesis so as to distinguish the principle one has discovered from a non-natural one?

 

[prometheus11]

Gambit, what do you mean by "non sensory perception? "

And what does that have to do with maths?

 

[Jumi]

By the way, we clearly have nonsensory perception. If we didn't, we could not do mathematics.

What do you mean by non-sensory perception? Just imaging things in your head?

 

[leibowde84]

The first says that materialism is a thesis that holds "that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations". No one is has ever empirically verified that there exists nothing but X, have they?

I agree. But, this doesn't mean that, upon finding evidence that materialism is incorrect, they won't change their mind. To me, the definition implies that they are withholding belief in anything that isn't sufficiently supported by evidence, in their opinion. No philosophy is final, and materialists, just like spiritualists, can change their mind after finding contradictory evidence.

 

[Nous]

I agree. But, this doesn't mean that, upon finding evidence that materialism is incorrect, they won't change their mind. To me, the definition implies that they are withholding belief in anything that isn't sufficiently supported by evidence, in their opinion. No philosophy is final, and materialists, just like spiritualists, can change their mind after finding contradictory evidence.

In your opinion, what exactly is it that materialism or "metaphysical naturalism" asserts to be the "empirically verified" stuff of which nothing else exists?

I asked the question about "natural principles" and how one tests the hypothesis that a principle is "natural" as opposed to "non-natural". I really don't understand what is being asserted by the term "natural principle" as the solely existing thing. My God, "natural" is a food labeling term that the FDA cannot even define.

Do you agree that the definition of "materialism" given in post #7, which asserts that matter (and its motions) is the sole existing thing, is a thesis that has been refuted by modern physics?