A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

[orpheus]

It's been a while since I checked in with this thread, an my oh my, the joint has been jumping! I'm tempted to shout from the sidelines (à la Firesign Theatre) "What is reality?!" and then run. But I won't. Yet. (You have been warned...hehehehe...)

Okay, that's it. I can't stand it anymore.

"WHAT IS REALITY?!?!"

 

[KingMerv00]

You brought it up, you tell us.

I don't think I did. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else?

The thread was talking about creator(s). You asked why you should consider supernaturalism. If creator(s) is intelligence(s), I asked why you consider intelligence supernatural.

Why do you?

 

[I less than three logic]

The thread was talking about creator(s). You asked why you should consider supernaturalism. If creator(s) is intelligence(s), I asked why you consider intelligence supernatural.

Why do you?

Perhaps his comment was on the thread’s topic, “A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer”, and not the derail/side topic. With “argument for naturalism” being the key phrase there. Perhaps meant to be a bit comical, just a thought.

 

[KingMerv00]

The thread was talking about creator(s). You asked why you should consider supernaturalism. If creator(s) is intelligence(s), I asked why you consider intelligence supernatural.

Why do you?

When did you stop beating your wife?

I don't think people have a problem with the "intelligent" part of an "intelligent designer". We don't consider the intelligence to be supernatural. It is the ability to manipulate the laws of nature that is the problem. Also, there is no evidence for such a being.

I less than three was right. I wasn't talking about the derail.

 

[hammegk]

I don't know enough about wavicles to make any comments.

Edit: Read a little. Doesn't seem supernatural to me.

Read up on, say, DCQE effects. How does that experiment fit in your worldview?

Why does it seem so to you?

It doesn't. Next question; why does a specific radioactive atom choose a specific moment to decay (or not)?

 

[KingMerv00]

Read up on, say, DCQE effects. How does that experiment fit in your worldview?

I assume you me the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. The DCQE was a physics experiment performed using naturalistic methods. The results they give are repeatable. In other words, the DCQE experiment is perfectly consistant with a naturalistic POV.

It doesn't.

Then why did you ask?

Next question; why does a specific radioactive atom choose a specific moment to decay (or not)?

I give up. Why? Are unexplained events supernatural?

Your definition of "supernatural" appears to be "unexpected or unexplained".

 

[elliotfc]

I suppose I am asking for a good, logical reason to believe in the supernatural.

Good is subjective.

As for logical, if you are content with the natural, I don't think I can give you what you would consider a logical reason to believe in the supernatural.

-Elliot

 

[thaiboxerken]

Good is subjective.

Not in this instance. A good, logical reason has to be supported with both evidence and sound, valid logic.

As for logical, if you are content with the natural, I don't think I can give you what you would consider a logical reason to believe in the supernatural.

-Elliot

Don't worry, no person can. It has something to do with the irrationality of the subject matter.

 

[elliotfc]

Not in this instance. A good, logical reason has to be supported with both evidence and sound, valid logic.

Why the need for the word "good"? Just say that "a logical reason has to be supported...."

Don't worry, no person can. It has something to do with the irrationality of the subject matter.

I think it has to do with the person, but that's just me. No worries, if you're right this is merely an annoying quibble that will be over when you're dead.

-Elliot

 

[KingMerv00]

Good is subjective.

Well sure. I mean good to me. I can't use someone elses subjective standard in place of my own.

As for logical, if you are content with the natural, I don't think I can give you what you would consider a logical reason to believe in the supernatural.

-Elliot

Why not? "Being content with the natural" doesn't make me closed-minded. A good enough reason could very well make me "dissatisfied with the natural".

 

[elliotfc]

Why not? "Being content with the natural" doesn't make me closed-minded. A good enough reason could very well make me "dissatisfied with the natural".

It's *because* you're open-minded that I said what I said. You've seen the "logical" arguments because you are open-minded, and I don't think I've got any arguments you haven't seen yet.

-Elliot

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why the need for the word "good"? Just say that "a logical reason has to be supported...."

