|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 05/01/2002 : 12:55:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hello, what's this? Metaphysics rears it's head.
Shucks, I hope not!
quote:
Welcome ReasonableDoubt, would you care to elaborate?
Thanks for the welcome.
I guess that I'm not sure where my communication was flawed. I was trying to express two points: first, that the counterposition between religion and science is flawed, and second, that "peaceful coexistence" does not imply an equivalence.
Carl Sagan begins Cosmos with a simle statement of ontological naturalism: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." It seems to me that the 'proper' counterposition is between supernaturalism and naturalism. While religion is clearly a manifestation of the former, 'science' does not necessarily imply the latter. For example, I can imagine a theism which asserts that God (or the Gods) created the Cosmos along with its physical laws. While such a view could in no way coexist with Sagan's quote, it could easily coexist with science -- particularly science viewed as method. In fact, I suspect that a good many outstanding scientists hold such a view.
|
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 13:14:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
IMO, "Ontological naturalism" (also metaphysical naturalism) are funny phrases people use to hold positions as contrary to classical ontology and metaphysics. If you ask me, they are oxymoronic phrases ... BTW, ReasonableDoubt, are you the same from the Infidels message boards?
Both the opinion and the casual ridicule are noted, and yes, I participate in those forums under the same mame.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 05/01/2002 13:15:53 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 13:30:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
IMO, "Ontological naturalism" (also metaphysical naturalism) are funny phrases people use to hold positions as contrary to classical ontology and metaphysics. If you ask me, they are oxymoronic phrases ... BTW, ReasonableDoubt, are you the same from the Infidels message boards?
Both the opinion and the casual ridicule are noted, and yes, I participate in those forums under the same mame.
I mean no ridicule, RD. I understand (and respect) the intent behind the use of the phrase 'metaphysical naturalism,' I just think it's funny that people feel it's necessary to distinguish 'real' naturalism from... what, 'fake' naturalism? And yes, I am aware that science-minded theists have hijacked the phrase 'methodological naturalism' to mean "that which my God uses to operate the world" and that probably necessitates a distinction of some kind. I'm just not sure the combination of 'metaphysical' and 'naturalism' is the way to go.
BTW, I post as Philosoft on Infidels. You appear to have much respect over there and I intend to extend the same on this board.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 16:13:00 [Permalink]
|
I guess that I'm not sure where my communication was flawed.
It is not that your position is flawed. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were saying before I replied to it. We get quite a few people around here who ascribe their own personal meaning to words like naturalism and materialism and expect you to know it.
I was trying to express two points: first, that the counterposition between religion and science is flawed,
Agreed, they have nothing to do with one another.
and second, that "peaceful coexistence" does not imply an equivalence. Agreed. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
Carl Sagan begins Cosmos with a simle statement of ontological naturalism: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics. I don't think Dr Sagan was making a metaphysical observation. Rather (I believe) he was simply stating known facts. In this case the (current) definition of the word Cosmos. If he had been presented with proof of something "extra-cosmos" I'm sure he would have altered his statement. He was good about doing things like that.
It seems to me that the 'proper' counterposition is between supernaturalism and naturalism.
Not actually, because one is a claim (existence of "things" outside of nature) and the other is simply not going along with the claim because it has nothing to back it up. Naturalism isn't a counter claim. Naturalism is the self-evident idea that everything that is, is everything that is.
But if you've got some super-natural, or sub-natural, or even off-to-the-side-of-natural stuff lying around the house by all means trot it out. We'd love to see it.
For example, I can imagine a theism which asserts that God (or the Gods) created the Cosmos along with its physical laws. While such a view could in no way coexist with Sagan's quote, it could easily coexist with science -- particularly science viewed as method. In fact, I suspect that a good many outstanding scientists hold such a view.
According to a poll taken by the AAAS in late 1999 there were no outstanding scientists who held this view. Although almost 40% of your run-of-the-mill scientists did.
