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

[polymath257]

If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?

If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.

Science would not make such a proclamation. It *never* dictates what is the 'nature' of something (except, potentially, in definitions--always subject to further investigation).

If we actually *see* frogs singing duets, then that is raw information and 'science' would say it is possible for frogs to sing duets, but we don't know how. That would be an opportunity for investigation. But, the observation of singing by a frog would *show* that singing is in that frog's nature.

People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this. 

For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.

And, once again, BY YOUR DEFINITION, the 'nature' of something is what it is and does. So, if a frog sings duets, it is in it nature to sing duets because that is what it is *doing*.

The *start* of science is observation. So, if a frog is observed to sing duets, then that is what science *starts* with. You seem to think it starts with some sort of materialist assumption, BUT THAT IS WRONG. It starts with observation. THEN, it makes hypotheses about what is observed. It makes sure those hypotheses are testable, and then it ACTUALLY TESTS them. It will try to default to using previously tested ideas to formulate the hypotheses, but at ALL stages, the observation is the focus.

So, in your little scenario, the scientists would NOT say it is impossible for a frog to sing. They would observe it singing and start with that information, proceeding to try to figure out how it is possible.

[GrandizerII]

If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?

If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.

People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this. 

For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.

I think I see what you're trying to say (maybe). If I started seeing frogs singing Italian duets and I was sure it wasn't me hallucinating and the notes were clearly coming from them through mysterious processes within their bodies (and not through some hard-to-see nearby device that is emitting Italian songs and deceptively making it look like it's the frogs singing), I'd definitely consider the "supernatural" (as in beyond the scope of science) as a serious possibility in this case, at least temporarily until/unless a clear explanation in science points us back to a very "naturalistic" explanation. But I'd still opt for a naturalistic explanation primarily, due to the metaphysical worldview I hold to.

[Belacqua]

So, in your little scenario, the scientists would NOT say it is impossible for a frog to sing. They would observe it singing and start with that information, proceeding to try to figure out how it is possible.

This is a re-statement of what you said before. I understand what you've been saying.

You are sure that anything that happens is natural. You rule out the supernatural a priori. 

You are very committed to this metaphysical view. You may well be right.

---

I think I see what you're trying to say (maybe). If I started seeing frogs singing Italian duets and I was sure it wasn't me hallucinating and the notes were clearly coming from them through mysterious processes within their bodies (and not through some hard-to-see nearby device that is emitting Italian songs and deceptively making it look like it's the frogs singing), I'd definitely consider the "supernatural" (as in beyond the scope of science) as a serious possibility in this case, at least temporarily until/unless a clear explanation in science points us back to a very "naturalistic" explanation. But I'd still opt for a naturalistic explanation primarily, due to the metaphysical worldview I hold to.

This is exactly what I've been saying. 

I'm very grateful that you would take the time to understand it. I wish there were some kind of prize I could give.

[brewer]

Sounds like choosing supernatural turns out to be to poorest and least supported of possible options.

[polymath257]

So, in your little scenario, the scientists would NOT say it is impossible for a frog to sing. They would observe it singing and start with that information, proceeding to try to figure out how it is possible.

This is a re-statement of what you said before. I understand what you've been saying.

You are sure that anything that happens is natural. You rule out the supernatural a priori. 

You are very committed to this metaphysical view. You may well be right.

---

What you seem to miss is that it follows from *your* definition of natural.
 
You *defined* the 'nature' of something to be 'what it is or does'. So, *whatever* it does is, by *your* definition, natural.

If you *don't* mean that as your definition, then be more clear about your definition.

[Belacqua]

What you seem to miss is that it follows from *your* definition of natural.
 
You *defined* the 'nature' of something to be 'what it is or does'. So, *whatever* it does is, by *your* definition, natural.

If you *don't* mean that as your definition, then be more clear about your definition.

I see what you mean. 

You are saying that anything a frog does must be part of its nature. I see how you would say that this follows from my definition. 

I think that we know a great deal about what a frog's nature is, and we are reasonable to rule out a lot. If we see something that contradicts everything we know about a frog's nature, then some people will see this as evidence of something that is not part of a frog's nature. 

If you see something that contradicts what we thought of as a frog's nature, you will assume a priori that it is natural and that science hasn't yet discovered the explanation. In this way you rule out the supernatural and beg the question. 

So yes, I might need to state my definition more carefully. But my meaning is clear.

