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

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that this is entirely true. Bram Stoker used the narrative device of the supernatural to comment on a natural reality which did have value, whether we see that value today in the negative or positive.

The value of supernatural narratives is not necessarily tied to the accuracy of their details. Angels do not live or die on account of the accurate number that can dance on the head of a pin.

[Rhizomorph13]

But there isn't anything supernatural in fiction! I like a lot of fiction where people do apparently supernatural things although even within those narratives they aren't doing anything supernatural. Think about it. In the show Supernatural they are hunting ghosts, werewolves, and vampires amongst other things. The thing is those things are natural in that fictional world so we are back to there being No use for the word.

Yes the concepts are couched in a world that provides an apparent divide between natural and supernatural but in actuality the outrageous things written about are, within the story, natural because they exist within the story.

[The Grand Nudger]

Natural by bels non definition...but not natural by a genuine definition.

The only impetus for bels revisions is that the subject is exactly what we think it is, and that truth does not help him complain about atheists or atheism.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Vampires and werewolves. Those things are supernatural. They don't exist, but stories about them still exist and still have value. Beauty, even.

[Rhizomorph13]

You didn't fully read what I wrote. Vampires and werewolves are not supernatural. They are either real or not real. In the framework of fiction they are real and therefore natural.

[GrandizerII]

But there isn't anything supernatural in fiction! I like a lot of fiction where people do apparently supernatural things although even within those narratives they aren't doing anything supernatural. Think about it. In the show Supernatural they are hunting ghosts, werewolves, and vampires amongst other things. The thing is those things are natural in that fictional world so we are back to there being No use for the word.

Yes the concepts are couched in a world that provides an apparent divide between natural and supernatural but in actuality the outrageous things written about are, within the story, natural because they exist within the story.

Doesn't this render the term "naturalism" meaningless? We're all naturalists then, even theists and folks who believe in fairies and such.

[The Grand Nudger]

You didn't fully read what I wrote. Vampires and werewolves are not supernatural. They are either real or not real. In the framework of fiction they are real and therefore natural.

Vampires and werewolves are supernatural, even if stories about them are eminently natural. Real and not real..existent and nonexistent, is beside the point of the natural and supernatural. It's not the same metric at all.

---

Doesn't this render the term "naturalism" meaningless? We're all naturalists then, even theists and folks who believe in fairies and such.

We are.  We no longer believe that there is more than one stuff, and whether we call that stuff natural, supernatural..... or blorp, it's all the same stuff.

[Rhizomorph13]

You didn't fully read what I wrote. Vampires and werewolves are not supernatural. They are either real or not real. In the framework of fiction they are real and therefore natural.

Vampires and werewolves are supernatural, even if stories about them are eminently natural.  Real and not real..existent and nonexistent, is beside the point of the natural and supernatural.  It's not the same metric  at all.

---

Doesn't this render the term "naturalism" meaningless? We're all naturalists then, even theists and folks who believe in fairies and such.

We are.  We no longer believe that there is more than one stuff, and whether we call that stuff natural, supernatural..... or blorp, it's all the same stuff.

My point is that within the story they are natural.

---

But there isn't anything supernatural in fiction! I like a lot of fiction where people do apparently supernatural things although even within those narratives they aren't doing anything supernatural. Think about it. In the show Supernatural they are hunting ghosts, werewolves, and vampires amongst other things. The thing is those things are natural in that fictional world so we are back to there being No use for the word.

Yes the concepts are couched in a world that provides an apparent divide between natural and supernatural but in actuality the outrageous things written about are, within the story, natural because they exist within the story.

Doesn't this render the term "naturalism" meaningless? We're all naturalists then, even theists and folks who believe in fairies and such.

Yes, I wouldn't call myself a naturalist. I go with monist.

[polymath257]

-and in order for our logical systems, or math,  to confidently model the real world, their products must point to some real world observation as validation, and must make falsifiable predictions that remain unobserved in the real world.

A single married bachelor would be the end of reason.  A precambrian rabbit would be the end of biology.  If one plus one equaled three, it would be the end of math.

Don't be so sure.

While an unmarried bachelor would strain definitions, the law of excluded middle has been challenged when applied to infinite sets.

A precambrian rabbit would certainly overthrow our ideas in biology. But we could still pick up the pieces and do the science of biology.

Remember that 120 years ago, the conservation of mass was considered a linchpin in physics. Now, not so much.

And I know of mathematical systems where 3=1+1+1=1+1=2 that work perfectly well.

[Belacqua]

And once again, the problem is that the term 'nature' or 'world' is ill-defined. And when attempts are made to define it (like those you have made), it is quickly found that the whole notion of a supernatural is simply incoherent.

The definitions I've given have been clear and coherent. You don't like them, and of course you don't believe the supernatural exists, but that doesn't mean that the terms are poorly defined. 

You are a man of great and unshakable faith. You have assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. In your case, the assurance of things not seen is your confidence that all solvable problems will be solved by the scientific method. 

Your evidence of things not seen is more worrying. I brought up the strong likelihood that there are things in the world which human beings don't and can't understand. About those things, we can't say anything. You agreed that there may well be such things, but then you immediately turned around and told us something about them with great confidence. You said that if more intelligent beings could learn about those things, they would do so with the scientific method. So you are talking about things you don't know anything about. 

I lack your faith. And I am skeptical. I think we shouldn't make confident statements about things we don't know anything about. 

Plato believed that logic alone could give us information about the real world. And that is simply false. In order to find out anything about the real world, we have to actually look at the real world.

After we've looked at the real world, and while we continue to look, logic can tell us a great deal. Nobody ever claimed that logic in isolation was sufficient. (You shouldn't lie about Plato.) All observational input must be interpreted through logic if it is to have any meaning. If math is logical deductions from axioms, yet it is useful in understanding the real world, then that's proof of what I say.

And your attempt to change the subject by bringing up Socrates' theory of learning is a distraction. That isn't relevant to the thread topic. I brought up Neoplatonic thinking because it gives a coherent definition of "natural" -- the portion of the world which is knowable by science. If you don't like that definition, fine, but don't try to cloud things by bringing up irrelevancies.

[possibletarian]

Your evidence of things not seen is more worrying. I brought up the strong likelihood that there are things in the world which human beings don't and can't understand.

Don't you mean currently do not understand ? to say can't is an overreach. Can you give an example of something you can show is real and that you can confidently claim cannot ever be solved by science ?

What gives you good cause to say this is a 'strong likelihood' ?

I lack your faith. And I am skeptical. I think we shouldn't make confident statements about things we don't know anything about. 

Yet you seem happy enough to claim the possibility of a none material world that you cannot show to exist, or give any reason to believe is possible, then say to those who require evidence that they are holding a faith position is incredible.