Finding limitations in Naturalism

[TLK Valentine]

That's a question you must answer from within your own presuppositions, one of which I stated in my last sentence.

John
NZ

A simple "I don't know" will suffice.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a question you must answer from within your own presuppositions, one of which I stated in my last sentence.

John
NZ

The reason is that facts are objective and can be discovered regardless of beliefs or social influences.

 

[Paulos23]

How then can you claim 'truth' or even 'evidence' when all that comes from some socially conditioned neuro/chemical process, since there is nothing beyond matter?

John
NZ

I don't know what deffinition for truth you are using, but evidence has to be observable and/or repeatable. Simple really.

I have yet to see any supernatural claim meet that.

And yes our brains are a mess of chemicals and cells, but we can get our stuff together long enogh to follow scientific methods to show what is real and was is unconfirmed. It isn't that hard of a concept, unless you are holding onto some preconceved concepts.

 

[Johnnz]

The reason is that facts are objective and can be discovered regardless of beliefs or social influences.

It's not that straightforward. At a simple level a description (or definition) tells us something about the subject (weight, composition etc). But if we conclude "That's all that needs to be said about it" we deny explanation of questions relating to its origins and meaning. For example, we can analyse a rock scientifically. But people can see it as a sacred object i.e. it has a value above its mere composition, or as part of a spiritual manifestation animism), merely as a product of chance events (materialism), an illusion as in some eastern beliefs, or as a component of a creation. Those beliefs are deeply and anciently rooted and cannot be cast aside, as naturalism that denies any supernatural realm does.

In addition Christians, who do accept a supernatural realm state very clearly that the scientific method cannot subject what is above the natural to that criteria, by definition; that is not the realm of science. Other criteria are needed, the historical being one. But then naturalism relies on history too. Evolution, geology or paleontology work with historical data.

Epistemology is about how we know anything. An inherent circularity within any purely 'natural' explanation of things requires belief in the capability of the human intellect to achieve that. But that requires the use of reason to begin with, hence its circularity, the use of reason justifies reason itself. Generally, replies from naturalists here begs that issue.

John
NZ

 

[rjw]

Evolution, geology or paleontology work with historical data.

I think that these rely on plain old data. It's the same kind of stuff that all of science relies on.

For example, scientists claim that the earth has a semi-molten core. No one has directly observed this. It's only "known" from data we observe which we think derives from a semi-molten core.

And so it is with palaeontology. When we see a fossil, we observe it in the present and as an example of data, we think it derives from a once living organism. But like the earth's semi-molten core, that living animal is not observed.


So it's hard to know how the supernatural can be included into scientific descriptions in any meaningful way. If the supernatural does exist, then the rules by which it operates are completely unknown, as far as I can tell. Hence a scientific discourse using it is beyond the capability of any human. But with nature on the other hand, it's hard to deny its reality, and it's hard to deny that there are many things we know about it and how it operates. Given this, we can reasonably used this knowledge to explain things we see in nature. This has certainly allowed us to apply that knowledge to make things like computers (which rely on quantum mechanics), telescopes (which rely on optics), better antennas and turbines (which rely on evolutionary algorithms) etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not that straightforward. At a simple level a description (or definition) tells us something about the subject (weight, composition etc). But if we conclude "That's all that needs to be said about it" we deny explanation of questions relating to its origins and meaning. For example, we can analyse a rock scientifically. But people can see it as a sacred object i.e. it has a value above its mere composition, or as part of a spiritual manifestation animism), merely as a product of chance events (materialism), an illusion as in some eastern beliefs, or as a component of a creation. Those beliefs are deeply and anciently rooted and cannot be cast aside, as naturalism that denies any supernatural realm does.

Why can't we cast them aside? The last 500 years has seen the systematic replacement of supernatural explanations with natural explanations. The technology you use today is a product of moving past supernatural explanations and looking for real working explanations that have nothing to do with superstition.

When you have an infection do you go to a doctor to get antibiotics, or offer burnt offerings to a god? Which has been shown to be more effective?

In addition Christians, who do accept a supernatural realm state very clearly that the scientific method cannot subject what is above the natural to that criteria, by definition;

They can claim it all they want, but it doesn't make it true. If the supernatural causes changes in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. If the supernatural has no effect on anything then it is irrelevant.

