Topic: Metaphysical naturalism (Read 4318 times)

benjdm · « **on:** August 01, 2007, 11:18:49 AM »

...is the worldview that is most likely to be correct. There are any number of inductive arguments that get you there, most of which can be found summarized at the wikipedia page.

Challenge or discuss.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2007, 03:34:16 PM »

Quote

Metaphysical naturalism is most commonly distinguished from methodological naturalism which refers to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside science. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with what exists beyond what has already been established by science, so metaphysical naturalism refers to a belief about the totality of what exists. Methodology, however, is only the means by which knowledge is acquired. Thus, metaphysical naturalism entails the belief that nature is in fact all that exists, while methodological naturalism entails the belief that for one reason or another empirical methods will only ascertain natural facts, whether supernatural facts exist or not.

A fair enough explanation that is shown to be nonsense when we start digging into the arguments. PN (philosophical naturalism) is an inference based on 'the scientific method,' and in this case a strictly empirical understanding of 'the scientific method,' that leads it here to be able to claim that "supernatural explanations for such events [would be] outside science." In other words, PN is based on the findings of MN (methodological naturalism), as is clearly demonstrated once you get to the arguments, for example:

"For over three hundred years empirical methods have consistently discovered only natural things and causes, even underlying many things once thought to be supernatural."

This is circular reasoning well highlighted. Methodological Naturalism excludes supernatural explanations by its very definition. Big shocker, then, that it manages to find only natural things and causes. But that's only a silly sidebar to the real issue, which is that since MN excludes the supernatural by its very approach, and the supernatural is considered from such a view to properly 'be outside of science,' there is no way, by definition, for science to speak to the existence of realities outside of the natural order.

It just can't.

As an epistemological methodology, the 'scientific method' may be appropriately suited to investigating many claims.... but it is not suited at all to investigate the claim that there is a supernatural entity as proposed by Christian theists.

Here is the argument:

1. We use a method that ignores supernaturalistic explanations: "without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside science."
2. "For over three hundred years empirical methods have consistently discovered only natural things and causes"
3. Therefore, it is likely that there are only natural things and causes."

Or, to make it more plain:

1. We only look for things that are blue.
2. All we find are blue things.
3. Therefore, it is likely that there are only blue things.

The wiki page does not seem to address what I think to be the biggest challenge to the worldview, that is, falsifiability.

Give the above approach, how would you know if there are things other than blue if you are married to an approach that only looks for blue things? You can't.

benjdm · « **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2007, 06:04:30 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 12, 2007, 03:34:16 PM

This is circular reasoning well highlighted. Methodological Naturalism excludes supernatural explanations by its very definition. Big shocker, then, that it manages to find only natural things and causes. But that's only a silly sidebar to the real issue, which is that since MN excludes the supernatural by its very approach, and the supernatural is considered from such a view to properly 'be outside of science,' there is no way, by definition, for science to speak to the existence of realities outside of the natural order.

Nothing besides the imagination can speak to realities that do not interact with our reality. You have no observations to narrow your ideas down from the logically possible.

Quote

As an epistemological methodology, the 'scientific method' may be appropriately suited to investigating many claims.... but it is not suited at all to investigate the claim that there is a supernatural entity as proposed by Christian theists.

Nonsense, unless you are proposing a deity that has not and never will interact with our reality.

Quote

1. We use a method that ignores supernaturalistic explanations: "without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside science."
2. "For over three hundred years empirical methods have consistently discovered only natural things and causes"
3. Therefore, it is likely that there are only natural things and causes."

Or, to make it more plain:

1. We only look for things that are blue.
2. All we find are blue things.
3. Therefore, it is likely that there are only blue things.

The wiki page does not seem to address what I think to be the biggest challenge to the worldview, that is, falsifiability.

Give the above approach, how would you know if there are things other than blue if you are married to an approach that only looks for blue things? You can't.

You shifted the method in your analogy.

1. We propose that for methodological blue-ism the color of all things will be assumed to be blue.
2. For all of the things we find, when we assume they are blue, we are able to learn inductively more and more exactly what shade of blue they are.
2a. For hypothetical non-blue things, when we assumed they were blue, we would be unable to learn inductively more and more exactly what shade of blue they are.
3. Therefore, it is likely that there are only blue things.

Quote

The wiki page does not seem to address what I think to be the biggest challenge to the worldview, that is, falsifiability.

Give the above approach, how would you know if there are things other than blue if you are married to an approach that only looks for blue things? You can't.

That's easy. Someone would have to come up with a successful method like methodoloical red-ism or a more general methodological color-ism that successively provided more and more detailed shades of the non-blue things.

To abandon the analogy, metaphysical naturalism would be falsified by finding 'stuff' (spirit-goo ? soul-goo ? ghost-goo ?) that exhibited mental processes independent of specific, complicated arrangements (such as found in our brains.)

A much, much more detailed discussion of the interactions between methodological and metaphysical naturalism can be found here. A highlight:

Quote

Obviously, this is wrong. Contrary to Rea, "a commitment to follow science wherever it leads" logically could lead us to a new worldview. Even if naturalism contains the premise "follow science wherever it leads" it does not follow that it contains the premise "wherever science leads is naturalism." A worldview may contain the seeds of its own demise: a faithful following of its own principles may lead us to abandon it in light of what we uncover. Indeed, a premise I believe to be inherent in most forms of naturalism is: "naturalism might be false, and if it is, it is your job as a naturalist to find out." Again, Rea's myopic obsession with a narrowly defined "research program" leads him to ignore or deny naturalism as a worldview.

A little lay ethnography bears this out. To find out what naturalists really believe, I conducted an informal survey of my colleagues in the naturalist community during the month of January 2003. I asked two questions of naturalists around the country:

1. As a naturalist, do you believe it is logically possible (even if the current evidence makes this highly improbable) for science to disprove naturalism some day?

2. As a naturalist, do you believe that if naturalism were overthrown by a purely empirical investigation, that the scientific method would necessarily be overthrown as well?

Rea's arguments entail that the answers should be No / Yes. Yet I got the exact opposite results. Evan Fales, Keith Parsons, Charles Echelbarger, and Greg Klebanoff, all Ph.D.'s in philosophy and top defenders of naturalism, answered Y / N. So did Taner Edis, physics professor and author of the latest comprehensive defense of naturalism.

benjdm · « **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2007, 06:46:45 PM »

My understanding of the word 'God' can be found here.

Quote

My definition of God would be a supremely powerful being who is bound by fewer physical laws than the rest of the universe.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2007, 07:20:34 PM »

"Nothing besides the imagination can speak to realities that do not interact with our reality. You have no observations to narrow your ideas down from the logically possible."

You misunderstand me. I never said anything about not interacting with reality. You are equivocating in your definition of 'empirical.' On the one hand, when we speak about empiricism within the scientific method, we speak of what we perceive to be constant observations that arrive to us via our senses, and the emphasis is on the constancy of the observations. On the other hand, we can focus on empiricism in the sense of what comes to us through our senses. I am not at all saying that God cannot interact with us and I do not in the slightest deny that this would be mediated through matter and perceived by our senses, and thus in a manner, empirical. But that is not what is meant by 'empirical' when speaking about the successes of the scientific method.... 300 years of empirical successes!

"Nonsense, unless you are proposing a deity that has not and never will interact with our reality."

Try again. The confusion here is occurring because you are switching back and forth seamlessly between different notions of empiricism. Obviously I do not propose a deity that has not and never will interact with our reality, as the core claim of Christianity is that in the incarnation God himself became a creature on this earth.

Quote

1. We propose that for methodological blue-ism the color of all things will be assumed to be blue.
2. For all of the things we find, when we assume they are blue, we are able to learn inductively more and more exactly what shade of blue they are.
2a. For hypothetical non-blue things, when we assumed they were blue, we would be unable to learn inductively more and more exactly what shade of blue they are.
3. Therefore, it is likely that there are only blue things.

