Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Shining One

>Logic does not transcend space and time.

Logic only exists where human minds think. Before humans became self aware logic did not exist.

Prove that assertion please.
Rex
jgnat

Logic only exists where human minds think. Before humans became self aware logic did not exist.

Prove that assertion please.

Elementary logic requires language. Without language, there is no logic.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/
Since you are in school anyways, why don't you sign up for an elementary logic course? It will round out your education.
tetrapod.sapien

LT,
ya, sorry. i get a bit tired of the constant and knowing misrepresentation of the ToE by apologists.
Old Soul,
2) I stated specifically that within the confines of the Scientific Method, naturalism is rational and honest. Your arguments, if founded on thinking the topic was my topic, seem less irrational and more honestly mistaken.
and again, there is no reason to assume that your experiences are outside of the natural world. it would actually be more parsimonious to assume that they are inside the natural world, as your brain is inside the natural world. how you interpret them, of course, is your choice, and you have said before that they are subjective experiences. and so i have no bone with them. but you do seem pretty intent on making a case of the non-reducability of certain things that we experience, aka: mystery. so it would seem to me anyways, that you are trying to objectify your subjective experiences in some round about way. which for the purpose of discussion is entertaining. and i could be mistaken as to your motives. but then i wonder, what are your motives?
3) You want to see my credentials?
this is a discussion board, not a publication board, so credentials are not required. but i also think it's fun that you take us materialists to task in an intelligent manner. so, who cares if i pretty much disagree with your assertions. it's a good time, so keep it up. TS
tetrapod.sapien

Old Soul,
it's nothing personal. i love the back and forth that i have with you and LT and jgnat. that said, may i try my hand at the following even though it was not addressed to me? i'll presuppose that the answer is yes, .
1) Presuppose that the physical reality is the only reality that exists,
why would there be ANY reason to assume otherwise? i am aware of no objective documentation that shows there is anything else. why do people have to be openminded to "possibilities" when there is no good reason to think the "possibilities" are real?
2) Build a framework of reference to it that only allows exploration of physical reality (Scientific Method),
no one is building any frameworks. the frameworks are already in existence thanks to the universe, and the way it works. it just is as it is. you implicitly assert here that there is more to reality than just physical reality. but, what a minute. i thought you said your experiences were subjective? if so, then why are you trying to objectify them?
if there is only one framework that us humans can agree on, the physical one, then don't you find it a bit silly to try and smuggle the possibility of other frameworks into the analysis? is this not a bit unfair to others? now you are imposing your framework on others by implicitly asserting there is more to reality than reality (which i am sure we agree is large and full of mystery anyways).
3) Insist that all demonstrable reality be demonstrated by the rules of examination of the physical reality,
again, i don't see a problem with this. this would be the one right that man has earned through millenia of trial and error.
4) Observe that nothing beyond the physical can be demonstrated to exist by use of the Scientific Method (see #1 and #2)
it's just called being honest. okay, lets look at it like this: Man came to a point a couple of hundred years ago where he said: "hey you know what? my ancestors have not been testing their assumptions about reality all this time. not just the obvious religious leaders and prophets, but also the famous greek philosophers. i am going to have to start from scratch using these handy tools of logic and empiricism called science."
it was born out of a non-reverence for tradition and an honest desire to understand the universe as realistically as possible. and thus far, it has continually shrunken the little gaps that "mystery" and "spirit" and "god" can inhabit. who is to say that that the track record of scientific method is in error? and will not eventually illuminate all of the cracks and gaps currently shrouded in darkness?
5) Deny the existence of anything beyond physical reality because of the lack of demonstration
if you really think about it, it shouldn't be any other way. surely you agree that humans have believed in some pretty retarded things because we did not have the ability to think about them critically. why hail us back to those heady days of mystery just because it makes us feel better to follow tradition?
If you can't see a glaring logical flaw in that, you are less intelligent than I thought. Your denial of existence of anything beyond physical reality is not based on anything other than the limitation of the method used, it can only examine physical reality.
i am sorry. but i am not impressed by your implicit assumtion that something other than reality exists. if it did, it would be part of reality, and eventually reducible via scientific methodology. to deny this simple fact, is i dare say, illogical. after all, even if you thought god was talking to you, she/he/it would have to work via the physical reality framework (universe, chemicals, neurons and synapses) to get the message to you. and it is this area that is manifestly real via science. what is not real, is the possibility that those thoughts are coming from some other dimension, and not your own brain.
I agree that physical reality exists. I also know that there is reality beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. Prove the existence of respect, scientifically, if you can.
sorry for dropping the ball in our other debate.
but even in your reply, that i am still to reply to, you have not answered my statement that essentially says that a thought or emotion like "respect" is made of smaller and simpler thoughts and emotions. those smaller thoughts and emotions are simply chemical interactions in the brain. and those chemical interactions are manifestly real, as we have observed them via behavoural neuroscience. trying to smuggle mystery into such a process is basically a form of wishful thinking, wouldn't you agree?
it's like any type of computer. you cannot come along and say: please prove to me scientifically that the computer does not have a soul, when we know how computers work.
the brain, we are still figuring out. but so far, we have no reason to believe that there is anything else going on with thoughts and emotions than simple chemical reactions. like i said before, there is no real reason to think of the slim "possibility" that the track record of science in illuminating the natural causes of phenomena will not continue on in total disregard of people who wish for some mystery to remain.
if you want post-modernist type definitions for everything, then you will find yourself in an infinite regression of phenomena and explanation, since no explanation is good enough for someone who wants there to be mystery.
you have challenged before: what is gravity? define it (paraphrasing here).
but you fail to appreciate that the same challenge could be issued to anything at all. for example, we all know what a house is. but please define it for me. well, it's a phenomena of a group of men getting together to build it via a blue print. but please define the men. well, the men are a phenomena known as...ad infinitum down to basic atoms. and then at that point, who is to say that you simply will not say: "well, what are atoms? see, there is mystery everywhere!".
explanations are all we may have. it's boring, yes, but why worry about it? enjoy it.
TS
hooberus

