• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ive already explained it mate.

And your understanding of this so called "Methodological Naturalism" is absolutely invalid.

Here you go. A cut and paste for your information.

"Steven Schafersman states that methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success, but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is"

So you, and your Tailgate are both wrong.

I see the confusion now.
Pardon me for saying, but this seems to be a reading comprehension problem on your part. That, or an equivocation fallacy. Or, you simply weren't clear enough again - it wouldn't be the first time you use ambiguous terminology without clarification.

The word "hypothesis" there, is not referring to a "scientific hypothesis". It's more of a colloquial use. It rather refers to a set of assumptions being made. These assumptions are refered to in the very same quote: "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it"

Again, it is not a proposed testable, falsifiable "explanation" of any particular phenomena - which is what a scientific hypothesis is.

It is instead merely the assumption that natural phenomenon have natural explanations. That's what naturalism basicly is. The "methodological" part, refers to how the assumptions of naturalism will provide the basis for scientific inquiry in the natural sciences.

ie: the "working hypothesis". Not to be confused with an actual scientific hypothesis or theory, like relativity, evolution, stellar formation, etc.

Instead, it's a thing that provides a framework within which the study of the natural sciences becomes possible.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I think, I understand you now. Methodological Naturalism is a cognitive approach to understanding something. In a sense that is itself not knowledge or science, but one way to approach knowledge or science, correct?

Let me put it this way.

Say you are a Bible student and you are applying form criticism on the text. Its not a theological or rather a "religious" approach. Its a critical approach. Do you understand brother?

So if you take a critical or historical approach to your sacred text with a predisposition of "this is only Gods work, nothing else" your form critical analysis WILL NOT WORK.

Thus, what you do is to apply your criticism to the text for the time being or for your analysis you adopt a hypothesis that "this is just piece of history".

That is methodological naturalism.

Same thing is applied as a practice to scientific analysis by theists.

Hope you understand.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The word "hypothesis" there, is not referring to a "scientific hypothesis".

Of course not.

That is why I asked you what your understanding of a hypothesis is. Its just a word. It is applied for all kinds of things. So I tried to provide an example of a hypothesis in market research and/or social sciences.

Maybe if you were a little patient and engaged you would not have this problem and then having to try hard to blame it on me or anyone else.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Of course not.

That is why I asked you what your understanding of a hypothesis is. Its just a word. It is applied for all kinds of things. So I tried to provide an example of a hypothesis in market research and/or social sciences.

Maybe if you were a little patient and engaged you would not have this problem and then having to try hard to blame it on me or anyone else.

No, firedragon. You are still missing the points.

If you are going to talk about Methodological Naturalism together with hypothesis, then you are talking about a falsifiable proposed explanation, with science in context, and not just ordinary assumptions.

If you are simply going to talk about assumptions without anything to do with science, then why bring up Methodological Naturalism at all???
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, firedragon. You are still missing the points.

If you are going to talk about Methodological Naturalism together with hypothesis, then you are talking about a falsifiable proposed explanation, with science in context, and not just ordinary assumptions.

If you are simply going to talk about assumptions without anything to do with science, then why bring up Methodological Naturalism at all???

Please read again.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Please read again.
I have read your posts, and you still don't understand what Methodological Naturalism, no matter who have explain to you, and how many times that have been done.

You just compounding your errors and misuse the term.

Are you incapable of learning what the word actually mean, and how they apply?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I have read your posts, and you still don't understand what Methodological Naturalism, no matter who have explain to you, and how many times that have been done.

You just compounding your errors and misuse the term.

Are you incapable of learning what the word actually mean, and how they apply?

Great. Thanks.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Great. Thanks.

Methodological Naturalism have to do with acquiring knowledge ABOUT NATURE...and about testing such knowledge to see if the explain meet with the reality of nature.

Methodological Naturalism don't apply to everything, especially not about religious subjects or religious literature, like scriptures or exegesis.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Methodological Naturalism have to do with acquiring knowledge ABOUT NATURE...and about testing such knowledge to see if the explain meet with the reality of nature.

Methodological Naturalism don't apply to everything, especially not about religious subjects or religious literature, like scriptures or exegesis.

I think I have replied to you above. Read up.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Methodological Naturalism don't apply to everything, especially not about religious subjects or religious literature, like scriptures or exegesis.

See Gnostic. Thats wrong. I just didnt wish to curtly respond to you in the same tone you are using. But you are wrong.

