Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

[Yahweh]

Brace yourselves...

Premise 1: It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical beliefs on that of natural science

Premise 2: The metaphysical picture of the world one gets when led by natural science is that of Naturalism.

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.


That is an argument for Methodological Naturalism.

For any challenges to that short proof, it could be done in 2 ways. You could reject Premise 1, but I would very much like to see the reasoning behind rejecting Premise 1, it doesnt seem like a truely attractive option to me. Or you could reject Premise 2, you could do this in a way by demonstrating how natural science doe not paint a metaphysical picture of Naturalism, but I very much doubt that can be done. However, it is important to keep in mind just exactly what Naturalism is (and more importantly what it isnt), and from there you see there is not much motivation to reject Premise 2.

(Source: I modified an existing proof for Physicalism...)


So Lifegazer, what do you think?

 

[hammegk]

In that naturalism per se makes no ontological claims, what's not to like? I.E. You proposed an objective world exists and that it follows rules.

 

[Beleth]

It is irrational and unreasonable to base one's metaphysical (literally "beyond-physical") beliefs on what one experiences in the physical world. By definition, the metaphysical is beyond what our natural science can measure or reasonably hypothesize about.

It'd be like basing one's beliefs on the properties of solids and gases solely on one's experience with liquids.


Playing both sides of the field,
I remain,
-- Beleth

 

[Atlas]

It is irrational and unreasonable to base one's metaphysical (literally "beyond-physical") beliefs on what one experiences in the physical world. By definition, the metaphysical is beyond what our natural science can measure or reasonably hypothesize about.

How do you state the opposite - I'm stuck with...

It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical (literally "beyond-physical") beliefs on what one doesn't experience in the physical world.

 

[Dancing David]

I am all for it!
We can have a meta physic based upon nature.
In that a bad anology or metaphor can be made of anything.

"We all create the world around us just as each particle creates the dimensions that encompass it."
"Every thing shall have it's time."
"All POV are relative."
"The universe makes little distiction between good and evil and rains on both equaly."
"There is a universal force that effects all things and causes them to be attracted to each other proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them."

 

[Beleth]

How do you state the opposite - I'm stuck with...

It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical (literally "beyond-physical") beliefs on what one doesn't experience in the physical world.

It's from the definition of the word "metaphysical" itself.

1) The intersection of the physical and the metaphysical is, by definition, the empty set.

2) It is only reasonable to establish beliefs (hypotheses, theories, whatever) on observations made of the thing we are establishing beliefs about.

3) Everything we can observe is physical.

From 1 and 3, we have:
4) Nothing we can observe is metaphysical.

From 2 and 4, we have:
C) It is not reasonable to establish beliefs about the metaphysical.

And your statement does not make sense. There are many things I will not experience in the physical world. I will never experience swimming on Titan, or eating a stapler, or being intimate with Oprah Winfrey. Is it reasonable to base my beliefs of the metaphysical based on these things?





Yeah, yeah, ewwwwwwww, I know.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.

For quite some time, it was rational to "believe in" the Bohr Model, ...

 

[sorgoth]

And your statement does not make sense. There are many things I will not experience in the physical world. I will never experience swimming on Titan, or eating a stapler, or being intimate with Oprah Winfrey. Is it reasonable to base my beliefs of the metaphysical based on these things?

So what beliefs of the metaphysical DO you have?
If all thoughts are firing neurons and brain activity(Which there is quite a bit of proof for), (We cannot form conclusions out of stuff that we do not obverve), we would not even be able to conceive of anything metaphysical. So not only is it not reasonable to form opinions of metaphysical stuff, it's not even possible.

Or am I way off here?

 

[Atlas]

From 2 and 4, we have:
C) It is not reasonable to establish beliefs about the metaphysical.

And your statement does not make sense. There are many things I will not experience in the physical world. I will never experience swimming on Titan, or eating a stapler, or being intimate with Oprah Winfrey. Is it reasonable to base my beliefs of the metaphysical based on these things?

I knew my statement did not make sense to me. (And I do wish you had left Oprah out of it. )

But aren't you stating a belief about the metaphysical when you say...
It is not reasonable to establish beliefs about the metaphysical.


I do wish I had better training in this stuff. I think it's freakin wonderful to think about.

 

[Beleth]

So what beliefs of the metaphysical DO you have?

I do admit that I have some. What they are is beyond the scope of this discussion. But I will also freely admit that the beliefs about the metaphysical I have are irrational, i.e. have no observational evidence behind them.

If all thoughts are firing neurons and brain activity(Which there is quite a bit of proof for), (We cannot form conclusions out of stuff that we do not obverve), we would not even be able to conceive of anything metaphysical. So not only is it not reasonable to form opinions of metaphysical stuff, it's not even possible.

Or am I way off here?

You, no offense, are way off here. Your conclusion conflicts with reality. People have imaginations, and can and do actually form (irrational though they may be) opinions about the metaphysical.