Because there is a such of a thing bad logic.

I think it has to do with the person, but that's just me. No worries, if you're right this is merely an annoying quibble that will be over when you're dead.

The silly implication of Pascal's Wager really just shows how illogical you are on the subject.

 

[elliotfc]

Because there is a such of a thing bad logic.

That was my point. You don't have to assert that it's *good* logic, because there is no bad logic.

The silly implication of Pascal's Wager really just shows how illogical you are on the subject.

First, you don't understand Pascal's Wager, because I neither implied or invoked it.

Second, do you disagree with what I said, or are you merely fixated on something (Pascal's Wager) that we both reject?

-Elliot

 

[thaiboxerken]

That was my point. You don't have to assert that it's *good* logic, because there is no bad logic.

Yes, there is bad logic. I stated as much.

First, you don't understand Pascal's Wager, because I neither implied or invoked it.

Sure you didn't, if I'm right it's something that over when I'm dead. What if I'm wrong?

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, there is bad logic. I stated as much.

Oh. Gotcha.

So you can be logical, but be *poorly* logical, or whatever the adverb equivalent of bad would be?

Sure you didn't, if I'm right it's something that over when I'm dead. What if I'm wrong?

I have no idea what happens if you're wrong. At the very least you'll recognize that you're wrong. How you react from that starting point is anyone's guess, yours too probably. I'll be charitable and say that if you're wrong, you won't get angry or start enumerating the excuses.

-Elliot

 

[hcmom]

Oh. Gotcha.

So you can be logical, but be *poorly* logical, or whatever the adverb equivalent of bad would be?

Illogical would be the opposite of logical, but not at all the same as "bad" logic. The word I'd use for "bad" logic is: "wrong".

 

[hammegk]

I assume you mean the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. The DCQE was a physics experiment performed using naturalistic methods.

I don't agree that 'scientific method' equals 'naturalism True'.

The results they give are repeatable.

In a gross statistical sense, yup.

In other words, the DCQE experiment is perfectly consistant with a naturalistic POV.[

Yeah, and it works fine for objective idealists too, as do all results of scientific methodology, logic, etc.

I give up. Why? Are unexplained events supernatural?

There you go again. What could possibly be "supernatural" that could effect or affect Reality?

The question is cause and effect.

Your definition of "supernatural" appears to be "unexpected or unexplained".

I don't need to rely on anything supernatural to notice many specific events are unexpected, unexplained and in fact unexplainable.

As a naturalist, take your pick ... random, or determined ... mathematics allows no other choice for specific events.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't agree that 'scientific method' equals 'naturalism True'.

I don't see the difference. How can you scientifically test the supernatural?

In a gross statistical sense, yup.

Yup.

Yeah, and it works fine for objective idealists too, as do all results of scientific methodology, logic, etc.

That's because objective idealism is unfalsifiable.

There you go again. What could possibly be "supernatural" that could effect or affect Reality?

I'm not really sure. Depends on how you define "supernatural".

As a naturalist, take your pick ... random, or determined ... mathematics allows no other choice for specific events.

If we assume for the moment that QM has a truly random foundation, couldn't it yield predictable results on the large scale?

For example, a random coin flip has a 50:50 chance of landing heads up. If you flip it 1,000,000,000 times, about 500,000,000 of those flips will be heads. Randomness yielding predictability.

 

[hammegk]

I don't see the difference. How can you scientifically test the supernatural?

Since it by any rational definition of reality cannot exist, you can't.

That's because objective idealism is unfalsifiable.

As is naturalism. That's why the argument is "from", not "for".

I'm not really sure. Depends on how you define "supernatural".

I don't. Go right ahead.

If we assume for the moment that QM has a truly random foundation, couldn't it yield predictable results on the large scale?

For example, a random coin flip has a 50:50 chance of landing heads up. If you flip it 1,000,000,000 times, about 500,000,000 of those flips will be heads. Randomness yielding predictabiliy.

Good. Please predict flip 1 and flip 500,000,001 (correctly, that is).