Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Paulos23]

Failed once again to keep the discussion to only the limitations of Naturalism.

Nope, I pointed out your limitations while keeping with my limitation. Just because you don't think youj have any...

Naturalist just can't face this weakness. It is that bad.

We face it just fine. You seam to be incapable of accepting that.

The other is the Scientific Method is restrictive and confining. It is not applicable to domains beyond the physical realm, particularly if there is a Spiritual Realm in our midst.

We could be brains in jars being fed a simulation. We have no way of knowing without evidence. Same goes for the supernatural.

We admit that we are limited to the natrual universe. So what? Unless the supernatural acts upon the natural why should we care or even assume it exists?

 

[bhsmte]

I did. Several meanings given. You just selected the one most convenient to your position.

John
NZ

Well, I will grant you that definitions can vary.

If you have frequented this site, the word faith is usually meant to mean; strong belief in something without evidence or proof.

When others try to label those who trust science as having faith, it simply isn't one and the same and the reasons are obvious. Science utilizes verifiable evidence, the other does not.

Let me ask you this; what is the definition of a christian?

 

[Johnnz]

Let's take a look at some of the often unacknowledged implications of naturalism common to both the agnostic and atheistic.

a) To quote an evolutionist (sorry can't remember who) "Man is an unintended outcome of an unplanned process". No purpose, no meaning except what individuals adopts for themselves. Nihilism is, in my opinion, logically the most consistent conclusion for such a view.

b) Man is thus a complex of biochemical processes, directed by physical and cultural conditioning. This raises two issues, a significant epistemological issue, namely how do we 'know' something, and what does 'free will' mean if we are subject to mere social conditioning.

c) There is no basis for morality other than what one chooses personally. If personal happiness is a goal then whether one chooses to be a Hitler of a Mother Teresa is only a personal set of values. One is not 'right, or 'better' than the other

d) The limitations of the scientific method are well accepted these days. Why data is gathered arises from some unproven assumptions within a particular cultural framework and a particular history - tacit knowledge' in Polyani's terminology. The distinction between facts and personal knowledge is also widely accepted.

e) Some disciplines (biological evolution, archaeology, palaeontology, as examples) involve historical data. Thus accepted principles for evaluating historical data is an essential component of such research.

Many of the simplistic ("prove it") statements on this thread seem to have been made without much insight into both their presuppositions and implications. There is also an incredible arrogance. The vast majority of people alive today, and throughout all of human history, have been religious. Even with modern western societies belief in some spiritual realm is accepted by 60-70% of the population. A relatively small group of people who dismiss everyone else for engaging in primitive superstitious beliefs is arrogant in the extreme.

John
NZ

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's take a look at some of the often unacknowledged implications of naturalism common to both the agnostic and atheistic.

a) To quote an evolutionist (sorry can't remember who) "Man is an unintended outcome of an unplanned process". No purpose, no meaning except what individuals adopts for themselves. Nihilism is, in my opinion, logically the most consistent conclusion for such a view.

Your opinion is duly noted -- I, for one, prefer to find my own purpose and meaning in life, as opposed to having it assigned to me.

b) Man is thus a complex of biochemical processes, directed by physical and cultural conditioning. This raises two issues, a significant epistemological issue, namely how do we 'know' something, and what does 'free will' mean if we are subject to mere social conditioning.

The same issue arises in religious thought. God gives "free will" to make our own choices, but threatens eternal damnation to anyone who doesn't make a very specific set of choices -- is that not also a form of social conditioning?

c) There is no basis for morality other than what one chooses personally. If personal happiness is a goal then whether one chooses to be a Hitler of a Mother Teresa is only a personal set of values. One is not 'right, or 'better' than the other

If personal happiness is a goal, then there is no difference between Hitler or Mother Teresa... to those who have chosen personal happiness as their only goal.

However, most people (one would only hope) have a more complicated morality than that.

d) The limitations of the scientific method are well accepted these days. Why data is gathered arises from some unproven assumptions within a particular cultural framework and a particular history - tacit knowledge' in Polyani's terminology. The distinction between facts and personal knowledge is also widely accepted.

