RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 31, 2020 at 9:59 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2020 at 10:00 pm by polymath257.)
(May 31, 2020 at 8:43 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 31, 2020 at 8:36 pm)polymath257 Wrote: So, yes, I agree with your definition as stated: the nature of something consists of what it 'is and does'. Nothing more. Nothing less. So, by this very definition, anything that happens *is* in the nature of things. And, furthermore, anything that happens and shows patterns is subject to the scientific method, even if something previously thought it was 'supernatural'.
Your position is clear. For you, anything we observe is natural. If we observe it, it's natural.
Precisely. Whatever we observe is, by definition, how the thing we are observing does things, and therefore in its nature. This is one reason I consider the whole notion of 'supernatural' to be incoherent. The definitions themselves show it to be so.
And, yes, we can apply the scientific method, even if the phenomenon involved would be considered 'supernatural' by some people at the time. No assumption of 'materialism' or 'methodological naturalism' is required: just study the phenomena that happen and see what patterns you can find and test (by any means).