[Succubus#2]

The only thing 'I' assume as a priori is you're full of shit. How can I conclude this?

Your body of work.

---

So yes, I might need to state my definition more carefully. But my meaning is clear.

And you wonder why I accuse you of trolling.

[vulcanlogician]

In the US, it's pretty rare to find a theist who isn't a secular humanist.

Not THAT rare.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's incredibly rare to find anyone in the us who isn't a secular humanist.

They might not realize that the term accurately describes their position, and they may even be insulted at being accurately categorized as much, granted, lol.

-for Bels bullshit. A meaning cannot be clear if we need to rework our definition. Another logical impossibility, just like the supernatural per bel's definition.

[polymath257]

What you seem to miss is that it follows from *your* definition of natural.
 
You *defined* the 'nature' of something to be 'what it is or does'. So, *whatever* it does is, by *your* definition, natural.

If you *don't* mean that as your definition, then be more clear about your definition.

I see what you mean. 

You are saying that anything a frog does must be part of its nature. I see how you would say that this follows from my definition. 

I think that we know a great deal about what a frog's nature is, and we are reasonable to rule out a lot. If we see something that contradicts everything we know about a frog's nature, then some people will see this as evidence of something that is not part of a frog's nature. 

If you see something that contradicts what we thought of as a frog's nature, you will assume a priori that it is natural and that science hasn't yet discovered the explanation. In this way you rule out the supernatural and beg the question. 

So yes, I might need to state my definition more carefully. But my meaning is clear.

I disagree since I actually agree with your definition as stated. If we observe something that contradicts all we have learned about its nature, all that means is that the observation told us something new about its nature.

There are two options at that point. Either that observation can be explained about what we already know about the universe OR we just learned something new about the universe. Either way, the scientific method can be used to link it to other phenomena, and get an 'explanation' of how the different phenomena interrelate.

I'll give an example from science. We have the phenomenon of magnetism. We learned about it from observation, testing, experimentation, etc. From those observations, we derived 'laws' of how magnetism works. It thereby became a topic of scientific study. But *not* because of 'methodological naturalism', but because we found consistent patterns of how magnetism works and came up with a model for how it works (NOT a 'physical' model, but a mathematical one). And, some people thought of magnetism as a 'supernatural force'. But yet, science can and did, and does study it.

Currently dark matter and dark energy are under study in the same way: we look for patterns and we construct mathematical models for the behavior we observe. We test those models by having them make predictions of what we can observe in new studies. Again, no 'methodological naturalism' is assumed. We use the patterns in the observations themselves to come up with the models and then test those models. Of course, we first test against what we already (think we) understand. But that can mean that things can be *very* different once we have a good model.

Now, suppose we found a new phenomenon. Say we observe frogs singing duets. What would we do? Well, we would first try to determine where the sound comes from. We understand the dynamics of sound, so we would trace the sound waves and see where they originate. If there doesn't appear to be anything there, then things get *really* interesting and we continue the observations and testing. The most interesting times for science is when we don't understand something. It means we have a chance to learn something new.

Do the frogs only sing at night? Do they only sing duets? What patterns can we find to their singing? Can they change the pitch or tempo of the songs? Can they change where the apparent source of the sound is? What predictions can we make based on those observed patterns? And do those predictions hold up under further observation? ANY pattern at all is a potential source for new understanding, potentially leading to an 'explanatory model' (which just means it can make accurate predictions).

Again, no assumption of 'methodological naturalism' is required: only observation to see if there are any patterns and how those patterns are related to each other and to other things we think we know.

Now, this may well lead to an overturning in how we understand the universe. It has happened before (quantum mechanics and relativity are good examples). We might find that the patterns we have discovered so far are only approximations, or of limited applicability, etc.

And, maybe, will we invoke 'fairies', small intelligent beings that throw their voices making the frogs appear to sing duets. And that would lead to a study of these fairies. What are *their* properties? What patterns can we find in what *they* do, etc?

But, ultimately, the core is observation, hypothesis formation (pattern detection), testing of hypotheses, and modification/elimination of failed hypotheses (perceived patterns). And that core would work whether or not the study leads to things that were previously labeled 'supernatural'. The scientific method doesn't change. That work to find patterns doesn't change. The work to test those patterns and find their limits doesn't change.

In all cases, the 'nature' is determined *by observation*, not by preset conceptions of how things 'must be'.

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'.