Naturalism or bust

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If you believe that everything is natural and that the supernatural doesn't exist (the philosophy of Naturalism). Then can anything ever happen which would convince you otherwise.

For example: If something happened which you couldn't explain, could you ever be convinced that it was supernatural, or would you always just assume that it was something natural which you didn't understand?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,571 • Replies: 27

No top replies

Good question. I might possibly suspend judgement at first, but would ultimately conclude that supernatural can't happen, no matter what. So I believe this day.

0 Replies

One way or another, I'd be waiting for the footnotes.

0 Replies

rosborne,

similar to when you ask if anything can ever be "artificial," can anything ever be "supernatural" if nature is to be defined as basically everything that exist?

0 Replies

rosborne,

I was hoping you would start a thread on naturalism (you have always mentioned naturalism as the central philosophy of science.)

I had thought of naturalism as primarily a methodology.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

rosborne,

similar to when you ask if anything can ever be "artificial," can anything ever be "supernatural" if nature is to be defined as basically everything that exist?

I know, the two threads were a bit related. This one is a more general treatment.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

rosborne,

I was hoping you would start a thread on naturalism (you have always mentioned naturalism as the central philosophy of science.)

I had thought of naturalism as primarily a methodology.

I don't think it's a methodology, I think it's a philosophical view which is also a basic assumption of the scientific methodology.

0 Replies

Re: Naturalism or bust

rosborne979 wrote:

If you believe that everything is natural and that the supernatural doesn't exist (the philosophy of Naturalism). Then can anything ever happen which would convince you otherwise.

For example: If something happened which you couldn't explain, could you ever be convinced that it was supernatural, or would you always just assume that it was something natural which you didn't understand?

It's hard for me to imagine anything that could be both explained and be supernatural. The definitions don't really allow for such a thing do they? Let's take ghosts for example. If they exist, then they are natural.

I guess that makes me a Naturalist huh?

0 Replies

Re: Naturalism or bust

Eorl wrote:

It's hard for me to imagine anything that could be both explained and be supernatural. The definitions don't really allow for such a thing do they? Let's take ghosts for example. If they exist, then they are natural.

I guess that makes me a Naturalist huh?

I think so. You and me both Smile

0 Replies

rosborne,

I have a question that may or may not be relevant to your topic. You can tell me if it is not relevant.

Can science explain the workings of the human mind in strictly naturalistic terms?

0 Replies

May I answer?

Yes. I expect so. Eventually. We've come a long way already.

0 Replies

Re: Naturalism or bust

rosborne979 wrote:

If you believe that everything is natural and that the supernatural doesn't exist (the philosophy of Naturalism). Then can anything ever happen which would convince you otherwise.

For example: If something happened which you couldn't explain, could you ever be convinced that it was supernatural, or would you always just assume that it was something natural which you didn't understand?

It really depends how you define supernatural.
To me for something to be supernatural it would have to fall outside of the sphere of all that exists naturally, it would have to be totally unexplainable by any and all, past present and future, scientific means.
This to me presents some problems.
#1 -First, what indication is there of anything falling outside the realm of nature?
I have personally seen nothing of the sort.
#2 - Second, given something unexplainable by todays means, what amount of faith would be required to believe that state would remain permanent, given #1? More than I can generate without being lobotomized, that's for sure.
The supernatural is faith, superstition, and has..in my opinion..no place in the rational mind.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Can science explain the workings of the human mind in strictly naturalistic terms?

If science can explain it at all, then it will have to explain it naturalistically, because it wouldn't be science otherwise.

But before science can begin to explain something, it has to be defined. And I suspect that merely defining "human mind" could get philosophically complex (as it has been historically).

We may never get past the philosophy in order to put it on the plate for disection.

0 Replies

I agree with Doktor completely. To me naturalism makes sense only as a corrective to the innane notion of the supernatural. Therefore both terms are ultimately unnecessary and meaningless. To me, then, "naturalism" refers to a worldview that, since the Enlightenment, is a repudiation of supernaturalism. And the latter is repudiated because it has no resonance whatsoever in experience.
If I encountered a phenomenon that neither I nor science could explain, I would simply assume our (temporary) condition of ignorance regarding that phenomenon; and that ignorance that would only be compounded by the invocation of the supernatural.

0 Replies

Re: Naturalism or bust

Doktor S wrote:

The supernatural is faith, superstition, and has..in my opinion..no place in the rational mind.

A whole lot of religions aren't going to like that. But your conclusions are hard to escape.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I agree with Doktor completely. To me naturalism makes sense only as a corrective to the innane notion of the supernatural. Therefore both terms are ultimately unnecessary and meaningless. To me, then, "naturalism" refers to a worldview that, since the Enlightenment, is a repudiation of supernaturalism. And the latter is repudiated because it has no resonance whatsoever in experience.
If I encountered a phenomenon that neither I nor science could explain, I would simply assume our (temporary) condition of ignorance regarding that phenomenon; and that ignorance that would only be compounded by the invocation of the supernatural.

So, doesn't that mean that anyone who believs in God (an inherently supenatural concept) is irrational?

0 Replies

The supernatural exists, in part, only as a category of all those things we cannot explain. It is also a confirmation of the rightness of the way we understand the world and behave. That is it makes our world moral. As such, the supernatural is dependent on and changes in concert with how we understand the world. That is why those committed to a supernatural understanding of reality are so opposed to curiosity and it current framework of explanation, positivism. Our supernatural explanations change as our knowledge of the natural world increases and make irrelevant the explanatory framewok they are committed to..

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

The supernatural exists, in part, only as a category of all those things we cannot explain. It is also a confirmation of the rightness of the way we understand the world and behave. That is it makes our world moral.

I don't understand. How does it make our world moral?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't understand. How does it make our world moral?

Humans look for conformation that their (our) understanding of the world, both natural and social, (world view) is correct. It is generally assumed that the organization of the supernatural world reflect our understanding of the organization of the natural and social world. As they are the same, and the supernatural world is assumed to be more powerful, ie it can intervene in the natural world while the natural world can only petition the supernatural world, therefor our understanding must be correct, that is, moral. Those who do not accept it,or those actions and events that do not conform to it are incorrect or immoral. There is a good dose of cultural ethnocentrism in this process, ie we are right, you are a bit odd.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I don't understand. How does it make our world moral?

Humans look for conformation that their (our) understanding of the world, both natural and social, (world view) is correct. It is generally assumed that the organization of the supernatural world reflect our understanding of the organization of the natural and social world. As they are the same, and the supernatural world is assumed to be more powerful, ie it can intervene in the natural world while the natural world can only petition the supernatural world, therefor our understanding must be correct, that is, moral. Those who do not accept it,or those actions and events that do not conform to it are incorrect or immoral. There is a good dose of cultural ethnocentrism in this process, ie we are right, you are a bit odd.

So it's a self fulfilling prophesy in which our own internal moral character is used to project our view of the supernatural, which we then follow out of fear of reprisal? You may be correct, but that's really twisted.

What about the portion of the population which acts morally without believing in the supernatural. How do we fit in?

0 Replies

Naturalism or bust

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know