What is naturalism?

[blü 2]

All these differences get resolved if the above principle of comparative religions is followed reasonably, I understand.
I have presented it in an informal way. Right, please?

Regards
____________
Religious Method applied:
#181

If that's the informal way then the Religious Method should also have a formal way, and the formal way should give consistent answers that we can all agree on, no?

 

[paarsurrey]

If that's the informal way then the Religious Method should also have a formal way, and the formal way should give consistent answers that we can all agree on, no?

It was read out with its application authored by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896 in the then British India. The lecture titled " The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" has since been translated in many world languages and is available online.
The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam - Wikipedia
The principle is elaborated in first two pages of it:
" It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book."

Right, please?

Regards
___________________
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

 

[blü 2]

It was read out with its application authored by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896 in the then British India. The lecture titled " The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" has since been translated in many world languages and is available online.
The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam - Wikipedia
The principle is elaborated in first two pages of it:
" It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book."

Right, please?

Regards
___________________
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

I don't begrudge anyone their (peaceful) faith in Islam; but I think, not religious method, but only faith, can make Islam "truer" than any other religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, human judgments ─ 'better', 'important', 'beneficial', 'satisfactory' &c ─ are processes and states carried out by the material brain. They are entirely material, have no element that is not material. That's to say, no magic is involved.
More accurately, one can't distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary because the immaterial is a subset of the imaginary.
Other way round ─ real is better than imaginary in such cases. That's a human judgment and as I said, an entirely material brain state.
If you're happy with an imaginary god, then go for it! No argument from me.

Let me try to explain it all the way from a base assumed axiom.

#1: We are not in any version of in effect the evil demon, vat in a brain, Boltzmann Brain universe, multiverse computer simulation. Note - it means that we can't assume that there are universal natural laws that governs the universe. That is a separate assumption.

That is all. We assume that we are in a universe, that is playing fair in regards to the problem of "das Ding an sich" and objective reality. We don't assume anything else. That we test and we test if any test has a limit for what it can test. Or in other words we test any methodology for its limits and we don't assume that any methodology is universal and applies to all of the universe. Yet in others words, we accept negative results from any test using any methodology.

So now you are in effect a general skeptic and not just skeptical of the religious and related variants. You test the limit of reason. logic, any claim to a methodology of evidence other than logic and you figure if even reason, logic and evidence have limits.
So are you willing to test if there is a limit to your assumption that reason is a valid tool?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't begrudge anyone their (peaceful) faith in Islam; but I think, not religious method, but only faith, can make Islam "truer" than any other religion.

Religious Method supports the faith in Islam, I understand.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

Let me try to explain it all the way from a base assumed axiom.

#1: We are not in any version of in effect the evil demon, vat in a brain, Boltzmann Brain universe, multiverse computer simulation.

That we're a dream in the brain of a superior being, an element in a Tron game, an experiment by multiverse scientists, that the universe, Boltzman-style sprang into existence fully formed last Thursday, and so on, are all unfalsifiable and therefore not regarded as scientific propositions. Their relevance arises when claims are made that a particular statement is absolute ─ to be absolute, it would have to refute all such ideas (or, I guess, conform to only one of them).

it means that we can't assume that there are universal natural laws that governs the universe. That is a separate assumption.

As I said above, I think it's justified by induction, not merely by assumption, in that as a rule of procedure it's worked very well ─ but that doesn't excuse science from being alert to any signs of exceptions.

We assume that we are in a universe

As I've said more than once before, you and I share the assumptions that a world exists external to us, that our senses can inform us of it, and that reason is a valid tool.

the problem of "das Ding an sich"

Dings in siches are not an idea I hold with. Instead I approach such questions through how we form and use concepts.

we test and we test if any test has a limit for what it can test. Or in other words we test any methodology for its limits and we don't assume that any methodology is universal and applies to all of the universe.

Yes, we're inductively entitled to proceed on just that basis, as long as we remain alert for contraindications.

So now you are in effect a general skeptic and not just skeptical of the religious and related variants. You test the limit of reason. logic, any claim to a methodology of evidence other than logic and you figure if even reason, logic and evidence have limits.

I haven't disagreed with that, as far as I can recall.

So are you willing to test if there is a limit to your assumption that reason is a valid tool?

A fair question. But the very reason it has to be an assumption in the first place is that there doesn't appear to be any way of testing it that doesn't involve reason, If you have such a test, I'm happy to learn more,

 

[blü 2]

Religious Method supports the faith in Islam, I understand.
Right, please?

Regards

I suspect that Islamic religious method supports Islam, and that Christian religious method supports the faith of Christianity, and that Hindu religious method supports the faith of Hinduism and ...

