Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:17 am

Poll: What's your stance on the supernatural?
This poll is closed.
Not a naturalist
11.43%
4 11.43%
Methodological naturalist
34.29%
12 34.29%
Philosophical naturalist
45.71%
16 45.71%
Other (please specify)
8.57%
3 8.57%
Total 35 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Your position on naturalism
#21
RE: Your position on naturalism
In keeping with my agnosticism, I went methodological naturalism.

I think there are unanswered things about reality that naturalism can't make sense of. And maybe they can be explained by things we don't know "outside of this universe" or w/e. I don't think it would be god(s) or anything, but rather deeper metaphysical truths that sustain our universe. Things like idealism etc.

I agree that if anything was beyond the universe, it would continue to be natural. But since apparently we can't experience them, it's useful to call them "supernatural" in the sense of it being "beyond 'our' nature".
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#22
RE: Your position on naturalism
I agree with Vic. As long as we have been Homo sapiens capable of reason, communication and empathy, if the supernatural hasn't found a way to make itself detectible to us by now, it's not going to happen. And by the term detectible, I don't mean to some crazy assed desert shepherd or to people who mistake their own thoughts as instructions from god.
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.

I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire

Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
Reply
#23
RE: Your position on naturalism
(November 20, 2016 at 8:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: In keeping with my agnosticism, I went methodological naturalism.

I think there are unanswered things about reality that naturalism can't make sense of. And maybe they can be explained by things we don't know "outside of this universe" or w/e. I don't think it would be god(s) or anything, but rather deeper metaphysical truths that sustain our universe. Things like idealism etc.

I agree that if anything was beyond the universe, it would continue to be natural. But since apparently we can't experience them, it's useful to call them "supernatural" in the sense of it being "beyond 'our' nature".


A fair point (my bolded) but my preference would be to choose another word given the many unfortunate bordering on incoherent uses that one has acquired.
Reply
#24
RE: Your position on naturalism
I'm a Number Two ... a fact which many have already figured out.

Reply
#25
RE: Your position on naturalism
If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason, because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural. But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.
Reply
#26
RE: Your position on naturalism
Ultimately, the supernatural has to do with agency. The ability to 'will' something to happen. As long as the self, soul, and will were not of this world, it was at least plausible that certain wills might have this power. As agency has given way from an otherworldly explanation to one based on the operation of brains, this aspect of agency has seemed less plausible. Brains simply do not appear to have this magical ability.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#27
RE: Your position on naturalism
Thank you for what I take to be a genuinely held position on your part.  We've been suffering a barrage of Poes and trolls so not something to be taken for granted.  I'd love to explore this with you if you're game.  

(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason,

I probably need you to unpack that for me.  Whether or not things have a sufficient reason, I would never assume we are equipped to understand them all.  So something which seemingly lacked a sufficient reason might well have one like that, which we just can't comprehend.


(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: ..because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural.

Why should that be?  Aren't you begging the question of whether any such thing as the supernatural exists, smuggling it in without arguing for it?


(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

This seems to just repeat your last paragraph.
Reply
#28
RE: Your position on naturalism
(November 20, 2016 at 9:11 pm)Whateverist Wrote:
(November 20, 2016 at 8:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: In keeping with my agnosticism, I went methodological naturalism.

I think there are unanswered things about reality that naturalism can't make sense of. And maybe they can be explained by things we don't know "outside of this universe" or w/e. I don't think it would be god(s) or anything, but rather deeper metaphysical truths that sustain our universe. Things like idealism etc.

I agree that if anything was beyond the universe, it would continue to be natural. But since apparently we can't experience them, it's useful to call them "supernatural" in the sense of it being "beyond 'our' nature".


A fair point (my bolded) but my preference would be to choose another word given the many unfortunate bordering on incoherent uses that one has acquired.

I think once upon a time I was calling it the 'extranatural' around these areas... but I agree with you that the word has gained a bit of a stigma unfortunately.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#29
RE: Your position on naturalism
(November 20, 2016 at 11:35 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Thank you for what I take to be a genuinely held position on your part. We've been suffering a barrage of Poes and trolls so not something to be taken for granted. I'd love to explore this with you if you're game.

(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason,

I probably need you to unpack that for me. Whether or not things have sufficient reasons, I would never assume we are equipped to understand them all. So something which seemingly lacked a sufficient my well have one like that, which we just can't comprehend.


(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: ..because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural.

Why should that be? Aren't you begging the question of whether any such thing as the supernatural exists, smuggling it in without arguing for it?


(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

This seems to just repeat your last paragraph.

Yes. I'm game.

Let's see.

I used here a valid conditional syllogism:

If A, then B.
But, not B.
Therefore not A.

So, the only remaining thing to check now is whether my premises are all true in order to show that my argument is not only valid, but only sound, and therefore, my conclusion must be necessarily be true.

And that is fantastically being asked by some of your inquires:

Your first query demands a request for me to explain more the Major Premise of my argument which has a firm of "if A, then B".

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes. Thus, every effect must have a cause. Now, nature is the essence of a thing. Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined. That can only be the sufficient reason, right? So, if not, which is tantamount to affirming that all things are natural, then we are denying sufficient reason.

Next, sufficient reason is not about comprehension. Principle of Sufficient Reason is just the truth that something can only come from something and not from nothing. Just as there is a crime scene, we know that there must be a reason for that, even though we don't comprehend or know the whole info regarding the crime scene.

I fail to understand what you are pointing at when you say that I seem to beg question. What is that question? Remember that I don't claim that I know supernatural right away, but I knew it by demonstration.
Reply
#30
RE: Your position on naturalism
(November 20, 2016 at 10:33 pm)theologian Wrote: If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason, because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural. But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

Or maybe the principle of sufficient reason is utter bunk.
“Life is like a grapefruit. Well, it's sort of orangey-yellow and dimpled on the outside, wet and squidgy in the middle. It's got pips inside, too. Oh, and some people have half a one for breakfast.”  - Ford Prefect
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Presumption of naturalism Captain Scarlet 18 3524 September 15, 2015 at 10:49 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Atheism, A Grim Position? *steve* 170 18113 January 24, 2015 at 5:05 am
Last Post: IATIA
  On naturalism and consciousness FallentoReason 291 43640 September 15, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Last Post: dissily mordentroge
  "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism Mudhammam 16 5511 January 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Does Science Presume Naturalism? MindForgedManacle 14 3734 December 28, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Last Post: Zen Badger
  Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: A Refutation MindForgedManacle 0 1057 November 21, 2013 at 10:22 am
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  rational naturalism is impossible! Rational AKD 112 35596 November 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Last Post: TheBeardedDude
  Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism. Mystic 58 11847 March 24, 2013 at 10:02 am
Last Post: Mystic
  Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism Tiberius 11 4294 March 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Last Post: RedFish



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)