Hooberus,

>> My point thusfar is simply that it can be included in evolution (see for example Simpson).

Sure, and Evolution can be included in Cosmology, but then all you are doing is talking to yourself because everyone else in the conversation is talking about the Theory of Evolution while you are trying to confuse the subject with your fuzzy expanded concept of "evolution". You can't have an intelligent conversation if you're talking about something completely different than the rest of the group is.

rem

I am not merely talking about theories of mechanisms of how evolution supposedly proceeded or proceeds (what you have previously attempted to limit the "the Theory of Evolution" to), but directly about evolution (as in the claim of historical organic evolution).

Simpson's statement is revelant in that he included the origin of life in organic evolution.
hooberus

Hooberus,

I admit that a couple of scenarios of abiogenesis involve natural selection to some extent. e.g. selection for more reactive self-catalyzing RNA, or the selection for the quicker replicating clay templates. And with that mechanism being evoked , some ID proponents may mistakenly believe that evolution is also about explaining origins.

But I'm sure you've been told this before, how Darwin himself in Origins wrote of the possibility that a Creator started off life with simple microbes and evolution took it from there. Abiogenesis then, can and is separate from the theory evolution.

Once again, I am not merely talking about "theories of mechanisms" of what supposedly drove evolution in the past (ie: natural selection, neutral evolution theory, etc.), but evolution itself (as in the claim of historical organic evolution). My point is simply that the origin of life can be included in evolution, (as even some evolutionists have included it in organic evolution), and thus difficulties with the origin of life can be disussed as a problem for organic evolution in creation/evolution debates.
hooberus

tetrapod said:

publishing a book is not science, and it certainly is not a theory.

While merely "publishing a book" may not necessarily be science, nor theory, the fact remains that books and journals may contain descriptions of these things - as I stated previously:
"The statement that "creationists and ID-ots HAVE NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESES OR SCIENTIFIC REPLACEMENT THEORIES." is not only insulting (see posting guideline 1.) but is also an outright falsehood. Numerous creationist and ID publications and acticles contain these very things (see for example "The Biotic Message", by ReMine, the creaton model and predictions in "Evolution the Fossils Still Say No" by Gish, the similar chapter by Gish in the Ruse's book: "But is it Science" peer-reviewed journals such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Technical Journal, etc,etc."
can any "god did" it theories help with any sort of paleontological or biological or anthropological predictions? no they can't.
Yes, creation theories involving God can be predictive (if written specifically and properly): For example: theories that hold that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly are potentially able to generate predictions about what will be (and will not be found) in the living and fossil world.
OldSoul

