An alternate look at Naturalism

OK, so let's accept that you are honest in your thinking that this thread about naturalism is different to the way others such as myself and Laird see it. I think that your next statement perhaps points to the crux of our differences: "the findings of MN".

We are not really talking about the findings of MN because MN is a procedural guideline. It says that the Method must be constrained to the investigation of that which is Natural. You may be happy to include Idealism or Panpsychism within the definition of Natural but, from what we have seen from all the quotes and links so far, the majority of the mainstream scientists equate naturalism with materialism and reductionism. That being so, we can be sure it disqualifies idealism or dualism or even panpsychism (which may or may not qualify as "supernatural" but certainly challenges materialism). See the previous post where I quoted the Secular Web:


Looking at it another way: statements have been made that science cannot work with an "invisible agent" or measure things that are not amenable to measurement, not reliable or predictable. That would be fair enough if it were left at that but the inference, if not the conclusion, of that observation is that those things don't exist. So the MN scientist, when faced with two possibilities: (a) that something like a living cell or a human mind must have come about by "natural" means or (b) that some intelligence was involved in its genesis and evolution, then he or she will insist on (a). To do so, there is a framework of theories which build a picture of the evolution of such complexity in step-by-step fashion, each step further confirming the "natural-ness" of the process. 

Somewhere along the way, that process - arrived at by MN - becomes less like a theory and more like a statement of fact (or faith). If any problems are found, a few steps are replaced by others but only it they follow the MN guidelines. At any point of the research the only mechanism being considered is a materialistic one. Is it any wonder that the theory ends up being wholly materialistic when each step was constrained to materialist mechanisms? Then you might say that the proof is there: that each step is testable and can be replicated. But is that true? Or is it the case that the best you can say is that it could have happened that way, given enough time and a healthy helping of coincidence?

You have taken the Sherlock Holmes dictum, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth", and decided, a priori, what is impossible which leaves you to insist that what remains is indeed the truth. 

And then there's consciousness.

Look at it this way. In the entire many thousands of years of history of immaterial thinking has it ever discovered any objective immaterial truth?

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.

Hang on, I'm not the one suggesting that the mind is supernatural. If it is part of the natural world, then certainly science can study it.

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.

What?! I'm getting whiplash here. Where did I conclude that mind does not exist?

You appear to be making certain assumptions about mind and then trying to match my comments against them. When they don't match, you reach strange conclusions about my opinions.

Are you saying that we cannot observe the underlying framekwork of reality, be it "physical" or "mental"?

~~ 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.

This is too convenient. If that which cannot be studied affects that which can, we should be able to study the causation.

Again, whiplash. Are there supernatural things or not?

~~ Paul

Look at it this way. In the entire many thousands of years of history of immaterial thinking has it ever discovered any objective immaterial truth?

You seem so very narrow-minded. Also, you seem to completely and arrogantly prefer ignoring everything someone has just said, in preference of just living in your reality bubble of physicalist dogma. It's easier to not have to think deeply when your reality bubble is danger of being popped, and so, shallow, thoughtless replies are your salvation from this. Sad... pitiful, even. Oh well.

Not that I expect you to put any thought into this, but for others reading this, the many shamanistic cultures throughout history have known that consciousness is quite distinct from the body, and survives death. Such cultures are aware that there is a greater reality beyond this smaller one, but it is, more or less, a mystery to anyone who is still alive. The Shaman is one who acts as an intermediary between the spirit and physical realities, going out of body to learn significant things that would help their tribe, going into trance states to help ease them into said state, learning important knowledge from various spiritual entities, learning hints about the future that matter for them, and so on. Rarely, some Shamans turned into sorcerers, users of black magic who would manipulate others for their own greed.

This is too convenient. If that which cannot be studied affects that which can, we should be able to study the causation.

I said that they are difficult to study, not that they cannot. I stated that they can be studied indirectly.

While the researcher cannot poke and prod directly, as they can with matter, they can work with another person's account of their experience, and derive some results in that manner.

In some cases, like with Eben Alexander's NDE, direct experiences can be had.

You seem so very narrow-minded. Also, you seem to completely and arrogantly prefer ignoring everything someone has just said, in preference of just living in your reality bubble of physicalist dogma. It's easier to not have to think deeply when your reality bubble is danger of being popped, and so, shallow, thoughtless replies are your salvation from this. Sad... pitiful, even. Oh well.

Not that I expect you to put any thought into this, but for others reading this, the many shamanistic cultures throughout history have known that consciousness is quite distinct from the body, and survives death. Such cultures are aware that there is a greater reality beyond this smaller one, but it is, more or less, a mystery to anyone who is still alive. The Shaman is one who acts as an intermediary between the spirit and physical realities, going out of body to learn significant things that would help their tribe, going into trance states to help ease them into said state, learning important knowledge from various spiritual entities, learning hints about the future that matter for them, and so on. Rarely, some Shamans turned into sorcerers, users of black magic who would manipulate others for their own greed.

A strongly convincing retort. I wonder if you can understand my sarcasm.

A strongly convincing retort.

As I predicted... you have no response except... this. Again, pitiful.

Live in your bubble of physicalism, then, where matter and physics can magically, accidentally, randomly, purposelessly, create life from lifeless matter, and even more fantastically, create extremely complex structures, and even more extremely and delicately balanced and complex ecosystems, even though such magic has never once been demonstrated to be possible scientifically.

Magical thinking? The religious folk have nothing on the vivid fantasies of the physicalists and materialists, lol. At least the religious folk recognize that they're a religion, while the materialists and physicalists vehemently deny this and claim that they're "scientific", even going so far as to claim that methodological naturalism and science are identical, even though they're clearly not, to any truly rational and logical thinker.

I'm having too much fun right now...

In some cases, like with Eben Alexander's NDE, direct experiences can be had.

I'm not convinced he is studying anything other than weird brain behavior under stress.

~~ Paul

An appropriate opinion post for this thread.


The natural, the supernatural, and the nature of science

By Paul Braterman

Science, it is often said, is restricted in principle to the search for natural causes and the rejection of the supernatural; call this intrinsic methodological naturalism (IMN). Here, following the work of Boudry et al. [1], I argue that this view is misguided and damaging. We have not precluded supernatural claims from discussion. On the contrary, we have investigated them and found them wanting, as I show here using both historical and present-day examples.

“I have no need of that hypothesis.” So, according to legend, said the great astronomer and mathematician Piere-Simon, marquis de Laplace, when asked by Napoleon why he had not mentioned God in his book. If so, Laplace was not referring to the hypothesis that God exists, but to the much more interesting hypothesis that He intervenes in the material world. And Laplace’s point was not, fundamentally, philosophical or theological, but scientific.
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014...f-science/

I'm not convinced he is studying anything other than weird brain behavior under stress.

Please read this ~ http://ebenalexander.com/about/my-experience-in-coma/ ~ and then tell me that it had anything to do with his brain, which could not have been remotely functioning.

[...] my brain was incapable of providing any hallucination, dream or psychic drug effect, due to the global damage of my neocortex so apparent from my neurologic exams, scans and laboratory values.

And yet, he details a powerfully rich and vivid spiritual experience that happened under these conditions.

"Weird brain behaviour under stress"? Seems extremely unlikely.