I dont mean that disrespectfully. I have given a post above. If you read, and at least read the books I have cited you will understand that you have not understood what is said, how its applied even in Bible studies, religious studies, Higher criticism, Textual Criticism, etc. I assume that you are not aware.

I would urge you not to make statements like this. Try to hear someone out. A tad bit of humility won't go to waste. I have given you books as reference to understand better. Have a great day.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
No, firedragon. You are still missing the points.

If you are going to talk about Methodological Naturalism together with hypothesis, then you are talking about a falsifiable proposed explanation, with science in context, and not just ordinary assumptions.

If you are simply going to talk about assumptions without anything to do with science, then why bring up Methodological Naturalism at all???

Because to assume that the world is natural is not the same as doing science using Popper and assuming that the world is natural.
E.g. analytical philosophy uses the assumption that the world is natural.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Because to assume that the world is natural is not the same as doing science using Popper and assuming that the world is natural.
E.g. analytical philosophy uses the assumption that the world is natural.

Methodological Naturalism is for religious people. Its a strategy or if you like to put it that way, it's a state of mind that we adopt in order to be unbiased in our research. The methodology has been adopted since time immemorial.

Its not "naturalism". Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing unnatural. If not the belief anything religious, theistic, miraculous, metaphysical, everything is "unnatural" so by default "does not exist". So everything including the beginning of life, the universe, evolution, everything is just natural. That is Naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a branch of naturalism for theists make this assumption of naturalism as a strategy.

Methodological naturalism is for a religious person to have a working hypothesis leaving his persona biases and beliefs of God and supernatural matters aside for the time being when approaching any kind of study including scientific research. Its a method. Not a belief. So this way a Muslim can explore science without thinking about God all the time. Rather than giving a typical, bias answer to every thing like "God did that so that's that", he would explore it scientifically, with unbiased research. This is considered a method, or a working hypothesis for a theist to adopt for his research purposes. When he ends his research, its all gone. This is why there are some excellent religious scholars throughout history who knew how to manage himself in both worlds. But its not necessary that these scholars or scientists ignored or went against the belief of God.

Hope you understand.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Methodological Naturalism is for religious people. Its a strategy or if you like to put it that way, it's a state of mind that we adopt in order to be unbiased in our research. The methodology has been adopted since time immemorial.

Its not "naturalism". Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing unnatural. If not the belief anything religious, theistic, miraculous, metaphysical, everything is "unnatural" so by default "does not exist". So everything including the beginning of life, the universe, evolution, everything is just natural. That is Naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a branch of naturalism for theists make this assumption of naturalism as a strategy.

Methodological naturalism is for a religious person to have a working hypothesis leaving his persona biases and beliefs of God and supernatural matters aside for the time being when approaching any kind of study including scientific research. Its a method. Not a belief. So this way a Muslim can explore science without thinking about God all the time. Rather than giving a typical, bias answer to every thing like "God did that so that's that", he would explore it scientifically, with unbiased research. This is considered a method, or a working hypothesis for a theist to adopt for his research purposes. When he ends his research, its all gone. This is why there are some excellent religious scholars throughout history who knew how to manage himself in both worlds. But its not necessary that these scholars or scientists ignored or went against the belief of God.

Hope you understand.

I do get you. I am just slightly different in that I believe in God, but am an agnostic and doesn't believe in revealed religion and doesn't believe in a theistic God. To me in one sense nature is God.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I do get you. I am just slightly different in that I believe in God, but am an agnostic and doesn't believe in revealed religion and doesn't believe in a theistic God. To me in one sense nature is God.

Thats perfectly fine Mikkel. I dont even say that this is the right method or the wrong method. Im just explaining what it is.

Various people have very different approaches to everything. Hope you have a great day.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Methodological Naturalism is for religious people.

No, it isn't. It's for everyone that wishes to do scientific study.


The methodology has been adopted since time immemorial.

No, only since a couple of centuries.

Its not "naturalism". Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing unnatural. If not the belief anything religious, theistic, miraculous, metaphysical, everything is "unnatural" so by default "does not exist". So everything including the beginning of life, the universe, evolution, everything is just natural. That is Naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a branch of naturalism for theists make this assumption of naturalism as a strategy.

Methodological naturalism is for a religious person to have a working hypothesis leaving his persona biases and beliefs of God and supernatural matters aside for the time being when approaching any kind of study including scientific research. Its a method. Not a belief. So this way a Muslim can explore science without thinking about God all the time. Rather than giving a typical, bias answer to every thing like "God did that so that's that", he would explore it scientifically, with unbiased research. This is considered a method, or a working hypothesis for a theist to adopt for his research purposes. When he ends his research, its all gone. This is why there are some excellent religious scholars throughout history who knew how to manage himself in both worlds. But its not necessary that these scholars or scientists ignored or went against the belief of God.