The problem here is that you're forgetting that the whole point of PN, the whole point of the inquiry, is that your goal is to find out if there is something other than naturalistic realities. Or, to maintain the analogy, the goal is to find out if there are more colors then blue. MN assumes for the sake of discussion that there is nothing more than naturalism, just as in your re-statement you're still assuming all things to be blue. But how would you know if something is red? Why, that's just a shade of blue. It must be, for your #1 has assured it.

The only way to escape the circular reasoning and question begging here is to start with an assumption that is neutral on the question of supernaturalism. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

"That's easy. Someone would have to come up with a successful method like methodoloical red-ism or a more general methodological color-ism that successively provided more and more detailed shades of the non-blue things."

That is neither here nor there. The burden of providing a criterion for falsification belongs to you, not to me. It is the philosophical naturalist that has to generate this method. If you have no method by which to recognize when you have been refuted, according to Popperian analysis, you may certainly still be right, but there is little epistemological value to your perspective. In order to escape your circular reasoning, you will have to abandon your insistence that all things must be interpreted naturalistically and generate a method for recognizing what circumstances would require a non-naturalistic explanation.

This is the burden of the PNaturalist. I do not begin by assuming everything must be interpreted naturalistically nor do I assume everything must be interpreted super-naturalistically.

"To abandon the analogy, metaphysical naturalism would be falsified by finding 'stuff' (spirit-goo ? soul-goo ? ghost-goo ?) that exhibited mental processes independent of specific, complicated arrangements (such as found in our brains.)"

I was afraid we were going to get to the GhostBusters conception of the supernatural. Your 'spirit-goo' etc is really not within the definition of the 'supernatural.' In the strictest sense, not even angels are 'supernatural' within the Christian worldview. What you are referencing is better described as the paranormal. At any rate, you have not escaped the falsification problem, because it would be up to you to tell me how you'd recognize these substances and distinguish between them and naturalistic substances.

Also, I can't let you get away with issuing the caveat of mental processes that are independent of 'specific, complicated arrangements.' That the mind is best understood and explained via reductionism is precisely one of those things you will have to demonstrate.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** August 12, 2007, 07:24:34 PM »

Quote from: benjdm on August 12, 2007, 06:46:45 PM

My understanding of the word 'God' can be found here.

Quote
My definition of God would be a supremely powerful being who is bound by fewer physical laws than the rest of the universe.

Perhaps after we evaluate the merits of the Christian description of God (the point of the forum, after all

) we can evaluate the merits of your definition, to see if such an entity exists.

I don't necessarily reject your definition, I just don't understand its relevance in this instance. To put it a different way, if your arguments for metaphysical naturalism entail a rejection of God only as you understand it- and your understanding differs in a number of areas from Christians- then I am nothing more than a bystander here, watching you argue against yourself. If you propose PN here as an antidote to the Christian conception, then it seems to me that it is my definition, and that of the 1.5 billion Christians mentioned over and over again elsewhere, that matters.

benjdm · « **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2007, 09:49:47 PM »

Quote

Quote from: sntjohnny on Yesterday at 10:20:34 PM
You misunderstand me. I never said anything about not interacting with reality. You are equivocating in your definition of 'empirical.' On the one hand, when we speak about empiricism within the scientific method, we speak of what we perceive to be constant observations that arrive to us via our senses, and the emphasis is on the constancy of the observations. On the other hand, we can focus on empiricism in the sense of what comes to us through our senses. I am not at all saying that God cannot interact with us and I do not in the slightest deny that this would be mediated through matter and perceived by our senses, and thus in a manner, empirical. But that is not what is meant by 'empirical' when speaking about the successes of the scientific method.... 300 years of empirical successes!

There is no equivocation. For a given idea, we may have limited abilities to achieve constancy in observations (such as looking for the Higgs boson.) The existence and properties of the Higgs boson are scientific questions even though sensory data about it can only be obtained in rare and difficult circumstances, not constantly.

Quote

Try again. The confusion here is occurring because you are switching back and forth seamlessly between different notions of empiricism. Obviously I do not propose a deity that has not and never will interact with our reality, as the core claim of Christianity is that in the incarnation God himself became a creature on this earth.

Then it is a scientific question. I can imagine a physical law of [non-God stuff] is responsive to [God stuff]'s mental commands as an empirically induced law, given the right empirical observations. Laws are merely frozen cause and effect.

Quote

The problem here is that you're forgetting that the whole point of PN, the whole point of the inquiry, is that your goal is to find out if there is something other than naturalistic realities.

No. My goal is to develop, to the best of my abilities, an accurate model of reality. Empiricism would be the method of inquiry, and metaphysical naturalism is a tentative conclusion - like all my conclusions.

Quote

If you have no method by which to recognize when you have been refuted, according to Popperian analysis, you may certainly still be right, but there is little epistemological value to your perspective.

The falsification was stated. We find something that does not rely on an intricate, complex, specific arrangement of non-mental things to accomplish mental processes. Spirit-goo or whatever.

Quote

In order to escape your circular reasoning, you will have to abandon your insistence that all things must be interpreted naturalistically and generate a method for recognizing what circumstances would require a non-naturalistic explanation.

Such hypothetical examples can be given at will. A ghost shows up that cannot be divided up in any way but can play checkers, for example.

What is your understanding of the concept of supernatural ? What does it mean to you ?

Quote

This is the burden of the PNaturalist. I do not begin by assuming everything must be interpreted naturalistically nor do I assume everything must be interpreted super-naturalistically.

No one does. Metaphysical naturalism is a conclusion, not an assumption.

Quote

I was afraid we were going to get to the GhostBusters conception of the supernatural. Your 'spirit-goo' etc is really not within the definition of the 'supernatural.' In the strictest sense, not even angels are 'supernatural' within the Christian worldview.

I figured we would end up in a dispute over the term. Supernatural, in the context of metaphysical naturalism, would refer to [stuff] that is not natural - [stuff] that exhibits mental properties that is independent of systems of nonmental [stuff]. Electrons and protons and matter, to the best of our knowledge, are fundamentally mindless [stuff] that follows natural laws and would be natural. Spirit-goo or God-goo whatever you would like to call hypothetical supernatural [stuff] would be subject to different natural laws.

Quote

What you are referencing is better described as the paranormal. At any rate, you have not escaped the falsification problem, because it would be up to you to tell me how you'd recognize these substances and distinguish between them and naturalistic substances.

The substances would be distinguishable because they either could not be divided or division would not affect their ability to accomplish the mental processes.

Quote

Also, I can't let you get away with issuing the caveat of mental processes that are independent of 'specific, complicated arrangements.' That the mind is best understood and explained via reductionism is precisely one of those things you will have to demonstrate.

There is no aspect of the mind's functions that is unaffected by changes to the physical brains. The idea that the mind is the result of the brain functioning is as obvious and uncomplicated as the idea that walking is the result of the legs functioning.

Quote

Perhaps after we evaluate the merits of the Christian description of God (the point of the forum, after all Wink ) we can evaluate the merits of your definition, to see if such an entity exists.

If your description of God would not be a specific instance that still fits my definition, I am going to be really confused. Since we already have many instances of us talking past or misunderstanding each other I thought I would give you my understanding of the term, pending any narrowing down you wish to do.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2007, 10:59:07 PM »

Bugger. It appears I hit 'modify' by your post instead of reply, and I pasted in my reply on top of your post. Sorry about that. I returned it to where it was. My reply follows.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2007, 10:59:30 PM »

"There is no equivocation."

Yes, there absolutely is. There is no other way you could conclude from my comments that I was advocating that God would not and could not interact with us except by equivocation.