Indeed -- and people who use the scientific method have accomplished much within these limitations, and if they are doing it right, make the distinction between fact and personal knowledge.

e) Some disciplines (biological evolution, archaeology, palaeontology, as examples) involve historical data. Thus accepted principles for evaluating historical data is an essential component of such research.

Quite so.

Many of the simplistic ("prove it") statements on this thread seem to have been made without much insight into both their presuppositions and implications. There is also an incredible arrogance. The vast majority of people alive today, and throughout all of human history, have been religious.

Good for them.

Even with modern western societies belief in some spiritual realm is accepted by 60-70% of the population. A relatively small group of people who dismiss everyone else for engaging in primitive superstitious beliefs is arrogant in the extreme.

There's a difference between engaging in primitive superstitions and letting oneself be ruled by them.

I may say "bless you" after you sneeze, but it's not because I sincerely believe that evil spirits are trying to enter your body.

John
NZ

Valentine
NJ

 

[Heissonear]

We admit that we are limited to the natrual universe. So what? Unless the supernatural acts upon the natural why should we care or even assume it exists?

Those bound to using only their 5 senses only detect the physical around them.

Those who use their brain capacity can only examine the physical, natural realm.

Those who use the Scientific Method can only apply if to the physical. To date the Scientific Method has detected zero evidence that there is a spiritual realm. Zero evidence.

Naturalism, with the Scientific Method, has proved to be limited, severely limited.

There has always been a spiritual realm in our midst. The course of nature has not been haphazard, but intricately controlled by the spiritual.

Unable to detect and find the Creator has made Naturalists to be totally unaware of what God has been doing among mankind over time. Also totally unaware of the relationship we can have with Him, and totally unaware of the purposes He has in why He created this world and allow events to occur through history.

Naturalists do not know the origin of physical matter, yet Naturalists still teach how to live without God in this world; to be godless; the purpose of this life is philosophical, and human opinion based. That the religions of the world are man made, bring confusion, speculation, ignorance, superstition, believe in things that are unreal, and the like.

Naturalists are confined and limited to the physical. The ramifications of lacking spiritual understanding is extensive.

Rather than understanding what God is up to in this present age through all the religions of this world they sweep all religions under the rug with ease.

God at work in this world through the Holy Spirit since the beginning - they are totally blind to. They have zero awareness of being led and taught by the Holy Spirit. Zero understanding before all. And talk like they have such clearly understood - that it is undetectable and most likely does not exist. It is OK to walk godless. It's OK to not know the Creator.

The Day of The Naturalist has come. And it is being seen for what it is. It promises light but is bringing spiritual darkness. It's wealth is physical and temporal. Foremost it makes people blind to the Creator, to God at work in our midst. That's all; just minor limitations.

"So what?" as listed in the quote above. Naturalism is leaving its mark on many. How about you?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Those bound to using only their 5 senses only detect the physical around them.

Those who use their brain capacity can only examine the physical, natural realm.

Those who use the Scientific Method can only apply if to the physical. To date the Scientific Method has detected zero evidence that there is a spiritual realm. Zero evidence.

Naturalism, with the Scientific Method, has proved to be limited, severely limited.

There has always been a spiritual realm in our midst. The course of nature has not been haphazard, but intricately controlled by the spiritual.

Unable to detect and find the Creator has made Naturalists to be totally unaware of what God has been doing among mankind over time. Also totally unaware of the relationship we can have with Him, and totally unaware of the purposes He has in why He created this world and allow events to occur through history.

Naturalists do not know the origin of physical matter, yet Naturalists still teach how to live without God in this world; to be godless; the purpose of this life is philosophical, and human opinion based. That the religions of the world are man made, bring confusion, speculation, ignorance, superstition, believe in things that are unreal, and the like.

Naturalists are confined and limited to the physical. The ramifications of lacking spiritual understanding is extensive.

Rather than understanding what God is up to in this present age through all the religions of this world they sweep all religions under the rug with ease.

God at work in this world through the Holy Spirit since the beginning - they are totally blind to. They have zero awareness of being led and taught by the Holy Spirit. Zero understanding before all. And talk like they have such clearly understood - that it is undetectable and most likely does not exist. It is OK to walk godless. It's OK to not know the Creator.