Some of them even pay money to have their metaphysical opinions "confirmed" by others.

 

[Yahweh]

Note: The "metaphysical" I was referring to was not "things which exist beyond the scope of physical".

This was what I meant by the use of "metaphysical"...

From The Philosophical Dictionary:

metaphysics

Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues. From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of things (and how many of each) exist. But Kant argued that this task is impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general structure of our thought about the world. Strawson calls the former activity revisionary, and the latter descriptive, metaphysics.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

For quite some time, it was rational to "believe in" the Bohr Model, ...

"Believe in" was probably not the best phrasing I could have used...

There are definite differences between "I believe in the Bohr Model" and "The Bohr Model is true"...


For your reason above, that is specifically why I chose Methodologica Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism does not deny that other views are possible, it simply says that physicalism is the most likely view at the moment.

 

[Beleth]

Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such.

Oh. I was going by the definition in the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

For that definition, yeah.

 

[Iacchus]

Brace yourselves...

Premise 1: It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical beliefs on that of natural science

Premise 2: The metaphysical picture of the world one gets when led by natural science is that of Naturalism.

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.

Yes, there's no denying that the natural world does exist. So what? I think even Creationists would agree with you on this one.

And neither do I see any other plausible explanation for its being brought about except through evolution. So? All you've done is explain is the processess of the natural world.

Now what I would like to know is why mankind doesn't seem to fit too well into the natural scheme of things, you know, like he was some kind of evolutionary freak? And here, we need to look no further than the apes, our closest relatives. Why do they seem perfectly capable of living in harmony with nature and we don't? Doesn't that seem the least bit odd?

Hmm ... Could it be that we've arrived here by some other possible means?

In which case I would refer you to the Book of Genesis for a possible solution.

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

For quite some time, it was rational to "believe in" the Bohr Model, ...

Yes, it was. So what?

The Bohr Model was a theory presented to account for observed evidence.

It has since been replaced (for the most part) by better theories.

It is now rational to "believe in" those better theories (because teh weight of evidence suggests that they are closer to the truth or at least more useful than the Bohr model).

Previously it was rational to "believe in" the Bohr model as the best available theory of the time.

That's how science works so, again, so what?

Graham

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

Now what I would like to know is why mankind doesn't seem to fit too well into the natural scheme of things, you know, like he was some kind of evolutionary freak? And here, we need to look no further than the apes, our closest relatives. Why do they seem perfectly capable of living in harmony with nature and we don't? Doesn't that seem the least bit odd?

Harmony with nature...

I'm not sure what you mean. But if it's about crapping in the woods or using flush toilets...

I just think they have a preference for bananas and leaves and humans have a thing for porcelain and toilet paper and stuff.

Is this really covered in the Bible?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Atlas
I just think they have a preference for bananas and leaves and humans have a thing for porcelain and toilet paper and stuff.

Is this really covered in the Bible?

The Bible mainly limits its discussion of waste products to God equating various people to dung. Although there is this...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mal/text.html#2:3

edited to add an 's'

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Re: Re: Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

Harmony with nature...

I'm not sure what you mean. But if it's about crapping in the woods or using flush toilets...

I just think they have a preference for bananas and leaves and humans have a thing for porcelain and toilet paper and stuff.

Yes, but if we aren't altogether different, what difference would it make? Indeed, maybe we would be better off crapping in the woods?

Is this really covered in the Bible?

What, do you mean about the Fall of Man?

 

[Jet Grind]

There are essentially four options when it comes to metaphysics:

1. Solipsism: All of reality exists in the observers head, nothing else is real.
2. Idealism: All aspects of reality are mental/spiritual, the physical world is a fiction.
3. Materialism/Naturalism: The natural world is all that exists.
4. Supernaturalism: A world or worlds exist beyond the material world.

To be devoid of metaphysical assumptions, you have to choose one. Thus, lifegazer, as an idealist, is not devoid of metaphysical assmptions and must (at least attempt to) use empirical or external data to justify his position. Thus naturalism is no less justified than lifegazer's idealism, at least based purely on presumtption.

My $0.02

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

Now what I would like to know is why mankind doesn't seem to fit too well into the natural scheme of things, you know, like he was some kind of evolutionary freak? And here, we need to look no further than the apes, our closest relatives. Why do they seem perfectly capable of living in harmony with nature and we don't? Doesn't that seem the least bit odd?

Hmm, odd like chloropyll containing algae creating oxygen and driving 90% of existing life forms into extinction?
Odd like the fact that the savvanah is Africa has very few trees, because the elephants like to tear them down?
Odd like a weasel killing food it doesn't eat right away?

Did you know that the chimps actualy kill animals, and that deers and other unglates eat the heads of baby birds?

Why is it that species are perfectly willing to drive out other species?

Hmm ... Could it be that we've arrived here by some other possible means?

I was born of my mother. How did you get here?

[/B]