An alternate look at Naturalism

I disagree. Firstly it isn't really a mind from nothing that I was suggesting - it is an eternal, uncreated mind, that which has always been, not that which appeared out of nothing. Secondly, mind is inherently creative, matter without mind is incapable of creativity so its activity is dependent on laws which order and constrain. No amount of order out of chaos would be possible without that precision of physical laws and constants so you have to then argue that those too appeared by accident or you have to propose multitudes of universes just to allow for our "goldilocks" universe. So how is that more parsimonious?

If the mind has always been, then the source of universes can always have been. And the question "why anything at all" is pertinent to both.

Multiple universes is more parsimonious than one, because it does not require a mechanism to prevent all but one universe.

You need a proof that a mindless universe is less creative than one with a mind. That is, after you define creative carefully.

Meanwhile, if that mind has no effect on the natural world, it is not possible for science to study it.

~~ Paul

Meanwhile, if that mind has no effect on the natural world, it is not possible for science to study it.

~~ Paul

Once again you separate the mind and the natural world. They are the same thing. It is like looking for evidence of your own mind having influence on your own mind. 

In simple terms, if you dream a landscape or a house or a forest, where would you look for evidence of the mind that created them - that dreamed the dream? Our reality that you call nature is, in my view, such a dream. Vastly more complex than our nightly dreams perhaps. More ordered and purposeful perhaps. But a creation of mind no less.

It seems to me that, were you in your dream searching for that mind, it would not be obvious to you so you conclude it does not exist. I find it quite astounding that such a conclusion satisfies you.

[Laird]

I want to back up Kamarling in this thread, because various posters have either implied or explicitly stated that methodological naturalism doesn't rule out the supernatural and supernatural explanations, and whilst Kamarling has pointed out that this is false, I think that this point needs to be emphasised. Here are the relevant posts from the contrarians:

That depends on the definition. If it includes the fact that a supernatural agent cannot have any causal effect on the world, then I can rule it out. But yes, I can't rule out all possible definitions.

If an agent is causing design on the natural world (ID in a nutshell), a methodological naturalism approach should perceive it.

So there's no a priori prohibition against the "supernatural"

Except the claim is that the supernatural agent can affect the natural world, so there has to be some kind of nexus or interface. That should be observable.

Hang on, it's the ID crowd that posit an agent that controls nature, isn't it? If it is purely "supernatural" how can it impact on nature?

Now let's look at some actual descriptions and definitions of methodological naturalism, all of which are among the top Google search results, and all of which rule out the supernatural a priori:

The naturalism (philosophy) article on Wikipedia:

[N]aturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."

and its section on methodological naturalism:

[Quoting favourably the judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:] [S]ince the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science

The methodological naturalism article on RationalWiki (I mean, seriously, even RationalWiki accepts this):

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful

And now for a quote from an article whose author seems to feel very strongly about this issue, Methodological Naturalism:

[A] scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue

And, finally, from the very sensible article to which Kamarling linked, Replacing Methodological Naturalism:

Naturalism is a metaphysical view that denies the existence of supernatural entities.

Methodological naturalism is an epistemological principle that governs how science is practiced. It prohibits the use of supernatural explanations in science.

Scott and Murphy agree on the general meaning of the principle. Scott explains it this way: “[S]cience acts as if the supernatural did not exist.”17 Murphy understands it to mean that “scientific explanations are to be in terms of natural (not supernatural) entities and processes.”

When we examine Scott’s view of methodological naturalism more closely we see that the prohibition against the supernatural is both a priori and necessary. It is a priori because she defines science this way: “By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations.”19 And it is necessary because any discipline that rejects the principle is not scientific as the following passage makes clear: “Defining science as an attempt to explain the natural world using natural processes and mechanisms allows us to say to creationists like Henry Morris that ‘God did it’ is not science.”

So... yeah, methodological naturalism denies the possibility of science arriving at supernatural explanations, despite the contrary claims of certain folk in this thread.

