Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[Belacqua]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

A things nature is whatever it is or does...so...yeah?

[Rhizomorph13]

A things nature is whatever it is or does...so...yeah?

You're doing it wrong you need at least a 40 minute video expounding on what "natural" REALLY means. /sarcasm

[polymath257]

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).

[Belacqua]

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).

This is from Tufts University:

Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.

This describes what you are doing. It means that when we observe something and can't explain it, we aren't allowed to say it's supernatural. We have to declare it's natural, even if we never explain it.

[The Grand Nudger]

We have no choice but declare anything we see happening to be natural..whether we can explain it or not, if your definitions are accurate.

Because a things nature is what it is or does. Because supernatural is beyond whatever a thing is or does.

---

Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does. 

Let's return to your singing frog, with the additional comments by other members. Frogs don't sing, it's not in their nature. If we saw a frog singing, one of two things must then be true. We were wrong, and it is in a frogs nature to sing, or... the frog isn't singing, something else is singing, and it's in that things nature to sing in a way that makes it look like frogs are singing. In neither case does the frog or anything else possess supernatural abilities as you've defined the natural, or the supernatural. Nothing is doing anything beyond it's nature, because it's not possible for a thing that you're doing to be beyond what you do. It's not even a cogent statement.

Now...I know, I know...you only meant to employ this equivocation to evade criticism on your previous missteps, but you are going to be hung with it since you insisted on it - going so far as to claim that these were the only definitions for supernatural and natural that you even understand. Well, fine. If things are as you say they are...then you are wrong, and literally cannot be right. There is no supernatural, and nothing can be evidence for the supernatural.

Tough luck, I guess.

[polymath257]

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).

This is from Tufts University:

Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.

This describes what you are doing. It means that when we observe something and can't explain it, we aren't allowed to say it's supernatural. We have to declare it's natural, even if we never explain it.

And *by your definition*, that is precisely what has to happen.

WHATEVER the frogs do is in their nature. It is the job of science to study what they actually do.

The scientific method goes far beyond what the Tufts University description says. ALL that needs to happens is that there are observable patterns in what happens. And if there are such patterns, science can be done.

Once again, the 'nature' of an object is simply WHATEVER it is or does. And that would be true even if the object is, say, a ghost.

If we observed ghosts and those ghosts had detectable patterns of behavior, then science can study ghosts.

[Fake Messiah]

It means that when we observe something and can't explain it, we aren't allowed to say it's supernatural. We have to declare it's natural, even if we never explain it.

Sure, here's an explanation from a well-respected scientist Richard Dawkins why supernatural can never offer us a true explanation of the things we see in the world and universe around us.

Richard Dawkins is a really smart guy, and you should definitely read some of his books, Belacqua, and learn a few things. This is from his book "Magic of Reality"

Now I want to return to the idea of the supernatural and explain why it can never offer us a true explanation of the things we see in the world and universe around us. Indeed, to claim a supernatural explanation of something is not to explain it at all and, even worse, to rule out any possibility of its ever being explained. Why do I say that? Because anything ‘supernatural’ must by definition be beyond the reach of a natural explanation. It must be beyond the reach of science and the well-established, tried and tested scientific method that has been responsible for the huge advances in knowledge we have enjoyed over the last 400 years or so. To say that something happened supernaturally is not just to say ‘We don’t understand it’ but to say ‘We will never understand it, so don’t even try.’

Science takes exactly the opposite approach. Science thrives on its inability – so far – to explain everything, and uses that as the spur to go on asking questions, creating possible models and testing them, so that we make our way, inch by inch, closer to the truth.

If something were to happen that went against our current understanding of reality, scientists would see that as a challenge to our present model, requiring us to abandon or at least change it. It is through such adjustments and subsequent testing that we approach closer and closer to what is true.

What would you think of a detective who, baffled by a murder, was too lazy even to try to work at the problem and instead wrote the mystery off as ‘supernatural’? The whole history of science shows us that things once thought to be the result of the supernatural – caused by gods (both happy and angry), demons, witches, spirits, curses and spells – actually do have natural explanations: explanations that we can understand and test and have confidence in. There is absolutely no reason to believe that those things for which science does not yet have natural explanations will turn out to be of supernatural origin, any more than volcanoes or earthquakes or diseases turn out to be caused by angry deities, as people once believed they were.

[Belacqua]

The scientific method goes far beyond what the Tufts University description says. ALL that needs to happens is that there are observable patterns in what happens. And if there are such patterns, science can be done.

The passage I quoted isn't a comprehensive description of the scientific method. It's about methodological naturalism. I thought it was strange that you repeatedly advocate methodological naturalism while denying that such a thing is necessary. 

If we observed ghosts and those ghosts had detectable patterns of behavior, then science can study ghosts.

I'm glad you've come around to my position on this. 

I've said repeatedly that things have natures, and that if they do only what is in accord with their natures then the thing is natural. I've pointed out that many Christians say that God is natural because he only is and does in accord with his nature. 

You resisted this at first but it seems we agree on this part now.

[brewer]

I've pointed out that many Christians say that God is natural because he only is and does in accord with his nature.

And where does gods observed come from? Is there an accurate list of these natures I can have so when I observe something I can say, "that can only be god".