Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is how philosophical naturalism is defined. This is not exactly a reasonable idea and certainly is not a position that science takes. So who care?
Science operates under methodological naturalism.
Do you have a problem with this approach?
Yes, I do.
"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes", they say. The phenomena may be natural (i.e. not man-made); however, the causes always are cooked up by the naturalists.
The ignorance of science by many, and particularly by some in the religious world, is appalling. If they don't believe in science, fine. Then stop using science when it suits you.
"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes", they say. The phenomena may be natural (i.e. not man-made); however, the causes always are cooked up by the naturalists.
This "cooked up" thing? Where did you get that?
And what would it have to do with measuring, quantifying and studying causes methodically?
The comment you made certainly does not point to any problems with methodological naturalism.
What it surely points to is you being quite a bit out of your depth on a subject.
This "cooked up" thing? Where did you get that?
And what would it have to do with measuring, quantifying and studying causes methodically?
The comment you made certainly does not point to any problems with methodological naturalism.
What it surely points to is you being quite a bit out of your depth on a subject.
Take the natural phenomenon of falling snow I saw this morning, and the weight of the box of beer I felt as I carried it from my car. It's a natural mystery to me. I don't accept the naturalist's belief that the snow and the beer were attracted by the Earth.
Can you prove it? Give me your best shot. I am a Civil/Structural engineer by trade. I can handle the technical argument and the math.
Take the natural phenomenon of falling snow I saw this morning, and the weight of the box of beer I felt as I carried it from my car. It's a natural mystery to me. I don't accept the naturalist's belief that the snow and the beer were attracted by the Earth.
Can you prove it? Give me your best shot. I am a Civil/Structural engineer by trade. I can handle the technical argument and the math.
When you say "prove it", what do you mean? What do you expect the proof should looks like?
When you say "prove it", what do you mean? What do you expect the proof should looks like?
Good question.
Isaac Newton had the proof and his Theory of Gravitation was accepted after he conducted the requisite experiments. I am sure you can find this proof on the internet. Even though this Theory is being challenged today, it is still being used in aerospace engineering for launching booster rockets and for navigation of satellites as well as flights to the moon and beyond.
Newton's theory posits that objects attract each other. Magnets attract each other also. Naturalists have another explanation for that kind of phenomenon. The explanation of naturalism is called science. I call it baloney.
Theism vs Naturalism. Which is the way to go?
"....there are two competing worldviews here: man controls everything because there is no order in the world unless and until he wills it, or man stands and participates in an already given order which he ignores at his peril." (Rachel M Coleman. The Catholic World Report.)
Good question you did not answer. Did not even touch it.
Instead, you posted a question - "Theism vs Naturalism. Which is the way to go?"
So, it looks like you are not really interested in any kind of confirmation that masses attract each other.
It looks like you are just looking to publicly voice out your completely irrelevant personal opinions, like anybody would care about them anyway.
Well, at least you asked the question I can answer - the way to go is Naturalism. Specifically, methodological naturalism.
Quote:
"....there are two competing worldviews here: man controls everything because there is no order in the world unless and until he wills it, or man stands and participates in an already given order which he ignores at his peril." (Rachel M Coleman. The Catholic World Report.)
This is false dichotomy, aka horrible logic.
Neither of those choices even remotely resemble my world view. so it is a fact that there are more choices than two. I'm sure many more.
If you wish to put something up for discussion please make sure it is not nonsensical.
"....there are two competing worldviews here: man controls everything because there is no order in the world unless and until he wills it, or man stands and participates in an already given order which he ignores at his peril." (Rachel M Coleman. The Catholic World Report.)
I do not think that's a fair characterization.
Methodological naturalism does not assert that "man controls everything" or that there is "no order in the world" or that order is created by man wishing upon a star. It simply observes and measures. Sometimes, thereby, man does gain a degree of understanding and therefore control over certain things. But it's not the goal or the inherent purpose of investigating the natural world. I think it's mostly curiosity and a desire to make the world a less harsh and unpredictable place to live in.
As to an existing order, I think it's self-evident that we exist in the context of natural laws and forces, and I don't see anyone denying that. We might disagree on from whence that emanates but not on its existence. Man finds himself in a circumstance and attempts to understand how that works / came to be / how it might be harnessed or predicted to the general welfare. I see nothing wrong or nefarious in that.
It sounds like you are forcing a false dichotomy into the mix here, and suggesting that one has to choose between understanding the natural world or honoring god. Or conversely, that one must honor god through willful ignorance of what is knowable about the natural world.
Good question you did not answer. Did not even touch it.
Instead, you posted a question - "Theism vs Naturalism. Which is the way to go?"
So, it looks like you are not really interested in any kind of confirmation that masses attract each other.
It looks like you are just looking to publicly voice out your completely irrelevant personal opinions, like anybody would care about them anyway.
Well, at least you asked the question I can answer - the way to go is Naturalism. Specifically, methodological naturalism.
This is false dichotomy, aka horrible logic.
Neither of those choices even remotely resemble my world view. so it is a fact that there are more choices than two. I'm sure many more.
If you wish to put something up for discussion please make sure it is not nonsensical.
I am interested. Newton had his shot that I dismissed as an assumption. You rejected my contention offhand. Do you have a proof that masses attract each other? I don't think you understand what I am pointing out here. And there is no need for insults. I do realize I am not engaging professionals here in a technical discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
