Posts: 765
Threads: 40
Joined: August 8, 2010
Reputation:
21
Presumption of naturalism
September 14, 2015 at 4:51 pm
The idea of the supernatural is useful only insofar it can be said to offer a better explanation than the natural. However, it is impossible to assert that any event in the universe is a supernatural act:
- Firstly one would need to demonstrate the validity of the measurement (in that the observation was not flawed)
- Secondly if one overcame that hurdle, one would need to establish that there was no currently understood natural antecedent cause
- Thirdly if one overcame that hurdle, parsimony would require you to rule out any undiscovered element of the natural (requiring human omniscience).
Given that we do not have omniscience and only empirical examples where the supernatural has been replaced by the natural by better observations, refining of current natural processes and discovery of new natural phenomona, we are only justified in presuming naturalism is true. Thus supernaturalism is false.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm
"supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 14, 2015 at 8:30 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2015 at 8:32 pm by bennyboy.)
(September 14, 2015 at 4:51 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: The idea of the supernatural is useful only insofar it can be said to offer a better explanation than the natural. However, it is impossible to assert that any event in the universe is a supernatural act:
- Firstly one would need to demonstrate the validity of the measurement (in that the observation was not flawed)
- Secondly if one overcame that hurdle, one would need to establish that there was no currently understood natural antecedent cause
- Thirdly if one overcame that hurdle, parsimony would require you to rule out any undiscovered element of the natural (requiring human omniscience).
Given that we do not have omniscience and only empirical examples where the supernatural has been replaced by the natural by better observations, refining of current natural processes and discovery of new natural phenomona, we are only justified in presuming naturalism is true. Thus supernaturalism is false.
I think a look at the etymology of the word is in order. The "nat" in "supernatural" means birth. What to make of this? It means that things are created which did not exist, at least in form. Space and time, being the framework IN WHICH things are brought into being when they once didn't exist, cannot themselves be said to be created without reference to the supernatural. So if there is nothing beyond the universe, the universe is itself supernatural.
If it was created by something, then you have a semantic decision to make. Either it turns out that the creator of the universe is supernatural, or you say that whatever created the universe is part of a kind of super-framework, and is still therefore natural. But I'd argue that's just bully semantics: in the latter case, it could be that things could influence our universe which we could never observe or really know about; and that is basically what people mean by the words.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 1:42 am
(This post was last modified: September 15, 2015 at 1:43 am by robvalue.)
(September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false. In such cases, wouldn't the word "unexplained" would be sufficient and less ambiguous? To class something as "outside natural law" implies we have a comprehensive knowledge of natural law, which we clearly do not. We probably never will.
I don't believe supernatural has an agreed, meaningful/useful definition.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 1:51 am
(September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
Sorry, but why do we need a placeholder for the beginning of the universe at all, much less one as loaded as "supernatural"? Isn't "insufficient data," a cogent enough description of the state of affairs?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 765
Threads: 40
Joined: August 8, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 6:33 am
(September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
By definition Supernatural is not of the natural and thus it cannot be a placeholder. And thats the point we would need to be omniscient to declare the supernatural as meaningful and valid. As it is not possible for us to be omniscient we must declare supernaturalism to be false.
I do not agree that any current hypotheses supports a supernatural "beginning" to the universe. Theists have a conjecture and reasons for thinking it is true, but these arguments are deeply unconvincing (including the theists poster child - the Kalam). It is not the same thing as it being true and it certainly isn't a testable hypotheses.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 8:47 am
(September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
What is natural law, lkingpinl?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 9:03 am
(September 15, 2015 at 1:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: (September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
Sorry, but why do we need a placeholder for the beginning of the universe at all, much less one as loaded as "supernatural"? Isn't "insufficient data," a cogent enough description of the state of affairs?
Certainly is. I think the default position is "unknown", "Unexplained", "insufficient data", etc. What I said was the current hypotheses presented for the beginning (like those of Hawking) are "supernatural" or in violation of current known natural law.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 9:05 am
(September 15, 2015 at 8:47 am)Alex K Wrote: (September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
What is natural law, lkingpinl?
The natural laws that govern the universe and its properties, that are testable and repeatable. As I mentioned, the current presumptions and hypotheses presented for the beginning of the universe (most notably by Hawking) require the breakdown of the natural laws and that is why I call it "supernatural". Now granted, it is of course conjecture, postulating unknowns, but the current best theories out there can be defined as supernatural by it's mere definition.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: Presumption of naturalism
September 15, 2015 at 9:07 am
(September 15, 2015 at 1:42 am)robvalue Wrote: (September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false. In such cases, wouldn't the word "unexplained" would be sufficient and less ambiguous? To class something as "outside natural law" implies we have a comprehensive knowledge of natural law, which we clearly do not. We probably never will.
I don't believe supernatural has an agreed, meaningful/useful definition.
Rob, I tend to see a recurring pattern with you referring to unanimous definitions. Do you believe truth to be relative?
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
|