So I don't think any of them could satisfy a skeptical enquiry ─ not least because they're about our cultural emotions, our sense of belonging, rather than about describing and explaining objective reality, the world we live in. That's why religions as such aren't very good at maths, didn't invent the steam engine, computer, or Covid vaccine ─ that's not what they're for.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That we're a dream in the brain of a superior being, an element in a Tron game, an experiment by multiverse scientists, that the universe, Boltzman-style sprang into existence fully formed last Thursday, and so on, are all unfalsifiable and therefore not regarded as scientific propositions. Their relevance arises when claims are made that a particular statement is absolute ─ to be absolute, it would have to refute all such ideas (or, I guess, conform to only one of them).
...

We stop here. You don't even know how methodological naturalism works:
"As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real."
Joan Vaccaro
Joan Vaccaro

It ties in to this;
"...Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Goodbye, blü 2.
What ever version of science you believe in, you can have it as yours. I will stick with this one.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Goddess Kit]

There's only one real version of science. Anything else is a poor substitute.

Science, after all, isn't like religion where you get to play the game of I have the truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's only one real version of science. Anything else is a poor substitute.

Science, after all, isn't like religion where you get to play the game of I have the truth.

So that is the truth?
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

You can have your personal subjective belief as your belief. I will stick with the facts as here by scientists:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy
"...In this website, we use a practical checklist to get a basic picture of what science is and a flexible flowchart to depict how science works. For most everyday purposes, this gives us a fairly complete picture of what science is and is not. However, there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is handily called the philosophy of science. Many of the ideas that we present in this website are a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science."

 

[Goddess Kit]

Yeah, back to square one with you. Why even bother?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, back to square one with you. Why even bother?

Could you start by stating facts and learn that what science is, isn't as simple as what is real to you? You know, be skeptical of your own beliefs and not take them for granted?

 

[paarsurrey]

I suspect that Islamic religious method supports Islam, and that Christian religious method supports the faith of Christianity, and that Hindu religious method supports the faith of Hinduism and ...

So I don't think any of them could satisfy a skeptical enquiry ─ not least because they're about our cultural emotions, our sense of belonging, rather than about describing and explaining objective reality, the world we live in. That's why religions as such aren't very good at maths, didn't invent the steam engine, computer, or Covid vaccine ─ that's not what they're for.

One may like to see Religious Method reasonably applied to Christianity, in Post #68 in another thread, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[osgart]

What becomes of things that are real and lie forever beyond evidence?

Do such things exist?

Can we assume there are such things?

Beyond observance is beyond science!
Such things as exploring the interior thought life of someone else. Exploring someone's care and understandings that produce that care from the inside. Science has to assume all these things are brain chemistry.

And they must assume that an alive self disappears and is gone at death. If so, then where did it go? And what is it that simply disappears?
Naturalism is a projection in this area.

 

[blü 2]

We stop here. You don't even know how methodological naturalism works:
"As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption.

Why are you telling me this? I've been telling you specifically about assumptions from the start.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What becomes of things that are real and lie forever beyond evidence?

Do such things exist?

Can we assume there are such things?

Beyond observance is beyond science!
Such things as exploring the interior thought life of someone else. Exploring someone's care and understandings that produce that care from the inside. Science has to assume all these things are brain chemistry.

And they must assume that an alive self disappears and is gone at death. If so, then where did it go? And what is it that simply disappears?
Naturalism is a projection in this area.

Things beyound evidence are unknown. They are only real as a belief in them, but from there doesn't follow that they exist.
Whether we have souls and what happens, when we die, is also unknown. You can believe in it and that makes it real to you.

 

[blü 2]

One may like to see Religious Method reasonably applied to Christianity, in Post #68 in another thread, please. Right, please?

Regards

But you still haven't told me the principles of Religious Method.

Two examples:

Which does Religious Method say is correct, the Sunni or the Shia?

And which does it say is superior, Buddhism or Islam?

Please talk me through the examples, setting out the principles of the Religious Method and demonstrating how they work in action.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why are you telling me this? I've been telling you specifically about assumptions from the start.

Good, this is the first assumption beyond evidence. It is unknown whether you live in a real universe or an unreal one. You can assume that you live in a real one, but that doesn't make it real with evidence. It makes it real that you assume you live in a real universe. The same with materialism, that is also an assumption and you can't demand evidence for other assumptions than materialism. How? Because assumptions are without evidence. That is what makes them assumptions.

Do don't seem to understand how assumptions work. They are in your mind and not objectively real.
It is unknown, what objective reality is, You assume that it is real and material. I assume it is real and God. You can't demand evidence for assumptions, when you can't give it yourself. You are engaging in a double standard in effect.

 

[osgart]

Things beyound evidence are unknown. They are only real as a belief in them, but from there doesn't follow that they exist.
Whether we have souls and what happens, when we die, is also unknown. You can believe in it and that makes it real to you.

The experience of consciousness tells its own story. The story of an individual's heart, mind, and will. I find my own reasons for believing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The experience of consciousness tells its own story. The story of an individual's heart, mind, and will. I find my own reasons for believing.

Good, that is how it works.