Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Tomk80]

Let's go back 200 years . . .

200 years ago we had no idea what caused Anthrax. We had no naturalistic explanation for this disease. Heissonear would call this a limitation of Naturalism because we had no naturalistic explanation or even evidence for a natural cause.

Is this true? Nope. We actually used naturalism to find the cause of Anthrax, and even more we used naturalism again to find a cure for Anthrax.

Again and again Heissonear fails to understand the difference between the limitations of humans and the limitations of naturalism.

He also keeps pretending that realizing your limitations is a weakness. It is not.

 

[Loudmouth]

He also keeps pretending that realizing your limitations is a weakness. It is not.

Also a very important point. How do we know which questions to ask if we can not determine what we are ignorant of? If we just decide that God does something in a manner that we will never understand, will we ever start researching that topic? If we just decided that God makes lightning, why would we ever do any research to find the real answer?

I would like to add that creating criteria for what is and isn't knowledge is also a strength, not a weakness. An epistemology that accepts anything as true is not an epistemology worth having.

 

[durangodawood]

...The dogma of "evidence only" has made Fundamental Naturalism very confined.....

What are the other ways of knowing the world?

 

[Tomk80]

Also a very important point. How do we know which questions to ask if we can not determine what we are ignorant of? If we just decide that God does something in a manner that we will never understand, will we ever start researching that topic? If we just decided that God makes lightning, why would we ever do any research to find the real answer?

I would like to add that creating criteria for what is and isn't knowledge is also a strength, not a weakness. An epistemology that accepts anything as true is not an epistemology worth having.

Indeed. And in fact, Heissonear seems to recognize this and tries to avoid it. Otherwise, he would have tried some hand at the answer how we know things otherwise by now. The fact that he hasn't is quite telling, in my opinion.

 

[Mr Clean]

I appreciate this particular reply. I've asked a few straight forward questions but have had this and only a couple of others that gave a straight to the point reply.

Limited by lack of information is basically where as Naturalist we find ourselves. Like limitation of information about the origin of this universe. As a Naturalist we have a reply. We cannot lay out straight forward facts. We have no evidence. It is a position we cannot definitively state and know for certain.

An a Naturalist my reply would be like yours. It would center on the physial has always been or has not. If it has not I would have no confidence or proof for why not.

Being a true to heart Naturalist I would question other possibilities. I have no foundation of truth to stand on to explain. But know one or the other has occurred.

Notice I have not inserted a Creator or need for a God up to this point. That is not the upbringing or pivot point for Naturalists. It appears like the last resort, which is factual. Why take a leap towards a Higher Life cause?

I appreciate your reply.

I think I see where you are trying to go with this. And I think I understand your basic limitations of naturalism concept. I don't disagree, for example, that we don't know about the origins of the universe. We have theories, yes, but the collectible information we have at this time is not enough to answer the question for us. I will add here though that does not preclude us from knowing some day. We add knowledge (or update it) everyday. As I like to say - science is a path, not a destination.

But at a basic level I can say that our current knowledge is limited, and our ability to understand may also be limited.

I would further agree that, as a naturalist, I have to be open to the possibility, howeve remote, of another explanation. Can I say with 100% certainty that there is no god? No, I cannot. Can I say with 100% certainty that the universe was not "created". No, I cannot.

You go on to say that "one or the other has occurred". And here, I believe, is where your argument falls apart, because who says naturalism and creationism are the only two possiblities? To carry on from my previous paragraph, can we say that the Hindu version of creation as found in the Vedas is 100% impossible? No, we can't do that. To be fair, we can't rule out Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, or the idea of a big blue snail named Craig creating the universe. We could have a naturalist universe that has always been, or one that started at the Big Bang, and each of those could either end one day, or go on forever. See how quickly the possibilities mount? At this point you can't say no to ANYTHING...

But if you are a true to heart naturalist, you can't consider that which has no evidence of being in the first place. A naturalist follows the data. The data, to date, does not lead us to a creationism/mythology/big blue snail start for the universe, the Earth, or mankind. To consider something else would be mean you have to stop being a naturalist.

Which is why the rest of your post shows that you aren't a naturalist...

The foundation of Naturalism has no solid facts. No information or proof the physical has always been. It could have been created.

The replies stating it would be pretending is to me avoiding the weak position they have.

There is no need to pretend. We can be open about our limitations.

I guess when some are use to proving off-center religious people incorrect that there is a carry over in discussion about their position: facts and weaknesses.

Naturalism does have facts. We do have empirical evidence, in the form of data collected. We don't have all of it (I've already admitted to the limitations), but we do have some. Compare that to any other concept. There is no data that shows a creationism beginning, or a mythological one.

And if naturalism is limited, which it is, isn't creationism even MORE limited? If we say naturalism is limited because of what we don't know or may never know, then creationism is impossible because we know nothing and don't know if we ever will.

I am just following your logic on this Hiess, trying to take it to a logical conclusion.

Naturalism is limited because our information is limited. Creationism is impossible because we have no information at all...

 

[Greg1234]

MrClean: "But if you are a true to heart naturalist, you can't consider that which has no evidence of being in the first place. A naturalist follows the data."