"Then it is a scientific question."

Only by equivocating on what you mean by 'science.' By science now you aren't speaking of strictly repeatable and constant physical laws. By 'science' now you mean by perception through our senses. Great, now bible interpretation is science, too, because the Scriptures are constantly available to our senses for our study. Are you prepared to classify me as a scientist? Ha, I don't think so.

"No. My goal is to develop,"

You missed my point. Sure, we want to develop an accurate model of reality. I'm with you on that. But if the very question is whether or not that model should contain supernatural elements, then you don't begin by using a method that denies out of hand supernatural elements! Seriously, this is not brain surgery here.

"Empiricism would be the method of inquiry,"

Equivocation. If by empiricism you refer to methodological naturalism, you are begging the question, as you would be denying one potential area of explanation even a place at the table from the very beginning. Let me just tell you how surprised we Christians are that you conclude from such premises that the supernatural isn't real.

If by empiricism you merely mean our sensory exploration of reality, you can no longer point to 300 years of successes of MN... this kind of empiricalism is the norm for all humans throughout all history. Indeed, the theologian is a scientist by this understanding.

"The falsification was stated. We find something that does not rely on an intricate, complex, specific arrangement of non-mental things to accomplish mental processes. Spirit-goo or whatever."

The falsification is inadequate and mere smokescreen. Remember, you're proceeding 'empirically' whatever the hey that means to you, and methodologically naturalistic. That means when ever you come to something that is 'spirit-goo' you will necessarily (because your assumptions and methods require it) interpret it as just another form of matter. Who do you think you're kidding? And as for this non-mental things to accomplish mental processes, that's a whole nuther question begging venture.

"Such hypothetical examples can be given at will. A ghost shows up that cannot be divided up in any way but can play checkers, for example."

A ghost would not be supernatural. It would be paranormal.

"What is your understanding of the concept of supernatural ? What does it mean to you ?"

I almost don't even want to answer you. Aren't you the one that insists you atheists understand the Christian position? Yet here you are, talking about spirit goo and ghosts.

You do realize that just because you can bend spoons with your mind, that doesn't mean you've proven that the Christian God exists. You can merely say that the person is making use of previously unknown laws of nature. Same with spirit-goo, and ghosts.

"No one does. Metaphysical naturalism is a conclusion, not an assumption."

Indeed. But it is based on an assumptive methodology which eliminated non-naturalistic explanations from the get go. Again, this is not brain surgery.

If you're going to keep playing that way, I'm going to start arguing from the absurd, and you better darn well stay consistent and let me do exactly what you're doing. I'll employ a methodologic supernaturalism and conclude with philosophic supernaturalism and see if you let me get away with the logic when I'm the one playing with it.

"I figured we would end up in a dispute over the term. Supernatural, in the context of metaphysical naturalism, would refer to [stuff] that is not natural - [stuff] that exhibits mental properties that is independent of systems of nonmental [stuff]."

You continue to go back to this mental stuff. I find that interesting. As you agreed that one doesn't want to beat down a strawman, in point of fact, you've got it backwards. We should be talking about metaphysical naturalism in the context of the supernatural. That means that MN only has meaning in relation to what it is rejecting.

"Spirit-goo or God-goo whatever you would like to call hypothetical supernatural [stuff] would be subject to different natural laws."

Right. Different NATURAL LAWS. Even before you have found your hypothetical stuff you're prepped to assess it in terms of 'natural laws.' This is question begging.

"The substances would be distinguishable because they either could not be divided or division would not affect their ability to accomplish the mental processes."

Back to the mental processes stuff. Clearly a nod towards reductionism, but can't say that I've seen this close of an association between non-naturalism and mental processes. So, I think you need to expound on this. What on earth does indivisibility of mental processes have to do with supernaturalism? And how on earth does that not presuppose that mental processes that are bound up with divisible matter is itself naturalistic?

Thou shalt not presuppose. That our minds can be reduced to naturalistic materialism is something that you will have to demonstrate before you can use variations on the theme as your falsification criteria.

"The idea that the mind is the result of the brain functioning is as obvious and uncomplicated as the idea that walking is the result of the legs functioning."

heh, and that would be why for thousands of years people have though otherwise. Sorry, the 'it is obvious' tactic isn't going to fly here. Even if I grant this, and I assure you I don't, it still doesn't follow that mind that does not result of brain functioning is prima facie evidence of the supernatural!

You have less faith in the scientific method then I thought. :) Well, I have great faith in our dear materialistic scientists. If we ever found an instance of what you suggest, I'd bet the bank that they'll simply keep looking until they finally find a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena. Isn't that what is so grand about science? It never rests until it can provide a naturalistic explanation for everything! Provisionally, of course.

"If your description of God would not be a specific instance that still fits my definition,"

At this point, there are just two characteristics of the Christian conception of God that are relevant. Transcendence. Immanence.

If you don't have your mind around these two concepts, your advocacy of metaphysical naturalism is aimed in completely the wrong direction for the purpose of this forum.

I'll see if I can dig up some links for you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2007, 11:32:08 PM »

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-the_ac.html

This essay by Dembski is long and the material on transcendence doesn't come until a little later. Unfortunately, he doesn't speak to immanence as much as the title would have hinted. The whole thing is worth reading (I couldn't have said it better myself :) ) but pay attention to the different understandings about what is primary and what is secondary and transcendence.

Another word we can use to describe the Christian view is PanENtheism. I would consider myself a panentheist. I happened across this blurb about a book that talks about the tension between transcendence and immanence: http://www.scienceandreligionbooks.org/reviews_detail.asp?book_id=1759 Note how important it is to the authors not to deny these two central doctrines.

Note this summary of a chapter out of a book on Christian dogmatics:

http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/IV.htm

This looks to be Anglican, and my brief survey allows me to approve of what I see there. And I'm not Anglican. :)

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm

And I'm not Catholic. :) It almost starts to look like there is a wider area of agreement among Christians then one may have thought.... Again, just a brief survey, but this looks solid.

Hey, here is a Bob Jones University guy!

http://www.sharperiron.org/2007/03/21/paul-at-athens-observations-for-apologetics/

Scroll to the middle.

And I ain't a Bob Jones University fellah, either. :)

Trust me, this transcendence and immanence thing will be crucial to a valid metaphysical naturalistic critique of actual Christian theism and supernaturalism. If you're not grappling with these two issues, your MN is a refutation of something, but it is not Christian theism.

I found these links just using google and variations on transcendence and immanence. You could probably find more if you wanted.

benjdm · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2007, 01:13:36 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 12, 2007, 10:59:30 PM

"Then it is a scientific question."

Only by equivocating on what you mean by 'science.' By science now you aren't speaking of strictly repeatable and constant physical laws.

I repeat:

Quote

I can imagine a physical law of [non-God stuff] is responsive to [God stuff]'s mental commands as an empirically induced law, given the right empirical observations. Laws are merely frozen cause and effect.

Quote

You missed my point. Sure, we want to develop an accurate model of reality. I'm with you on that. But if the very question is whether or not that model should contain supernatural elements, then you don't begin by using a method that denies out of hand supernatural elements! Seriously, this is not brain surgery here.

"Empiricism would be the method of inquiry,"

Equivocation. If by empiricism you refer to methodological naturalism

I don't. By empiricism I mean empiricism. Methodological naturalism is a reliable way of converging on ever more accurate models of reality using empiricism and logic. It more phrases how explanations are framed than rejects explanations out of hand. Here is what I mean:

A lightning strike happens. One possible explanation would be that Thor caused the lightning. We would both agree that this is not a scientific explanation. A short version of why this is not a scientific explanation is that it invokes a supernatural Thor (I don't like the short explanation.) A longer version would be that the explanation is now proposing Thor's existence AND a vague law that says that Thor's thoughts / actions cause lightning. Until you generate more details about this explanation that would logically preclude some observations and imply other observations, making testable predictions, it is merely a logically possible explanation without experimental support of any kind. Therefore, scientifically, the explanation would have no merit.

