Anyone understand "Philosophical Naturalism"?

[Justforfun000]

I've been debating some people on the Progressive U board, and this one person is a particular irritant. He started off throwing sophistry at me in a long-winded generalization against me, but now he's getting more specific and I want some opinions on where to go with this since I'm not familiar with "Philosophical Naturalism". After he made the statement the "science and faith are exactly the same thing, and come from the exact same place". So I copied Mike's article on Science and he responded with this. Do you get what he's trying to tell me?

I am aware of what solipsism and empiricism are. What I am not aware of is why I just wasted my time reading this article. No one is disputing that science is a way of developing a model of the physical universe. I think that science has given us a plethora of helpful and useful things in our day to day lives and has made existence as a whole mroe enjoyable for everyone. The problem crops up when you begin assuming that the physical model of the universe is the only one that matters. You say that there is no way to "prove" the metaphysical, but you have already set up the terms for proof with your establishment of "empirical observation" as the only means of garnering useful information. Do you realize the problem here? If you make the definition of proof "something that a scientist observes," of course nothing else will satisfy.
When I say that faith and science are indisinguishable, I am referring to "Philosophical naturalism" as opposed to "methodological naturalism." The latter claims only to be develping a model of the PHYSICAL universe, while the former is trying chiefly to explain away the metaphysical. A philosophical naturalist has enormous difficulty answering questions like "how did we get here," etc. A methodological naturalist could just as easily be a Christian, with his faith in God giving him just as much knowledge, wisdom and truth as his empirical observation. Philosophical naturalists must have some faith, too. Actually, they must have a great deal of faith, such as faith in the "missing link" and other hyberbolic myths that are being taught to our young people in high schools around the country. What really fries me about the "scientific community" are the people that claim fact when no evidence is present. These are the philosophical naturalists. Many of this breed of scientist are rather sore about the fact that they cannot get any solid evidence for macro-evolution and the fact that no one has come up with a remotely reasonable theory about how we could have gotten here without God. Your essay, for example, says that "God is inscrutible, therefore he needn't be included in a theory to give the theory any more predictablility than it had before..." This is absurd. I am not sure if the essayist was using this as an example.. I hope so, for if he wasn't, he has stepped in the proverbial dung pile.
Science cannot be said to exclude faith any more than someone who is religious can say they don't believe in gravity. Both can be contrarian if they like, but they'll both be wrong. The problem with philosophical naturalists is the one that groups have always had.. they assume their way is the only way. You show me a universe which is naught but physical elements, and I will show you the equation in which 2 + 8 = 6,000.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I want a link to this forum and that post so I can see what direction the discussion is going in. Aside from his inability to accept that macro- and microevolution are the same damn thing, he's trotting out a sophistic bullshit piece attacking scientific elitism by the sounds of it. Ask him to show some evidence for his intangible universe he proposes. Then tell him if it can't be seen, heard, touched or tasted, then it exists about as much as a vacuum does.

[Justforfun000]

I want a link to this forum and that post so I can see what direction the discussion is going in. Aside from his inability to accept that macro- and microevolution are the same damn thing, he's trotting out a sophistic bullshit piece attacking scientific elitism by the sounds of it. Ask him to show some evidence for his intangible universe he proposes. Then tell him if it can't be seen, heard, touched or tasted, then it exists about as much as a vacuum does.

Sure thing. I'm "Kpartington" by the way.

It started on "masturbation" actually. LOL. But this got off into the realm of religion mainly.

http://www.progressiveu.org/153054-toda ... sturbation

His name is "Bertrand". He came into parts of the discussion late. About a third of the page down you'll see the offshoot where he started throwing in his two cents.

[Darth Wong]

Nothing more than a typical metaphysics bullshitter. Arguing that physical models of the universe are limited by their inability to explain metaphysical phenomena presumes that metaphysical phenomena exist, even though they are totally unnecessary and therefore illogical. It's like saying that science is incomplete because it has no explanation for the Force from Star Wars. First you have to establish that the fucking thing is real before saying that science is limited by its inability to explain it.

[Zero]

He basically just didn't apply parsimony. He's saying that science shouldn't exclude metaphysical phenomenon simply because science is about finding a physical model of the universe. There's no reason to believe tht anything metaphysical exists at all, but he doesn't understand that belief without evidence and lack of belief without evidence aren't equal positions.

Just explain the concept of parsimony: if you can explain the same results using less assumptions, then the explanation with the least assumptions is the best.

[Justforfun000]

I ended up telling him I asked the question over here on the board as to whether anyone's heard of "Philosophical Naturalism" and showed him everyone's responses. I'll see if he will now predictably claim that it would be unreasonable to rule out metaphysical just because we can't evidence it scientifically. Funny how I've never noticed anyone acually justify WHY that would be unreasonable though...

