Finding limitations in Naturalism

[BarryDesborough]

?

John
NZ

Hitler was a religious nut. And you can hardly describe any of that lot as an "enlightened thinker".

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Placebo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then of course there are all those 'theists' on planet Earth that outnumber atheists by what, about 20 to 1 or so?

Of course -- but so what? Believing in something doesn't make it so.

The one that makes the suns shine.

Nuclear fusion?

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

They can make predictions, same as you. Only difference is, they can back theirs up.

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.

For example?

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?

Nope -- that's why it's hypothetical... you see, naturalists tend to be careful in distinguishing between what they know is real and what they think might be real.

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

Indeed -- they're all in the hypothetical stage, and scientists are working to see if there's evidence to support them. They have ideas, and they're working on them.

You also have ideas, and you're...?

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.

It must be a different kind of "faith," then -- I've never seen people of religious faith work so hard to find evidence for their beliefs, and be willing to abandon them if something better comes along... they're pretty committed.

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

And yet, it still will never fall into the same level of hokum and superstition that keeps the shamans of our peculiar little tribe in business.

 

[Heissonear]

Then your sense of certainty is awry.

Is that an answer to devious acts of leaders in Naturalism among mankind?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

I by no means see "faith" as a dirty word and I believe everyone utilizes faith in some form or fashion in their lives. Some non-believers immediately hear the word faith and think of faith in God and that may be what you are referring to, but that is a limited use of the term.

When you get into "feeling a presence of God", I don't doubt that some people feel this is real for them and they are entitled to place whatever meaning to that "feeling" for themselves. But, and we have discussed this before, we are really delving into individual psychology and that goes down a completely different path.

 

[bhsmte]

"Then of course there are all those 'theists' on planet Earth that outnumber atheists by what, about 20 to 1 or so?"

I believe at one point, everyone believed the world to be flat and it didn't make it true.

There are a myriad of reasons why so many people claim to be theists, but dealing in reality is not something they rely on. The United States has the largest number (% wise) of people who claim to be theists, by far. Other advanced countries have seen the % of theists drop dramatically, some of which now are the minority. Why is this? Well, I will rely on intuition and claim; political pressure, social pressure, lack of free thinking, etc. etc.

The Muslim faith is the only one that has gained traction worldwide in the recent past, all others are seeing their numbers dropping like a rock.

 

[Heissonear]

Hitler was a religious nut. And you can hardly describe any of that lot as an "enlightened thinker".

You just tried to dodge a missile size question and just swept it under the rug like usual.

 

[Heissonear]

Placebo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course -- but so what? Believing in something doesn't make it so.

Nuclear fusion?

They can make predictions, same as you. Only difference is, they can back theirs up.

For example?

Nope -- that's why it's hypothetical... you see, naturalists tend to be careful in distinguishing between what they know is real and what they think might be real.

Indeed -- they're all in the hypothetical stage, and scientists are working to see if there's evidence to support them. They have ideas, and they're working on them.

You also have ideas, and you're...?

It must be a different kind of "faith," then -- I've never seen people of religious faith work so hard to find evidence for their beliefs, and be willing to abandon them if something better comes along... they're pretty committed.

And yet, it still will never fall into the same level of hokum and superstition that keeps the shamans of our peculiar little tribe in business.

Rather noble to say Naturalists properly distinguish between what is real verses what one might think is real.

The evidence only (in the physical) crowd like to stand tall on The Day of The Naturalist.

But the spiritual realm in our midst is not going to go away because of Naturalism inability to detect it. It is equivalent to you telling me that the physical world does not exist.

Naturalists are the ones who have the least understanding about the Creator. They also, since they fail to see and learn about the spiritual are the ones that have the least understanding about why all the religions of the world exist.

 

[Heissonear]

"Then of course there are all those 'theists' on planet Earth that outnumber atheists by what, about 20 to 1 or so?"

I believe at one point, everyone believed the world to be flat and it didn't make it true.

There are a myriad of reasons why so many people claim to be theists, but dealing in reality is not something they rely on. The United States has the largest number (% wise) of people who claim to be theists, by far. Other advanced countries have seen the % of theists drop dramatically, some of which now are the minority. Why is this? Well, I will rely on intuition and claim; political pressure, social pressure, lack of free thinking, etc. etc.

The Muslim faith is the only one that has gained traction worldwide in the recent past, all others are seeing their numbers dropping like a rock.

Of the religions of the world, "growing" verses "dropping like a rock" perception: is this religion that is a product of natural man or a distinction from what is truly from the "spiritual"?

Throughout time man could always walk with God. They did not need a religious book around, a local church house, nor "doctrine and teachings". Why?