Quote

you are begging the question, as you would be denying one potential area of explanation even a place at the table from the very beginning. Let me just tell you how surprised we Christians are that you conclude from such premises that the supernatural isn't real. If by empiricism you merely mean our sensory exploration of reality, you can no longer point to 300 years of successes of MN... this kind of empiricalism is the norm for all humans throughout all history. Indeed, the theologian is a scientist by this understanding.

For any empirical observation there are an infinite number of explanations about it. Theologians typically don't give testable predictions with their ideas.

Quote

The falsification is inadequate and mere smokescreen. Remember, you're proceeding 'empirically' whatever the hey that means to you, and methodologically naturalistic. That means when ever you come to something that is 'spirit-goo' you will necessarily (because your assumptions and methods require it) interpret it as just another form of matter. Who do you think you're kidding? And as for this non-mental things to accomplish mental processes, that's a whole nuther question begging venture.

Empiricism is contrasted with rationalism. That is 'what the hey' I mean by empiricism. The idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects may be perfectly true by rationalism, and accepted for thousands of years, but it fails miserably when empirically tested.

Methodological naturalism would force all explanations to be in the form of natural phenomena, yes. And when the explanations led to no progress in finding more and more accurate natural explanations, and the spirit goo maintained its ability to accomplish mental processes independent of component arrangement, then a supernatural explanation for this new class of [stuff] would be preferred.

Quote

A ghost would not be supernatural. It would be paranormal.

A ghost could be supernatural or natural, depending on the details. However, since I am presenting my ideas, I ask that you use the definitions and conceptions of natural and supernatural presented here. I don't know what 'paranormal' really refers to.

Quote

I almost don't even want to answer you. Aren't you the one that insists you atheists understand the Christian position?

I'm the one who insists there is no single 'Christian' position.

Quote

You do realize that just because you can bend spoons with your mind, that doesn't mean you've proven that the Christian God exists.

No kidding. You might not even falsify metaphysical naturalism, depending on how the phenomenon worked.

Quote

You can merely say that the person is making use of previously unknown laws of nature. Same with spirit-goo, and ghosts.

I repeat:

Quote

Supernatural, in the context of metaphysical naturalism, would refer to [stuff] that is not natural - [stuff] that exhibits mental properties that is independent of systems of nonmental [stuff]. Electrons and protons and matter, to the best of our knowledge, are fundamentally mindless [stuff] that follows natural laws and would be natural. Spirit-goo or God-goo whatever you would like to call hypothetical supernatural [stuff] would be subject to different natural laws.

The tentative conclusion that the spirit-goo had inherent mental abilities would not come overnight. It would only come after a significant amount of investigation.

Quote

Indeed. But it is based on an assumptive methodology which eliminated non-naturalistic explanations from the get go. Again, this is not brain surgery.

It is based on the sum total of our knowledge, much of which is obtained from that assumptive methodology.

Quote

If you're going to keep playing that way, I'm going to start arguing from the absurd, and you better darn well stay consistent and let me do exactly what you're doing. I'll employ a methodologic supernaturalism and conclude with philosophic supernaturalism and see if you let me get away with the logic when I'm the one playing with it.

Feel free to do so. You would have to deny much of the knowledge obtained by methodological naturalism as reliable and turn off your computer, though.

Quote

You continue to go back to this mental stuff. I find that interesting. As you agreed that one doesn't want to beat down a strawman, in point of fact, you've got it backwards. We should be talking about metaphysical naturalism in the context of the supernatural. That means that MN only has meaning in relation to what it is rejecting.

Of course. It is a minimal expectation about the unknown.

Quote

Right. Different NATURAL LAWS. Even before you have found your hypothetical stuff you're prepped to assess it in terms of 'natural laws.' This is question begging.

I repeat:

Quote

I can imagine a physical law of [non-God stuff] is responsive to [God stuff]'s mental commands as an empirically induced law, given the right empirical observations. Laws are merely frozen cause and effect.

Metaphysical naturalism would be falsified by the spirit-goo I described, even if it followed some natural laws. (I can't imagine what it would mean to talk about something that followed no laws. I don't think the concept is coherent.)

Quote

Back to the mental processes stuff. Clearly a nod towards reductionism, but can't say that I've seen this close of an association between non-naturalism and mental processes. So, I think you need to expound on this. What on earth does indivisibility of mental processes have to do with supernaturalism?

Fer crying out loud, go read the wiki entry again:

Quote

...What all metaphysical naturalists agree on, however, is that the fundamental constituents of reality, from which everything derives and upon which everything depends, are fundamentally mindless. So if any variety of metaphysical naturalism is true, then any mental properties that exist (hence any mental powers or beings) are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of nonmental properties, powers, or things. This means metaphysical naturalism would be false if any distinctly mental property, power, or entity exists that is not ontologically dependent on some arrangement of nonmental things, or that is not causally derived from some arrangement of nonmental things, or that has causal effects without the involvement of any arrangement of nonmental things that is already causally sufficient to produce that effect...

The idea of mental processes and how they occur is the distinguishing characteristic of natural vs. supernatural under metaphysical naturalism. If you don't understand that, start over.

Quote

And how on earth does that not presuppose that mental processes that are bound up with divisible matter is itself naturalistic?

Thou shalt not presuppose. That our minds can be reduced to naturalistic materialism is something that you will have to demonstrate before you can use variations on the theme as your falsification criteria.

If I have no legs I can't walk. If my leg falls asleep I have trouble walking. If someone restrains my legs I can't walk. Fairly quickly, you come to the conclusion that walking is dependent on your physical legs, which consist of carbon, nitrogen, etc. Matter that follows natural laws.

If I have no brain I can't think. If my brain is damaged I have trouble thinking. There are a multitude of ways that physical changes to a brain manifests itself in changes in mental processes - there are no mental processes that are unaffected. Fairly quickly, you come to the conclusion that mental processes in your mind are dependent on your physical brain, which consist of carbon, nitrogen, etc. Matter that follows natural laws.

Quote

heh, and that would be why for thousands of years people have though otherwise.

You'll have to show me the data from thousands of years ago where people knew that all of their mental processes were affected by physical changes to their brains. As I recall it, people were surprised when Phineas Gage's personality was so dramatically changed by a rail spike, and this was when the data really began to be collected.

Quote

Sorry, the 'it is obvious' tactic isn't going to fly here. Even if I grant this, and I assure you I don't, it still doesn't follow that mind that does not result of brain functioning is prima facie evidence of the supernatural!

It would be, by the very definition of supernatural inherent in metaphysical naturalism. You may request that I do not accept another's understanding of Christianity and instead use my own. I ask the opposite: that you accept my understanding of metaphysical naturalism / natural / supernatural in this discussion.

Quote

You have less faith in the scientific method then I thought. :) Well, I have great faith in our dear materialistic scientists. If we ever found an instance of what you suggest, I'd bet the bank that they'll simply keep looking until they finally find a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena. Isn't that what is so grand about science? It never rests until it can provide a naturalistic explanation for everything! Provisionally, of course.

An observation that falsified metaphysical naturalism would have a very, very large and disruptive effect on science. As long as enough intellectually honest people are involved (and there are many), the explanation best supported by the data would win out.