TS,
Are you intimating the existence of gravity atoms?
I specifically chose gravity for a reason. Unlike a physical construct which can be reduced to atoms, gravity cannot be reduced by Science. Its effects can be explained, but it does not exist except in terms of metaphysical devices used to explain it, or by evaluating it by its effects. I submit, that we do not know what it is just because we know some of what it does.
Feel free to try to define gravity objectively. Unlike a house, it is not an object. Analogy between reduction of something physical and reduction of an unseen force is, in my opinion, quite a stretch.
emotions are simply chemical interactions in the brain
Can you prove that this is all emotions are? I invite you again to do so.
why would there be ANY reason to assume otherwise? i am aware of no objective documentation that shows there is anything else. why do people have to be openminded to "possibilities" when there is no good reason to think the "possibilities" are real?
They don't have to be. As I have said many times. And it isn't a matter of this assumption being the problem, it is a matter of how it applied to challenge the honesty and integrity of others per point #5.
If you wish to assume only a physical world and establish a reference to that world for the purpose of exploring it that is limited to your initial assumption, that is entirely fine with me. I don't mind at all. Just don't tell me that MY beliefs are baseless because I can't demonstrate their truthfulness based on YOUR rules. They may be baseless TO YOU, but then, your rules are self-restricted from ever exploring my beliefs.
It isn't even circular logic until it reaches point #5.
But your question is fair, as stated above. There would not be any reason to assume one way or the other. That is, there is no objective reason to have ever developed the Scientific Method in the first place, unless you wish to argue that something as nebulous as "FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MAN!!!" is a reason to do something. We really don't know how any decision or indecision we make is going to impact the species in the future, so there is no reason per se to have come up with it.
But, if you need some sort of motivating impulse behind believeing that there might be more to reality, I offer human history. As motivating impulse to at least entertain the possibility of more than only a physical reality, one might consider that every culture of man since the advent of tools and likely before has considered that possibility. So, from a historical perspective, one might be harder pressed to show "reason" not to.
As proof that I do not wish to hurl us back to an age without critical thought, I submit my entire body of posts on this forum. That settled, once and for all I hope, we can move to more productive discussion.
explanations are all we may have.
But, they aren't all we have. We have many, many elements of reality that are unexplained. We have many elements of reality that are only described, but not defined. We have many elements of reality that will never be other than subjective and will always exist outside the bounds of the Scienctific Method.
[Science] Aha! This region of the brain is the source of aggression ("Mama's not wrong Colonel Sanders. You're wrong!") the medulla oblongata! Now that we know that, we know what hate is!
[know-nothing believer] Er, pardon me, but how does knowing where it comes from tell you what it is? And that is if you have correctly identified the only source of aggression. And is "hate" always aggression? But, hey! I'll take your word for it, you say you know what hate is? Tell me.
[Science] Well, er, um, the uh only way to tell you what hate is would be to describe it.
[know-nothing believer] Yeah? You don't say. Okay, go ahead.
[Science] It uh, is a feeling of hostility or a mood of animosity toward another person, whether acted on or not.
[know-nothing believer] There you go with Scientific mumbo-jumbo, supersticiously attributing mood to humans. Hah! You were kidding right? "Mood?" Like "mood rings" and crap? Seriously, what is hate? Sounded like you said, ineffect, hate is animosity and hostility. My next question would be what is animosity. Your anser would be? Hate and hostility. Circular logic will get you nowhere, what is hate?
Enough of that! Whew! The upshot is, emotion is subjective and therefore cannot be objectively reduced. Other experiences are similarly subjective.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
rem

Well, Hooberus, I guess you finally admitted that you are not discussing the same subject as the rest of us. Congratulations. We are all now dumber for participating.

rem
kid-A

emotions are simply chemical interactions in the brain

Can you prove that this is all emotions are? I invite you again to do so.
Yes this can most certainly proven. Placing an individual under an fMRI scanner will reveal ALL of the underlying neural regions that are activated by precise, specific emotions. Neuroscientists have been mapping these brain regions out for years and they all center around the amygdala, prefrontal cortices, ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens, to name some of the more important brain areas.
We have also identified a long list of neurotransmitters that are involved very specifically in the transmisison and processing of emotions AND motivation : dopamine, serotonin, glutamate, GABA, to name only several. When ANY of these neurotransmitter pathways are altered by pharmacological compounds that interact with these receptors, are emotional experience of the world and our sensory perceptions are completely altered.
Electrical stimulation of particular brain regions will produce a specific emotion such as pleasure, aversion or bring up specific memories of emotionally salient experiences.
We all enjoy the comfortable delusion that there is some undefinable "ghost in the machine" but we are gradually learning that this is simply not true. Our minds, our emotions, and the very ESSENCE of who we are as individuals is ultimately reducible to biochemical interactions and bioelectric signalling cascades through highly complex neuronal circuits.
The very fact that WHO we are can be so easily altered by changing the levels of a given neurotransmitter or throwing the neural machinery off balance, simply testifies to the fact that we are simply highly complex, bio-electric, neurochemically driven machines......

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this