What is naturalism?

[Polymath257]

transcendental idealism | Definition & Facts
Transcendental idealism, also called formalistic idealism, term applied to the epistemology of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them. Kant’s transcendentalism is set in contrast to those of two of his predecessors—the problematic idealism of René Descartes, who claimed that the existence of matter can be doubted, and the dogmatic idealism of George Berkeley, who flatly denied the existence of matter. Kant believed that ideas, the raw matter of knowledge, must somehow be due to realities existing independently of human minds; but he held that such things-in-themselves must remain forever unknown. Human knowledge cannot reach to them because knowledge can only arise in the course of synthesizing the ideas of sense.

My bold. You are arguing from one philosophical position. I am using another. Think of it as 2 different forms of mathematics. Now forget your form and check the other.

I am familiar with Kant's views. I just think they are incorrect and, to some extent, incoherent.

 

[halbhh]

Its like evolutionistm, a term used only by those who fsvour supernaturalism.

They can thus have it mean what ever suits them

Don't you think the term that is stating that all things that ever happen only happen according to fixed laws of physics -- only fixed, unalterable laws of nature, that is, physics -- is a meaningful term/distinction?

It's certainly meaningful to many people.

I have plenty of work in internet discussions even just helping (or attempting to help) people understand that physics is for real.

That nature does operate according to fixed consistent laws, even though we only know part of them.

 

[halbhh]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

As I think of it, "naturalism" is the belief or often unconscious assumption that anything and everything that ever happens or exists is only ever (and always) a phenomena of nature, that is then, of physics -- fixed laws of nature.

Put in different wording, nature exists, and explains everything in it's operation, of itself.

It's a pretty radical and profound belief really.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The effects exceeding the powers of the material world.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Supernatural Order

For example?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a pretty radical and profound belief really.

Not compared to the alternative.

 

[syo]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

Modern Christianity's child.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am familiar with Kant's views. I just think they are incorrect and, to some extent, incoherent.

Okay.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I think of it, "naturalism" is the belief or often unconscious assumption that anything and everything that ever happens or exists is only ever (and always) a phenomena of nature, that is then, of physics -- fixed laws of nature.

Put in different wording, nature exists, and explains everything in it's operation, of itself.

It's a pretty radical and profound belief really.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[George-ananda]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

Well, I think the way the term is generally used it is essentially the same thing as materialism/physicalism. That 'what is' is just the result of natural physical laws playing out. That there is no thinking intelligence or spiritual planes beyond the physical is an important derivative of this philosophy.

 

[osgart]

The trouble is naturalism is a method of science and not an ultimate explanation of why reality is the way it is. Surely not everything in reality is empirically verifiable.

Science would do so much better if they just quit trying to philosophize and conform everyone to their ultimate expectations of what constitutes reality.

Science goes hand in hand with the method of naturalism. When science gets into the truth telling business naturalism sounds more like a religion.

 

[Sunstone]

The trouble is naturalism is a method of science and not an ultimate explanation of why reality is the way it is. Surely not everything in reality is empirically verifiable.

Science would do so much better if they just quit trying to philosophize and conform everyone to their ultimate expectations of what constitutes reality.

Science goes hand in hand with the method of naturalism. When science gets into the truth telling business naturalism sounds more like a religion.

You seem to be confusing science with scientism. Scientism is the notion or doctrine that science can explain everything. The scientists themselves come in all stripes and flavors and it is too much of a generalization to say they all subscribe to scientism. So far as I know, most do not.

 

[osgart]

You seem to be confusing science with scientism. Scientism is the notion or doctrine that science can explain everything. The scientists themselves come in all stripes and flavors and it is too much of a generalization to say they all subscribe to scientism. So far as I know, most do not.

I'm thinking of the people that popularize science as a truth telling machine. And I am also thinking of people here who think science is such a thing that can eventually explain everything in existence!

I think that's why people feel the need to ask what is naturalism! So many people make a religious cause of it.