Other criteria are needed, the historical being one. But then naturalism relies on history too. Evolution, geology or paleontology work with historical data.

Naturalism works with empirical data, period. It doesn't matter if that empirical evidence was produced 4 billion years ago or 4 minutes ago, it is all empirical evidence.

What naturalism does not use is myths written by men about history.

Epistemology is about how we know anything.

So how can we know if something is true or not if we do not use evidence? If we simply accept every claim as true then how can we know anything?

Knowledge requires finding things that are true. This can't occur if you are not allowed to challenge an idea as Heissonear wants.

An inherent circularity within any purely 'natural' explanation of things requires belief in the capability of the human intellect to achieve that. But that requires the use of reason to begin with, hence its circularity, the use of reason justifies reason itself.

Results justify the method. Naturalism works. Supernaturalism doesn't.

 

[Johnnz]

I think that these rely on plain old data. It's the same kind of stuff that all of science relies on.
But it is historical nevertheless. Thus normal historical criteria are necessary, as it is with Christian claims
.
So it's hard to know how the supernatural can be included into scientific descriptions in any meaningful way. If the supernatural does exist, then the rules by which it operates are completely unknown, as far as I can tell. Hence a scientific discourse using it is beyond the capability of any human.

They cannot be as I have said previously. That is a limitation of the scientific method. Other just as valid criteria are necessary.

But with nature on the other hand, it's hard to deny its reality, and it's hard to deny that there are many things we know about it and how it operates. Given this, we can reasonably used this knowledge to explain things we see in nature. This has certainly allowed us to apply that knowledge to make things like computers (which rely on quantum mechanics), telescopes (which rely on optics), better antennas and turbines (which rely on evolutionary algorithms) etc.

That is entirely consist with Christian belief. We accept the reality and significance of nature, but don't attribute it to some chance event. In fact it was the principles enunciated by some Cappadocean Fathers that provided the basis for later scientific discoveries that became part of Western civilisation.

John
NZ

 

[Loudmouth]

But it is historical nevertheless. Thus normal historical criteria are necessary, as it is with Christian claims

It is empirical which is a bit different than the type of historical criteria that historians use. Scientific theories do not rely on man made accounts of events. Rather, they rely on repeatable experiments that produce the same data for everyone.

They cannot be as I have said previously. That is a limitation of the scientific method.

Why is it a limitation to remove things that can't be shown to exist?

 

[Johnnz]

Why can't we cast them aside? The last 500 years has seen the systematic replacement of supernatural explanations with natural explanations. The technology you use today is a product of moving past supernatural explanations and looking for real working explanations that have nothing to do with superstition.

Some of that is true. But the jump from describing natural 'laws' to stating that's all that exists is a philosophical projection, not a scientific fact. As such philosophical criteria will need to be employed, not merely an appeal to data.

They can claim it all they want, but it doesn't make it true. If the supernatural causes changes in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. If the supernatural has no effect on anything then it is irrelevant.

Its effects can, but not the source itself. And if you doubt a supernatural source then that cannot happen anyway as an a priori presumption..

Naturalism works with empirical data, period. It doesn't matter if that empirical evidence was produced 4 billion years ago or 4 minutes ago, it is all empirical evidence.

So does legitimate involvement is science by Christians - same data,same evaluation, except for denial of God as creator of what we observe.

What naturalism does not use is myths written by men about history.

Simplistic assumption, no more than the modern myths of a purely material universe.

So how can we know if something is true or not if we do not use evidence? If we simply accept every claim as true then how can we know anything?

Different data requires different method and evidence. You cannot objectively 'prove' what any personal emotion actually feels like to you. Are you emotions then meaningless?

Knowledge requires finding things that are true. This can't occur if you are not allowed to challenge an idea as Heissonear wants.

No sensible Christian would deny that; most of us are committed to that principle.

Results justify the method. Naturalism works. Supernaturalism doesn't.

Really? Hitler's efficient gas chambers justified them? Nature 'works' according to divine design, naturalism is merely a philosophical position some people adopt.

John
NZ

 

[HitchSlap]

Really? Hitler's efficient gas chambers justified them? Nature 'works' according to divine design, naturalism is merely a philosophical position some people adopt.

