RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
June 4, 2020 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: June 4, 2020 at 7:37 pm by Belacqua.)
(June 4, 2020 at 10:26 am)polymath257 Wrote: And yet they fit the definition you gave.
No they certainly don't.
It's true we lack information about Julius Caesar's meal on the day before he was killed. But we are perfectly comfortable with all of the concepts involved. "Caesar," "meal," "day before," and "killed" are all things we comprehend. If you read what I said, it's clear that I'm not talking about that kind of thing.
"Neoliberal economics" is to "earthworms" as "X" is to "human beings."
The concept of neoliberal economics is entirely outside of what earthworms can grasp. It's not as if they lack some bit of information which they could discover if they knew where to look. It's entirely possible that there are all kinds of things which are, similarly, beyond what humans can grasp. Not because we lack some bit of information, but because our minds just can't do it.
If you don't like calling such things supernatural it's OK with me. But it's the way many other people use the word. William Blake, for example, personifies nature as Vala -- a name which refers to a veil. For him, nature is that veil over reality which is available only to our corporeal senses. He believes there is more to the world than that.