The Day of The Naturalist has come. And it is being scene for what it is. It promises light but is bringing spiritual darkness. It's wealth is physical and temporal. Foremost it makes people blind to the Creator, to God at work in our midst. That's all; just minor limitations.

"So what?" as listed in the quote above. Naturalism is leaving its mark on many. How about you?

Why are you blind to everyone else's gods?

 

[Michael]

Those bound to using only their 5 senses only detect the physical around them.

Those who use their brain capacity can only examine the physical, natural realm.

Those who use the Scientific Method can only apply if to the physical. To date the Scientific Method has detected zero evidence that there is a spiritual realm. Zero evidence.

Actually......

I'm not sure if you've taken a gander at my Empirical Theory Of God threads, but there is an entirely "natural" explanation of God from the realm of science and physics. The concept of "evidence" can be a bit subjective actually, and much of that subjectivity depends upon how one interprets the data. There is certainly more "evidence" to suggest that God is the physical universe in which we live than there is evidence of current "scientific" theories about the makeup of our universe.

If one believes in God as I do, there's no logical reason to "assume" science and God are in any way at odds, or that "naturalism" poses any threat to God.

You're right that the five senses can be "limiting", but 'feelings' are also an important input to awareness. Many people can "feel" the presence of God in their lives even if they can't "see" it.

IMO you're barking up the wrong tree by suggesting that naturalism is necessarily all that "limiting" in terms of "finding evidence of God". Panentheism offers a "natural" explanation of 'God', including his form, functional aspects, etc. It's not a given that naturalism leads us anywhere but back to God.

Limiting as it might be, science is progressing by leaps and bounds.

 

[Michael]

Well, I will grant you that definitions can vary.

If you have frequented this site, the word faith is usually meant to mean; strong belief in something without evidence or proof.

In terms of demonstrating "cause/effect proof" of things, from God, to gravitons, to dark energy, to SUSY theory, "faith" is all that science often has to work with. Even the concept of evidence becomes subjective, particularly when scientists run around claiming that dark energy has some effect on a photon. How could anyone demonstrate that claim in a lab on Earth in controlled experimentation when they can't even name a source, nor a control mechanism?

IMO atheists tend to see "faith" as a "dirty word". It's not. It's an integral part of the scientific method in fact.

 

[BarryDesborough]

IMO atheists tend to see "faith" as a "dirty word". It's not. It's an integral part of the scientific method in fact.

Depends on your philosophy of science.

Pragmatists would just shrug and say, "It seems to work. What else does?"

 

[Loudmouth]

There has always been a spiritual realm in our midst.

What spiritual realm? Surely you should demonstrate that this realm exists before accusing naturalism of not finding it.

Unable to detect and find the Creator . . .

What creator?

Naturalists do not know the origin of physical matter,

That is why naturalists are doing research in that field. You are again pointing to a human limitation, not a limitation of naturalism. That you STILL can not understand the difference between the two says a lot.

yet Naturalists still teach how to live without God in this world; to be godless; the purpose of this life is philosophical, and human opinion based.

It is not up to naturalists to evidence your claims. If you want to claim that God exists then demonstrate that God exists. You can hardly blame someone for not accepting empty assertions.

Naturalists are confined and limited to the physical.p

Naturalists are confined to what is real. That is a good thing, in my book. When made up fantasies hold as much weight as empirical evidence then you have a real problem.

 

[Michael]

What spiritual realm? Surely you should demonstrate that this realm exists before accusing naturalism of not finding it.

That's easy if we use "scientific"" standards of today. Any Church or Mosque should do the trick. That's a very "tangible effect" of the spiritual realm on humans and on the Earth itself. Then of course there are all those 'theists' on planet Earth that outnumber atheists by what, about 20 to 1 or so?

What creator?

The one that makes the suns shine.

It is not up to naturalists to evidence your claims.

Nor is it up to naturalists to decide in advance what naturalism will ultimately tell us about the universe that we live in.

If you want to claim that God exists then demonstrate that God exists. You can hardly blame someone for not accepting empty assertions.

The double standards of atheists are amazing at times as it relates to demonstrating actual cause/effect relationships empirically. "Science" often departs from "naturalism" (empirical physics) anytime it feels like it, and atheists tend to ignore that point entirely.