Quote

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Heh. From what little I've read, the Catholic Encyclopedia is insane. They claim 1+1+1=1 in their article on the Trinity.

benjdm · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2007, 02:22:56 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on Today at 02:32:08 AM
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-the_ac.html

Impressions as I read...if you have read this, then I don't understand your surprise at the emphasis on mental processes and mind as defining natural and supernatural. Dembski hits it pretty early:

Quote
The naturalist's world is not a mind-first world. Intelligent agency is therefore in no sense prior to or independent of nature. Intelligent agency is neither sui generis nor basic. Intelligent agency is a derivative mode of causation that depends on underlying naturalistic-and therefore unintelligent-causes.

Which is, in essence, a restatement of the wiki snippet I posted before.

Quote
Within theism, therefore, divine action is not reducible to some more basic mode of causation. Indeed, within theism divine action is the most basic mode of causation since any other mode of causation involves creatures which themselves were created in a divine act.

Which I restate as a natural law: [Non-God stuff] is responsive to [God stuff]'s mental commands. Laws are merely frozen cause and effect.

...Bah. This is a specified complexity essay I read before. I'll be skimming most of the ID baloney - I assume that has little to do with immanence or transcendence.

Quote
As Alvin Plantinga has convincingly argued, objective truth and meaning have no legitimate place within a pure naturalism.

Alvin Plantinga has done no such thing with objective truth in the stuff of his I've read.

Quote
According to naturalism (and I'm thinking here specifically of the scientific naturalism that currently dominates Western thought), the world is fundamentally an interacting system of mindless entities (be they particles, strings, fields, or whatever). Mind therefore becomes an emergent property of suitably arranged mindless entities.

Another restatement of the wiki snippet. For at least some of the time, he presents an accurate picture of naturalism.

...And, finished. There was no talk that I could find about transcendence or immanence. Or nothing that seemed noteworthy, anyway.

benjdm · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2007, 03:03:10 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 12, 2007, 11:32:08 PM

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm

Again, commenting as I read...

The whole part about immanence is meaningless. As I read it, immanence and fictional status are indistinguishable. The brief part talking about transcendence uses transcend as a verb...short article though :).

Quote

Hey, here is a Bob Jones University guy!

http://www.sharperiron.org/2007/03/21/paul-at-athens-observations-for-apologetics/

Scroll to the middle.

'K. Not a whole lot there.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2007, 07:51:23 AM »

Quote

I can imagine a physical law of [non-God stuff] is responsive to [God stuff]'s mental commands as an empirically induced law, given the right empirical observations. Laws are merely frozen cause and effect.

*shrug* Since by the Christian definition of God there is no non-God stuff, this comment is fundamentally meaningless. Hello, immanence.

"By empiricism I mean empiricism."

So you think. Look, given the importance of this word in your argument for MN, I think you're going to have to give me the definition you're going to use for it. And since you deny equivocating, you'd better darn well stick to that definition throughout.

"For any empirical observation there are an infinite number of explanations about it. Theologians typically don't give testable predictions with their ideas."

Granted it doesn't come in the form that you expect, but giving testable predictions is exactly what a theologian would do if he said "I think this, therefore we should find Scriptures that say...." Nonetheless, in your view this should still be empirical since those documents are constantly available for scrutiny.

"Empiricism is contrasted with rationalism. That is 'what the hey' I mean by empiricism."

Right, you're equivocating. Because in the wiki article empiricism was contrasted with supernaturalism, and the success of empiricism was cited as making the jump from "we will never invoke a supernatural explanation" to "there is no supernatural."

"Methodological naturalism would force all explanations to be in the form of natural phenomena, yes."

Let's not ever forget that you said this. :)

"And when the explanations led to no progress in finding more and more accurate natural explanations, and the spirit goo maintained its ability to accomplish mental processes independent of component arrangement, then a supernatural explanation for this new class of [stuff] would be preferred."

Why, isn't that merely God of the Gaps reasoning? There has been no progress in actually creating life from non-life, but every atheist I talk to seems to suggest that to prefer a supernatural explanation in this instance would be to 'throw up your hands and give up' or 'the end of inquiry!' and 'Don't stifle science!' Just how many centuries need to pass with no 'progress' before it is fashionable to consider a supernatural explanation?

No, I don't think you want to go that way. Especially IF the VERY QUESTION you are investigating is whether or not the supernatural exists, you cannot (at least, not if you want to be reasonable) begin with a METHOD that:

".... would force all explanations to be in the form of natural phenomena, yes."

"A ghost could be supernatural or natural, depending on the details. However, since I am presenting my ideas, I ask that you use the definitions and conceptions of natural and supernatural presented here."

But that would be a show stopper. Your whole point is to try to present a viable world view that is superior to that of the Christian's, is it not? Only insofar as your definition of 'supernatural' matches that of the informed Christian do I have any interest in the thread at all.

"I'm the one who insists there is no single 'Christian' position."

This would be why I gave you links covering different denominations from Catholic to die-hard protestant so that you could see that in this case, they are quite agreed.

"The tentative conclusion that the spirit-goo had inherent mental abilities would not come overnight. It would only come after a significant amount of investigation."

Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome God of the Gaps to our conversation. We'll note he was invited here at the request of our atheistic brother. How long he'll be staying, we don't know, but please, do enjoy his company while he's here. :)

"Feel free to do so. You would have to deny much of the knowledge obtained by methodological naturalism as reliable and turn off your computer, though."

I wouldn't have to deny anything. I'll just assign different explanations.

Well you gave me permission, so here it is, my new argument for theism:

1. I employ methodological supernaturalism to the exploration of reality.
2. Therefore, there is a God. My method says so.

This good for you?

"Metaphysical naturalism would be falsified by the spirit-goo I described, even if it followed some natural laws."

No it wouldn't.

"Fer crying out loud, go read the wiki entry again:"

I only browsed the wiki article. Thanks for the clarification. My point remains, however, that this criterion is only of value if one is already assuming philosophical naturalism to be true in regards to the mental and non-mental. Sorry, I'm not going to do that, and no reasonable person would. So, this so-called falsification test fails because it is circular.

Quote

... This means metaphysical naturalism would be false if any distinctly mental property, power, or entity exists that is not ontologically dependent on some arrangement of nonmental things, or that is not causally derived from some arrangement of nonmental things, or that has causal effects without the involvement of any arrangement of nonmental things that is already causally sufficient to produce that effect...

And to speak to the notion while ignoring its circularity, even as a MNist, I can imagine finding exactly what is referenced here and what the materialistic answer would be. If it were me, I would merely invoke the multiverse and posit that the material arrangment underneath this mind yet exists, but is located in another universe.

What else do you got?

"The idea of mental processes and how they occur is the distinguishing characteristic of natural vs. supernatural under metaphysical naturalism."

Nonsense. And even if its true, it is only true by using what ever notion of 'supernatural' you atheists are using, and not the one we're using. But I've been around the block. No, the question of empiricism is in fact the distinguishing characteristic of the debate: The Christian God is non-empirical by definition, but atheists still insist on empirical verification.

"If I have no brain I can't think. If my brain is damaged I have trouble thinking."

Pure reductionism. So, it is your contention that 'mind' is a manifestation of the operations of matter, and 'matter follows natural laws.' The presence of 'mind' without any connection to matter would be supernatural to you? Is that right?

Quote

Quote
heh, and that would be why for thousands of years people have though otherwise.

You'll have to show me the data from thousands of years ago where people knew that all of their mental processes were affected by physical changes to their brains.

So it wasn't 'obvious' then, was it? It is not obvious now, either, which is why there is still a debate.

"It would be, by the very definition of supernatural inherent in metaphysical naturalism. You may request that I do not accept another's understanding of Christianity and instead use my own. I ask the opposite: that you accept my understanding of metaphysical naturalism / natural / supernatural in this discussion."

Understand what you're asking. My only interest in the question of metaphysical naturalism is whether or not it is a viable response to my Christian theism. Clearly, clearly, clearly, you and every atheist believes it to be so. And yet, your honesty here helps us to see that in fact your MN is barely connected to Christian theism. If it is to remain that way, I simply have no interest in the topic.

