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

[Steven Kowalski]

Metaphysical naturalism is the science and the math of everything that exists. Everything that is tangible and can be sensed. It gives way to the mind in sentient beings and looks at all perspectives at face value. Why does everything exist? How does everything exist? What is the natural order of the Universe and all of its components. It's a dangerous and confusing science - one that you wouldn't consider when trying to find religious truths unless they find their roots in existentialism. Everyone has a perspective. There are things outside of my body. There are forces of nature beyond our control. We are forces of nature. In relationship to each other, things can be controlled in a certain way. There is magic. There are beliefs. There are no absolutes say those we witness to be true. Science leads to discoveries about our universe, and leads to certain truths about the order in our universe. A person is a person. How you feel about a person is in correlation with your mind and your connection. There are infinitely many purposes of life. Things are just things - unless a person is attracted to these things. There is no question as to what you should or shouldn't do, unless it is scientifically proven, and the world is an open book. Certain things that would baffle metaphysical naturalists - the unpredictable nature of beings capable of free will. The lack of ability to control certain environments. The concept of trust in a relationship. The nature of existence.

If you take a second look at the list, there are benefits to this ideology. It is a source of inspiration to those who accept fate. And it offers a sense of bewilderment to those who think they have found the answer. To those who become lost in it, I would suggest immersion into a new perspective. Be overtaken by the nature of an infintismal metaphysical entity - and meditate not on its derivation or definitive aspects (as you could) but just by 'it'.

Mystery... Science... Watching a movie... Arguing... Certain activities require that you adopt a different ideology.

Materialism, on the other hand, is wanting exclusively for oneself. To dive in the pool is not out of question, but I think that, cross-culturally, no matter the religion, there is such a thing as having too much stuff. A materialist metaphysical naturalist would look to create for pum, to subdue, and to manipulate. Again - everything in its place. Balance in everything. It is not good to deny oneself a reward. As it is not good for a person to receive gifts without meaning.

We are physical, we are mindful, and we are spiritual. And we are to be healthy and pleasure-seeking in all these areas.

 

[Willamena]

So you're saying that you cannot articulate an argument by which to conclude your thesis of naturalism is in some way true?

1. I don't have a thesis. Any thesis. About anything.
2. That "naturalism is true" is no argument of mine.

Information is the negative logarithm of the probability distribution of events. Information is measurable, but is not a perceptible entity. I think most people would agree that information is causal. Shannon entropy is unquestionably causal.

I was just using the word informally, as in 'data,' or 'that about which we can consider ourselves informed.'

So, again, all of these real, measurable but imperceptible phenomena that cause effects refute the thesis that “all causes are perceptible phenomena”. Right?

To make a deduction is to use logic. To deduce a proposition from propositions that are true statements is to deduce a true statement.

So the results of Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment, where the experimenter's decision to remove or leave in place the second ("second base") beamsplitter determines whether the photons traveled through the interferometer as waves or particles, demonstrates the falsehood or failure of "the premise of naturalism" as you have stated here.

You're arguing with yourself, not me.

 

[Parsimony]

Faith is involved in any matter that is unproven. I think the better question would be "does naturalism require more faith than its alternatives?"

 

[Nous]

I would not expect them to, it is the juxtaposition of the terms "naturalism" and "metaphysical" that creates the irony that morphs into oxymoronicism.

“Metaphysical” is the sort of thesis it is (i.e., the sort of thesis that asserts something about the nature of reality), and “naturalism” denotes what the thesis asserts about the nature of reality. There is nothing oxymoronic about that. If there were something oxymoronic about a metaphysical thesis of naturalism or materialism, then surely some astute philosopher would have mentioned it by now.

BTW, when you use the term “scientific naturalism,” are you just referring to uniformitarianism, or to something more than uniformitarianism?

I notice that you have not articulated an argument by which to infer that uniformitarianism is true.

 

[Nous]

1. I don't have a thesis. Any thesis. About anything.
2. That "naturalism is true" is no argument of mine.

Pardon me! How the hell did I get the idea that you were trying to defend the the proposition that what is “natural” is perceptible and that all causes are natural causes?

 

[Nous]

Metaphysical naturalism is the science and the math of everything that exists.

What is "everything that exists"? Name all of them. And how did you acquire knowledge of "everything that exists"?

 

[Sapiens]

“Metaphysical” is the sort of thesis it is (i.e., the sort of thesis that asserts something about the nature of reality), and “naturalism” denotes what the thesis asserts about the nature of reality. There is nothing oxymoronic about that. If there were something oxymoronic about a metaphysical thesis of naturalism or materialism, then surely some astute philosopher would have mentioned it by now.

BTW, when you use the term “scientific naturalism,” are you just referring to uniformitarianism, or to something more than uniformitarianism?

I notice that you have not articulated an argument by which to infer that uniformitarianism is true.

Something about your construction and delivery brings to mind George Berhard Shaw's injunction concerning wrestling with pigs. I think I will heed his sagacious advice.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Faith is involved in any matter that is unproven. I think the better question would be "does naturalism require more faith than its alternatives?"

Which means to say; it is right to reduce subjectivity as much as possible, to finally destroy subjectivity altogether.

As demonstrated, naturalism, atheism, and the like, are really only expressions of the mental condition to reject subjectivity.

 

[Straw Dog]

Worldviews are not programs. They are organic. Any -ism is a -wasm. It's already been rendered past tense.

How do you interpret your total experience here-now?

 

[ArtieE]

This is why it is is equally logically valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is to say the painting is ugly.

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.

Saying it is beautiful is choosing to identify love as agency, and saying it is ugly is choosing to identify hate as agency.

