What is naturalism?

[mikkel_the_dane]

And how do you determine if something is 'beyond the visible observable universe'?

Is it simply a matter of interaction with light (visible)?

I don't determine it. I as I believe in it. It is part of the problem of "the thing in itself". You apparently use the axiomatic assumption that "the thing in itself" is natural. I believe it to be God.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

Simply it is the factual natural cause of the nature of our physical existence.

naturalism definition - Google Search

"2 - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

The simple answer does not give the whole story There is Methodological Naturalism, Ontological or Philosophical Naturalism, Theological Naturalism..

 

[shunyadragon]

Stick with the bare facts.

Running through woods in the buff.

 

[Goddess Kit]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

I am fairly certain a dictionary exists for such a simple inquiry.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't determine it. I as I believe in it. It is part of the problem of "the thing in itself". You apparently use the axiomatic assumption that "the thing in itself" is natural. I believe it to be God.

Naturalism, unless you are referring to a version of 'Theological Naturalism as in the above or the contrary Ontological Naturalism,' These by there nature are subjective philosophical/theological assumptions. Naturalism in and of itself does not deal with the existence nor non-existence of Gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am fairly certain a dictionary exists for such a simple inquiry.

Yeah. There is also this: Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The short answer is there is no one definition of naturalism.
Read the answer of @shunyadragon below yours. Dictionaries are not always enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, both.

Yes.

I rather like like the following definition:

Naturalism prohibits any appeal to entities or causal agencies that are claimed to be in principle not amenable to scientific investigation. This doubly negative explication can, of course, be transposed into a positive statement—The entities and causal agencies to which one appeals in inquiry must be in principle amenable to scientific investigation—but the negative formulation better captures the forensic stance of naturalism. Naturalism is most appropriately conceived as the denial of the positive thesis that in inquiry it is legitimate to appeal to entities and causal agencies that are claimed to be in principle not amenable to scientific investigation.

Matthew C. Bagger; Dewey's Bulldog: Sidney Hook, Pragmatism, and Naturalism​

Naturalism is the rejection of appeals to supernatural (or preternatural or transnatural) agency.

 

[atanu]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

Yeah. I will copy the definition provided by another member and add a bit.

Ontological naturalism is the thesis that the physical world is causally closed: any cause of a physical event is also physical.

The problem is this definition itself has no natural evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am fairly certain a dictionary exists for such a simple inquiry.

I am not that certain.
This one is a good starting point:

Naturalism prohibits any appeal to entities or causal agencies that are claimed to be in principle not amenable to scientific investigation. This doubly negative explication can, of course, be transposed into a positive statement—The entities and causal agencies to which one appeals in inquiry must be in principle amenable to scientific investigation—but the negative formulation better captures the forensic stance of naturalism. Naturalism is most appropriately conceived as the denial of the positive thesis that in inquiry it is legitimate to appeal to entities and causal agencies that are claimed to be in principle not amenable to scientific investigation.

Matthew C. Bagger; Dewey's Bulldog: Sidney Hook, Pragmatism, and Naturalism

Provided by @Jayhawker Soule

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah. I will copy the definition provided by another member and add a bit.

Ontological naturalism is the thesis that the physical world is causally closed: any cause of a physical event is also physical.

The problem is this definition itself has no natural evidence.

Yes, it is the basis for evidence. But not evidence in itself.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't determine it. I as I believe in it. It is part of the problem of "the thing in itself". You apparently use the axiomatic assumption that "the thing in itself" is natural. I believe it to be God.

Then I am still unclear what the distinction is.

 

[Goddess Kit]

I am not that certain.
This one is a good starting point:


Provided by @Jayhawker Soule

But are you truly learning anything?

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. I will copy the definition provided by another member and add a bit.

Ontological naturalism is the thesis that the physical world is causally closed: any cause of a physical event is also physical.

The problem is this definition itself has no natural evidence.

On the contrary. Every cause we have ever found is a physical cause.

 

[Quiddity]

The more in vogue response is that the supernatural is the mutable abrogation of natural processes. It is, however, the elevation of the natural and not the negation thereof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then I am still unclear what the distinction is.

Okay, if something is in itself and independent of mind for which you only know trough the mind, what can you know of it, other than it is in itself and independent of mind. It is from Immanuel Kant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The more in vogue response is that the supernatural is the mutable abrogation of natural processes. It is, however, the elevation of the natural and not the negation thereof.

What does "elevation of natural processes" mean? What are some examples?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, if something is in itself and independent of mind for which you only know trough the mind, what can you know of it, other than it is in itself and independent of mind. It is from Immanuel Kant.

Sorry, I couldn't parse that. Could you rephrase?

 

[firedragon]

It is not to be confused with Naturism

Unless its el naturale.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary. Every cause we have ever found is a physical cause.

No! The word meaning for example has no direct physical observation or detection through instruments.
That physical means ..., is only known in the mind as understanding. You don't see or detection through instruments understanding.
We are play this game of empiricism: Knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

 

[atanu]

On the contrary. Every cause we have ever found is a physical cause.

That observation does not justify the axiom at all.

Furthermore, mental causation and/or consciousness is not explained by any physical parameter or process.

I will not get into this argument again.