Reply
Mon 24 May, 2004 11:44 am
I'm asking this in regard to the following Websters definition of Naturalism:
Naturalism - Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Many people reject the basic assumption of naturalism, prefering to believe that the world is full of supernatural forces, seen and unseen. Others accept naturalism as a given, both as a tool for measuring the world and as a basic assumption of reality.
Where do you stand, and why?
Re: Do you agree with the philosophy of Naturalism?
I'd think I fit well within the dictionary defination but...
rosborne979 wrote:Many people reject the basic assumption of naturalism, prefering to believe that the world is full of supernatural forces, seen and unseen. Others accept naturalism as a given, both as a tool for measuring the world and as a basic assumption of reality.
Who gets to determine what is "natural" and what is "supernatural"? I think that's what gets people into confused discussions on Naturalism. The phenomena that exist without good scientific rationale behind them open the door to all sorts of speculation.
Read a book last week -- "Faith, Madness, and Spontaneous Human Combustion," a collection of interrelated essays on immunology, consciousness, and self -- that argues that such a philosophy requires a great leap of faith... to believe that everything is explicable and rational. Decent book, anyway, if a little too dependent on lyricism and the unsaid to make its points more resounding than they need to be.
But, yeah, this big "N" Naturalism would describe my outlook pretty well. Thanks for asking.
yes, its why i am sitting here buck nekkid as i type.
Re: Do you agree with the philosophy of Naturalism?
fishin' wrote:Who gets to determine what is "natural" and what is "supernatural"? I think that's what gets people into confused discussions on Naturalism. The phenomena that exist without good scientific rationale behind them open the door to all sorts of speculation.
Yes, this is an interesting point, which I've gotten tangled up with before. In a philosophy like naturalism, in which everything is natural, how do you begin to describe the supernatural (that which is outside the philosophy)?
Adherence to observable laws, I would think. If the Red Sea separates from an unlikely but plausible meteorological phenomonen, it's natural. If the water just stands aside of its own accord to allow Hebraic passage -- supernatural.
patiodog wrote:Adherence to observable laws, I would think. If the Red Sea separates from an unlikely but plausible meteorological phenomonen, it's natural. If the water just stands aside of its own accord to allow Hebraic passage -- supernatural.
Suppose it stands aside, but you don't know why (possibly an atmospheric phenomena, or a tectonic one). Or does it all come down to the "motivation" for which something happens? Standing aside for a reason.
Not sure what you mean. I don't think the label "Naturalist" would preclude "Deist," if that deity does not alter the physical laws of the universe to achieve its ends, regardless of motivation.
??
patiodog wrote:Not sure what you mean. I don't think the label "Naturalist" would preclude "Deist," if that deity does not alter the physical laws of the universe to achieve its ends, regardless of motivation.
??
Isn't the idea of a Deity itself in conflict with naturalism? Deities are supernatural be definition, aren't they? Or are there "Gods" which do not supersede the laws of nature?
Well, there's the divine watchmaker idea, which would seem to be to have a highly Naturalist flavor: every movement in a watch is very precisely governed. I suppose it's a bit parsimonious to question whether the term "phenomenon" applies to whatever was or was not around before the universe came into existence, though.
(thought i'd use a big word there)
Generally, supernatural explanations are reserved for phenomenon we cannot explain with natural causes. As our understanding of the world becomes more subtle, what is explained as supernatural changes also. It is unlikely however that supernatural explanations will ultimately disappear. Humans, even as adults, seem to have a need for an imaginary friend.
(i initially read that as "imaginary fiend" -- which also works)
Both ideas are 'natural.'
As far as I can tell, there is ONLY the natural. Or if you insist ONLY the supernatural. But I do not accept a bifurcation of Reality into two opposing, or even complementary, realms. The "religions" of Hinduism and Buddhism--at their mystical levels, not their popular manifestations--have no need supernaturalism, magic, souls or afterlives. When their literature seems to invoke such things it is to be taken only metaphorical.
JLNobody wrote:As far as I can tell, there is ONLY the natural. Or if you insist ONLY the supernatural. But I do not accept a bifurcation of Reality into two opposing, or even complementary, realms.
Hi JL,
I don't understand. Do you mean that any given individual can only hold to one of the two views, or so you mean that intrindically, the bifurcation is paradoxical?
Hi, Rosborne, I mean that Reality is unitary; it is either natural or supernatural, but not both. We must remember that "natural" and "supernatural" are merely conceptual tools for picturing the world to ourselves. I do not see any value in double vision. The bifurcation is useless for serious thought--except that the notion of magic is fun as in the Harry Potter fantasies.
Greater still, is the believe of the atheist. Who believes that mankind (look at us on a time and evolutiniary scale and you'll know what I mean), will one day be able to understand all of it.
Atheists, the true believers :-)
I admire their leap of faith if it were not based, just like all religions, on utter ignorance.
JLNobody wrote:Hi, Rosborne, I mean that Reality is unitary; it is either natural or supernatural, but not both. We must remember that "natural" and "supernatural" are merely conceptual tools for picturing the world to ourselves. I do not see any value in double vision. The bifurcation is useless for serious thought--except that the notion of magic is fun as in the Harry Potter fantasies.
You don't think there can be a reality in which some things can be "natural" and other things "supernatural"?
Granted that you wouldn't have a naturalistic philosophy if you believed that this combination was in effect, but many people do believe that reality is such a combination of things.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
