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

[Willamena]

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

No. It's based on inference (and it's not the equivalent of materialism).

 

[leibowde84]

Do you not understand what a hypothesis is?

Dark Matter is not a hypothesis, it is a scientific theory. "
A mere hypothesis is not even close to being on the same level as a "scientific theory", which is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation, e.g. the scientific theory of evolution.

"Dark matter is known to exist through the gravitational effect it exerts on visible matter in the universe. As our astrophysical experiments become more sophisticated, and our understanding of large gravitational systems (galaxies and clusters of galaxies) grows, we will answer more of the questions that have faced us years.

New questions about the nature and origin of dark matter are continually being put forward, ensuring that this field will be exciting, dynamic and at the forefront of astrophysical research for years to come." (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/)

 

[leibowde84]

It is theoretically impossible to objectively observe something that is inherently subjective. No more commentary is necessary.

Nope you are wrong. Sure, it isn't witnessed as experience as it is for the individual, but brain activity can be seen to create these experiences in said individual. Your refusal to accept this as possible in no way refutes the FACT that it is true. You often seem to be stubborn in this way.

 

[leibowde84]

So evidently you are cognizant of the fact the energy does not qualify as "physical" according to your definition (#67: "'Physical' applies to anything that is perceived through the senses and/or is not intellectual or spiritual.") You have obviously refuted the thesis that you said the materialist believes, that reality consists of "nothing but" that which is "physical". (#64: "the 'materialist' merely believes that only things of a or related to a physical nature exist.")

Moreover, in #64 you indicated that "subjective experience" does not "fit" within the definition of those things that the materialist believes to solely exist.

Whether you recognized it or not, you couldn't have done a better job of repudiating materialism if someone had paid you.

Notice the "and/or". Energy is neither intellectual or spiritual, so it qualifies. Further, it is "related to the physical", and, thus, qualifies another way. So, no, energy is included in existence in the mind of the materialist. You are trying to point to boundaries that aren't really there.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes of course it is.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes of course it is.

Of course what is?

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course what is?

Based on faith. The /concept of ''metaphysical naturalism''. Actually it's a somewhat meaningless term, because it seems that it could include anything.

 

[leibowde84]

Based on faith. The /concept of ''metaphysical naturalism''. Actually it's a somewhat meaningless term, because it seems that it could include anything.

Yeah, I agree. I was talking about materialism, not "metaphysical naturalism", whatever that is. "Materialism" is the belief that only material things exist. "Materials" include everything being of a physical nature, and/or relating to or concerned with physical rather than spiritual or intellectual things. "Physical nature" or "physical properties" are properties of something that are measurable and verifiable (obviously, this doesn't mean that they have to be CURRENTLY measurable or verifiable, but, instead, it merely means that they could one day possibly be measured and verified). Too many people erroneously contend that "materialism" is the belief that only "matter" exists, but that would be absurd.

 

[prometheus11]

I hope Nous reads and understands that post, Leib

 

[Nous]

Evidently you're not grasping what I've already proven to you

I don't struggle with the terms you find problematic. Real things have physical aspects. To conjecture concerning some strange realm that beyond what is real and affects the physical is an absurd exercise.

The math implied some cool stuff that's sorts fun to consider, but it's merely informed conjecture.

I've never seen somebody so ready for a fight as you, though. Feisty. What's your rush?

You shouldn't get so upset just because someone points out your contradictions. It's a learning opportunity for you:

I would define "physical" as having properties that may be sensed by the body.

It is a contradiction to claim, on one hand, that scientific theories and findings include non-physical phenomena (according to your definition), and, on the other hand, that there is no evidence contrary to the thesis of materialism.

And an honest person is able to say, "Oh, I changed my mind about that definition," when he does change his mind about it.

 

[Nous]

"Physical nature" or "physical properties" are properties of something that are measurable and verifiable

So apparently you changed your mind about what "physical" means:

"Physical" applies to anything that is perceived through the senses

The ratio of circumference to diameter of an ideal circle is certainly measurable. So, do you say that ideal circle is "physical," according to your most recent definition, or is it only that irrational quantity (3.14159 . . . ) that is "physical"?

 

[Nous]

No. It's based on inference (and it's not the equivalent of materialism).