"An observation that falsified metaphysical naturalism would have a very, very large and disruptive effect on science. As long as enough intellectually honest people are involved (and there are many), the explanation best supported by the data would win out."

What you mean to say is that the naturalistic explanation best supported by the data would win out.

"Methodological naturalism would force all explanations to be in the form of natural phenomena, yes."

Quote

Quote
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Heh. From what little I've read, the Catholic Encyclopedia is insane. They claim 1+1+1=1 in their article on the Trinity.

My purpose in providing a variety of sources on transcendence and immanence was to show that despite your protestations, this is an area that Christians across the spectrum hold. You would do well to bring yourself up to speed if you are really planning on invoking metaphysical naturalism as an alternative to Christian theism. If MN is valid only when warring against its own, internal definitions of natural and supernaturalism, we Christian theists can sit on the sidelines.

Our only duty at that point would be to throw it back in your face if you tried to smuggle out your internally derived world view out as being identifiable with the philosophical naturalism that has been raised against actual Christian theism through out the centuries.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:12:43 AM »

Quote

Hey, here is a Bob Jones University guy!

http://www.sharperiron.org/2007/03/21/paul-at-athens-observations-for-apologetics/

Scroll to the middle.

'K. Not a whole lot there.

[/quote]

I threw that in there to dash your continued assertion that there is no uniform 'Christian' position.

Quote from: benjdm on August 13, 2007, 03:03:10 AM

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 12, 2007, 11:32:08 PM
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm
Again, commenting as I read...

The whole part about immanence is meaningless. As I read it, immanence and fictional status are indistinguishable. The brief part talking about transcendence uses transcend as a verb...short article though :).

Believe it or not, but we've just made progress. Try connecting: " As I read it, immanence and fictional status are indistinguishable." with Dembski's: "Let us therefore turn to the creation of the world as treated in Scripture. The first thing that strikes us is the mode of creation. God speaks and things happen."

Keep working on it. You may find the notions to be absurd. I recently even had an atheist insist that I was making it all up! Which is why I've begun by posting some links showing that I definitely am not. You may find the notions to be absurd, yes, but at least you'll be rejecting the actual position and not the caricature. More importantly, when you grasp these two concepts together, you will see how given the notion of 'empiricism' in the wiki article, there is no way, not even in principle, for the scientific method to 'detect' supernatural realities- when supernatural is understood within Christian conceptions.

Which I still think is the point, right? To reject Christianity?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:18:38 AM »

DANG IT ALL. I modified one of your posts again. I restored it back to where it is. Ok, from now on I'm only hitting the reply button at the bottom of threads.

-------------------------

"Impressions as I read...if you have read this, then I don't understand your surprise at the emphasis on mental processes and mind as defining natural and supernatural. Dembski hits it pretty early:"

My surprise was to hear an atheist pin falsification on this. While on this forum, a certain Copernicus has issued his own argument for naturalism based on the idea that mind reduces to matter, he didn't make it a falsification matter.

Don't get me wrong, if any man would want to have his cake and eat it to, it would be him. You see, it is his argument that mind reduces to matter, therefore PN is most likely true. You are doing something different. You are assuming that this is already correct, that it is already well known and firmly established that mind reduces to matter, and that this follows from naturalistic methodologies.

You can't use your evidence as your conclusion.

Copernicus's version:

A. The mind reduces to matter
...
Z. Therefore there is no God.

Your version, more precisely, what we see on the wiki:

A. We assume there is no God.
B. We therefore assume the mind reduces to matter. IT MUST, by GOD, it MUST!
... [insert various evidences for brain-mind connections here, as if they are even important given A.]
Z. Discovery of mind that does not reduce to matter would falsify....

What? What would it falsify? It would falsify B, not A.

"...And, finished. There was no talk that I could find about transcendence or immanence. Or nothing that seemed noteworthy, anyway."

It was surprisingly light on immanence, given the title, but the transcendence was there. Check into the language, mode of creation, in what sense words have meaning. I will grant that, given the title, it wasn't as clear as I would have expected. The basic difference is summed up by his statements here:

Quote

Invoking the divine to explain an act of creation is, of course, wholly unacceptable to the ruling intellectual elite. Naturalism, the view that nature is the ultimate reality, has become the default position for all serious inquiry among our intellectual elite. From Biblical studies to law to education to science to the arts, inquiry is allowed to proceed only under the supposition that nature is the ultimate reality. Naturalism denies any divine element to the creative act. By contrast, the Christian tradition plainly asserts that God is the ultimate reality and that nature itself is a divine creative act. Within Christian theism, God is primary and fundamental whereas nature is secondary and derivative. Naturalism, by contrast, asserts that nature is primary and fundamental.

and then skip down to the stuff on the Creation of the World. I agree, though, that given the title, there isn't as much explicit comments on this as one might expect.

benjdm · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2007, 10:52:14 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 13, 2007, 07:51:23 AM

*shrug* Since by the Christian definition of God there is no non-God stuff, this comment is fundamentally meaningless. Hello, immanence.

That is NOT what the immanence explanations said.

Quote

God is immanent, or intimately present, in the universe because His power is required at every moment to sustain creatures in being and to concur with them in their activities. Conservation and concursus are so to speak, continuations of creative activity, and imply an equally intimate relation of God towards creatures, or rather an equally intimate and unceasing dependence of creatures on God. Whatever creatures are, they are by virtue of God's conserving power; whatever they do, they do by virtue of God's concursus. It is not, of course, denied that creatures are true causes and produce real effects; but they are only secondary causes, their efficiency is always dependent and derived; God as the First Cause is an ever active cooperator in their actions.

Clearly, it says there is stuff that is other-than-God, sustained by God.

Empiricism - In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.

Quote

Granted it doesn't come in the form that you expect, but giving testable predictions is exactly what a theologian would do if he said "I think this, therefore we should find Scriptures that say...." Nonetheless, in your view this should still be empirical since those documents are constantly available for scrutiny.

That's a new claim. OK. What theologians have given what predictions about what will be found in currently unknown scriptures ?

Quote

"Empiricism is contrasted with rationalism. That is 'what the hey' I mean by empiricism."

Right, you're equivocating. Because in the wiki article empiricism was contrasted with supernaturalism

Where. Show me.

Quote

Why, isn't that merely God of the Gaps reasoning? There has been no progress in actually creating life from non-life, but every atheist I talk to seems to suggest that to prefer a supernatural explanation in this instance would be to 'throw up your hands and give up' or 'the end of inquiry!' and 'Don't stifle science!' Just how many centuries need to pass with no 'progress' before it is fashionable to consider a supernatural explanation?

There has been plenty of progress in abiogenesis research. So much so, the last step is not anticipated to be very noteworthy. You're simply wrong on this one.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/wonderfully_radical_editorial.php

Quote

No, I don't think you want to go that way. Especially IF the VERY QUESTION you are investigating is whether or not the supernatural exists, you cannot (at least, not if you want to be reasonable) begin with a METHOD that:

".... would force all explanations to be in the form of natural phenomena, yes."

Did you miss the part where I re-framed a Thor explanation for lightning to be in the form of a natural phenomena ? In any case, there is nothing stopping theologians from inventing other methods of using empiricism to derive models, facts, etc. None have come up with any methods that converge on more and more accurate results that explain empirical observations.

The VERY QUESTION being investigated is NOT whether the supernatural exists. The questions are what are the most accurate explanations of reality we can come to.

Quote

But that would be a show stopper. Your whole point is to try to present a viable world view that is superior to that of the Christian's, is it not? Only insofar as your definition of 'supernatural' matches that of the informed Christian do I have any interest in the thread at all.