I want to back up Kamarling in this thread, because various posters have either implied or explicitly stated that methodological naturalism doesn't rule out the supernatural and supernatural explanations, and whilst Kamarling has pointed out that this is false, I think that this point needs to be emphasised. Here are the relevant posts from the contrarians:






Now let's look at some actual descriptions and definitions of methodological naturalism, all of which are among the top Google search results, and all of which rule out the supernatural a priori:

The naturalism (philosophy) article on Wikipedia:


and its section on methodological naturalism:


The methodological naturalism article on RationalWiki (I mean, seriously, even RationalWiki accepts this):


And now for a quote from an article whose author seems to feel very strongly about this issue, Methodological Naturalism:


And, finally, from the very sensible article to which Kamarling linked, Replacing Methodological Naturalism:





So... yeah, methodological naturalism denies the possibility of science arriving at supernatural explanations, despite the contrary claims of certain folk in this thread.

Sorry Laird, I think you miss the point. As soon as a causal agent affects nature it can't, by definition, be "supernatural". Kamarling's brand of idealism (if shown to be correct) would be the nature of our universe, and open to exploration by methodlological naturalism.

That's how I see it.

I don't see how this supernatural agent, unbound by physics, can affect physics without a nexus. There has to be some point in the chain of cause and effect where a supernatural cause has a natural effect.

Again, there has to be a way in which this (supernatural?) collective unconscious has physical effects.

There is ~ said "supernatural" agent/s, which is consciousness or mind, can interact directly with matter, because matter and physics are a creation of such. In the case of psychic phenomena, there seems to be some set of rules in place which drastically limit the manipulation of matter by consciousness that isn't bound to a physical form, otherwise, psychic phenomena should theoretically be much more common.

The consciousness of physically-bound beings also seems to be quite limited. Enough in an overwhelmingly vast majority of people so that matter cannot be affected through exertion of mind alone easily or visibly. Those who have trained their minds enough can influence their own bodies, at least.

There are these, for example:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2...peratures/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wim_Hof

If we are to picture this as

supernatural entity --> supernatural effect --> ... --> supernatural cause --poof--> natural effect

then you can't ask scientists to study it. There is no way to study --poof-->.

~~ Paul

Perhaps because it difficult to study that which is beyond the realms of physics. Said causes cannot be perceived within the realms of physics and matter, so to be able to examine said causes, one can study them indirectly, such as through people's experience accounts in the case of NDEs and OBEs, and look for common elements.

[Laird]

As soon as a causal agent affects nature it can't, by definition, be "supernatural".

Perhaps you should have a look at the definitions of supernatural? Several of the relevant ones explicitly allow for supernatural causal agents to affect nature:

6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings

7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

Perhaps you should have a look at the definitions of supernatural? Several of the relevant ones explicitly allow for supernatural causal agents to affect nature:

Appealing to convenient definition aside, does not the supernatural/natural interface strike you as troublesome?

[Laird]

Appealing to convenient definition aside, does not the supernatural/natural interface strike you as troublesome?

I don't think it has any bearing on the fact that methodological naturalism rejects supernatural explanations a priori, if that's what you're getting at.

I mean, if you are going to say that anything that has any effect in the world is by definition not supernatural, then you've effectively defined the supernatural out of existence! At best you could say that you've banished it to some parallel realm which has no causal impact upon our own realm. It's pretty clear that this is neither a common sense understanding of "the supernatural", nor the understanding of the supernatural on which methodological naturalism is based.

Sorry Laird, I think you miss the point. As soon as a causal agent affects nature it can't, by definition, be "supernatural".

Consciousness and mind are not separate from nature ~ they are the medium in which nature exists. Matter and physics are therefore a subset of the greater reality of consciousness.

Kamarling's brand of idealism (if shown to be correct) would be the nature of our universe, and open to exploration by methodlological naturalism.

Why should it be open to exploration by an ideology which presumes mechanical explanations only, and which denies the reality of phenomena not bound by matter or physics? When you've narrowed and blinded your scope of exploration, don't expect to be able to see what lies beyond.

Appealing to convenient definition aside, does not the supernatural/natural interface strike you as troublesome?

For me, not at all, because there doesn't have to be one.

Only if you presume that matter and physics are somehow separated from consciousness and mind does the need such mechanics arise. However, because they aren't, no interface is necessary.

I thought I read that somewhere. Maybe look it up if you want to confirm it?

Supposedly, it has been refuted. But, I've also seen to claimed to be confirmed in multiple cases across the world. I'll see if I can dig up some of the studies I remember reading. They might have been linked to Rupert Sheldrake's theories, instead. I get the two confused.