John
NZ

Cue Godwin.

 

[Loudmouth]

First off, put quote tags around the stuff you want to quote so that we don't have to dig into the previous post.

Some of that is true. But the jump from describing natural 'laws' to stating that's all that exists is a philosophical projection, not a scientific fact. As such philosophical criteria will need to be employed, not merely an appeal to data.

According to Heissonear, not criteria should be used. As soon as we have criteria we are going to limit what can be considered to be true and this creates limits. Instead, according to Heissonear's argument, we should just accept every single claim as true and not question any of it.

Its effects can, but not the source itself. And if you doubt a supernatural source then that cannot happen anyway as an a priori presumption..

We don't know the source for gravity, yet we have no trouble studying the effects of gravity through naturalism. Scientists for years did not know the source for the electromagnetic force and yet they had no problem using naturalism to study it. If the supernatural has effects in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. Period.

So does legitimate involvement is science by Christians - same data,same evaluation, except for denial of God as creator of what we observe.

Try to find God or the supernatural anywhere in their scientific papers. I was trained by christian scientists, and know many of them. They all are able to understand the difference between their faith based beliefs and their scientific conclusions.

Simplistic assumption, no more than the modern myths of a purely material universe.

Then please show us evidence of the supernatural.

Different data requires different method and evidence. You cannot objectively 'prove' what any personal emotion actually feels like to you. Are you emotions then meaningless?

We can objectively measure blood flow in the brain and objectively measure the levels of neurotransmitters. We can demonstrate that emotions are real physical things, and we can do that through the use of naturalism.

The supernatural is an invention created by apologists. It is a bucket they think they can put ideas in and not have those ideas challenged. Any claim that they want to be true without challenge they claim it is part of the supernatural. It isn't because they can demonstrate that it is supernatural. They just don't want it questioned.

No sensible Christian would deny that; most of us are committed to that principle.

According to Heissonear, the very second that an epistemology has criteria for what is and isn't true that method is limited.

Really? Hitler's efficient gas chambers justified them? Nature 'works' according to divine design, naturalism is merely a philosophical position some people adopt.

John
NZ

Are you saying that the gas chambers didn't work? Are you saying that the Jews were killed by the supernatural?

Name a single explanation for a phenomenon in nature that has been verified to be caused by the supernatural. Just one.

 

[Shemjaza]

Really? Hitler's efficient gas chambers justified them? Nature 'works' according to divine design, naturalism is merely a philosophical position some people adopt.

Sure, if your goal is "murder a whole bunch of people", then gas chambers do the trick. The fact that they were built with only evil goals in mind doesn't make them not work.

 

[Johnnz]

According to Heissonear, not criteria should be used. As soon as we have criteria we are going to limit what can be considered to be true and this creates limits. Instead, according to Heissonear's argument, we should just accept every single claim as true and not question any of it.

Then why no accept what we are saying as true? I'm not sure many scientists would agree with his on that.

We don't know the source for gravity, yet we have no trouble studying the effects of gravity through naturalism. Scientists for years did not know the source for the electromagnetic force and yet they had no problem using naturalism to study it. If the supernatural has effects in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. Period.

Again, some imprecise thinking. Christians have no issue with science.

Then please show us evidence of the supernatural.

This is getting tiresome. It seems many of your ilk cannot engage is debate beyond repetition of your mantras. You seldom respond to the wider issues raised by them.
There is no genuine debate, just repetitive statement

We can objectively measure blood flow in the brain and objectively measure the levels of neurotransmitters. We can demonstrate that emotions are real physical things, and we can do that through the use of naturalism.

The supernatural is an invention created by apologists. It is a bucket they think they can put ideas in and not have those ideas challenged. Any claim that they want to be true without challenge they claim it is part of the supernatural. It isn't because they can demonstrate that it is supernatural. They just don't want it questioned.

How do you attach meaning to blood flow? That is the issue. If our knowledge is merely some physical occurrence then all we have is sensation but no 'objective' meaning.

Invention only? that last statement is but an opinion.


According to Heissonear, the very second that an epistemology has criteria for what is and isn't true that method is limited.

Apply that argument to your position.

Are you saying that the gas chambers didn't work? Are you saying that the Jews were killed by the supernatural?