The problem is in the imagining of assertions. Without proof they are merely assertions of the imaginary. Anything could possibly be claimed by this method, the valid and (more likely) the invalid--there is no way to tell one from the other without resorting to the scientific method.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 16:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the response.
quote:
It seems to me that the 'proper' counterposition is between supernaturalism and naturalism.
Not actually, because one is a claim (existence of "things" outside of nature) and the other is simply not going along with the claim because it has nothing to back it up. Naturalism isn't a counter claim. Naturalism is the self-evident idea that everything that is, is everything that is.
I would think that it goes somewhat beyond this. For example, naturalism might well insist that all that exists is subect to natural law. Gods, Faeries, and Unicorns are not so constrained.
The Skeptic's Dictionary states, in part: "Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires.
< ... >
Thus, naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.
The difference between naturalistic and supernaturalistic views in Western philosophy might best be understood by noting that the former favors mechanistic explanations, while the latter favors teleological ones. Mechanistic explanations are dysteleological, i.e., they make no reference to purposes or design, except metaphorically as in biology (e.g., the heart was designed to pump blood)."
quote:
For example, I can imagine a theism which asserts that God (or the Gods) created the Cosmos along with its physical laws. While such a view could in no way coexist with Sagan's quote, it could easily coexist with science -- particularly science viewed as method. In fact, I suspect that a good many outstanding scientists hold such a view.According to a poll taken by the AAAS in late 1999 there were no outstanding scientists who held this view. Although almost 40% of your run-of-the-mill scientists did.
Really? I wonder how they defined run-of-the-mill, and what conclusions they drew. Is the spurce web-based?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 18:13:17 [Permalink]
|
naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation.
It isn't a philosophy that makes god a non-candidate for scientific study. It's his pesky nonexistence that keeps the fact finders at bay.
Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations.
"Divine purposes" not only have no place in scientific explanations they have no place in the explanations of the scrupulously honest. Morals, on the other hand, are nicely covered under the heading of Animal Behavior and have nothing to do with the super-natural.
the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.
What keeps the supernatural out of scientific research is the fact that it is fictitious. Legitimate scientific experiments have been done to find evidence of the "supernatural" starting in the 1820's and continuing to this day and nothing has ever been found.
The difference between naturalistic and supernaturalistic views in Western philosophy might best be understood by noting that the former favors mechanistic explanations, while the latter favors teleological ones.
A teleological explanation assumes an over-all design--a "purpose" if you will. This is merely an assumption, and is not based on evidence. We find no designer, no person with intentions. Teleological explanations are a form of anthropomorphism.
Mechanistic explanations are dysteleological, i.e., they make no reference to purposes or design, except metaphorically as in biology (e.g., the heart was designed to pump blood)."
The reason they do not is not a philosophical stance it is the lack of evidence that would even remotely suggest design.
Really? I wonder how they defined run-of-the-mill, and what conclusions they drew.
Run of the mill (my term not theirs) scientists would be scientists like me.
I'm in the 60% that don't buy the god story.
Is the spurce web-based?
The American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science is on the web but I don't know if the poll is. I saw it in the magazine when it first came out. I remember some Congressman had a pissy fit in the congressional record because the majority of America's scientists aren't theists. He thought that was just awful.
You'd probably have an easier time finding it (but there's not much more information than what you already know) at www.positiveatheism.org as they tend to keep things like that lying around in their files.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 18:40:10 [Permalink]
|
Slater, is there a point to this beyond childish pedantry?
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 18:43:52 [Permalink]
|
I'm guessing it was "Scientists and Religion in America" by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, Sept. 1999 Scientific American. I can't find a copy of it online.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 18:56:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater, is there a point to this beyond childish pedantry?
Wow, that was straight out of left field! Personally I was looking forward to your addressing Slater's points... 
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/01/2002 18:56:39 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 19:18:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater, is there a point to this beyond childish pedantry?
Childish pedantry?
Is distinction I draw between fact and fantasy the pedantic part or the childish?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/01/2002 19:20:18 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 19:47:18 [Permalink]
|
I agree with TokyoDreamer. The wish for “peaceful co-existence” and “let's just all be friends” is not really going to work. Because religion does interfere with science.
