Naturalism ... a self-refuting argument?

[Oneofthediaspora]

Firstly, my understanding is that naturalism is the philosophical argument that all phenomena can (theoretically) be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. (I used wikipaedia for this).

Is that how others see it or would you add anything to this?

 

[cantata]

That sounds about right.

Naturalism essentially entails the rejection of any concepts of supernatural entities, such as gods, angels, demons, spirits, &c.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

That sounds about right.

Naturalism essentially entails the rejection of any concepts of supernatural entities, such as gods, angels, demons, spirits, &c.

Thanks for that.
I was wary of defining it by what it rejects because these things tend to muddy the waters.

Any more addenda before we continue?

 

[quatona]

A proper definition of "natural" (as well as "unnatural", "extranatural", "supernatural", subnatural", "non-natural", "pre-natural", "post-natural", "meta-natural" "hypernatural", hyponatural" or whatever terms you are planning to contrast "natural" with) as it will be used for purpose of this discussion would come in handy before you continue.
It appears to be the keyterm here, after all.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

A proper definition of "natural" (as well as "unnatural", "extranatural", "supernatural", subnatural", "non-natural", "pre-natural", "post-natural", "meta-natural" "hypernatural", hyponatural" or whatever terms you are planning to contrast "natural" with) as it will be used for purpose of this discussion would come in handy before you continue.
It appears to be the keyterm here, after all.

Go on then ... fire away!

 

[quatona]

In an hommage to the cosmological argument as presented over in the other thread, we might posit that there are things that exist and things that don´t exist. Those things that exist we call "natural".
Conclusion: Nothing non-natural can exist.
:-D

 

[quatona]

Go on then ... fire away!

Me? Why me?? It´s your thread/topic. I´m just trying to help preventing the worst.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I gave my definition. I asked if it was clear enough and invited addenda.
You think it might be lacking.
I asked you to expand oin how it might be lacking.
This seems rather straightforward to me.

 

[Chesterton]

Here's a prediction: this thread will never get beyond trying to agree on definitions of "natural" or "naturalism". Because if a naturalist admits to almost any definition other than quatona's, he or she automatically admits that the idea self-refutes.

Quatona's definition is "if I can't see it through a telescope or microscope, it doesn't exist". That is, until more powerful telescopes and microscopes are built; in that case, the supernatural (non-existent) magically becomes natural (existent). Reality seems to have a way of doing magic tricks like that.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I reckon I could still have a fair crack at quatona's defininiton but I want to know if he/she wishes to refine it first.

 

[cantata]

Can I have a stab at "natural"?

The natural is that which is composed of matter and energy.

(I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this one.)

 

[The Nihilist]

Oh my goodness, I find myself in agreement with Chesterton. While this would normally cause me to completely reevaluate my life (as would he if our situations were reversed, I'm sure), let me instead suggest an alternative definition of naturalism: that all phenomena can (theoretically) be explained in terms of the behaviour and interaction of matter and energy.

 

[Freodin]

Here's a prediction: this thread will never get beyond trying to agree on definitions of "natural" or "naturalism". Because if a naturalist admits to almost any definition other than quatona's, he or she automatically admits that the idea self-refutes.

Quatona's definition is "if I can't see it through a telescope or microscope, it doesn't exist". That is, until more powerful telescopes and microscopes are built; in that case, the supernatural (non-existent) magically becomes natural (existent). Reality seems to have a way of doing magic tricks like that.

Somehow I don´t think that "telescopes or microscopes" are the ultima ratio in detecting the "natural". But it might be a good approximation.

Especially if you use it to define the "supernatural"... that would then be "can not be verified or falsified by any means at all".

BTW, a few years ago there was a very intelligent and very conservative christian here on this board who agreed to exactly this definition: if it exists, it is natural. I have to see if I can find some old threads to remind me of his name.

 

[quatona]

Here's a prediction: this thread will never get beyond trying to agree on definitions of "natural" or "naturalism".

That´s my expectation, as well.

Because if a naturalist admits to almost any definition other than quatona's, he or she automatically admits that the idea self-refutes.

Hang on bro. It´s not my definition, ok? It was the attempt at a parody on defining something into existence or accuracy modeled after certain elements of the cosmological argument for god´s existence.

Quatona's definition is "if I can't see it through a telescope or microscope, it doesn't exist".

No, neither is that my definition nor was it the definition I gave in my post nor is it implied by this definition. Try to improve your reading comprehension and try not to put words in my mouth, please.

That is, until more powerful telescopes and microscopes are built; in that case, the supernatural (non-existent) magically becomes natural (existent).

No, that which always has been natural finally becomes visible.
Excuse me, but what do you see as the alternative to accepting things we can see through the microscope as being natural? That we keep considering things we can see through new and better microscopes "supernatural" because once we couldn´t see them?
How about "everything we can see with our bare eyes is natural and that for which we need a microscope to see is supernatural"? Or what?

Reality seems to have a way of doing magic tricks like that.

Nonsense.

 

[quatona]

Can I have a stab at "natural"?

The natural is that which is composed of matter and energy.

(I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this one.)

How the heck can a definition be proved wrong?

I am fine with basing the discussion on this definition if everyone (and especially those who call themselves naturalists) agree with it.

If working from this definition: Is e.g. a thought natural, is a feeling natural? No doubt they are caused by matter and energy, but are they composed of matter and energy?
And if for arguments sake assuming they are not natural, would we have to call them supernatural? Why? Whence the hierarchy?

 

[quatona]

let me instead suggest an alternative definition of naturalism: that all phenomena can (theoretically) be explained in terms of the behaviour and interaction of matter and energy.

Sounds concise and sufficiently close to what I know about naturalism.
Can you help with the following question:
What will we call those things that - hypothetically - do not fall in this category "natural"? Why should we call them supernatural (as opposed to, say, non-natural or unnatural)?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Everything is matter or energy or that which emerges from/or as a result of matter and energy.
Is that any good?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Sounds concise and sufficiently close to what I know about naturalism.

Me too.
So we're good to go.

 

[Nathan45]

Firstly, my understanding is that naturalism is the philosophical argument that all phenomena can (theoretically) be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. (I used wikipaedia for this).

Is that how others see it or would you add anything to this?

I'd define it differently:

Naturalism is the philosophical argument that truth can only be known through observable or testable causes and explanations.

That is to say, you cannot truly know anything that cannot be observed or experienced or tested.

 

[Nathan45]

I'd define it differently:

Naturalism is the philosophical argument that truth can only be known through observable or testable causes and explanations.

That is to say, you cannot truly know anything that cannot be observed or experienced or tested.

actually i think i want a do-over:

Naturalism is the philosophical argument that truth can only be understood through patterns based on observable or testable causes and explanations.

...

I took out the word "Known" because you can never know anything with absolute certainty, also i added patterns in there, because even if you havn't directly observed that specific thing, if you know the pattern you could be considered to understand it pretty well... I don't like your original definition of naturalism because,

1) it's circular (already been discussed),

2) it assumes that nothing exists that isn't natural.

It's perfectly possible that things exist with us having no way of observing or testing them and thus no way of knowing anything about them.

Naturalism doesn't assert that these things necessarily don't exist only that if they do exist it's it's impossible to observe them therefore you cannot say anything about them at all.