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

 

[prometheus11]

You shouldn't get so upset just because someone points out your contradictions. It's a learning opportunity for you:
It is a contradiction to claim, on one hand, that scientific theories and findings include non-physical phenomena (according to your definition), and, on the other hand, that there is no evidence contrary to the thesis of materialism.

And an honest person is able to say, "Oh, I changed my mind about that definition," when he does change his mind about it.

For the hundredth time, your hang ups about the word "physical" are your own, not mine.

We have already agreed on what is real. That's all I care about. Real things. Real things affect matter and energy in demonstrable and provable ways.

YOU ALREADY AGRRED WITH THIS.

I don't currently see the need to believe in unreal hypotheses that have zero measurable effect on anything at all.

When someone can logically explain why I should believe in things that never interact in a measurable way with anything at all, I will consider believing in them.

I haven't changed my mind on this since you've been jerking around trying to quibble over things we've already agreed about.

What's hilarious about all this is that you don't realize you already agreed with me and don't have anything in your hands except hypocrisy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

 

[leibowde84]

So apparently you changed your mind about what "physical" means:

The ratio of circumference to diameter of an ideal circle is certainly measurable. So, do you say that ideal circle is "physical," according to your most recent definition, or is it only that irrational quantity (3.14159 . . . ) that is "physical"?

That's a tough one. I am not a materialist, so I can't really say. But, I would assume that materialists accept that, in theory, both of these things are useful. But, when speaking of existence in reality, I'm not sure it would really matter. What is the relevance of the existence of these things beyond theory? Does an "ideal circle" actually exist beyond theory?

 

[prometheus11]

Why shouldnt our brains be able to imagine impossible ideals after considering apparent non ideals? Look at anything at all around you. Can't you now imagine a perfect one of "it?"

 

[leibowde84]

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

The idea is that there is nothing beyond the universe in which we exist.

 

[Nous]

For the hundredth time, your hang ups about the word "physical" are your own, not mine.

We have already agreed on what is real. That's all I care about. Real things. Real things affect matter and energy in demonstrable and provable ways.

YOU ALREADY AGRRED WITH THIS.

I don't currently see the need to believe in unreal hypotheses that have zero measurable effect on anything at all.

When someone can logically explain why I should believe in things that never interact in a measurable way with anything at all, I will consider believing in them.

I haven't changed my mind on this since you've been jerking around trying to quibble over things we've already agreed about.

What's hilarious about all this is that you don't realize you already agreed with me and don't have anything in your hands except hypocrisy.

It seems you have little to contribute to the thread other than your own angst. Since you have evidently changed your mind about the definition of “physical,” why don’t you try answering the question I asked Leibowde?

The ratio of circumference to diameter of an ideal circle is certainly measurable. So, do you say that the ideal circle is "physical," or is it only that irrational quantity (3.14159 . . . ) that is "physical"?

 

[Nous]

That's a tough one. I am not a materialist, so I can't really say. But, I would assume that materialists accept that, in theory, both of these things are useful.

Yes, I was going to note that I think few self-identifying materialists would agree that either the ideal circle or pi is "physical".

But, when speaking of existence in reality, I'm not sure it would really matter.

Again, I think you would have difficulty convincing a materialist (et al.) that it's perfectly rational to say that an ideal circle or pi is "physical".

 

[prometheus11]

It seems you quickly forget that the last time you tried to back me into a corner, you ended up agreeing with me.

I'm taking the time to help you (despite your snarky, ungrateful attitude and false statements about me) because I care and because I believe you're worth it.

Let me be WAYYYY more simple and direct:

I believe it's illogical to believe in anything which cannot be shown as real. (Real things, whether energy, matter, or something in between produce measurable effects in our universe).

Why should I hold a different view?


The human brain is able to imagine all sorts of non real things (like perfect circles) because it theorizes about improving real circular objects seen in the world. You see a leaning tree and you can imagine a straight one even though there is no such thing as "perfectly straight." Perfect circles are imaginary. They're not real or physical. The imagination of them is real, though, and the chemicals and neurons that produced the thought of them are real. Simple stuff. I'm extremely surprised that it's taking you this long. But I intend to hang in there until you see sense.