RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 31, 2020 at 3:52 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2020 at 3:53 pm by Belacqua.)
(May 31, 2020 at 10:19 am)polymath257 Wrote: So, in your little scenario, the scientists would NOT say it is impossible for a frog to sing. They would observe it singing and start with that information, proceeding to try to figure out how it is possible.
This is a re-statement of what you said before. I understand what you've been saying.
You are sure that anything that happens is natural. You rule out the supernatural a priori.
You are very committed to this metaphysical view. You may well be right.
(May 31, 2020 at 1:27 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I think I see what you're trying to say (maybe). If I started seeing frogs singing Italian duets and I was sure it wasn't me hallucinating and the notes were clearly coming from them through mysterious processes within their bodies (and not through some hard-to-see nearby device that is emitting Italian songs and deceptively making it look like it's the frogs singing), I'd definitely consider the "supernatural" (as in beyond the scope of science) as a serious possibility in this case, at least temporarily until/unless a clear explanation in science points us back to a very "naturalistic" explanation. But I'd still opt for a naturalistic explanation primarily, due to the metaphysical worldview I hold to.
This is exactly what I've been saying.
I'm very grateful that you would take the time to understand it. I wish there were some kind of prize I could give.