The Creationists who've managed to make evolution a theory in some US states in a perfect example.
Natural science deals solely with nature. All sciences use (or should use) the scientific method. About established facts, being able to copy a finding, recognising patterns etc.
And because there are some religious people, who use religion as a metaphor, certainly doesn't mean its a general attribute of the religiously inclined. History shows the effects religions has had on science. Show me one priest who's been burned or tortured by a scientist and I'll show you an alien from Sirius!
We can't conclude, just because some religious people are “nice”, that religion and science can coexist peacefully. There's nothing wrong with morals and ethics, but I personally think it's dangerous to have them based on religious text, and not a personal philosophy.
The tolerant approach to religion is actually somewhat interesting. I'm also with TokyoDreamer, that nonsense-religious ideas need to be “stamped out.” Because they're not only silly they're also dangerous. Not only the fractions where people die, because blood-transfusions are seen as the devil's work. But also illegal/dangerous abortions because contraception is deemed “evil”, the tons of money and time wasted on churches/priesthoods/cardinals and the entire church-institution. And, before anyone goes “charity” on me. Charity can and is being done without religious groups behind it.
Kil> Science will not prove the non-existence of anything. You can't prove the non-existence of a thing, you can prove the existence of something.
Science does not deal with the supernatural. It deals with events in nature that follow patterns, that we can observe and make theories about. That can be tested and verified. Science does not deal with ghosts or souls or gods. Occam's famous razor is part of the scientific method. It's not necessary to assume the existence of the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. So when science does not prove or disprove the existence of God, it does not mean it deals WITH any God in the first place.
RD> Your answer seems more like a childish defence than anything else. As in, couldn't you do better than that?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 20:40:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Kil> Science will not prove the non-existence of anything. You can't prove the non-existence of a thing, you can prove the existence of something.
Science does not deal with the supernatural.
I know. In fact, I do believe I mentioned something along those lines. Do I still get to be agnostic?
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 20:45:15 [Permalink]
|
No Kil, you're fired!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 08:45:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Omega wrote:
RD> Your answer seems more like a childish defence than anything else. As in, couldn't you do better than that?
Defence of what? Selected phrases from the Skeptic's Dictionary reference on Naturalism?
quote:
Tokyodreamer wrote:
Wow, that was straight out of left field! Personally I was looking forward to your addressing Slater's points...
Very well ...
First, as to context, my understanding of the topic at hand wass based on the following exchange ...
quote:
It seems to me that the 'proper' counterposition is between supernaturalism and naturalism.
Not actually, because one is a claim (existence of "things" outside of nature) and the other is simply not going along with the claim because it has nothing to back it up. Naturalism isn't a counter claim. Naturalism is the self-evident idea that everything that is, is everything that is.
But if you've got some super-natural, or sub-natural, or even off-to-the-side-of-natural stuff lying around the house by all means trot it out. We'd love to see it.
I responded by stating: "I would think that it goes somewhat beyond this. For example, naturalism might well insist that all that exists is subect to natural law. Gods, Faeries, and Unicorns are not so constrained." Parenthetically, the point I was attempting to make (i.e., that naturalism, to my understanding, is more than "the self-evident idea that everything that is, is everything that is") is also reflected in the following ...
quote:
quote:
a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events...[thus, there cannot] exist any entities or events which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation.
-- Danto, Arthur C., 1967, "Naturalism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
quote:
the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature
-- Audi, Robert, 1996, "Naturalism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement
quote:
the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities--those studied in the sciences--whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included, ...abstract entities... like possibilities...and mathematical objects...and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are commensurable, in some sense, with those in science
-- Post, John F., 1995, "Naturalism," in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 11:57:36 [Permalink]
|
Parenthetically, the point I was attempting to make (i.e., that naturalism, to my understanding, is more than "the self-evident idea that everything that is, is everything that is") is also reflected in the following ...
