Preacher wrote:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <prohumanist@gr8mail.com> wrote:
Naturalism is demonstrated via the scientific method,
constantly, is evidenced, experienced, verifiable, and
well-documented. God is make believe. See the
difference?
Yes. You assume your starting place, making it easy to "prove" it.
For
more of a challenge, don't assume that nature is all there is. Then
use
naturalism to prove that God doesn't exist.
By the way, you've answered a question
with a question. You go first, answer the question
regarding defining God, as iterated above, then
I'll follow by addressing naturalism, in more detail,
if you'd like.
As I've said elsewhere, this line of questioning has already been
pursued with you in the newsgroup. It never goes anywhere because you
take no one seriously except yourself. Here's another example from
days
gone by - not quite as clever as the Venger exchange, but
wellwritten.
Subject: Re: The case for naturalism
Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys
observer <observer@observer.net> wrote:
And I'm thinkin', isn't this just totally what humans and life is
all
about, as we're physical entities reacting within physical limita-
tions,
and there is no "magic", and no "spiritual world", and no godlike
control
which humans, at least in this society, have been indoctrinated to
believe
in, that life is a naturalistic continuum, a physical existence
within the
constraints of physical laws, and human behavior is totally
explained by
...
... Genes + stimuli + random brain activity = human behavior.
In other words, we're naturalistic entities within a naturalistic
domain,
constrained totally by naturalistic and physical reality, and all
else
(not least of which are supernatural fantasies) are make believe
....
Think of a concept called the "totality of being". If, within that
concept, you can perceive of everything occurring based on the
physics of
a natural world, with everything explainable by physical law, and
with
there being nothing but "the unknown" in our understanding of
physi- cal
law, then the observation and experience of life is observable and
assessable via the perspective of naturalism, in totality.
When viewed from the prism of naturalistic totality, the
perspectives may
be disclaimed from the position that no matter what is conjectured
regarding the unknown, an insistence or demand or threat or promise
that
is leveraged off of an adventure into the unknown which is claimed
as
fact/faith, does *not* merit being followed. An open and inquiring
mind,
suspicious of unsubstantiated claims, wary of assertions of mag-
nificent
payoffs or horrendous consequences if one believes or does not
believe in
supernatural fantasies, that is the most estimable fore- runner to
a state
of mind that humankind can aspire to, and to magnify human value
and
significance, after having reached that state of mind, that is
"nirvana"
...
... or, put another way, that is the ultimate mental (and
spiritual, if
one chooses to go there) state that humans can achieve, in this,
our one
and only *sure* chance to do so. ....
If naturalism is true, it still has to account for the belief in the
supernatural. I would suppose it has to do this by using the social,
cognitive and behavioral sciences.
That is, before we can actually move forward in a significant way
towards the state of mind--the "nirvana"--that observer mentions,
naturalists will have to develop a better theory of the mind which
accounts for the existence, and persistence, of supernatural beliefs.
And by this, I mean a legitimate scientific theory, based on empirical
facts, not just a set of insults that attack supernaturalists for
thinking in the wrong way, or a set of polemical arguments that
demonstrate that they think in the wrong way. The first step in
explaining a phenomenon, IMO, is to recognize it as a phenomenon that
can be explained. The second step is to distinguish between
explanation on the one hand, and insults and polemics on the other.
Pax
.