Nonsense. A psychologist or psychiatrist may even be able to tell you why you subjectively think a painting is beautiful or ugly.

They also say they can measure emotions like love and hate, as Shad said a few posts previous, making love objective, rather than subjective.

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.

 

[ArtieE]

Opinions, about what is good, loving and beautiful are outside of science.

Ever heard of psychologists and psychiatrists? Science can often tell why people are of the opinion that something or someone is good, loving or beautiful.

 

[Willamena]

Pardon me! How the hell did I get the idea that you were trying to defend the the proposition that what is “natural” is perceptible and that all causes are natural causes?

I could defend that, if you want. But that "naturalism is true" is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[leibowde84]

Which means to say; it is right to reduce subjectivity as much as possible, to finally destroy subjectivity altogether.

As demonstrated, naturalism, atheism, and the like, are really only expressions of the mental condition to reject subjectivity.

Why is incorrect to "reduce" or "reject" subjectivity? I understand you think it is wrong and/or can cause future problems, but why do you think it is incorrect?

Btw, I know you are going to accuse me of rejecting subjectivity, so I'll just come out and say that I don't. I am merely curious as to what your reasoning/belief is on the subject.

 

[Nous]

Something about your construction and delivery brings to mind George Berhard Shaw's injunction concerning wrestling with pigs. I think I will heed his sagacious advice.

I think he said something such as: “Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll only get dirty, and, besides, the pig likes it.” I don’t know where he said that. I think it wasn’t in Pygmalion. Of course, in one of his plays he literally wrestled with that nom de plume known as Shakespeare.

What Shaw didn’t advise is to walk away from the challenge to infer the metaphysical thesis that one has already claimed can be inferred and staunchly believes to be true. On the other hand, I suspect it must be embarrassing to make a public spectacle of learning that one is committed to a metaphysical thesis that is as consistent with modern science as belief in the Virgin Mary.

 

[Nous]

I could defend that, if you want.

I’d love to read such an argument. As I noted upstream, in all the posts of this thread, no one has defended metaphysical naturalism or materialism as either coherent or consistent with the findings and theories of modern science.

I will ask again, since you didn’t address the question earlier: From the fact that the quantum vacuum is not perceptible and produces measurable and observable effects, we can conclude that not all causes in the universe are “natural” causes (when “natural” is defined as “perceptible”), can we not?

 

[Sapiens]

I think he said something such as: “Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll only get dirty, and, besides, the pig likes it.” I don’t know where he said that. I think it wasn’t in Pygmalion. Of course, in one of his plays he literally wrestled with that nom de plume known as Shakespeare.

What Shaw didn’t advise is to walk away from the challenge to infer the metaphysical thesis that one has already claimed can be inferred and staunchly believes to be true. On the other hand, I suspect it must be embarrassing to make a public spectacle of learning that one is committed to a metaphysical thesis that is as consistent with modern science as belief in the Virgin Mary.

It is never wrong to walk away from a sophist, a semanticist or a troll. I choose to not contend with you because, as Leo Strauss suggested, "[the sophist] is concerned with wisdom, not for its own sake, not because he hates the lie in the soul more than anything else, but for the sake of the honor or the prestige that attends wisdom." I have been around the block enough times to know that what attends that which passes for wisdom is often not.

 

[Willamena]

I will ask again, since you didn’t address the question earlier: From the fact that the quantum vacuum is not perceptible and produces measurable and observable effects, we can conclude that not all causes in the universe are “natural” causes (when “natural” is defined as “perceptible”), can we not?

I know nothing about quantum vacuums, sorry.

I will work on an argument.

 

[Nous]

It is never wrong to walk away from a sophist, a semanticist or a troll.

I can only assume that your incessant hurling of personal insults is an effort to compensate for the embarrassment of having your claims exposed as not just utterly baseless but as anti-scientific nonsense. You claim that uniformitarianism “can be inferred,” but obviously you can’t infer it from any fact. The findings and theories of modern physics and cosmology unequivocally demonstrate the non-generalizability of this 19th-century tenet of geology. Black holes are real; they can be observed, and the laws of nature that govern the universe outside of the event horizon do not operate withing black holes. That is why light cannot escape from them.

Rather than thinking up personal insults about people, you should spend the time and energy studying physics. It doesn’t seem that you’re very familiar with that subject.

 

[Nous]

I know nothing about quantum vacuums, sorry.

I’m not sure what proposition you’re planning to argue for, but obviously in order to formulate a metaphysical thesis that is consistent with the findings and theories of modern science, one has to be acquainted with these findings and theories. There’s no need to take my word for anything about the quantum vacuum:

"The vacuum state is associated with a zero-point energy, and this zero-point energy has measurable effects. In the laboratory, it may be detected as the Casimir effect. In physical cosmology, the energy of the cosmological vacuum appears as the cosmological constant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Is there some other proposition (than what I noted) about the ability to perceive causes that one can deduce from these facts?

 

[Willamena]

I’m not sure what proposition you’re planning to argue for...

The one agreed upon, of course.

...but obviously in order to formulate a metaphysical thesis that is consistent with the findings and theories of modern science, one has to be acquainted with these findings and theories. There’s no need to take my word for anything about the quantum vacuum:

"The vacuum state is associated with a zero-point energy, and this zero-point energy has measurable effects. In the laboratory, it may be detected as the Casimir effect. In physical cosmology, the energy of the cosmological vacuum appears as the cosmological constant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Is there some other proposition (than what I noted) about the ability to perceive causes that one can deduce from these facts?

I've no intention of formulating a thesis, I'm just composing an argument. And it's more likely to be in line with 18th Century philosophy than modern physics.

I'll post it when I'm done.