You do have difficulty understanding some things

John
NZ

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why no accept what we are saying as true?

Because I do not subscribe to Heissonear's failed epistemology. I am suspecting you don't either. Do you accept the claim that the Hindu pantheon is real?

Again, some

imprecise thinking. Christians have no issue with science.

Heissonear does.

This is getting tiresome. It seems many of your ilk cannot engage is debate beyond repetition of your mantras. You seldom respond to the wider issues raised by them.
There is no genuine debate, just repetitive statement

How can their be a debate when you have no argument? A debate requires evidence. A debate can not occur when one side says that you must believe what they say is true without any logic, reason, or evidence to back it up. The debate starts with "Let me see your evidence". The very fact that you can not get past this very basic requirement says a lot.

How do you attach meaning to blood flow? That is the issue. If our knowledge is merely some physical occurrence then all we have is sensation but no 'objective' meaning.

Yes, it is called fMRI, or functional magnetic resonance imaging. What they have found is that specific thoughts have specific patterns of brain function which can be measured by blood flow. Given enough time with one patient they can actually predict what a person is thinking by looking at their fRMI results.

Invention only? that last statement is but an opinion.

Since no one can show the supernatural is real what would you like me to call it?

Apply that argument to your position.

I have, throughout this thread.

You do have difficulty understanding some things

John
NZ

No, that difficulty is yours. I am saying that naturalism works. You pointed to working gas chambers as a refutation, a rather failed one at that. Do you think those gas chambers killed people because of supernaturalism? Or were they designed using naturalism?

Simply pointing to immoral uses of naturalism does not refute the point that naturalism works. You might as well say that guns don't work by pointing to instances where they were used in murders.

 

[Michael]

Why can't we cast them aside? The last 500 years has seen the systematic replacement of supernatural explanations with natural explanations.

Except in the field of astronomy, where it's gone completely in the opposite direction over the past 40 years.

Define "supernatural". Are we suggesting that anything not (yet) seen in the lab, "supernatural"? Gravitons? SUSY sparticles?

What naturalism does not use is myths written by men about history.

Actually, it does use historical documents.

So how can we know if something is true or not if we do not use evidence? If we simply accept every claim as true then how can we know anything?

Hold tight for "curvatons" coming to a universe near you.

Results justify the method. Naturalism works. Supernaturalism doesn't.

Which is exactly why none of the "hypothetical" parts of physics seem to show up in the lab.

If "naturalism" equates to pure experimental physics, half of physics, they hypothetical half, amounts to nothing more than human superstition and "supernaturalism" on a stick.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except in the field of astronomy, where it's gone completely in the opposite direction over the past 40 years.

Trotting out the one trick pony, are we?

Define "supernatural".

The actions of deities.

Are we suggesting that anything not (yet) seen in the lab, "supernatural"? Gravitons? SUSY sparticles?

No, we are talking about sane ideas, not your perversions of the scientific method. You do realize that there is a real world outside of the lab, right? You do realize that naturalists study that real world outside of the lab, right?

Actually, it does use historical documents.

How.

Hold tight for "curvatons" coming to a universe near you.

Get ready for Michael's usual list of denial and diversions to cover up his false and refuted ideas.

Which is exactly why none of the "hypothetical" parts of physics seem to show up in the lab.

Except that it does, but you refuse to admit it.

 

[Michael]

Trotting out the one trick pony, are we?

Like your "supernatural' gig isn't a "one trick pony" routine? Like I said, physics was never limited to "naturalism", and it's unlikely to be limited by "naturalism" anytime soon. That isn't to say it *couldn't* be, but it's not. To then expect "religion" to show and demonstrate that all it's "hypothetical" entities show up in the lab, is nothing but a two bit double standard IMO. You can't have it both ways. Even I'm simply sticking to "naturalism" to define and explain "God".

No, we are talking about sane ideas, not your perversions of the scientific method. You do realize that there is a real world outside of the lab, right? You do realize that naturalists study that real world outside of the lab, right?

It's amusing to watch you attempt to impose "lab standards" on God, yet completely ignore such standards as it relates to physics. Double standard much? When did any hypothetical entity in physics show up in controlled experimentation?

How.

3,000-year-old artifacts reveal history behind biblical David and Goliath - NBC News.com

Get ready for Michael's usual list of denial and diversions to cover up his false and refuted ideas.

