What is the significance of naturalism?

[sidetrack]

I came across this stamp on deviantart.com

sahwar.deviantart.com/art/Naturalism-philosophy-stamp-129270898
Naturalism is an a priori philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature.” All things and powers commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, God, souls and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent. This position is generally referred to as metaphysical naturalism or ontological naturalism. (Ontology is that branch of philosophy that deals with what is real.)

An alternative form, called methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, is concerned with acquiring knowledge (epistemology in philosophy). It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Many philosophers extend this idea to all of philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers have advocated this view*

…

while it sounds mostly concerned with material reality,what does naturalism mean in regards to spirituality?.

 

[z_0101]

new age heresy
Nothing more than a re-hash of the Mother Earth -Ghia, type faith.
As for the “science” main-stream science ignores this as, guess what, new age fluff.

deviantart.com… not a site that I’d put any faith in when it comes to science or religion… I mean really, look at the name… deviant… need I say more; however, there are some really very talented artists posting their works there… I’m not easily impressed by art… I grew up with a membership passes to local art museums… we’d move from one navy base to the next and my Dad would get me passes to the local museums of art and sciences and to the local orchrastra (if one was there and usually a nose-bleed seat (but you don’t need eyes for music)… Chicago, San Diego, LA, etc… ) I didn’t have much in my room - but I carry these sounds and images in my head…
.

 

[inocente]

Modern naturalism comes out of Christian thought and then some branches went on to become independent.

*"By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as “perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages,” contrasted the philosopher’s search for “appropriate natural causes” with the common folk’s habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320–82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, “there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29*

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Naturalism is where you can run around the back yard Starkers ,legally …
Opps ,,,, that's naturalists silly,,,,,

 

[z_0101]

Modern naturalism comes out of Christian thought and then some branches went on to become independent.

*"By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described *

Too bad the newer versions don’t even have this much to support them…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I came across this stamp on deviantart.com

sahwar.deviantart.com/art/Naturalism-philosophy-stamp-129270898
Naturalism is an a priori philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature.” All things and powers commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, God, souls and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent. This position is generally referred to as metaphysical naturalism or ontological naturalism. (Ontology is that branch of philosophy that deals with what is real.)

An alternative form, called methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, is concerned with acquiring knowledge (epistemology in philosophy). It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Many philosophers extend this idea to all of philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers have advocated this view*

…

while it sounds mostly concerned with material reality,what does naturalism mean in regards to spirituality?.

Since it deals purely with the physical world and denys anything beyond it, it has no philosophical value. It can hardly have any metaphysics at all since the definition of metaphysics is " that which is beyond the physical. " I would say its value is strictly utilitarian.

Linus2nd

 

[abucs]

Naturalism is where you can run around the back yard Starkers ,legally …

Opps ,,,, that's naturalists silly,,,,,

Thanks for the disclosure regarding the exposure.

 

[abucs]

Since it deals purely with the physical world and denys anything beyond it, it has no philosophical value. It can hardly have any metaphysics at all since the definition of metaphysics is " that which is beyond the physical. " I would say its value is strictly utilitarian.

Linus2nd

I agree, although perhaps in assuming the materialist position and then demonstrating it is insufficient to explain reality, it can be a useful tool in pointing the way for the need of metaphysics.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Thanks for the disclosure regarding the exposure.

And here I was thinking that Humour was only for those in the clubhouse,

 

[Oreoracle]

Methodological naturalism, as I understand it, doesn’t claim that nature is all that exists. It simply says that you can’t meaningfully claim to understand something that is supernatural, thus our explanations should be naturalistic.

We can ask a few basic questions to see that, indeed, Christians have very little understanding of God’s behaviors. When will God perform his next miracle? What will the miracle be? How will he bring about the miracle? Is there a way to distinguish miracles from natural phenomena that are poorly understood?

And the last question is very important. If you allow something outside of nature to account for events within nature, then you could just explain everything that happens in terms of the supernatural. We tried that for most of human history, and it didn’t work out well.

 

[Skeptic92]

Since it deals purely with the physical world and denys anything beyond it, it has no philosophical value. It can hardly have any metaphysics at all since the definition of metaphysics is " that which is beyond the physical. " I would say its value is strictly utilitarian.

Linus2nd

Not quite correct; Metaphysics translates to “that which is after physics” owing to its placement in the Aristotelian Corpus. The proper terms for the disciplines usually subsumed under the title “Metaphysics” is Epistemology/Criteriology and Ontology (which leads to Natural Theology) which better describes its object of enquiry (being as intelligible, and being qua being).

Naturalism is a reactionary philosophical school borne out of the Enlightenment. It is essentially materialism under a different name, it is also known as Physicalism- but they are essentially identical.

To the post above- Natural Philosophy # Naturalism. Natural Philosophy is what is studied before Metaphysics; its principle discipline is the Philosophy of Nature, which leads onto the Philosophy of Science etcetera. Naturalism is an ontological doctrine, not a Philosophy of Nature.

 

[abucs]

If you allow something outside of nature to account for events within nature, then you could just explain everything that happens in terms of the supernatural. We tried that for most of human history, and it didn’t work out well.

I do see everything as originating from a reality outside of our own, so does Christianity.

The same Christianity that theorised that if God is rational and universal and the creator of our universe then His laws should also be rational and universal. This is the basis for modern western science.

I think it worked out pretty well.

 

[abucs]

And here I was thinking that Humour was only for those in the clubhouse,

Must be the Aussie connection … I’m guessing.

 

[Oreoracle]

The same Christianity that theorised that if God is rational and universal and the creator of our universe then His laws should also be rational and universal. This is the basis for modern western science.

I think it worked out pretty well.