Why could Adam and Eve walk with God? And the list goes on in Genesis: Noah, Enoch, etc. What were they walking by? Religious beliefs? Religious doctrines? According to scriptures?

They were walking by none of these.

As it has alway been through mankind, Romans 8:14 "they that are led by the Spirit of God are children of God"

But Naturalists say there is no evidence of God. "What God"? "What spiritual realm"? "What Spirit"?

As far as spiritual maturity, people of old were miles ahead of the "greatest naturalists" of our time in understanding the spiritual world and God.

Each time I read statements from Naturalists like "what Spirit" and "there is no evidence" the lack of understanding they have is amazing.

Naturalism has major limitations, some have still not learned what these limitations are, and there ramifications.

 

[Michael]

I by no means see "faith" as a dirty word and I believe everyone utilizes faith in some form or fashion in their lives. Some non-believers immediately hear the word faith and think of faith in God and that may be what you are referring to, but that is a limited use of the term.

When you get into "feeling a presence of God", I don't doubt that some people feel this is real for them and they are entitled to place whatever meaning to that "feeling" for themselves. But, and we have discussed this before, we are really delving into individual psychology and that goes down a completely different path.

You're ultimately arguing that the "cause/effect" relationships of such experiences aren't clear to you personally. That's fine, but that's true of just about any hypothetical form of science. The includes the whole of astronomy today, all aspects of SUSY theory (and all other non standard particle physics theories), and probably most aspects of QM.

The thing is, that there is a direct cause/effect relationship between external EM fields and their effect on humans. Those God helmet experiments show that even human thought can be affected by external EM fields. There is at least a "known mechanism" that could be responsible for causing these internal experiences. That's more than can even be demonstrated for most forms of hypothetical physics.

 

[Michael]

Placebo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike gravitons, even that has a *real* and demonstrated effect on real things. What's your point?

Of course -- but so what? Believing in something doesn't make it so.

Sure, but then that's true for most forms of theoretical physics, including string theory, dark energy, inflation, gravitons, SUSY theory, and probably half of what passes for "physics" today.

Nuclear fusion?

Well, that's certainly *part* of it, just like chemical reactions are *part* of what define humans.

They can make predictions, same as you. Only difference is, they can back theirs up.

Absolutely false. They don't actually make "predictions" in astronomy, they typically make "postdictions" based on a limited data set that ultimately fail more advanced observations, and then they make new postdictions to cover up those failures. They can't even name a source of DE or DM.

For example?

For example, why aren't you personally complaining about astronomers "making up' 4 hypothetical entities *without so much as a shred* of cause/effect support in the lab?

Nope -- that's why it's hypothetical... you see, naturalists tend to be careful in distinguishing between what they know is real and what they think might be real.

They aren't teaching multiple forms of cosmology in college, they teach them *one* theory that apparently now consists of *four* hypothetical entities, all of which have to "help each other" even fit some postdicted observation in space. They teach this stuff as being "the truth" when they create videos on these topics. They don't even make disclaimers in many instances.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

NASA isn't even *positive* that redshift is "caused by" expansion in the first place. They certainly cannot demonstrate "space expansion" in the lab. No source is listed for "dark energy". No source exists for dark matter. They don't even mention the fact that redshift might be caused by something *other than* expansion and acceleration for crying out loud!

Indeed -- they're all in the hypothetical stage, and scientists are working to see if there's evidence to support them. They have ideas, and they're working on them.

They've been "working on" DE now for 20 years and they can't even name a source for the stuff. How hard can they actually be "working" on it? When can I expect real answers to my questions? During my lifetime?

You also have ideas, and you're...?

I'm describing ways to "test" them in real labs with real control mechanisms. That's more than can be said for *many* hypothetical entities.

It must be a different kind of "faith," then -- I've never seen people of religious faith work so hard to find evidence for their beliefs, and be willing to abandon them if something better comes along... they're pretty committed.

What evidence can you present to me to demonstrate that SUSY proponents are willing to give up their faith in SUSY theory? Who's actively rejecting graviton claims only because they have never shown up in a lab?

And yet, it still will never fall into the same level of hokum and superstition that keeps the shamans of our peculiar little tribe in business.

You overestimate "scientists". They're human just like religious folks are human. They have "prestige" to worry about, income to worry about, and they don't necessarily give up their "faith in the unseen" over a few lab failures, or SUSY theory would already be toast by now.

 

[Michael]

"Then of course there are all those 'theists' on planet Earth that outnumber atheists by what, about 20 to 1 or so?"

I believe at one point, everyone believed the world to be flat and it didn't make it true.

