Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

Those who grew up a true Naturalist, and particularly when they become academically educated, first-hand learn the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism.

Any serious seeker of truth speaks honestly within himself. They get serious and real in what they have come to know.

It no longer becomes a contention with others who differ. An exchange in proofs and facts. It becomes the value of truth and the potential to be wrong. And the consequence for being wrong.

On this forum, because of Christian viewers, many Naturalists are defensive. They do not discuss their weaknesses less being attacked and/or proven wrong.

Through my upbringing and early stand in life I found I had to face my weaknesses as a Naturalist. This thread is to focus on such discussion: how Naturalist and Naturalism has real limitations.

I will present a number of points. As they are presented I will try to update this first post.

Point 1
What is flesh is flesh
What is natural is natural
What is physical is physical

Point 2
Leaning on one's own understanding
Leaning on one's own brain capacity
Mankind leaning on their own mental capabilities

Point 3
The risk or gamble of pushing all of their chips to the middle of the table when they put their trust in their 5 senses, mental capability, and careful use of the Scientific Method

Point 4
Demanding proof and evidence but major historic gaps in evidence exists

Point 5
No proof or sound answer to most important answer about the natural - was there a Creator?

Point 6
Eternity and eternal things. Have the elements and physical universe always been? Or has it been a person, a being, a Creator who is eternal? Naturalist do not have proof that it is the physical realm.

Point 7
The Foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. What Naturalists know is built on faith. They walk by faith.

Point 8
No evidence that there is not a Creator: no evidence that all that we see and know was not created.

Point 9
No evidence agaist a spiritual realm in our midst. The domain of Naturalism is narrow and confined.

More points to come with time and discussion about each.

 

[Upisoft]

Point 1
What is flesh is flesh
What is natural is natural
What is physical is physical

If you want to say that a tautology is true, then sure.
Though the rules of this forum forbid me to add another very important example..

 

[durangodawood]

I like your "Naturalism" series of threads.

But you lost me here. I'm not sure how points 1 2 and 3 relate to the inherent limitations of naturalism that you claim.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Oh I do so love the "let me teach you threads". Always so "interactive"! So much to learn from the lecturer.

What is flesh is flesh. INDEED!

As Upisoft pointed out we clearly have the "tautology" end of things covered.

But let me skip ahead a few painful posts and get right to what I assume is going to be the basic "weakness" of Naturalism or Materialism or what-have-you-ism:

That one only has their senses to base their experiences on. Which means that there might be something else out there that we are unable to sense using our 5 senses!

THEREFORE there is a supernatural being who has a special fondness for one specific piece of land just to the east of the Mediterranean sea and this supernatural being decided that the only people worth "choosing" out of all the people of the globe would be a small group possibly from the highlands in that area and that ultimately this supernatural being, only a couple million years after he created humans, would decide that humanity needed to be atoned to him so about 2013 years ago He manifested himself as His Son (while still remaining Himself) in order that He would be sacrificed to Himself to atone mankind to Him.

Did I miss a step in there?

 

[Upisoft]

I like your "Naturalism" series of threads.

But you lost me here. I'm not sure how points 1 2 and 3 relate to the inherent limitations of naturalism that you claim.

Something tells me that "Absolute Truth" will somehow emerge in this thread.

 

[Upisoft]

That one only has their senses to base their experiences on. Which means that there might be something else out there that we are unable to sense using our 5 senses!

That actually is true. Until we develop an instrument to detect it.... Higgs is recent example...

 

[Lucy Stulz]

That actually is true. Until we develop an instrument to detect it.... Higgs is recent example...

But at least in the case of Higgs (and in earlier examples like Dirac's "discovery" of anti-matter from the mathematics long before any antimatter was detected) there is at least a reasonable estimate of what should be there and how to quantify it.

This is the problem for the "naturalism weakness -->God Hypothesis" linkage. The "need" for God rests in personal psychology. If there is some "supernatural" component to the universe and we have no way to actually experience it who is to say that any conception of God has a necessary reality of any sort?

We see people telling us what God is or how God is etc etc. And it's always quite specific. And there are countless, often mutually exclusive, formulations of this being.

It is like me unilaterally decreeing that there IS an invisible pink unicorn. Yeah I said it. And perhaps I fervently believe it. It doesn't mean that we should be working day and night to find some (any?) way to verify the existence of said invisible pink unicorn.

Finding an unfalsifiable flaw in Naturalism (in other words there is no way to test for a "sense" which we do not know to test for) does not mean that there is, ipso facto a God exactly as described in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

 

[Upisoft]

But at least in the case of Higgs (and in earlier examples like Dirac's "discovery" of anti-matter from the mathematics long before any antimatter was detected) there is at least a reasonable estimate of what should be there and how to quantify it.

Sometimes we have an estimate and we search for it, like Higgs. Sometimes it is surprise, as neutrino. There are things we know nothing about. Though from that to God there is a big gap. And more so for any specific God.

We know that there are things we know nothing about. Therefore something with those specific attributes exists (list some omni- whatever)

How do you know? Maybe it is another omni-less thing like neutrino...

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Sometimes we have an estimate and we search for it, like Higgs. Sometimes it is surprise, as neutrino.