The idea that the universe obeys rules that can be discovered predated Christianity. Christians seem to have the bad habit of predicting things after they happen.

 

[Skeptic92]

The idea that the universe obeys rules that can be discovered predated Christianity. Christians seem to have the bad habit of predicting things after they happen.

Atheists seem to have a bad problem with understanding Medieval Philosophy. Methodological naturalism in Natural Philosophy was a axiom taken by the Medieval Philosophers. Modern Naturalists simply turn what is a methodological axiom for a specific discipline, and turn it into an ontological doctrine. At which point it becomes absurd, due to the advent of enlightenment and the ontological presuppositions that now find themselves to be dogma to modern naturalism.

 

[Oreoracle]

Atheists seem to have a bad problem with understanding Medieval Philosophy. Methodological naturalism in Natural Philosophy was a axiom taken by the Medieval Philosophers. Modern Naturalists simply turn what is a methodological axiom for a specific discipline, and turn it into an ontological doctrine. At which point it becomes absurd, due to the advent of enlightenment and the ontological presuppositions that now find themselves to be dogma to modern naturalism.

I’m not sure exactly what you are responding to. I was responding to the claim that it was Christians who predicted that the universe follows “rational” laws. That obviously cannot have been the case, since this idea was at least as old as Aristotle. Thus the idea predated Christianity by at least a few centuries.

 

[Skeptic92]

I’m not sure exactly what you are responding to. I was responding to the claim that it was Christians who predicted that the universe follows “rational” laws. That obviously cannot have been the case, since this idea was at least as old as Aristotle. Thus the idea predated Christianity by at least a few centuries.

Well actually the “laws” bit is Christian, as that bit developed during the Protestant Reformation. The “laws of physics” being theological decrees by God as to how nature works, rather than anything intrinsic to the nature of things themselves. Aristotle would find the idea of “laws of physics” to be highly problematic, or even nonsensical. He would enquire “what is the nature of these ‘laws’ that you speak of?”, if you gave the modern empiricist/naturalist meaning he wouldn’t assent to the truth of it- he’d find them non-explanatory.

This is fairly obvious to anyone with a grasp of Aristotelian Ontology; the idea of “laws of nature” appear to be of questionable validity given Aristotles metaphysical premises.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well actually the “laws” bit is Christian, as that bit developed during the Protestant Reformation. The “laws of physics” being theological decrees by God as to how nature works, rather than anything intrinsic to the nature of things themselves. Aristotle would find the idea of “laws of physics” to be highly problematic, or even nonsensical. He would enquire “what is the nature of these ‘laws’ that you speak of?”, if you gave the modern empiricist/naturalist meaning he wouldn’t assent to the truth of it- he’d find them non-explanatory.

This is fairly obvious to anyone with a grasp of Aristotelian Ontology; the idea of “laws of nature” appear to be of questionable validity given Aristotles metaphysical premises.

Okay, so let’s put this into perspective:

Naturalist: Things behave the way they do because that is simply how they are. In other words, it is in their nature to behave that way. When a group of objects behave in a similar fashion, we say that they obey a law that applies to each of them.

Ontologist: Whoa buddy! That’s too simple. We have to introduce an extra level of complexity and attribute the objects’ natures to something else, even though that has no practical impact on how we study them. You see, the “laws” are literally laws of God.

Regardless of whom you side with, I don’t see how it makes any difference to the way in which we conduct science. It’s just jargon that’s meant to sound impressive.

 

[mikekle]

The idea that the universe obeys rules that can be discovered predated Christianity. Christians seem to have the bad habit of predicting things after they happen.

Yep, plus, look at how people today look back at some of the ‘scientific facts’ the mainstream science world considered to be absolute fact 100 yrs ago…of course we laugh about some of these today…like how they thought Radium was a cure all for just about anything and was harmless (thankfully we know better today)!!. I often wonder what the people living 100 + years from now, will be laughing about some of the ‘scientific facts’ we consider to be true in 2014!! LOL

I think our understanding of physics currently will eventually be proven to be wrong or not entirely accurate, as our understanding and knowledge about science and the world as we know it, will be put to the test and the textbooks having to be re-written. Just look at quantum physics!! Just imagine all that we dont understand yet…what comes after quantum physics?!! ALL I can say is WOW!

Point is, every generation thinks they have all the right answers and they understand everything absolutely…of course, this is not accurate, history proves this to us, given enough time, nearly ALL of our laws of physics will likely be proven inaccurate imo.

 

[Skeptic92]

Okay, so let’s put this into perspective:

Naturalist: Things behave the way they do because that is simply how they are. In other words, it is in their nature to behave that way. When a group of objects behave in a similar fashion, we say that they obey a law that applies to each of them.

Ontologist: Whoa buddy! That’s too simple. We have to introduce an extra level of complexity and attribute the objects’ natures to something else, even though that has no practical impact on how we study them. You see, the “laws” are literally laws of God.

Regardless of whom you side with, I don’t see how it makes any difference to the way in which we conduct science. It’s just jargon that’s meant to sound impressive.

Actually it makes a lot of difference. In modern naturalism modern science can not reach a demonstration and therefore achieve truth properly speaking. With a solid Natural Philosophy the empirical sciences can indeed mount a demonstrative argument that achieves truth.

Given the importance of Ontology in current debates around the Philosophy of Science; you shouldn’t shrug it off. Given that the major debate is whether or not scientific knowledge can actually attain actual truth or not; metaphysical Naturalism implies that it cannot, this is due to its ontology.

If naturalism has taken on to itself Theological doctrines (which it has, several) the position is itself untenable for an Atheist. As there are core premises in naturalism which would implicitly contradict the truth of naturalism. The occasionalism of Hume and Renaissance understanding of nature are but two of these.