|
|
|
|
l_johan_k
New Member
Sweden
8 Posts |
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2006 : 13:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
Hej!
What are the reasons for adopting a naturalistic worldview?
One is that I get to keep ten percent more of my income instead of giving it to a church.  |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 13:25:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
Hej!
What are the reasons for adopting a naturalistic worldview?
Perhaps you could define what you mean by "naturalistic worldview" a bit more so we can all talk about the same thing... |
|
|
|
l_johan_k
New Member
Sweden
8 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 14:13:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Perhaps you could define what you mean by "naturalistic worldview" a bit more so we can all talk about the same thing...
That the natural world is all that exist, i.e. no Gods etc.
I guess this is a stupid question, but when I talk to theists they claim that "logical laws disprove naturalism" or that "I can't trust my senses" etc. (see this thread).
My philosophical atheism/naturalism is based on the methodological naturalism of science (every phenomena that can be explained in a naturalistic frame makes God more and more reduntant...)
I need some good arguments for naturalism... |
[url=http://www.dumheterigenesis.nu/]www.DUMHETERiGENESIS.nu[/url]
[url=http://www.vof.se/]VoF:are[/url], [url=http://web.comhem.se/gunnar.staldal/]Fritänkare[/url], [url=http://www.humanisterna.se/]Humanist[/url] och [url=http://hef.nu/]HEF:are[/url]. |
| Edited by - l_johan_k on 11/04/2006 14:16:06 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 20:40:56 [Permalink]
|
People can see why Zeus and Pele are fantasy concepts but don't get it that the Biblical god is no different. What's the benefit in believing in Zeus? Carry a rabbit's foot or pray to a god, neither will really affect the outcome of most things in the end. (Most things since the mind may influence some outcomes and believing may be one thing that has an effect on the mind. But this is no reason to use a god to believe in an outcome, positive thinking should do equally well.)
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 21:18:33 [Permalink]
|
Reason #231:
Living long enough to see your children live longer than the expected life span pre-naturalistic worldview. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 22:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I guess this is a stupid question, but when I talk to theists they claim that "logical laws disprove naturalism"
I'm guessing that refers to either the theory of intelligent design and/or the philosophical concept of causality. Intelligent design is rejected by naturalists because it is not scientific. It is an assumption that cannot be falsified. For example, Michael Behe is a big advocate for intelligent design in biology. He argues that "irreducible complexity" in microscopic biological systems proves that evolution does not explain their existence (That means that he claims that these systems are complex in a way that if you take away one element, the whole system fails, and the chances of all elements appearing in a single advantageous mutation are extremely low). But many examples of supposedly irreducibly complex systems given by Behe have since been successfully reduced. Behe had made an assumption about something based on a lack of information. If everyone had listened to Behe, they would have stopped looking for answers and not proven him wrong. For an idea to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. It cannot answer a mystery with another mystery, and nothing is more mysterious than the concept of God!
As for causality (the universe must have had a cause, therefore a supernatural thing which doesn't need a cause itself - such as God - must exist), there are two problems with it. First, even if the universe requires a supernatural cause, it is silly to assume that cause is any specific or single human idea of God, that it is a conscious being, or whatever. The type of "God" which would solve this logical problem is a tremendously vague and mysterious God to the point of being meaningless as an answer. In other words, saying "God did it" to answer a mystery doesn't actually answer anything. It is just another way to saying "It is a mystery." or "We don't know." Which, really, we don't! :-)
Second, time is not a linear and constant thing as we experience it. Modern physics has discovered that space and time are intertwined, and space-time is far more bizarre and counter-intuitive to the human mind than we ever imagined. When people thought the earth was flat, that meant that it had to have edges. But it turned out to be round, and thus, no edges. It may very well be that time does not have a beginning or end, but just is. Bottom line: the idea of ultimate causality is an outdated philosophical concept when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe.
quote:
or that "I can't trust my senses" etc.
Technically we could be living in a Matrix-like world where everything we perceive with our senses is an illusion. But we certainly don't behave that way. I think of knowledge and belief as having a hierarchy. Things which are considered knowledge are things which are verifiable by repeated testing and confirmation from other people. In other words, mixing blue and yellow paint makes green over and over, not just when I mix them, but when other people mix them, so I conclude to know that blue and yellow paint make green paint. It is a fact. Some types of knowledge have more evidence than others, but to be knowledge, it must have hard evidence. Beliefs don't need evidence. Beliefs can be based on intuition, feeling, or what some religious people consider a sort of sixth spiritual sense. One or even a group of people might claim to have the same or similar spiritual experience, but it is never repeatable and never verifiable by others, only by the believers. So it is not knowledge, it is faith.
Naturalists accept knowledge and reject pure faith for two reasons: First, the obvious reason that knowledge is logically consistent and every sane person can check and then acknowledge the evidence. Second, there is a growing number of naturalistic explanations for spiritual experiences. For a complete understanding of them I recommend Daniel Dennet's book "Breaking the Spell". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 00:18:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I guess this is a stupid question, but when I talk to theists they claim that "logical laws disprove naturalism" or that "I can't trust my senses" etc. (see this thread).
If a creationist is trying to use the "You can't trust your senses" argument to either prove their viewpoint or disprove naturalism, they are talking out of their asses. It is true that there is no absolute reason why your senses have to convey the true nature of "the outside world" (that would be what you and me would call reality). But that would be true if out brains are evolved as well as if someone created them. Descartes "overcame" that problem by assuming that there was a benevolent god that gave you your senses and that these would not play tricks on your mind; I have a feeling that creationists use the same reasoning (if they have actually thought about it at all as opposed to just copying and pasting from some web-site). Problem is, if you use that premise, the conclusion that god-given senses truly reflect reality is a tad circular.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 13:09:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
Hej!
What are the reasons for adopting a naturalistic worldview?
For me it's kind of the same reason I give when people asks me why I grow a beard. I tell them the real question is Why did I stop shaving...?
Naturalism is the null hypothesis. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