Actually the neutrino wasn't a real "surprise" since Pauli initially had to account for beta decay's conservation of various properties (energy, momentum and spin).

It was a case where something had to be there.

There are things we know nothing about. Though from that to God there is a big gap. And more so for any specific God.

Agreed. And that is my second problem with where things like the OP usually end up. But firstly the reliance of philosophy on reminding me of my "limitations" as if merely theorizing that there is some "other" out there which none of us knows anything about and there is no indication that such actually exists or needs to exist to explain anything is my primary problem.

How do you know? Maybe it is another omni-less thing like neutrino...

Again, the neutrino (or something) was missing. Just like any mundane "mass balance" equation you have to account for everything. What was known about beta decay was not accounting for everything the physicists knew had to be accounted for.

Unlike supernatural things.

 

[Split Rock]

Those who grew up a true Naturalist, and particularly when they become academically educated, first-hand learn the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism.

Hmmm.... maybe I don't qualify as a "true naturalist" (whatever that is), but I haven't found any "weaknesses" of naturalism. There are always limitations to anything humans do, of course.

Any serious seeker of truth speaks honestly within himself. They get serious and real in what they have come to know.

Sounds like you are getting "serious." owwwwwww....

It no longer becomes a contention with others who differ. An exchange in proofs and facts. It becomes the value of truth and the potential to be wrong. And the consequence for being wrong.

I appreciate that you recognize that we can all be wrong. Is that restricted to "naturalists," though? Can we be wrong about our interpretation of scripture, for example?

On this forum, because of Christian viewers, many Naturalists are defensive. They do not discuss their weaknesses less being attacked and/or proven wrong.

Which weaknesses might that be?

Through my upbringing and early stand in life I found I had to face my weaknesses as a Naturalist. This thread is to focus on such discussion: how Naturalist and Naturalism has real limitations.

OK.

I will present a number of points. As they are presented I will try to update this first post.

Point 1
What is flesh is flesh
What is natural is natural
What is physical is physical

So far, a series of worthless identites.

Point 2
Leaning on one's own understanding
Leaning on one's own brain capacity
Mankind leaning on their own mental capabilities

This is not a point... in fact, these aren't even sentences.

Point 3
The risk or gamble of pushing all of their chips to the middle of the table when they put their trust in their 5 senses, mental capability, and careful use of the Scientific Method

Where is the risk? I don't see it.

More points to come with time and discussion about each.

I cannot wait!

 

[Loudmouth]

Those who grew up a true Naturalist, and particularly when they become academically educated, first-hand learn the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism.

And those are . . . ?

Any serious seeker of truth speaks honestly within himself. They get serious and real in what they have come to know.

How do you determine if something is true?

 

[Upisoft]

Actually the neutrino wasn't a real "surprise" since Pauli initially had to account for beta decay's conservation of various properties (energy, momentum and spin).

It was a case where something had to be there.

Actually they did not expect there will be problem with beta decay. Only after making all the measurements they found there is a problem and proposed neutrino as a solution. So, it was a surprise. Sometimes our knowledge is not enough to give structure to unknown. Unlike Higgs that was "found" within the structure of our knowledge about elementary particles. And then searched for. And found.

Again, the neutrino (or something) was missing. Just like any mundane "mass balance" equation you have to account for everything. What was known about beta decay was not accounting for everything the physicists knew had to be accounted for.

Unlike supernatural things.

Yes, neutrino was found because there was missing momentum. My point was that before they actually started to measure momentum of all parts they only knew about the products of the decay that were obvious (i.e. charged). Only after having precise enough instruments they were able to measure the momentum of all parts and conclude there is a problem. In other words, there was no knowledge about neutrino, before they made enough experiments and measurements and then ruled out the possibility of systematic error in measurements.

Unlike Higgs where they had no measurement (due to lack of powerful enough particle collider), but they were able to predict its existence.

To me that is big difference, first is random unexpected discovery due to collected data. The second is expected discovery due to well established scientific theory.

 

[variant]

What is the problem with the limitations of naturalism?

 

[Heissonear]

Point 4
Demanding proof and evidence but major historic gaps in evidence exists

 

[Heissonear]

Point 5
No proof or sound answer to most important answer about the natural - was there a Creator?

 

[durangodawood]

Point 4
Demanding proof and evidence but major historic gaps in evidence exists

With evidence, there comes a point where enough is enough, and the gaps are small enough that they no longer matter. Depend on the specifics, of course.

 

[durangodawood]

Point 5
No proof or sound answer to most important answer about the natural - was there a Creator?

For sure. But there's no NEED for a creator to explain anything. So believing in a creator is a matter of personal preference.

 

[Upisoft]

Point 5
No proof or sound answer to most important answer about the natural - was there a Creator?

That's subjective. Some think it's least important. And I don't really care, so..

 

[Heissonear]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

A major weakness. The very foundation Naturalist stand on has no proof. The foundation is based on belief.

 

[durangodawood]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

A major weakness. The very foundation Naturalist stand on has no proof. The foundation is based on belief.

Its based on experience.

When all you experience is natural AND natural explanations are sufficient to explain everything, you might as well come to the contingent-conclusion that our world is essentially natural.