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

[Nous]

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

That's the conclusion, not a premise.

 

[Nous]

I'm still struggling with the idea that assuming there is nothing beyond empirical experience involves "faith".

So you have no thoughts or ability to act volitionally other than what everyone can see?

 

[Nous]

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.

The irrational quantity known as pi is "physical" according to Leibowde's definition above. Why can't we detect this quantity or its effect on some (other) physical object?

 

[prometheus11]

Don't be rude.

Answer my questions before asking one of your own. I'm giving my time to helping you. Appreciate and respect that.

 

[leibowde84]

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

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".

But, I think they would agree that they exist in theory.

 

[leibowde84]

That's the conclusion, not a premise.

they would say that, because there is no evidence of anything existing beyond the universe in which we exist, all that exists is in this universe. Nothing transcends this existence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you have no thoughts or ability to act volitionally other than what everyone can see?

Sorry but I don't understand how this question relates to my comment, which was: I'm still struggling with the idea that assuming there is nothing beyond empirical experience involves "faith".

 

[Gambit]

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

Yes, I know that there is naturalistic theism. But I suspect most atheists as well as most theists would object to this.

By the way, belief in God can also be based on inference.

 

[prometheus11]

By the way, belief in God can also be based on inference.

You mean "is"

 

[Nous]

But, I think they would agree that they exist in theory.

How would it be coherent for someone to assert, on one hand, that whatever is real is that which is measurable, and, on the other hand, that mathematical entities that are measurable (e.g., pi, θ, ratios, probabilities), which are essential to and occur in our best theories of physics, “exist” only “in theory”? It seems to be analogous to claiming that oceans, lakes and rivers are real, but not water.

Do you know of any philosopher, dictionary, encyclopedia or other text that defines materialism as the thesis that the nature of reality is that which is measurable?

As argued on another thread (by many people other than me), the thesis of scientific realism logically entails mathematical realism. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientific-realism-begets-mathematical-realism.182228/ Be sure to notice the faith-difference between scientific realism and the metaphysical thesis of materialism. Scientific realism rests on no further assumptions about reality than what has been discovered by the use of the scientific method and what can be inferred from the best theories, often even limited to the fundamental laws of physics. Indeed, oftentimes scientific realism is phrased in epistemological terms about the extent of what we can know by way of the scientific method. In contrast, materialism--regardless of whether the ultimately real constituent is claimed to be atoms, matter, things of which one can receive a sense datum, or measurable things--is a positive assertion about the nature of supposedly all real things, and, as such, even asserts what is not the nature of any possible thing.

It would seem to require tremendous faith to believe the claim, “All that exists is measurable and only that which is measurable exists". After all, the claim presumes that nothing is too small to be measured. Obviously there is no evidence by which to conclude that the smallest object that exists is measurable. For all we know, there may be an entire universe in each quark, composed of objects far too small for any being or instrument in our universe to detect or measure.

 

[Nous]

they would say that, because there is no evidence of anything existing beyond the universe in which we exist, all that exists is in this universe. Nothing transcends this existence.

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.

 

[Nous]

Sorry but I don't understand how this question relates to my comment, which was: I'm still struggling with the idea that assuming there is nothing beyond empirical experience involves "faith".

I don't have any "empirical experience" of your subjective experience or volition. Unless you claim that subjective experience and volition for you is simply non-existent, then there must be something real that is not empirical (or, as you say, is "beyond empirical experience")--and apparently I have to have faith that you have subjective experience and that your posts on this board are the products of your own volition. Likewise, you will just have to have faith about my subjective experience and volition also, since you will have no empirical experience of them.

 

[Nous]

Don't be rude.

Answer my questions before asking one of your own.

What is your question? Unlike you, I am happy to answer questions about what I've said, and I am even able to learn from my errors. You should try it.

I'm giving my time to helping you. Appreciate and respect that.

Apparently your ego is boundless. I don't recall you noting any fact that I was not already familiar with.

 

[prometheus11]

What is your question? Unlike you, I am happy to answer questions about what I've said, and I am even able to learn from my errors. You should try it.

Apparently your ego is boundless. I don't recall you noting any fact that I was not already familiar with.

My question question was in the last post on the previous page, but I don't care if you respond to it. I won't respond to you.

You rudeness and ego has become too tiresome. Apparently, when people try to be decent and sacrifice time and energy to sincerely help you, you respond by lashing out in anger.

My position is extremely clear and you've already agreed three times in principle. (You just want to people to take issue with YOUR purely semantic issues that have ZERO importance to what is real and obvious).

Do NOT reply to me anymore.

 

[Willamena]

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

The nature of the inference is perception, and it's as valid as inference is. The world is as we perceive it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't have any "empirical experience" of your subjective experience or volition. Unless you claim that subjective experience and volition for you is simply non-existent, then there must be something real that is not empirical (or, as you say, is "beyond empirical experience")--and apparently I have to have faith that you have subjective experience and that your posts on this board are the products of your own volition. Likewise, you will just have to have faith about my subjective experience and volition also, since you will have no empirical experience of them.

Right. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, nazism, communism, they all belong together in the group of ideas of rejecting the validity of subjectivity. To accept subjectivity is valid on a practical basis one needs to accept that agencies like love and hate are real, but that the existence of them is a matter of opinion. 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.

 

[Shad]

Right. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, nazism, communism, they all belong together in the group of ideas of rejecting the validity of subjectivity. To accept subjectivity is valid on a practical basis one needs to accept that agencies like love and hate are real, but that the existence of them is a matter of opinion.

Love and hate are not agencies, humans are agents. Emotions like anger can be measured by brain active, brain chemistry and physical changes in the body like heart rate thus are objectivity real

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.

Wrong given your mistakes above.

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.

Wrong given your mistakes above.

 

[prometheus11]

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.

Not accepted. Ridiculous assertion.

 

[Nous]

The nature of the inference is perception, and it's as valid as inference is.

To have a perception is not to draw an inference. 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: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore, all things that exist are perceptible to humans senses.

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.

Obviously, if that conclusion were true, i.e., if there were true premises by which to conclude that proposition, then it would rule out the possibility of energy existing. If that conclusion were true, then it would rule out the possibility that the quantum vacuum exists--even though (like energy) it produces effects on matter. If that conclusion were true, it would rule out the possibility that gravity exists. That conclusion is anti-scientific nonsense.

 

[Nous]

Right. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, nazism, communism, they all belong together in the group of ideas of rejecting the validity of subjectivity.

I readily disagree. The theses of atheism, Nazism and communism neither say nor imply anything about subjective experience, as far as I am aware. The traditional thesis of materialism--the oldest of which is atomism--only implies something about consciousness or subjective experience (as well as volition). Nevertheless, many (seemingly most) self-identifying materialist philosophers do not outright reject the existence of consciousness or subjective experience, though I am unaware that anyone has ever explained the process by which either subjective experience or volition supposedly is produced by whatever it is the materialist asserts to be real.

To accept subjectivity is valid on a practical basis one needs to accept that agencies like love and hate are real

I don't have a clue as to why anyone would say that. I disagree.