Now you're pissing me off. You refuse to accept my meaning when I use the word 'supernatural.' Then you refuse to provide your conception of 'supernatural' so that I could reframe my language to accurately convey what I intend to convey. That's horsepoo-poo.

Quote

I wouldn't have to deny anything. I'll just assign different explanations.

Well you gave me permission, so here it is, my new argument for theism:

1. I employ methodological supernaturalism to the exploration of reality.
2. Therefore, there is a God. My method says so.

This good for you?

I repeat: As long as enough intellectually honest people are involved (and there are many), the explanation best supported by the data would win out. Anyone can just say 'nyah-nyah' no matter what.

Quote

I only browsed the wiki article. Thanks for the clarification. My point remains, however, that this criterion is only of value if one is already assuming philosophical naturalism to be true in regards to the mental and non-mental. Sorry, I'm not going to do that, and no reasonable person would. So, this so-called falsification test fails because it is circular.

If the more and more accurate and well-supported explanation for the mind turns out to be supernatural, then metaphysical naturalism will be falsified.

Quote

And to speak to the notion while ignoring its circularity, even as a MNist, I can imagine finding exactly what is referenced here and what the materialistic answer would be. If it were me, I would merely invoke the multiverse and posit that the material arrangment underneath this mind yet exists, but is located in another universe.

That would be an ad-hoc explanation involving the invention of an additional universe AND a new magical mechanism for communication between the two. Again, if one is committed to a worldview to the exclusion of accuracy, there is nothing you can do.

Quote

"If I have no brain I can't think. If my brain is damaged I have trouble thinking."

Pure reductionism. So, it is your contention that 'mind' is a manifestation of the operations of matter, and 'matter follows natural laws.' The presence of 'mind' without any connection to matter would be supernatural to you? Is that right?

Yes ! Absolutely right.

Quote

Quote
You'll have to show me the data from thousands of years ago where people knew that all of their mental processes were affected by physical changes to their brains.

So it wasn't 'obvious' then, was it? It is not obvious now, either, which is why there is still a debate.

OK. Give me the dualist explanation that is superior to the materialist one for some of the cases listed here.

Quote

Understand what you're asking. My only interest in the question of metaphysical naturalism is whether or not it is a viable response to my Christian theism. Clearly, clearly, clearly, you and every atheist believes it to be so. And yet, your honesty here helps us to see that in fact your MN is barely connected to Christian theism. If it is to remain that way, I simply have no interest in the topic.

Your bias shows. My only interest in any of my beliefs is to attempt to make them accurate. Whether one set or another is a viable 'response' to another doesn't matter.

'Barely connected ?' I'm not sure what you mean. It isn't a denial of stuff but a positive worldview that is different than your Christian theistic worldview. That's all.

Quote

"An observation that falsified metaphysical naturalism would have a very, very large and disruptive effect on science. As long as enough intellectually honest people are involved (and there are many), the explanation best supported by the data would win out."

What you mean to say is that the naturalistic explanation best supported by the data would win out.

"Methodological naturalism would force all explanations to be in the form of natural phenomena, yes."

So what is your explanation for why methodological supernaturalism is a colossal failure at providing workable explanations for empirical data ? Empiricism only emphasizes sensory data over innate ideas - it has nothing to do with natural / supernatural.

Quote

My purpose in providing a variety of sources on transcendence and immanence was to show that despite your protestations, this is an area that Christians across the spectrum hold. You would do well to bring yourself up to speed if you are really planning on invoking metaphysical naturalism as an alternative to Christian theism. If MN is valid only when warring against its own, internal definitions of natural and supernaturalism, we Christian theists can sit on the sidelines.

Huh ? Unless your God is a complex arrangement of fundamentally mindless particles blindly following laws, Christian theism is false if metaphysical naturalism is true.

Quote

Our only duty at that point would be to throw it back in your face if you tried to smuggle out your internally derived world view out as being identifiable with the philosophical naturalism that has been raised against actual Christian theism through out the centuries.

What the heck are you talking about ?

benjdm · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2007, 10:59:21 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 13, 2007, 08:12:43 AM

Believe it or not, but we've just made progress. Try connecting: " As I read it, immanence and fictional status are indistinguishable." with Dembski's: "Let us therefore turn to the creation of the world as treated in Scripture. The first thing that strikes us is the mode of creation. God speaks and things happen."

Keep working on it. You may find the notions to be absurd. I recently even had an atheist insist that I was making it all up! Which is why I've begun by posting some links showing that I definitely am not. You may find the notions to be absurd, yes, but at least you'll be rejecting the actual position and not the caricature. More importantly, when you grasp these two concepts together, you will see how given the notion of 'empiricism' in the wiki article, there is no way, not even in principle, for the scientific method to 'detect' supernatural realities- when supernatural is understood within Christian conceptions.

The scientific method cannot utilize supernatural explanations by its own understanding of the word 'supernatural.' Whether this is identical to the Christian understanding of supernatural I don't know.

Quote

Which I still think is the point, right? To reject Christianity?

Wow. No. I am not a mentally anguished or disgruntled ex-Christian. I found Christianity unbelievable from the very beginning, and have developed my own beliefs without referencing Christian ones. Is the point of your Christianity to reject Native American religions ?

benjdm · « **Reply #18 on:** August 14, 2007, 11:38:43 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 13, 2007, 08:18:38 AM

DANG IT ALL. I modified one of your posts again. I restored it back to where it is. Ok, from now on I'm only hitting the reply button at the bottom of threads.

10% rule get you again ? I always have trouble with that one. (You have to be 10% smarter than the equipment you attempt to operate :) )

Quote

Don't get me wrong, if any man would want to have his cake and eat it to, it would be him. You see, it is his argument that mind reduces to matter, therefore PN is most likely true. You are doing something different. You are assuming that this is already correct, that it is already well known and firmly established that mind reduces to matter, and that this follows from naturalistic methodologies.

As we learn more about the mind / brain, if we find out that the mind does NOT reduce to matter, than metaphysical naturalism will be falsified.

Quote

Your version, more precisely, what we see on the wiki:

A. We assume there is no God.
B. We therefore assume the mind reduces to matter. IT MUST, by GOD, it MUST!
... [insert various evidences for brain-mind connections here, as if they are even important given A.]
Z. Discovery of mind that does not reduce to matter would falsify....

What? What would it falsify? It would falsify B, not A.

Without agreeing that this is a correct summary of the argument, of course it would only falsify B not A. To me and many other metaphysical naturalists, the issue of a God / no-God is pretty uninteresting. It's as interesting as positing a Great Keno Machine, an eternal machine that creates independent space-time universes with different randomly-chosen fundamental constants every five minutes in its meta-time. Most people find no reason to spend much time considering the GKM / no-GKM question, because there is nothing to suggest a GKM in the first place. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest a God in the first place.

Quote

Invoking the divine to explain an act of creation is, of course, wholly unacceptable to the ruling intellectual elite. Naturalism, the view that nature is the ultimate reality, has become the default position for all serious inquiry among our intellectual elite. From Biblical studies to law to education to science to the arts, inquiry is allowed to proceed only under the supposition that nature is the ultimate reality. Naturalism denies any divine element to the creative act. By contrast, the Christian tradition plainly asserts that God is the ultimate reality and that nature itself is a divine creative act. Within Christian theism, God is primary and fundamental whereas nature is secondary and derivative. Naturalism, by contrast, asserts that nature is primary and fundamental.

OK. What gets one to conclude this ?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2007, 06:38:07 PM »

"That is NOT what the immanence explanations said."

That's what you think.

"Clearly, it says there is stuff that is other-than-God, sustained by God."

