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

[The Grand Nudger]

At what point do you think that the useful process of testing things will be exhausted?

[LadyForCamus]

Not 'testable according to science'. Testable in the sense that there is some potential observation that would show it to be wrong, yet all actual observations fail to do so.

"Testable according to science" means "testable in the sense that there is some potential observation that would show it to be wrong." 
You're telling me, several times in this post, that only science can address these issues, and only science can tell us anything. Science is the only tool you accept. 

if a frog was able to sing Mozart duets, that would be an observation. And it would lead to further investigation, not simply throwing up hands and proclaiming it to be supernatural.

In fact it might be supernatural. But because you have ruled that out a priori, you rely on the faith that it must be natural. 

I am not saying that there are supernatural things. I am only saying that your firm commitment to a naturalist metaphysics begs the question. 

Why? That seems to be all you are giving.

You brought up Aristotle, said his view of things was harmful, and said I shouldn't use the term "nature." But you haven't said why. 

I am curious as to why you think that's so.


This kind of "it's bad because I say it's bad" isn't helpful.

No, testable in the sense I gave. It requires falsifiability and accessibility to non-beievers. That is all.

Yes, this is how science works. I believe we've covered that.

Is there some way in which they *would* be testable? Again, in the sense that an explanation using them could be shown wrong by some potential observation?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you only accept as meaningful things that can be shown wrong by some potential observation. 

Many metaphysical beliefs can't be shown wrong in that way. The supernatural, if it existed, probably couldn't. 

Your own metaphysical commitment, that there is nothing unknowable to science, is also unfalsifiable in the way that you stick to it. Because if we did find something that science couldn't know, you would insist that through further tests science eventually would prevail. You just got through saying that above. 

So you are comfortable with at least one very strong unfalsifiable belief.

If you cannot do that, even in theory, what sense does it make to even say something exists?

Here I think your commitment to science is so strong that you are asking: if science can't address something, then we are OK to say that the thing doesn't exist. So in a metaphysical way, you are declaring that only those things addressable by scientific means exist. 

Again, this may be true, but it can't be proven.

Science has done a great job of demonstrating the kind of thing that science can demonstrate. This doesn't mean that nothing else exists.

---

Food for thought: parrots can mimic human speech and song. Before we knew much about parrots, it probably seemed that a bird singing Yankee Doodle was “beyond its nature,” and therefore supernatural; 

“Beyond its nature” is just another example of an argument from ignorance.

If you are committed to the metaphysical belief that every question can be settled by scientific means, then you think that all problems not yet solved by science involve only ignorance. 

But you can't know this.

Of course not. But, just because we don’t or can’t know something with absolute certainty doesn’t mean we can’t make a reasonable inference based on what we already know, and as far as I can think, no explanation for an observed phenomenon had ever been supernatural in nature. Every time we find an explanation for a mystery the cause has always been natural. In fact, how could you even distinguish one from the other? Let me ask you this: is there a way to distinguish between a supernatural cause and a natural cause as of yet undiscovered?

[Succubus#2]

Poly would insist that even though we don't know where the idea came from, it must be natural. But this can't be tested.

[Much stoner drivel snipped]

It's the null hypothesis it doesn't need to be tested it needs to be refuted!
Now go ahead and refute it!

[Belacqua]

is there a way to distinguish between a supernatural cause and a natural cause as of yet undiscovered?

Not that I can think of.

What I want to do is avoid begging the question, as poly does.

He says that even if there is a complete lack of naturalistic evidence, he would consider supernatural explanations to be failures. It would be "throwing up your hands" and accepting defeat. Even in the event of no natural evidence, he would just assume that there must be some. 

If you accept that it is a metaphysical commitment on your part that any explanation must be natural, that's fine. But it's not provable.

[Rhizomorph13]

I would not claim that everything is knowable. For example it is a basic truth that the world is real and there is NO way to prove that. I've accepted that, but we should use science to approach working theories. There is no value in predicating unfalsifiable solutions to problems.

You seem to go reaching for weird solutions and I'm not sure you realize how irrational that is; talk of demons and spirits. They are fascinating to a point but when one confronts reality with tests, one finds out pretty quick that reality is a good deal simpler than the fancies that the mind can concoct.

[Belacqua]

I would not claim that everything is knowable. For example it is a basic truth that the world is real and there is NO way to prove that. I've accepted that, but we should use science to approach working theories. There is no value in predicating unfalsifiable solutions to problems.