A materialist builds his own data, his own world, for himself. Materialism distances you from God, therefore your world will consist of ever-deeping physical experinces which you apply to the world at large, including theism. Alternatively, theism brings you closer to God and consists also of what people describe as spiritual experiences or experiences contrary to materialism's endowment. So when a materialist follows the data, its best you realize what you are saying. What I was asking materialists here is what propelled materialism to the point of supremacy where gains from the materialistic lifestyle became the primary arbiter of the information.

 

[BarryDesborough]

MrClean: "But if you are a true to heart naturalist, you can't consider that which has no evidence of being in the first place. A naturalist follows the data."

A materialist builds his own data, his own world, for himself. Materialism distances you from God, therefore your world will consist of ever-deeping physical experinces which you apply to the world at large, including theism. Alternatively, theism brings you closer to God and consists also of what people describe as spiritual experiences or experiences contrary to materialism's endowment. So when a materialist follows the data, its best you realize what you are saying. What I was asking materialists here is what propelled materialism to the point of supremacy where gains from the materialistic lifestyle became the primary arbiter of the information.

A materialist, like a non-materialist, gathers data. It's the same data.

Your last remark makes me wonder if you are confusing philosophical materialism (the notion that the material, physical world is all there is) with materialism as in the tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than other values.

 

[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.

The Points in the first post have been updated. Team N has been learning about their limitations on the fly. They appear to be debaters. They strongly oppose and avoid the possibilities of a Creator.

We hear replies from Atheistic Naturalists rather than those who are more open to other possibilities in relation to the limitations of Naturalism.

 

[durangodawood]

...Team N has been learning about their limitations on the fly. They appear to be debaters.....

You appear to be a preacher. Telling, rather than discussing.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The Points in the first post have been updated. Team N has been learning about their limitations on the fly. They appear to be debaters. They strongly oppose and avoid the possibilities of a Creator.

We hear replies from Atheistic Naturalists rather than those who are more open to other possibilities in relation to the limitations of Naturalism.

Do you believe in Russell's Teapot?

 

[CabVet]

They strongly oppose and avoid the possibilities of a Creator.

No, they do not. They are completely open to the existence of a creator, they just see zero evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You appear to be a preacher. Telling, rather than discussing.

Very true. And the worst kind: a blind and deaf one.

Heissonear's misapprehension that he is imparting something for our benefit is blinding him to the errors in his own thinking and deafening him to any replies correcting him. This means his posts are little more than print outs from a loop containing the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Maybe if you start with one. None of these seem well thought out or presented. What is your source?

 

[Heissonear]

Tangents lead to off-thread topic discussion. Most replies have been tangents to avoid answering the Points 1-9.

No tangents, please, on this thread.

I was raised and formally educated in Evolution and Naturalism. Most replies have been not even close and most are spontaneous replies that have showed their still needing to learn about the limitations of Naturalism.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message is common debate tactics. So spare the readers your methodology of avoiding the Points.

 

[Davian]

Tangents lead to off-thread topic discussion. Most replies have been tangents to avoid answering the Points 1-9.

No tangents, please, on this thread.

I was raised and formally educated in Evolution and Naturalism. Most replies have been not even close and most are spontaneous replies that have showed their still needing to learn about the limitations of Naturalism.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message is common debate tactics. So spare the readers your methodology of avoiding the Points.

A "debate" is where one responds to the others' posts and questions. Perhaps you were unclear on the concept.

 

[durangodawood]

Tangents lead to off-thread topic discussion. Most replies have been tangents to avoid answering the Points 1-9.

No tangents, please, on this thread.

I was raised and formally educated in Evolution and Naturalism. Most replies have been not even close and most are spontaneous replies that have showed their still needing to learn about the limitations of Naturalism.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message is common debate tactics. So spare the readers your methodology of avoiding the Points.

Message was disputed. You repeatedly failed to respond. What do you expect?

 

[Heissonear]

No, they do not. They are completely open to the existence of a creator, they just see zero evidence for it, a lot of evidence against it.

Nice try to present openness.

You continue to show all how confined the domain of Naturalism is! Evidence please! But you have no evidence for countering Points 3-9. None. Again, no evidence. None.

How about that apparent firm foundation on which NaturalismI is built upon? Getting weaker? Will you need to resort to logic since you have no evidence?

 

[Heissonear]

Message was disputed. You repeatedly failed to respond. What do you expect?

Nice try. You actually think that the message - Points 3-9 - were answered? The Points were disputed?

Have you learned the limitations of Naturalism? If so list them out!

 

[Heissonear]

A "debate" is where one responds to the others' posts and questions. Perhaps you were unclear on the concept.

Then reply to the Points in Post #1.

Attempting to answer is all you have done. Attempts.

 

[Heissonear]

Very true. And the worst kind: a blind and deaf one.

Heissonear's misapprehension that he is imparting something for our benefit is blinding him to the errors in his own thinking and deafening him to any replies correcting him. This means his posts are little more than print outs from a loop containing the same mistakes over and over again.

Since you state you are not blind then answer the Points in Post #1. You have not answered them. It appears you do not think Naturalism has any limitations. Other than NO EVIDENCE of the origin of this physical world!

You may need to ponder this. For blindness sakes!