There are a myriad of reasons why so many people claim to be theists, but dealing in reality is not something they rely on. The United States has the largest number (% wise) of people who claim to be theists, by far. Other advanced countries have seen the % of theists drop dramatically, some of which now are the minority. Why is this? Well, I will rely on intuition and claim; political pressure, social pressure, lack of free thinking, etc. etc.

The Muslim faith is the only one that has gained traction worldwide in the recent past, all others are seeing their numbers dropping like a rock.

I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but....

List of religious populations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity has gone from a "cult" status about 2000 years ago to being the single largest religion on the planet. Islam (another faith that honors Jesus) is number 2. Between them they account for more than 1/2 the planet.

My point is that the by "scientific" standards the *effect* is often important, but the *cause* is not always demonstrated, and certainly not in a lab in controlled experimentation. You're imposing *greater* requirements on religion, than you are imposing on 'science'. Why?

 

[Michael]

But the spiritual realm in our midst is not going to go away because of Naturalism inability to detect it. It is equivalent to you telling me that the physical world does not exist.

In it's purest sense, "awareness" cannot be detected directly. The *effects* of awareness can certainly be detected of course, but not awareness itself. By that same logic one would need to argue that awareness does not exist in nature.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but....

List of religious populations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity has gone from a "cult" status about 2000 years ago to being the single largest religion on the planet. Islam (another faith that honors Jesus) is number 2. Between them they account for more than 1/2 the planet.

My point is that the by "scientific" standards the *effect* is often important, but the *cause* is not always demonstrated, and certainly not in a lab in controlled experimentation. You're imposing *greater* requirements on religion, than you are imposing on 'science'. Why?

How am I placing greater requirements on religion?

I will look for a source for the data I mentioned and will post it. I have seen several different sources which show in some advanced european countries, theists are now the minority or it is close to 50/50 and this is a trend that has garnered quite a bit of momentum in the last 20-30 years.

I presented reasons why I thought the christianity numbers were so high in the United States. I have no proof of my inducements and are really no different then people claiming "one of the reasons I believe in God is because of the feeling or connection I have with Him".

Lastly, ever claiming that some group out numbers another by 20/1 ever gives them more credibility is a mistake. The reasons for this are obvious.

 

[bhsmte]

In it's purest sense, "awareness" cannot be detected directly. The *effects* of awareness can certainly be detected of course, but not awareness itself. By that same logic one would need to argue that awareness does not exist in nature.

What is your definition of "awareness"?

If it is what I think it is, we are again diving into the realm of personal psychology.

A human being can convince themselves of anything, if they have a strong enough psychological need to do the same and this happens often.

Again, I have no beef with someone who says; "I feel God's presence" etc etc. and it helps me be a better person. If that is the case, I say; go for it, if it makes you a better person. Where I have a problem, is when a person that has this "feeling" claims it is proof that their God exists.

 

[Michael]

What is your definition of "awareness"?

You tell me. Does awareness exist in nature? Virtually anyway that you or I ultimately choose to describe awareness will allow us to look for awareness in the structures of spacetime, as well as the structures of intelligent creatures.

If it is what I think it is, we are again diving into the realm of personal psychology.

Must we? Do I have to know anything about what makes you tick to know that you're "aware"? Can we describe it via physics instead?

A human being can convince themselves of anything, if they have a strong enough psychological need to do the same and this happens often.

Sure, and it can happen with 'atheists' too for that matter. Again however, that isn't really my point. We have a really difficult time even describing awareness, let alone demonstrating that it exists in nature. Meanwhile we all are "aware', and aware of one another. How do we demonstrate that awareness is "real" however? The best we might hope to do is demonstrate it's *effect* on structures of the brain or on Earth.

Again, I have no beef with someone who says; "I feel God's presence" etc etc. and it helps me be a better person. If that is the case, I say; go for it, if it makes you a better person. Where I have a problem, is when a person that has this "feeling" claims it is proof that their God exists.

What are "feelings" if not a sensory input to "awareness"? Again, without a definition of awareness, and without understanding what makes you "believe in" the existence of awareness, I'm not sure how to proceed to give you "evidence" of anything quite frankly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Rather noble to say Naturalists properly distinguish between what is real verses what one might think is real.

It's a thankless job, but it they don't do it, who will?

The evidence only (in the physical) crowd like to stand tall on The Day of The Naturalist.

But the spiritual realm in our midst is not going to go away because of Naturalism inability to detect it. It is equivalent to you telling me that the physical world does not exist.

The difference, of course, being that the physical world does exist, and I can show you that it does.

The burden is on you now to show that this spiritual realm exists -- by whatever means you can.

Thus far, you have failed.

Naturalists are the ones who have the least understanding about the Creator.