-- Danto, Arthur C., 1967, "Naturalism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy…
-- Audi, Robert, 1996, "Naturalism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement…
-- Post, John F., 1995, "Naturalism," in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy…
-- Lacey, Alan R., 1995, "Naturalism," in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy…
-- Kurtz, Paul, 1990, Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism
... as referenced by Steven D. Schafersman in a paper entitled NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY
I must admit, I do sometimes wonder if Philosophers use their vocabularies more to mask their meaning than to clarify it. I suppose that's unfair of me to say, people in my "trade" have their own vocabularies too that make us obscure to outsiders.
My gripe is with the idea, the accusation really, that there is a "philosophy" that is restricting scientific research. This charge is akin to the Fundi accusation that "Darwinism" is a religion.
Science is not bounded by such philosophical limitations. It is not taboo to investigate the supernatural, as I said it's been an on going project since the 1820's.
Science does not include the supernatural in its findings because there is no supernatural to find. If there were we would be all over it in a second, because it would open whole new fields of research. It would also require that we throw out everything we have so far learned and start anew. For as you know science does require that if new evidence is found that standing theories must be adapted or discarded to take it into account.
In the future things could conceivably change. But as it stands it is impossible to say that there is any such thing as the supernatural.
In fact, it almost reads as if Slater thinks he's polemicizing against a theist. In any event, recalling, once again, that the topic under discussion is that "the 'proper' counterposition is between supernaturalism and naturalism".
Slater can see only marginal cosmetic differences between the focused supernatural claims of theists and these more encompassing ones.
If 'God' does not exist, 'God' is superfluous to scientific investigation. If 'God' does exist, but there are no testable consequences unique to that existence, 'God' is superfluous to scientific investigation.
Not at all. If there were a god the evidence of it would by necessity have to be taken into account. A god that hasn't left a trace, that is indistinguishable from the absence of a god, leaves you with the question of "where did you get the big idea that there was a god in the first place?"
Since we can trace god back to our own primitive superstitions and fables but we cannot trace him back to reality that pretty much accounts for the source of the idea.
The 2nd appears to be: appeals to divine purpose have no place in the non-scientific explanations of the "scrupulously honest". The only inference I can draw is a position that all theists are inherently dishonest.
That's correct. The reason theists is inherently dishonest is because they make claims that the have no way of knowing are actually true.
Given that Slater, in the thread on Catholic priests, also asserts that all "pedophiles involved are homosexuals comitting homosexual child molestation", I can only conclude that Slater paints with a very wide brush.
That's okay I've jumped to my own conclusions about you.
All of the priests that I have heard of involved in this scandal were males. All of the young victims I have heard of were also males. @tomic informs me that there was a female victim, but is unable to find the source of this new information. I have looked for it but while I can find any number of stories of same sex abuse I can find none with a girl involved.
Why take offence at the thought that homosexuals might be guilty of crimes? Do you think that they are somehow different from the rest of us? Because that was the point of my comment in the other thread. It was in response to Dr Sari saying that same gender sex wasn't homosexual because of the age difference. That seemed a comment from out of left field to me, more involved with political correctness than with the case at hand.
What class of a brush are you painting with?
What keeps the supernatural out of scientific research is that it's superfluous, whether or not it is fictitious. There is no conflict, for example, between being a Deist or Buddhist and being an effective astrophysicist or cell biologist.
It has been said by a Jesuit friend of mine who teaches physics at Santa Clara U (I don't know if he is gay or not) that when he is doing science he must put away his beliefs and think like an Atheist. He can find no way around it.
The superfluity of the supernatural to scientific research is solely due of its fictitiousness. If it were indeed fact it would become the single most important part of scientific research.
In my opinion, experiments "to find evidence of the 'supernatural'" are a complete waste of precious resources.
I agree, but probably not for the same reasons.
The reason they do not is not a philosophical stance it is the lack of evidence that would even remotely suggest design.
OK, therefore ... ? To the best of my knowledge, neither the Deist nor the Buddhist seeks to apply teleological explanations to the investigation of scientific phenomena.
I wasn't aware that the Deists had survived Darwin, nor was I aware that they didn't attribute "creation" to a god.
What type of Buddhism are you talking about that eschews mythological explanations of the natural?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