But if God is the sum of all creation, then strictly speaking, there is nothing that is completely distinct from God. God creates out of himself. It must be that way given the definition. It is sustained by him, but as he is the full extent of reality, it cannot be apart from him. For example, we can create a sculpture by re-shaping materials that are distinct from us, but God could not do such a thing- he is all the material that there is. Thus, immanence.

"That's a new claim. OK. What theologians have given what predictions about what will be found in currently unknown scriptures ?"

Most conservative theologians would say that for all intents and purposes, there won't be any more scriptures. The position is of that of the 'closed canon.' The whole reason why the docs in the NT have risen to prominence in the first place is because of the sifting process performed by the Christians of the first three centuries, finally codified c. 325 AD. But perhaps that is neither here nor there. There is no reason why our predictions must be confirmed in currently 'unknown' scriptures.

However, I'm going to try to throw you a bone here on this one. For example, Christians for centuries have advocated that the Scriptures are without error. One apparent error that caused persistent troubles was the apparent difference in the dates of Jesus' crucifixion. Those who thought the Scriptures were without err did so in the face of the evidence, at least in this regards. New information came to light in the Dead Sea Scrolls, revealing a calendar that was in existence during the time of Jesus among the Jews. If this calendar was used in one Gospel and the other calendar was used in another Gospel, the discrepancy disappears.

I am told that this is exactly what has been shown to be the case, though I'll confess it is not something that I myself have evaluated.

Just one example, but basically, any time someone comes up with an interpretation from even the existing Scriptures, the expectation is that for that interpretation to be cogent, one would predict that other Scriptures would 'work' with that interpretation and not contradict it.

Sound Science!

""Right, you're equivocating. Because in the wiki article empiricism was contrasted with supernaturalism""

"Where. Show me."

Uh, first sentence of the second paragraph in the heading of definition:

"The concept of "nature" embraced by contemporary metaphysical naturalists excludes by definition gods, spirits, and any other supernatural beings, objects, or forces"

Combined with the argument that comes later:

"For over three hundred years empirical methods have consistently discovered only natural things and causes, even underlying many things once thought to be supernatural. Meanwhile, no other methods have produced any consistent conclusions about the substance or causes of anything, much less anything supernatural."

"There has been plenty of progress in abiogenesis research. So much so, the last step is not anticipated to be very noteworthy. You're simply wrong on this one."

I am not wrong, and your entry did you no good, only harm. But you're still employing 'God of the Gaps' reasoning. I was merely using abiogenesis as an example. Use your imagination, here. Given such enthusiastic claims that the 'feat will be accomplished in a few years' what if it wasn't? What if 300 years from now it hasn't been accomplished? My question to you has to do with how long you will search out naturalistic explanations before you concede to a supernatural one? That was the question, please speak to it. Do you have an objective criteria for how long a reasonable person should wait for all naturalistic explanations to be ruled out?

"In any case, there is nothing stopping theologians from inventing other methods of using empiricism to derive models, facts, etc. None have come up with any methods that converge on more and more accurate results that explain empirical observations."

You're comparing apples with oranges. I'm not asking the theologians to explain how a microwave works. The accuracy of their observations would be vindicated in a different area. There is one good exception, though. My 'model' says that humans are by nature sinful, whether Christian or not, and they will continue to do terrible things. This is corroborated in every morning's newspaper, and the Christian Scriptures predict it- and explain why it is so.

"The VERY QUESTION being investigated is NOT whether the supernatural exists. The questions are what are the most accurate explanations of reality we can come to."

Metaphysical naturalism is meaningless apart from contrast to supernatural models.

Quote

Quote
But that would be a show stopper. Your whole point is to try to present a viable world view that is superior to that of the Christian's, is it not? Only insofar as your definition of 'supernatural' matches that of the informed Christian do I have any interest in the thread at all.

Now you're pissing me off. You refuse to accept my meaning when I use the word 'supernatural.' Then you refuse to provide your conception of 'supernatural' so that I could reframe my language to accurately convey what I intend to convey. That's horsepoo-poo.

Oh, you don't like it, do ya? We've already seen how if I give you the actual position you whine that it isn't the ACTUAL position, SOME Christians don't agree, blah blah blah. Even when I produce shared views spanning Catholicism to Protestantism you don't concede for me that I am accurately representing for you the Christian view. YOU are the one that said [I paraphrase] that in your experience, it is not the case that atheists don't understand the Christian position. It should follow, then, that by God you should be able to tell ME what I think. Give me a break, here. I've only been doing this for 10 years, only been teaching Christianity for almost 7- 2 of those years at the college level. Maybe I know what I'm talking about.

Now, I'd be happy to describe it for you but I don't want all this flipping jazz about how some Mormon from Utah who insists that he is a Christian doesn't agree with me therefore there is no relatively unified Christian POV on the matter, as if a couple of million new-fangled religious folks is enough to invalidate the historic positions embraced by more than a BILLION people over 2,000 years!

If you're starting to get pissed off, join the club.

"That would be an ad-hoc explanation involving the invention of an additional universe AND a new magical mechanism for communication between the two. Again, if one is committed to a worldview to the exclusion of accuracy, there is nothing you can do."

Sure it would be ad-hoc, but it would still be naturalistic. You can't tell me that Richard Dawkins wouldn't prefer the solution that I just posited over a supernaturalistic one. You're just naive if you think this. I'm willing to grant the possibility that you, perhaps, would be persuaded.

Quote

Quote
"If I have no brain I can't think. If my brain is damaged I have trouble thinking."

Pure reductionism. So, it is your contention that 'mind' is a manifestation of the operations of matter, and 'matter follows natural laws.' The presence of 'mind' without any connection to matter would be supernatural to you? Is that right?

Yes ! Absolutely right.

Excellent. :) I'll return to this shortly.

Quote

So it wasn't 'obvious' then, was it? It is not obvious now, either, which is why there is still a debate.

OK. Give me the dualist explanation that is superior to the materialist one for some of the cases listed here.[/quote]

All I'm saying is that it isn't as 'obvious' as you want us to believe. If I were an atheist, I would not consider my view falsified by an immaterial mind.

I find myself persuaded by Eleanore Stump's exposition of 'substance dualism,' the position as believed by Thomas Aquinas. She has a podcast on it, and I recommend it: http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/321

"Your bias shows."

It's a flipping forum for the defense of the Christian faith. What did you expect?

"My only interest in any of my beliefs is to attempt to make them accurate. Whether one set or another is a viable 'response' to another doesn't matter."

With that said, I have the same goal. I merely want the most accurate world view. I believe that to be the Christian world view. You should have figured that out by now. I don't have time to devote to respond to interesting problems for the metaphysical naturalist that arise internally to it but have no bearing on the Christian world view.

"'Barely connected ?' I'm not sure what you mean. It isn't a denial of stuff but a positive worldview that is different than your Christian theistic worldview. That's all."

I don't agree at all that it is an independent world view, but that is neither here nor there. It is 'barely connected' if it rejects supernaturalism but it is not supernaturalism as Christians understand the term. If it was truly a positive world view, it wouldn't have to mention supernaturalism at all.

"So what is your explanation for why methodological supernaturalism is a colossal failure at providing workable explanations for empirical data ? "

How do you know it is a failure? It explains everything in perfectly supernatural ways. You seem to have a problem with that. :) It wouldn't be... uh... because it's CIRCULAR REASONING, would it?

"Huh ? Unless your God is a complex arrangement of fundamentally mindless particles blindly following laws, Christian theism is false if metaphysical naturalism is true."

No it isn't, at least not right now, by your telling. At this point, Christian theism is an entirely different class. You have yet to reflect accurately the Christian world view here. Your notion of the 'supernatural' is not as Christians have understood it for centuries. Again, a good example of how the church has failed you.

Author Topic: Metaphysical naturalism (Read 4318 times)