You seem to go reaching for weird solutions and I'm not sure you realize how irrational that is; talk of demons and spirits. They are fascinating to a point but when one confronts reality with tests, one finds out pretty quick that reality is a good deal simpler than the fancies that the mind can concoct.

Is this directed at me?

I'm glad we agree that there is much we can't be sure of.

It's not irrational to offer examples of things that science wouldn't be able to address. That's what we're talking about -- whether there are things that science can't address. 

Are you sure that reality is simpler than our fancies? “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Again, if we limit ourselves to certain kinds of research methods we pre-determine what kind of results we will get. But the world we're unaware of may be pretty damn strange.

[LadyForCamus]

is there a way to distinguish between a supernatural cause and a natural cause as of yet undiscovered?

Not that I can think of.

What I want to do is avoid begging the question, as poly does.

He says that even if there is a complete lack of naturalistic evidence, he would consider supernatural explanations to be failures. It would be "throwing up your hands" and accepting defeat. Even in the event of no natural evidence, he would just assume that there must be some. 

If you accept that it is a metaphysical commitment on your part that any explanation must be natural, that's fine. But it's not provable.

So, if there is no way to distinguish between a supernatural cause, and a natural cause that we’ve yet to uncover; if there’s no way to even assess the probability of one cause versus the other; and if up until this point, every cause for a physical phenomenon we’ve ever explained has been a natural one, what reason is there to think that the supernatural is even a possibility as the cause of anything in the first place? That sounds an awful lot like the same metaphysical commitment you mention with regard to philosophical naturalism. In fact, it seems an awful lot like a rationally unjustified presupposition. At least in the case of philosophical naturalism, we have enough examples that we can make an inference.

[LadyForCamus]

Anyone who is asserting that the supernatural exists or could exist, or that such a “thing” causes effects in the natural world at some unknown percent rate, bears the burden of rationally justifying that belief. It’s not the unbeliever’s responsibility to consider it, without good reason, as a possible cause in every instance, or assume it is the cause when he can’t find a natural answer. That’s ass-backwards.

[Belacqua]

up until this point, every cause for a physical phenomenon we’ve ever explained has been a natural one

I think I addressed this before.

The scientific method is set up to find natural causes. It's no surprise that every cause it has found has been natural. It finds what it's set up to find.

As poly says, if there is no natural explanation, science just assumes that there will be one later. That may be true or not. 

what reason is there to think that the supernatural is even a possibility as the cause of anything in the first place?

I don't know if we have reasons or not at this point. 

I'm only saying that our methods are very limited and we shouldn't beg the question.

At least in the case of philosophical naturalism, we have enough examples that we can make an inference.

We can infer that if science finds an explanation, it will be a natural one. If we assume from this that nothing supernatural happens, we are begging the question. If we assume from this that there is nothing in the world science can't address, we are begging the question. Science finds natural explanation because that's what it can look for.

I agree with you that we should look at past discoveries to guide us. Given the age of the universe, the history of people trying to explain the world (the natural world or not) is pretty short. History teaches us that people present systems that seem good to them, and have trouble imagining different systems. Then another system comes along. Each system has a genealogy, limitations, and a particular contingent point of view. When I said earlier today that our minds aren't intrinsically tied into the mind of God, that's what I meant. 

Our current system seems like the best ever. Maybe it is. Experience teaches us that it will probably get replaced. 

The scientific method demands repeatable empirical evidence to reach tentative conclusions. It attempts to find "the view from nowhere" -- that is, a view that's not contingency on human limitations or presumptions. I am skeptical that such a view is possible. All views are "views from somewhere," based on where we are and what we're able to take in.

---

It’s not the unbeliever’s responsibility to consider it, without good reason, as a possible cause in every instance, or assume it is the cause when he can’t find a natural answer.

I'm not asking anyone to consider it without good reason. Science can't consider it, because science only considers the natural.

I'm saying that assuming its non-existence, a priori, is begging the question. But I'm sure you can have a long happy life and solve many science problems without ever once thinking about the supernatural.

Also keep in mind that, since Newton, science advances by agreeing not to answer certain questions. Science doesn't necessarily say why things happen. It describes and quantifies what happens. But just as Newton decided to describe and quantify gravity without having the faintest idea what gravity is, modern science also gives the answers it can give and remains quiet on those it can't. 

If you don't want to think about the questions science can't address, that's fine. That's your taste.

[The Grand Nudger]

Science handled the question of our superstitions some time back Bel, lol.