- Feb 15, 2013
- 8,824
- 6,252
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Without your senses, you can't know, anything.
The interesting part in this is that it seems that among all these "lot of things" that you had to question... "God" was not among that. "Loving trust" is all you need. "Faith" is all you need. "Questions" are not needed.
And that brings me back to my original objection: if you were to question this concept - the questions of "how" and "why", the basic questions that all philosophical positions should ask - you can find no answer beyond: "It works because it works because if it didn't work, I would be wrong."
First, I'll define naturalism as I see it. It's the concept that everything in the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Nothing supernatural exists. Which would be an entity that is claimed to be outside of, or beyond the natural realm. But has the ability to reach into the natural world and affect events therein.
I know I can't prove this with absolute metaphysical certainty. Naturalism, like god-belief, requires faith. In my case, that faith is a result of reasoning. Inductive reasoning to be specific. Our brains evolved to seek explanations. When one wasn't obvious, we created gods, spirits, or other supernatural entities to account for what we didn't understand. Thousands of such gods, in all cultures, have been created to explain things like weather, diseases, tidal action, floods, earthquakes, the change of the seasons, the motion of the sun, moon, and stars, and all other events that seemed inexplicable. But as our knowledge has increased, we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In all of history, a god, or supernatural force has never been a valid explanation for anything. So--by simple a posteriori logic--why should I believe any kind of supernatural power or god is responsible for all the things we still don't understand?
BTW: I'm certain that we never will be able to explain everything. The more we learn, the more questions will arise. But that's OK. That's what makes seeking to understand nature and nature's mechanisms exciting. The thrill is in the journey, not the destination.
Richard Lewontin is a prominent american scientist (geneticist) and was a professor at Harvard until 1998. He's done a lot of work in evolutionary biology. He said this about the relationship between the philosophical position of materialism and the practice of science:
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
If you're a materialist (or naturalist) is this how you see it? Or is Lewontin wrong?
I doubt it. That event would be a one off that contradicts loads of established science.....Even if someone should rise from the dead and tell you that Christianity is true you would be liable to interpret this event through naturalistic lenses.....
I don't know about God getting his foot in the soor since he created the whole house. Sience flipped from a largely deductive reasoning through Aristotlean Scholasticsism, to an inductive aporoach tibthe exploration of natural phenomenon. So much was developed during that period in the 17th century, microscopes, telescopes, algebra, calculas and the principkes of motion we know now as physics. Materialism is a worldvew, natural science as we have come to understand it simply narrows the focus in this methodology to a comprehensive scope. To equivocate science with materialism expands the a priori assumptions of transendance to include things natural science was never intended to address, let alone decisively determine.Richard Lewontin is a prominent american scientist (geneticist) and was a professor at Harvard until 1998. He's done a lot of work in evolutionary biology. He said this about the relationship between the philosophical position of materialism and the practice of science:
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
If you're a materialist (or naturalist) is this how you see it? Or is Lewontin wrong?
I used my senses.
How else would one make sense of the world? This is the case I’m making. It was you suggesting god magically communicates apart from sensory perception, and I’d like to know what, exactly?Sounds circular. How is it that your senses tell you that you can know nothing without your senses?
This is a nice story that is based on an assumption of naturalism. But you began the story with the assumption of naturalism. You did not start with a blank slate and then reason your way to a naturalistic conclusion. You started with naturalism and ended with (surprise, surprise) naturalism.
How else would one make sense of the world?
This is the case I’m making. It was you suggesting god magically communicates apart from sensory perception, and I’d like to know what, exactly?
So? In an earlier post you stated that naturalism is an assumption, not derived from reasoning. Why is that a problem? That’s essentially how all knowledge is derived. An assumption (hypothesis) is made. And evidence is then sought to either support or negate it. In some cases, such evidence can be obtained by empirical methods. That’s not applicable here, but the principle is the same. I was simply explaining how inductive reasoning supports a naturalistic worldview.
BTW: Do Christians start with a truly blank slate?
And what reasoning do Christians use to support belief in God? It always boils down to some combination of 3 things:
1) The arguments from ignorance or incredulity. Which are really just the lack of a satisfactory naturalistic explanation.
2) Accepting scripture as literal truth. Which is placing faith in ancient legends and folklore. That many experts in the field agree were intended to be understood metaphorically and not to be taken literally.
3) Having a personal experience that convinces one of God’s existence. Which is an idiosyncratic psychological and emotional phenomenon, and not even close to any kind of formal reasoning.
Without our senses, there is no other way to knowledge. It's a bit like asking your computer to run algorithms without a CPU.Our senses certainly are a source of knowledge. But they are not the only source of knowledge. When you say that we can know nothing without our senses, you are saying that our senses are our only source of knowledge.
Yes, that's what I'm asking. It's my contention god/s don't exist, and everyone who claims to talk to it. If I can explain your claim of supernatural communication with a god as simply a function of your senses, then that's the best explanation in the absence of evidence.You'd like to know what God communicates or how God communicates?
Without our senses, there is no other way to knowledge. It's a bit like asking your computer to run algorithms without a CPU.
Yes, that's what I'm asking. It's my contention god/s don't exist, and everyone who claims to talk to it. If I can explain your claim of supernatural communication with a god as simply a function of your senses, then that's the best explanation in the absence of evidence.
Because Christians assume Christianity, we interpret all data in light of Christianity. Just like naturalists interpret data in light of naturalism. So when naturalists see data that supports the resurrection of Jesus, they can interpret it with a naturalistic explanation. But when Christians see something as mundane as a daffodil, they see it as handiwork of a divine creator.
This is what I'd like to see.This is an assertion, not an argument. I'm aware that this is your opinion but I see no compelling reason so accept it especially in light of plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Bad as it may be, it's all we've got.It may be the best explanation within your assumption of naturalism. But what if naturalism is a bad assumption?
And, how bad could any framework be if by it we make accurate enough predictions to get the job done.Bad as it may be, it's all we've got.
The gaps in the 'god of the gaps' argument have become infinitesimally small. That is to say, natural explanations are what we find for previously assumed supernatural occurrences... %100 of the time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?