[Vendetta]

Funny how I've never noticed anyone acually justify WHY that would be unreasonable though...

Because in order to accept the metaphysical you have to have faith in it, and faith preconditions you not to question the tenets of your faith.

[Justforfun000]

Because in order to accept the metaphysical you have to have faith in it, and faith preconditions you not to question the tenets of your faith.

but that would be....*GASP* Circular reasoning!

[Rye]

I've heard of philosophical naturalism, it is entirely sensible since it is the default basis of all knowledge and learning, once you start to complain about it, you just end up stealing the concept anyway and thereby shooting yourself in the foot.

[drachefly]

Everyone here is misusing the term 'metaphysical'. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy dealing with why the rules of the universe are the way they are (as opposed to what said rules actually are); and what sorts of things should go in our physical theories; and there is a good dose of epistemology.

As such, there is no such thing as a metaphysical phenomenon; you might as well ask about an 'arithmetic phenomenon'.

What I think he means is, instead, a non-physical phenomenon.

[Alan Bolte]

If something exists outside physics, and our means of observation can be explained by physics, then how can we observe it? E.g. how could we see anything that doesn't generate photons, unless it bypasses the eye and the image is entirely in your mind? If the image is wholly in your mind, how is it not an illusion?

[Justforfun000]

If something exists outside physics, and our means of observation can be explained by physics, then how can we observe it? E.g. how could we see anything that doesn't generate photons, unless it bypasses the eye and the image is entirely in your mind? If the image is wholly in your mind, how is it not an illusion?

This is a good question, and it's where I'm wrestling with my understanding of people that are convinced of a different reality experience being possible.

I personally have never experienced any kind of 'miraculous' event that convinced me that there is something more than what we can see. I BEG the universe to send me such a thing if there is, because I would be more then happy to have reason to believe in something more dismal then the idea of just winking out of existence.

Has anyone here actually had a sensory type experience that felt completely non-physical? Or maybe a better way to put it is, inter-dimensional, or all-the-way home run....spiritual? Science is our best tool for interpreting reality of course, but naturally it has to know what type of phenomena to evaluate and what is necessary to sense it first.

I want to be sure I'm not being too hard nosed a cynic and just dismissing the possibility of other forms of reality that are just not currently well known. I mean, gamma rays may as well be angel breath for all the average person knows of them, but they ARE real, and can be measured once you know how to attune to them.

What is the fairest middle ground I can agree on with a person pushing faith based ideas that can accept empirical evidence and yet agree on the potential of a spiritual reality?

[B5B7]

I've been debating some people on the Progressive U board, and this one person is a particular irritant. He started off throwing sophistry at me in a long-winded generalization against me, but now he's getting more specific and I want some opinions on where to go with this since I'm not familiar with "Philosophical Naturalism". After he made the statement the "science and faith are exactly the same thing, and come from the exact same place". So I copied Mike's article on Science and he responded with this. Do you get what he's trying to tell me?

*most snipped* Actually, they must have a great deal of faith, such as faith in the "missing link" and other hyberbolic myths that are being taught to our young people in high schools around the country.

A question you can ask:
If science and faith are the same thing, why is one thousands of years old and the other only hundreds of years old?

The "missing link" is not a concept of science/evolution but of the fundamentalists.What the hell is "hyberbolic"?

[Zero]

If something exists outside physics, and our means of observation can be explained by physics, then how can we observe it? E.g. how could we see anything that doesn't generate photons, unless it bypasses the eye and the image is entirely in your mind? If the image is wholly in your mind, how is it not an illusion?

Well, if the human brain consistantly acted against the known laws of physics, and it couldn't be explained by any current understanding of physics, then it could be at least claimed that some phenomenon beyond our current understanding of physics was having an effect on the human experience without being physically detectable. However, last I checked, no such phenomenon has ever been measured or detected. Believing in extra-physical anything requires making the assumption that what we detect isn't all there is, but if anything that we couldn't detect had an effect on the physical reality that we live it, we would still have observable phenomenon by which to measure it. Until that kind of thing is going on, it's just idle claims from morons who are ignoring the notion that one should make as few assumptions as possible when approaching information.

[McC]

This is almost the same exact argument I was having a few weeks back. Ultimately, you can't win it. They have ingrained in them the notion that science is great for describing the physical world, but that there is a world beyond the physical and that science doesn't explain it, so is "incomplete." They also tend to think of faith and inductive reasoning as the same thing. Once you've run into that sort of thinking, you may as well just sit back and laugh at them instead, because you won't get anywhere in terms of actually changing their minds.