Short of continual direct unambiguous intervention in the world by a God, is naturalism (however you want to define it) falsifiable? Can't almost anything besides God that is typically part of a theistic worldview just be redefined as as a 'natural' phenomonen (say like an immaterial mind, an afterlife, etc.)
All you need to falsify naturalism is to find some credible evidence of the supernatural. So far, no dice.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Short of continual direct unambiguous intervention in the world by a God, is naturalism (however you want to define it) falsifiable? Can't almost anything besides God that is typically part of a theistic worldview just be redefined as as a 'natural' phenomonen (say like an immaterial mind, an afterlife, etc.)
All you need to falsify naturalism is to find some credible evidence of the supernatural. So far, no dice.
Well, my point was how do we define beforehand what is natural and what is supernatural? Let's say that science discovers that there is some element of the human mind that is not reducible to the brain/matter but rather has its own separate existence ala Chalmers. Would this prove naturalism false? Or would we just expand our definition of the 'natural' to include this newly discovered aspect of reality so that along with Chalmers we could continue to be committed to a naturalistic worldview? To me it seems that at the end of the day the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism boils down to the existence of a transcendant Creator God. If there is no such God then everything we discover about reality (be it immaterial minds, some type of existence beyond physical death, even ghosts. etc) we could eventually fit into a naturalistic worldview - just define it as a new force of nature, a new type of matter/energy, etc.
Ok I'm going to have to review a course I have on history of science. Tomorrow I'm busy, so I'll estimate I won't get back to you before Sunday. The only question I have for you right now is..assuming you read R. Carrier's blog page I linked to, was there anything in it that you disagreed with and if so what (please quote it) and why.
Honestly, I just read the part you posted. I'll try to take a closer look at his blog later this week. At a glance he seems to have a good educational background in the subject (better than me) and to be pretty active in writing against Christianity (which doesn't mean that his analysis couldn't be accurate). His basic facts seem to be ok, its the interpretation and spin on those facts that I would question. There are other ways, and to me more impartial ways, of reading the same historical evidence that leads to very different conclusions, as the quotes I posted earlier would suggest. I would at least caution that his views are not neccesarily representative of other prominent scholars in the field.
Phillip wrote:Well, my point was how do we define beforehand what is natural and what is supernatural? Let's say that science discovers that there is some element of the human mind that is not reducible to the brain/matter but rather has its own separate existence ala Chalmers. Would this prove naturalism false? Or would we just expand our definition of the 'natural' to include this newly discovered aspect of reality so that along with Chalmers we could continue to be committed to a naturalistic worldview? To me it seems that at the end of the day the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism boils down to the existence of a transcendant Creator God. If there is no such God then everything we discover about reality (be it immaterial minds, some type of existence beyond physical death, even ghosts. etc) we could eventually fit into a naturalistic worldview - just define it as a new force of nature, a new type of matter/energy, etc.
I see what you're saying. It's tricky because supernatural is a tricky concept. Something outside the laws of nature. What would that look like? All we have so far to examine is nature, and claimed supernatural phenomenon that turned out to be natural.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I see what you're saying. It's tricky because supernatural is a tricky concept. Something outside the laws of nature. What would that look like? All we have so far to examine is nature, and claimed supernatural phenomenon that turned out to be natural.
Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at. For example, I remember reading how Galileo criticized Kepler for Kepler's suggestion that the moon somehow caused the tides. Galileo's explanation of the tides was that they were more or less a result of the oceans sloshing around as the earth rotated. So he dismissed Kepler's idea as relying on "occult" forces rather than a mechanical model. Today we call that occult force gravity.
Tarski wrote:Seems like a tall order. Perhaps one may as well set out to show that the set of natural numbers cares about my sex life?
Exactly.
But if physical reality is in some sense mathematical in nature (as modern physics seems to suggest), and if my wife is entirely a product of that reality, then yes math does care about my sex life.
Phillip wrote:But if physical reality is in some sense mathematical in nature (as modern physics seems to suggest), and if my wife is entirely a product of that reality, then yes math does care about my sex life.
Numbers as abstracta wouldn't have a casaul or material effect like you are thinking here.
Phillip wrote:Although the line 'You are the most beautiful partial differential equation that I have ever seen' didn't go over too well last Valentine's Day.
You would be better off mentioning the beautiful cusps on an algebraic curve.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