Which Creator would that be? literally hundreds of candidates for the title of deus faber have been nominated, but not one has have stepped forward and accepted.

They also, since they fail to see and learn about the spiritual are the ones that have the least understanding about why all the religions of the world exist.

Well, I don't know about them, but I've got a pretty good understanding as to why the religions of the world exist -- and I don't need to believe in any of them in order to see that.

Are you ready to go off-script to discuss this?

 

[Michael]

How am I placing greater requirements on religion?

Do you "lack belief" in SUSY hypotheses, dark energy hypotheses, inflation hypothesis, graviton hypothesis, etc, or just religious ones? What actual physical empirical evidence exists for *any* hypothetical entity in 'science'? Should we stop looking for all of them right now?

I will look for a source for the data I mentioned and will post it. I have seen several different sources which show in some advanced european countries, theists are now the minority or it is close to 50/50 and this is a trend that has garnered quite a bit of momentum in the last 20-30 years.

A reference would help, and keep in mind that someone that lacks belief in a particular "religion" isn't necessarily an "atheist". "Spirituality" has become quite popular in the 'new age'.

I presented reasons why I thought the christianity numbers were so high in the United States. I have no proof of my inducements and are really no different then people claiming "one of the reasons I believe in God is because of the feeling or connection I have with Him".

People get married and stay married to one another for exactly the same reasons actually. Are feelings "real"?

Lastly, ever claiming that some group out numbers another by 20/1 ever gives them more credibility is a mistake. The reasons for this are obvious.

I agree with you that it's ultimately an appeal to popularity falacy without some discussion about the 'realness' of 'feelings'.

 

[Michael]

It's a thankless job, but it they don't do it, who will?

I actually agree with you on that point.

The difference, of course, being that the physical world does exist, and I can show you that it does.

The burden is on you now to show that this spiritual realm exists -- by whatever means you can.

Thus far, you have failed.

Well, that conversation is a non-starter until and unless someone defines 'awareness' and demonstrates that it's "real".

Which Creator would that be? literally hundreds of candidates for the title of deus faber have been nominated, but not one has have stepped forward and accepted.

Why do they need to "step forward"?

 

[bhsmte]

You tell me. Does awareness exist in nature? Virtually anyway that you or I ultimately choose to describe awareness will allow us to look for awareness in the structures of spacetime, as well as the structures of intelligent creatures.

Must we? Do I have to know anything about what makes you tick to know that you're "aware"? Can we describe it via physics instead?

Sure, and it can happen with 'atheists' too for that matter. Again however, that isn't really my point. We have a really difficult time even describing awareness, let alone demonstrating that it exists in nature. Meanwhile we all are "aware', and aware of one another. How do we demonstrate that awareness is "real" however? The best we might hope to do is demonstrate it's *effect* on structures of the brain or on Earth.

What are "feelings" if not a sensory input to "awareness"? Again, without a definition of awareness, and without understanding what makes you "believe in" the existence of awareness, I'm not sure how to proceed to give you "evidence" of anything quite frankly.

In general "awareness" in psychology is one's own perceptions of their surroundings and of their own cognitions.

These things can be impacted quite a bit by each individual psychological needs, when they choose to perceive meaning to something that fits a psychological need (sometimes healthy, sometimes not so healthy).

Can non-believers have perceptions to meet their own psychological needs? Absolutely they can. We all use one of the most powerful defense mechanisms known to psychology to some degree - denial. When presented with evidence that an individuals perceptions are wrong, some will battle at first, but eventually accept the evidence, some will battle longer and try to rationalize the evidence away, but eventually accept the evidence, while others, will not only reject the evidence, but dig in further and rationalize (in an unhealthy way) all sorts of twisted perceptions are correct and all the evidence is either a conspiracy or is simply all wrong.

If we have lived long enough, we have all met people that fit into those categories.

 

[Michael]

In general "awareness" in psychology is one's own perceptions of their surroundings and of their own cognitions.

How ever we choose to define it, it has to allow for and include aware "creatures", not just humans. Humans are certainly not the only creatures to experience 'awareness', and respond to their environment in an intelligent manner. Even single celled organisms figure out how to select a balanced diet, and how to anticipate and respond to changes in their environment. Human awareness is simply an "extreme case" of awareness.

These things can be impacted quite a bit by each individual psychological needs, when they choose to perceive meaning to something that fits a psychological need (sometimes healthy, sometimes not so healthy).

I'd really rather we move completely aware from psychology since awareness is not limited to humans.

I'd rather we not even get into the psychological aspects of belief systems until and unless we can define "awareness" at a rudimentary level that is *inclusive* of awareness that is observed in all life forms, not just humans.