Hope you understand.

Funny. So when I say it is a method, then I am wrong and you need to argue it for several pages.
And without acknowledging that you were wrong in disagreeing and arguing about it, you simply end your conversation with me with your usual one-liner like "great" or "cheers" or "nice" and in a subsequent post to someone you say....... it is a method.


To borrow from you: "nice". :rolleyes:
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There you go again.
Cornered? Just cut it short and run away with "nice" or "cheers".

:rolleyes:

Every single time.

Well. Generally people like that think like that. Your prerogative. But sometimes when a post is absolutely nonsensical, its better to avoid conversing with people like that. So there you go.

Have a great day. Now please go ahead and engage in your ad hominem attacks and calling peoples wives gold diggers. Its entertaining to see such character.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, only since a couple of centuries.

Lack of knowledge. When you dont know something, dont say "no".

It was called alwaqthutthabeeyu in the 11th century. In Islamic tradition the idea of falsafa was implemented where the idea of theology was cloven as a study of science and in this tradition Methodological Naturalism was a working hypothesis they used in their approach to though and research. Just that, they didnt speak English.

Your statements are like "evolution was never spoken of before the word evolution in the English language was associated with the science". See mathematics was there in the ancient world in places that never knew English. So if you say mathematics is a new concept because the word was adopted to English later. Calculus is said to have existed almost 3,500 years ago in Madhava's times in India but the English word Calculus is more recent. That doesnt mean Calculus never existed.

).
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
The religious theme is that humans are equal, the law stated that we owned what God had created O as One planetary body mass/history and also said that string theists were Satanists. For if you tried to quote a human owned a "beast" parent like an Ape theme you would be proven lying.....as a thinker/theist.

Which is all that you were originally. The highest state self formed owned life human, as a thinker, contemplating the invention of human sciences...by humans/brothers for humans, but inferred to a new state....a machine body as a PRETEND God.

To be where you are today. With such fake thesis as, I believe a human has electricity inside of them. I want electricity as an eternal infinite resource. I will falsify natural information.........reality. I build a machine, it owns no volition or self chosen action. Until I press the button the machine remains static, then I react it, just inside of the machine holding itself.

Yet when you begin to review how a theist comes about advice, by lots and lots of thoughts all strung together, the string theory is just lots of his thinking capabilities.

To come to a false preaching prophecy in mathematical fake God terms.....that the spoken word invented/created creation....as the self warning.

When you live as an equal human male to female and own consciously the relationship as natural consciousness. Then today a male/group science his story has displaced self mind to equal partnership and owns a machine in that place quoting fake "Mother" themes.

maths....Mother he falsely stated....referencing false female quotes as space is a womb, empty, gave birth to the spirits of the gases. Then quote God was the Father Earth O planet that spurted its spirits from volcanic reaction likened to his penis into the spatial body. Then quotes, now I will think O Earth is a Mother who then gave birth to her owned historic spirits.

Why space never gave birth, space just held and allowed cooling to evolve the holding of mass cooled.

So male self human with life partner falsely now has sex with robotic machines.

Stephen Hawking, consciously aware in a sacrificed slowly sacrificed life conscious review, much like the Jesus theme...quoted males in science are trying to remove life by machine as if machines would take place of the human life.

Consciousness making its own human correct review.

Male science theme...I am the Creator of the new born baby. Jesus theme...yet Jesus theme also involved science/temple/Pyramid. Yet thesis was first thought, just by natural male adult.

Says, I want the machine to give me electricity. So you should see that PRETEND then quotes, the female human Mother body, owner of electricity is the same and equal condition to my life pressing a button on my machine life partner to invent electricity. By pretending and falsifying natural worded information.

Religious quoted reviews....law imposed. Never give the O one God Earth stone a name again in science, so never change the fusion....fused state. Which is radiation (heated) therefore Satanic themes.

Stated alchemy was banned when they realised water cooling with a mineral was displaced to build own a melted body/machine. Realised that history.

Knew that defining Mother terms was fake....males in the organization never supported the female Mother in science terms. Only the One God male theme about Earth with the spatial body conditions, cold converting the gases into a statement mystery and the evolution of the Immaculate non burning gas status.

Science knowledge "alight and burning".