Naturalists are confined to what is real. That is a good thing, in my book.

It's a good thing in my book too, but it's a death sentence for most cosmology theories, several particle physics theories, and most of QM theory today. Got any experimental evidence of gravitons in your back pocket?

When made up fantasies hold as much weight as empirical evidence then you have a real problem.

True. That's the exact same problem with inflation hypotheses, SUSY hypotheses, dark energy hypotheses, graviton hypotheses, and probably half of "physics' today.

For instance, folks working at LHC hope to make your 'fantasies' about exotic matter come true in a few years. At the moment however SUSY theories have absolutely nothing at all to do with 'naturalism', and everything to do with "faith" in the unseen in the lab. Ditto for all of the hypothetical particles in QM, and all the hypothetical particles in Lambda-CDM.

Science has never been limited to pure 'naturalism', and it probably never will be.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The one that makes the suns shine.

Suggesting that the stars are suns got Giordano Bruno burned alive at the stake, naked (in order to sexually humiliate him - he was a monk), and upside down, in a market square in Rome. http://tinyurl.com/q4yvtps

One of the achievements of Unnaturalism.

 

[Michael]

Suggesting that the stars are suns Got Giordano Bruno burned at the steak, naked (in order to sexually humiliate him - he was a monk), and upside down, in a market square in Rome. http://tinyurl.com/q4yvtps

One of the achievements of Unnaturalism.

Unfortunately it's rather irrelevant to my point however.

FYI, I've lost count how many times I've been virtually executed in cyberspace for daring to question 'scientific dogma' too. Humans apparently don't react well to having their belief systems questioned.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Unfortunately it's rather irrelevant to my point however.

FYI, I've lost count how many times I've been virtually executed in cyberspace for daring to question 'scientific dogma' too. Humans apparently don't react well to having their belief systems questioned.

How many times have you been burned alive?

None?

Is that thanks to religious nuts or to enlightened thinkers?

 

[Michael]

How many times have you been burned alive?

You mean virtually burned at the stake on a cosmology/science forum? More than once, I assure you. For real, with real fire? Never.

Astronomers can attempt to destroy my online persona, but they aren't legally allowed to burn me a the stake fortunately. If they could though, they might.

None?

Is that thanks to religious nuts or to enlightened thinkers?

It's thanks to enlightened 'non violent' thinkers like Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc. Most of them were "religious" actually. Even most of the founding fathers of America were theists or deists.

 

[Heissonear]

What spiritual realm? Surely you should demonstrate that this realm exists before accusing naturalism of not finding it.

What creator?

That is why naturalists are doing research in that field. You are again pointing to a human limitation, not a limitation of naturalism. That you STILL can not understand the difference between the two says a lot.

It is not up to naturalists to evidence your claims. If you want to claim that God exists then demonstrate that God exists. You can hardly blame someone for not accepting empty assertions.

Naturalists are confined to what is real. That is a good thing, in my book. When made up fantasies hold as much weight as empirical evidence then you have a real problem.

Naturalists have tried to understand the spiritual realm and have come up with zero evidence. To miss the existence of the Creator is no small thing. To state that this is an "assertion" is not recognizing the "exclusion" Naturalism has brought about.

Some Naturalists are slow to learn the limitations of Naturalism.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Naturalists have tried to understand the spiritual realm and have come up with zero evidence. To miss the existence of the Creator is no small thing. To state that this is an "assertion" is not recognizing the "exclusion" Naturalism has brought about.

Some Naturalists are slow to learn the limitations of Naturalism.

What "spiritual realm"? What "creator"? The one who is claiming they exist should be the one to come up with evidence. Zero evidence so far. All I've seen so far is a continuous, tedious stream of hot air.

 

[Johnnz]

How many times have you been burned alive?

None?

Is that thanks to religious nuts or to enlightened thinkers?

I'm quite sure than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe and many modern insurrectionists were not religious people. Their tally of corpses is in the many millions.

John
NZ

 

[BarryDesborough]

I'm quite sure than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe and many modern insurrectionists were not religious people. Their tally of corpses is in the many millions.

John
NZ

Then your sense of certainty is awry.

 

[Johnnz]

Then your sense of certainty is awry.

?

John
NZ