Let's start with the basics, shall we. Naturalism (formally known as 'materialism') is a way of thinking about the existential world that is confirmed by empirical evidence. My question is: what is the basis for your belief?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Naturalism and materialism are not exactly the same, materialism is more the train of thought that all things condense to matter.. Naturalism is the philosophy that the universe operates under natural laws.
The difference between the two being the definition!
Materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise and makes an argument on how science/philosophy should function.
The basis for thinking it is the best outlook?
I suppose that is for an individual to answer!
Personally, I would imagine because it is the best outlook on reality that answers so much without the need to invoke a mythical deity.
And every causal link from how humans are born, to how we evolved, to how Earth formed... all the way to the big bang, can be explained via natural explanation and no god of the gaps or required.
Randomhero1982
You use the word "premise" in relation to naturalism. A premise is an assumption, or unproven belief. Can you give an example of a premise that, as you wrote, "naturalism takes"?
Often in this forum I get this or that athiest claiming "objectivity" which implies no premise, and no beliefs. Yet here, you seem to accept the reality of a "premise".
Apollo,
I thought I did in my opening comments...
But I'm happy to clarify, in this case let us first identify the definition of 'premise'...
An assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory.
Or
A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
In the case of naturalism, the premise is...
"naturalism is the philosophy that the universe operates under natural laws".
Or simply put, the universe functions under natural laws that have verifiable natural causal links.
I think the confusion may have been in your personal definition of 'premise' perhaps?!
Fuck me. First there is an idiotic thread about materialism. Now there is a thread about naturalism.
Someone just shoot me...
rmfr
@Arakish
Make up your mind, already! You want to get fucked or shot?.... *holding a tube of KY lube in left hand and a pistol in right hand*.... C'mon! I ain't got all night!
Ah, both!
rmfr
Shaman: Naturalism (formally known as 'materialism') is a way of thinking about the existential world that is confirmed by empirical evidence. My question is: what is the basis for your belief?
______________________________________________
As you say, empirical naturalism, answers questions, and it works, leading to an understanding of, and to harnessing of nature by us humans. Science is concerned with empiricism, and studies things in the natural universe, (as opposed to the supernatural - if there is such a thing). The natural, (previously called material), world is all around us, and is the basis for an acceptance of it - it's self evident. I have no experience of anything supernatural, and science has no methodologies to investigate it. The best science can do is to say that we have some unanswered questions, or some unexplained phenomena, (until they are answered or explained).
Empirical naturalism does not concern itself with things other than the natural, and does nothing to deny that the supernatural may or may not exist. As for me, the naturalistic world view is sufficient to explain all of reality as I know it, and the supernatural has never been shown to have any truth to it, (so far as I'm aware), so it stays over my mental horizon, so to speak. The so-called supernatural will not be important to me, until I meet and cross that mental horizon, if ever.
I have no good reason to think that even if I were to cross that horizon, I'd find anything but the natural, but I can't read the future, (that 'aint' natural !)
Mutorc S'yriah
I agree with @Randomhero1982 . Buddhism is also naturalist, but proposes a different relationship between matter, consciousness, etc. that materialism monism - which claims all comes from matter or solipsism (another naturalist view) that claims all comes from consciousness. Buddha considered these to be extreme philosophies based on a piece of truth, but taking the conclusions to the extreme and ending up contradicted by reality.
And yet, all are naturalist and see the world as being governed by universal laws, they only disagree on what these laws are. On the other hand, monotheistic religions for example do not have this outlook on the world, based on universal laws, but have interesting stories about this deity doing this and that, strange events that only have no logic outside their own narrative, etc.
I would agree of all religions Buddhism is more naturalistic in inclination when compared to others, but it still invokes supernatural phenomena and it's cosmology is poor.
It's quite telling how all religions have adapted their beliefs and teachings in order to conform to what has been discovered by science.
ShaMan
Materialism is a position in ontology that states, that everything there is is matter. Most of the naturalists are materialists. But a naturalist need not be a materialist. Actually, he is forced to give up materialism if there is good scientific reason to. If we would gather scientific evidence that there is another substance than matter then the naturalist must abandon his belief that everything is made of matter. Unfortunately finding a substance that is not a material substance has proved to be impossible as far as I know. If you think there is something that is not a thing, I would love to hear about it.
My question is: what is the basis for your belief?
What belief? Naturalism? Materialism? Find a way to explain something without them that can be validated, predicted, verified, repeated, measured, and understood. I don't think you can do it. Materialism justifies itself because it works. Show me anything that is non-materialistic that works as well as a spoon for eating soup or penicillin for curing an infections. Certainly there is a non-materialistic way to eat soup or cure disease that works just as well as these silly materialistic tools.
Limiting yourself to only the explanations that are based on observation gives a greater predictive power than any other strategy.
Let's say you see a skyscraper. Without any knowledge of architecture beforehand, you wonder how it hasn't been blown down by the wind already. Limiting yourself to only what you can observe, you conclude that the best explanation is that the skyscraper is glued to the ground by some kind of hyperglue.
Now some guy walks by and tells you that the skyscraper has a solid foundation underground that sustains it. You dismiss it because the explanation falls outside of what you can observe. The guy gives you the blueprint of the skyscraper; but you say it's fake. You demand him to dig through the ground and show you the foundation; and when he admits that he can't do that, you conclude that his claim is false.
You see how this methodology doesn't work?
Uh, you can do a lot, A LOT! more with a skyscraper then just look at it from outside. You could go into the skyscraper and possibly go down stairs from the ground floor realizing it goes down into the ground. You can observe another skyscraper in the early phases of being built and observe the large hole being dug, the pillars being driven into the ground etc. You could even start mixing up concrete, read some literature on the subject and try to build your own tall skyscraper.
Your skyscraper analogy actually explains why real world observation works. I can go up and feel the skyscraper, compare materials, there is so much I can do myself to satisfy my curiosity or skepticism. However some god concept someone has that: "does not exist in the natural world and is only supernatural. I can do absolutely none of those things. I can not even observe this "god" I can only hear other people talk about what they think, (and none of them ever even observed this "god" concept eithir!)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that there is anything more than the material physical universe? You do I assume accept that the material physical universe exists?
Wearing clothes is unnatural - nudity never did anybody any harm.
Sunburned dick & sand in the ass!
I know you were likely being a bit tongue in cheek humour, but I gotta add: (simply because some people could take it seriously.)
1.The dick would tan just like the rest of the body, and be just as protected and/or vulnerable as the rest of the body to the sun.
2. Ask any honest woman about sand in the butt if they wear a most common bathing suit types, (especially bikinis) women wear to the beach and actually got in the water with churned up sand, or sat down directly on sand instead of a towel or a chair. Only if you are wearing oversized shorts would you be protected from that sort of thing... to an extent.
Sapporo,
Are people comfortable walking around a dog butt-naked? The dog might be hungry and decide to take a bite.
Buddhism still has ghosts, spirits, gods, and the magic of karma along with the erroneous assumption of rebirth. I agree that the psychology of buddhist thought has some significant insights into the nature of the mind. But claiming that it would be atheistic in any way is just not realistic.