When you are first a natural life partner whose consciousness is about the sexual being.....then it is what consciousness naturally exists as. When you displace use of natural words into inferences, then you began to lie in the sciences.

As a female, a Healer, a spiritual researcher, an attacked sacrificed life, brain irradiated to learn what the theme crown of thorns meant, as brain prickling.....I came to realise that science is a liar, as their history.

They might own what they claim is a wisdom to convert and destroy what natural cosmological history owned forming, but it does not own the status "intelligence", instead as quoted it is artificial intelligence by design.

In human reality.

Father in spirit speaking voiced messages, which I never knew existed or even thought a reality told me that a chemical reaction is not electricity. It is an energetic release. If you tried putting the worded reference to the knowledge of what electricity actually is by scientific worded definitions we would be super fried.

Father said, when a word is used and given originally one term of its holy meaning, when you detail in male life that a Sophist is a human in a group who by worded use is a contrivance, then you already knew it was true.

When you quote and think in pretend land, thinking about space, you vision space as space with the word term space. Never did you vision it as a living organic bio human female Mother womb.

Now to use a term "womb", the female had to be living as a human for you to make that comparison. For male and female terms are only found in bio chemical life forms, in animals and humans.

How the teaching about we own the history O of the God stone and what the entity planet Earth O one God had historically formed itself in its owned body was how the relative scientific advice was previously taught. And it was also stated that no human being came from any beast body. Seeing an animal was first quoted in human life to be the beast, and when it has babies it has animal beast babies.

Claiming as a natural and highest life form human owned life that you know something that no one else did...first of all is lying. Secondly you then have to coerce other human selves to agree in a cult group mentality of only a human agreement.

It was never any God or higher form of spirit agreement to claim self in a status or category, I am higher than, more intelligent than or greater than any other human in my thinking capabilities...for you would be proven wrong.


I only wish to contest the validity of the first sentence. Religion always causes division, and promotes an "us versus them" viewpoint. Religion causes people to feel that their particular group is special in one way or another just because of what they believe.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It is well known that many Jews (even rabbis), with shouting voices, flailing arms, argue vociferously with fellow Jews over the finer points of the religion. I don't think that many have argued for atheism, but the arguments have not weakened their religion. Quite the contrary, after Jews were sent to Nazi concentration camps, ordered not to practice their religion, starved, beaten, and raped, few abandoned their religion. In early Italy, Jews were forced to convert (called Conversos) to the Christian faith, but many had secretly maintained their Jewish roots.

My point is that argument about religion doesn't harm it, but strengthens it. It exposes our minds to all of the possibilities and we either convince others of our way of thinking or they convince us, or we agree to disagree. But the concepts are thoroughly considered, and that makes the religion concrete in our minds.

Science is not the enemy of religion. Scientists are not necessarily atheists.

Science can strengthen religion. For example, scientists say that the universe was created (with a big bang) 13.4 billion years ago, and theists say that God created it 6,000 years ago. Fossils, carbon dating, and other means seem to prove the older date. Yet, science also asserts that there is no absolute time. Special Relativity (of Einstein) says that fast objects slow time. General Relativity (also Einstein) says that strong gravitational fields slow time. Hence, science provides a means to make God have his own time and a means for us to have our time (and the times are not equal). Thus, science, at least on this point, doesn't disagree with religion (nor does it agree with it, necessarily).


That doesn't work, Young Earth Creationists argue that in scripture a day refers to a 24-hour period and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. 24 hours being a day is "our time" and not some strange relativistic reference where time is wildly slowed down.

But your logic can easily be applied to any creation myth that does not match science and would allow any of the hundreds of different creation stories to claim the same thing. Here are about 100 of them:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia
So they can all say, "oh look our creation story matches science because relativity..."

There is nothing in science that strengthens religion. In social sciences like comparative religion, biblical archeology and the historicity of religions there are many lines of evidence that demonstrate each religion is extremely likely to have been taken from older myths, that the scriptures were not intended to be history and there is no evidence that any religious myth was actually real outside of
the wildly fictitious stories found only inside the movement.

The current opinion of scholarship on the biblical creation myth:


"Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapted them to their belief in one God,...
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths. Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the Enuma Elish. On the side of similarities, both begin from a stage of chaotic waters before anything is created, in both a fixed dome-shaped "firmament" divides these waters from the habitable Earth, and both conclude with the creation of a human called "man" and the building of a temple for the god (in Genesis 1, this temple is the entire cosmos)....


"Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals."

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
 
Top