Who me? Nah. I'm waiting for someone to define awareness (besides me) so we can discuss "spirituality".

Except that it does, but you refuse to admit it.

Show me *experimental* support for SUSY theory or for gravitons, inflation, dark energy, curvatons, yada yada yada. Such support simply does not exist. the hypothetical entities of physics demonstrate that "science' is not limited strictly to "naturalism". Holy Cow! Even by mainstream standards "inflation" may not even exist in nature anymore, if it *ever* did.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like your "supernatural' gig isn't a "one trick pony" routine?

Again, more deflection to steer people away from the vacuity of your claims.

To then expect "religion" to show and demonstrate that all it's "hypothetical" entities show up in the lab, is nothing but a two bit double standard IMO.

You ignore the empirical observations that occur outside of the lab, as usual. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Nowhere. Let me repeat. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Is that clear enough, Michael? Do I need to repeat it again? Are you so simple that you can not fathom this concept?

It's amusing to watch you attempt to impose "lab standards" on God,

I am asking for EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. That does not confine it to the lab. it never has. Let me repeat again. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Let me say it once more. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab.

3,000-year-old artifacts reveal history behind biblical David and Goliath - NBC News.com

Yes, just as I can find the lumbering history in the upper midwest that surrounds the mythos of Paul Bunyan. I can also study the Celtic history that surrounds the mythos of Leprechauns.

Who me? Nah. I'm waiting for someone to define awareness (besides me) so we can discuss "spirituality".

The rest of us are in the real world working with these things called facts. You should try it.

Show me *experimental* support for SUSY theory or for gravitons, inflation, dark energy, curvatons, yada yada yada.

Already done to death in other threads. Each and every time you are supplied empirical evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

According to Heissonear, not criteria should be used. As soon as we have criteria we are going to limit what can be considered to be true and this creates limits. Instead, according to Heissonear's argument, we should just accept every single claim as true and not question any of it.

Then why no accept what we are saying as true? I'm not sure many scientists would agree with his on that.

We don't know the source for gravity, yet we have no trouble studying the effects of gravity through naturalism. Scientists for years did not know the source for the electromagnetic force and yet they had no problem using naturalism to study it. If the supernatural has effects in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. Period.

Again, some imprecise thinking. Christians have no issue with science.

Then please show us evidence of the supernatural.

This is getting tiresome. It seems many of your ilk cannot engage is debate beyond repetition of your mantras. You seldom respond to the wider issues raised by them.
There is no genuine debate, just repetitive statement

We can objectively measure blood flow in the brain and objectively measure the levels of neurotransmitters. We can demonstrate that emotions are real physical things, and we can do that through the use of naturalism.

The supernatural is an invention created by apologists. It is a bucket they think they can put ideas in and not have those ideas challenged. Any claim that they want to be true without challenge they claim it is part of the supernatural. It isn't because they can demonstrate that it is supernatural. They just don't want it questioned.

How do you attach meaning to blood flow? That is the issue. If our knowledge is merely some physical occurrence then all we have is sensation but no 'objective' meaning.

Invention only? that last statement is but an opinion.


According to Heissonear, the very second that an epistemology has criteria for what is and isn't true that method is limited.

Apply that argument to your position.

Are you saying that the gas chambers didn't work? Are you saying that the Jews were killed by the supernatural?

You do have difficulty understanding some things

John
NZ

I would have to disagree. Many christians have a problem with science, the same way they have a problem with anyone scrutinizing the bible.

 

[Heissonear]

Some of the "Heissonear said“ in the latter discussions does not appear to be accurate, but if that is what you think I meant so be it.

Keep in mind when I say "what is physical is physical", God created the physical that can be examined and explained by todays natural sciences. Eyeglasses, satellites, NMR instruments, and the like are for our discovery, development, and use. Our natural intellect has great value in this present life.

Most embedded things in the physical to be discovered and used by society have "spiritual shadow" implications from the Creator.

It is the limitations of Naturalism, the observation and detection of only the physical that is problematic. A whole other dimension of existence is unrecognized and said to not exist.

There definitely needs to be balance, for am I not physical and not only spiritual in this day and age on earth? And subject to the same human experiences and limitations?