As for actual scientists, I'm sure they don't need such distractions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to be confusing science with scientism. Scientism is the notion or doctrine that science can explain everything. The scientists themselves come in all stripes and flavors and it is too much of a generalization to say they all subscribe to scientism. So far as I know, most do not.

As @osgart answered you. That covers it.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm thinking of the people that popularize science as a truth telling machine. And I am also thinking of people here who think science is such a thing that can eventually explain everything in existence!

I think that's why people feel the need to ask what is naturalism! So many people make a religious cause of it.

As for actual scientists, I'm sure they don't need such distractions.

Then we're cool. Those are more or less the same groups I'm thinking of when I think of folks who subscribe to scientism.

One caveat, though, science happens to be the most effective and powerful means of inquiry we have yet devised as a species. I do not subscribe to scientism. I don't think it necessarily explains or could explain everything. But I think it must be given that much.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then we're cool. Those are more or less the same groups I'm thinking of when I think of folks who subscribe to scientism.

One caveat, though, science happens to be the most effective and powerful means of inquiry we have yet devised as a species. I do not subscribe to scientism. I don't think it necessarily explains or could explain everything. But I think it must be given that much.

Well, powerful and effective, yet limited. That is where I end.

 

[Audie]

Don't you think the term that is stating that all things that ever happen only happen according to fixed laws of physics -- only fixed, unalterable laws of nature, that is, physics -- is a meaningful term/distinction?

It's certainly meaningful to many people.

I have plenty of work in internet discussions even just helping (or attempting to help) people understand that physics is for real.

That nature does operate according to fixed consistent laws, even though we only know part of them.

Sure, its useful. Even a good word.
Just, the only time I ever hear it is from
the spiritual folks trying to show their view is the right one.

 

[halbhh]

Sure, its useful. Even a good word.
Just, the only time I ever hear it is from
the spiritual folks trying to show their view is the right one.

Typically I have to sometimes highlight an assumption someone is inserting into the discussion when I don't always accept a particular assumption itself. Naturalism is sometimes one of those -- if a person uses a form, even implicit, of the assumption that God definitely does not exist, for example, then lays out an argument with that implicit assumption, I do often have to bring the assumption into visibility. Not just because there might be circular reasoning, but instead more for the reason that it's beneficial to anyone to discover their own hidden assumptions. Ideally, discussions bring more things into the light, instead of merely being useless jousting.

 

[osgart]

I'm all for knocking over myths believed to be reality. But if people take certain myths as reality, chances are they won't be persuaded otherwise by even the most effective of inquiries. So maybe RF becomes a place where people can vent their anger towards fundamentalists in religion.

There is a lot of heat on religion! And fundamentalists make it that way!

It seems like a waste of time to engage that kind of environment.

Naturalism has its fundamentalists as well.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, its useful. Even a good word.
Just, the only time I ever hear it is from
the spiritual folks trying to show their view is the right one.

Well, I am not one of those, who believe that my religious beliefs are the right one. I just point out the limits of the physical/natural as an explanation in regards to this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

It is in both cases natural to believe it is okay to kill another human or that it is wrong to kill another human. And both beliefs are physical in brains.
That tell us that it is absurd to claim everything is explained by being natural and physical, when the counter claim that everything is not natural and physical, is also natural and physical.

Here it is:
Someone: The universe is natural and physical.
Me: No.
Someone: That is wrong.
Me: Then that is also natural and physical.
Someone: You are not using proper reasoning.
Me: Then that is also natural and physical.
...

Both good/right/correct and bad/wrong/incorrect are natural and physical.
Everything you do and any answers you give are natural and physical. And are my answers.

It is too simple to say that the universe is natural and physical. That doesn't cut it. There is more to it and that is not evidence for gods. It is just that it is too simple.

 

[viole]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

This is a good question with no easy answer. However, since I consider myself an ontological naturalist, I feel compelled to answer.

among all possible complicate explanations, I think the one which condense all of them is the following: naturalism is the philosophical position that states that there is no ultimate teleology, nor purpose whatsoever, in what exists.

ciao

- viole