Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
Your position on naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 4:01 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 4:54 am by robvalue.)
This is a poll regarding your stance on the natural and "supernatural". Now, I have rarely been given a coherent definition of what supernatural is, so just assume it means whatever you feel people generally think it means. Magic shit, basically. Whatever you like.
The three main positions I am aware of:
1: Not a naturalist. I believe in the supernatural.
2: Methodological naturalist. I ignore the supernatural (if it's a real thing) for practical purposes until such time as a way of detecting/testing it is presented.
3: Philosophical naturalist. I deny the existence of the supernatural.
I am a number two. Hehe.
Posts: 3064
Threads: 3
Joined: July 10, 2016
Reputation:
36
RE: Your position in naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 4:06 am
Methodological naturalist. Until the supernatural is properly defined and found to be testable, I have no reason to believe in anything beyond the natural world.
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
72
RE: Your position in naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 4:11 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 4:14 am by Longhorn.)
Philosophical naturalist. The term doesn't make sense in itself. It's impossible for a thing with that definition to exist. Anything 'supernatural' that is shown to exist just becomes 'natural'.
On second thought, that might make me a pedantic asshole instead...
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
72
RE: Your position in naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 4:12 am
But above all, fuck all polls 
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Your position in naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 4:35 am
(November 20, 2016 at 4:11 am)Vic Wrote: Philosophical naturalist. The term doesn't make sense in itself. It's impossible for a thing with that definition to exist. Anything 'supernatural' that is shown to exist just becomes 'natural'.
On second thought, that might make me a pedantic asshole instead...
I agree, this is the problem with most definitions.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
150
RE: Your position in naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 5:21 am
I find myself entirely unsympathetic to the idea the supernatural. Should it turn out that the world can more completely be described as having aspects which are natural and other aspects which are supernatural no one would be more surprised than myself.
In trying to understand what motivates the idea of the supernatural the best that I can do is to go back to a mind/matter dichotomy. It seems so silly to do this but I guess the idea of a divine supernatural is the idea that everything is ultimately but an idea in God's mind. Whatever order we think we find in the world is put there by a being fully capable of setting aside that order at any moment. So the idea of the supernatural is the idea of a supreme agency which sustains a reliable, natural world except when it over rules it instead.
To take this idea seriously you couldn't believe that it is possible to arrive at the essential nature of anything. It would be to forever humble oneself to the caprice of something divine, all powerful and ultimately unknowable to beings like ourselves who are but products of that mind.
But why in the world would anyone take the mind/matter division as essential? It isn't natural and to my mind the real world is the natural world. I have taken the position of being a methodological naturalist in debating theists but really that is a dodge for me. It is just me being overly polite, tip toeing around the children for fear that the knowledge their Santa doesn't exist would just devastate them. I don't do it to win arguments with them. Really, it is just a way of offering them a crutch by which they can participate in the modern world.
You can mark me down as a dye-in-the-wool naturalist and a real world advocate. I may still tip toe around the delusions of others to be polite. But for me the natural world is the real world. Period. The correct analysis of the mind/matter distinction is to realize our consciousness (minds) put us in touch with the real world, albeit imperfectly. The limitations of any particular form of consciousness color the world we perceive in ways consistent with our kind. In no way does mind, divine or otherwise, create the world which we detect. The world or "matter" is primary, perception or "mind" is secondary.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Your position on naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 6:03 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 6:04 am by robvalue.)
I agree. There are things we have discovered, and probably things we haven't. I don't see the need to try and imply the latter are magic. Even if we'll never discover certain things, so what?
Of course, supporters of the supernatural generally claim they have discovered it in some nonstandard way, making the division even more arbitrary.
But I find MN to be pragmatic in debates.
"Are you saying the physical world is all there is?"
"No, I'm not claiming that."
"Oh..."
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Your position on naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 6:19 am
(November 20, 2016 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: This is a poll regarding your stance on the natural and "supernatural". Now, I have rarely been given a coherent definition of what supernatural is, so just assume it means whatever you feel people generally think it means. Magic shit, basically. Whatever you like.
The three main positions I am aware of:
1: Not a naturalist. I believe in the supernatural.
2: Methodological naturalist. I ignore the supernatural (if it's a real thing) for practical purposes until such time as a way of detecting/testing it is presented.
3: Philosophical naturalist. I deny the existence of the supernatural.
I am a number two. Hehe.
I think supernatural is an unhelpful term.
It implies that anything is possible, that flowers can turn into main battle tanks with the right incantation.
That something can exist "outside of time and space" and create universes, obviously skipping the planning and gathering materials part because there was no time or material. I very much doubt there was planning permission.
Its a lazy way of thinking that provides easy answers to difficult questions.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Your position on naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 6:28 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 6:29 am by robvalue.)
Yup, it's a garbage term, I agree. It seems to be drawing a line under what is possible, based solely on our observations, then claiming that some things can break those rules. They can do "the impossible". It's just stupid.
One guy gave a definition of "supernatural" which was at least coherent, after some prodding. It turned out to be anything outside of our reality. This would make it a relative term, and things in our reality would then be supernatural with regard to another reality.
I find it easiest to let someone put whatever they like this box called "supernatural", and ask if it can be demonstrated to be real. If yes, then they can go ahead and define and demonstrate it. If no, then I can simply ignore it. A lot of theists think they can "demonstrate" it using logical arguments, of course.
I think some people just want there to be this special stuff out there that smelly old science isn't allowed near. That's cool, maybe there's stuff it's impossible for us to ever detect no matter how advanced we get. But we can't detect it; you just said so. Therefor it makes no difference.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
150
RE: Your position on naturalism
November 20, 2016 at 6:37 am
But where is the dial that will take you from 'our' reality to others? And what are the borders between realities composed of?
|
