I always see people discussing the evidence for theism and supernaturalism, but never any of the alternatives. The people who make these assertions or align more closely with these assertions never seem to actually make arguments in favor of their own position, they only seem to reject arguments of theism as unconvincing. That to me implies they think there is convincing evidence for the other side of things. Anyone got anything?
I know a lot of people here consider themselves materialists or naturalists. That is, the only things in existence are natural forces and substances, and all concepts such as the "mind" are reducible to natural elements.
Just wondering what your evidence of this view is?
What is this? I have not taken any contemporary metaphysics classes, and I am trying to understand this concept. I read some of the Stanford encyclopedia on naturalism, and I don't really know what I am looking at. Can any of you nice folks help out?
As an academic and scientist, I exercise methodological naturalism and make no assumptions about the unobservable or supernatural. It seems that most if not all atheists ascribe to metaphysical naturalism, and I'm curious to hear the various reasons why, and what experiences led to such a determination.
I've heard others mention on more than one occasion the existence of a number of serious objections to metaphysical naturalism, and I am aware of some of them (the hard problem of consciousness, Plantinga's EAAN, etc) but I've had trouble finding any robust philosophical presentation of objections other than those two examples. To give some context, this paper also got me interested in what these theistic defeaters for naturalism might be.
I would appreciate any assistance in finding more reading material (again, centered around critiques of or objections to metaphysical naturalism, not just discussions of metaphysical naturalism). Online resources would be best, but anything you can point to would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Edit: I originally asked for sources, but of course any direct presentation of these objections is also welcome if someone feels like writing it up.
How would a platonist's beliefs be viewed by both, if they're different?
Implied far too often on atheist discussion groups is the idea that "atheist" necessarily refers to an individual who doesn't believe in the existence of the supernatural. This is conflating two ideas that, though are much more often seen together than not, are nonetheless distinct.
If your primary reason for not believing in God is your disbelief in the existence of the supernatural, I'm sure it would seem like an atheist who believes in ghosts is a contradiction. But if the individual in question doesn't believe in God for a different reason (let's say they think God is strictly a logical impossibility), then their atheism doesn't automatically preclude a belief in anything else that might be described as supernatural.
The reason I'm jumping on this isn't because I've seen, experienced, or have much belief in anything paranormal. The idea of studying the supernatural from a scientific standpoint is problematic at best. But since it is possible for a phenomenon commonly thought to have a supernatural origin to, in fact, turn out to have a natural basis, I'm not one to entirely reject out of hand everything that might be remotely construed as supernatural.
There is a meme I’ve been seeing around on many places on the internet that I’d like to challenge. It goes something like this, “I agree completely that science, which is based on methodological naturalism, has had unparalleled success, and I completely accept methodological naturalism as a successful method of describing the world; but I reject metaphysical naturalism as a philosophical position.”
There isn’t a logical contradiction or anything in that position, but I would like to argue that it’s a bit silly. Consider the following: 380 years ago, there was a debate going on about competing models of the universe. The first model, was supported by the Catholic Church, and described a universe in which the Earth was at the center and all other objects rotated around it. The second model, was supported by Galileo, and described a universe in which the Sun was at the center and the Earth was one of many objects that rotated around it. Although observational technology was in its early development stages back then, Galileo had observed that the patterns he observed in the sky looked approximately like they would if the Earth was traveling around the Sun, along with the other planets. Galileo created heliocentric models of the universe that allowed him to predict with better accuracy where the objects in the sky would appear next and better solve the astronomical problems of his day. The Catholic Church had no problem with any of this; they were fine to admit that the objects in the sky appeared exactly where you would expect if the heliocentric view was correct and that the heliocentric view made correct predictions; what they wouldn’t admit, and punished Galileo for admitting, was that the heliocentric view described the way the universe actually was. For the Church, the Earth was at the center of the universe, but the objects in the sky moved in exactly such a way that you could accurately describe them using the heliocentric model. They had no problem with methodological heliocentrism, but rejected the philosophical view, of metaphysical heliocentrism, namely the common sense view that heliocentrism was successful precisely because it described reality the way it actually was.
So what about the original position on methodological naturalism stated at the beginning; it is analogous to the Church’s position on heliocentrism, in that it states that naturalism is in point of fact an incorrect view about the way the world works, but that if you w
... keep reading on reddit ➡I am talking about a philosophy that argues that things that are artificial or man-made have no metaphysical difference from an object that is 'natural' or not man made. Like a guy being known as a "car guy" as if the cars were a natural part of him and not as a person subjected to an artificial object and label.
I’m looking for an experienced person to review a document detailing an experience I have had concerning a certain kind of entity or phenomenon I would, perhaps ignorantly, consider metaphysical.
I see Spirituality as basically a series of practices to cultivate an improved subjective experience through modification of the factors that make up the mind.
I see no need for the existence of the Supernatural or an externally existent deity to do these practices.
With this, I would like to point out that Spirit and Psyche are etymologically synonymous.
Psyche now being a term in Psychology for the totality of the mind.
This document contains an account of mine from an incident I had, and may have to do with a manifestation of a certain kind of entity. Those who are knowledgeable about the fair folk or angels would be particularly well equipped. I should warn you that the content could be perceived as emotionally taxing and implore you to consider that. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. I wish I could wander into a swamp and talk to an old, grizzled wise woman but I fear those days are gone for me.
In the Ra Material it is claimed that a black hole is the physical product of creation/consciousness successfully unifying with the Source Creator. Or rather, that this is the metaphysical nature of the black hole in the physical universe.
Examples:
Questioner: Then the black hole would be a point… am I correct in saying it would be a point at which the environmental material had succeeded in uniting with unity or the Creator? Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. The black hole which manifests third density is the physical complex manifestation of this spiritual or metaphysical state. This is correct.
Or:
Questioner: Our astronomers have noticed that the light from spiral galaxies is approximately seven times less than it should be, from their calculations of what their mass should be. I was just wondering if that was due to the increase of spiritual mass in the galaxies in what we call white dwarf stars?
Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct and is a portion of the way or process of creation’s cycle.
.
So, although there is content from Ra going over the metaphysical/spiritual nature of the black hole, and a bit on white dwarf stars, I feel like this could be extended.
Would J be able to comment on how they understand the metaphysical nature behind, what our science understands of other physical cosmology, such as quasars, pulsars, or neutron stars? How does J understand these things to be formed, in the metaphysical sense?
Sorry if that's a bit of a messy question, it's a bit hard for me to word things today.
Thank you for your work.
So i heard things like ki is made up of courage and intellect so i wonder if it is metaphysical/cocneptual.
Let us consider the main criteria.
Who is Allah? - Allah is Allah.
What is Allah? - Allah is Allah.
When is Allah? - Allah is all the time, Allah.
Where is Allah? - Over a throne, over water... Allah.
Why is Allah? - Allah has no reason and every reason to be Allah.
Is Allah, Allah? Yes.
Isn't Allah, Allah? No, but yes.
Will Allah, Allah? Probably, Allah says Allah, therefore Allah.
Won't Allah, Allah? Allah won't Allah, unless Allah decides to Allah.
Should Allah, Allah? That's Allah's will.
Shouldn't Allah, Allah? That's also Allah's will.
Couldn't Allah, Allah? Allah can Allah, no question about it.
How can Allah? Allah? Because Allah is Allah.
To be Allah, or not to be Allah? That is the Allah question, but Allah knows best.
Allah!
Or
Allah?
Hmmmm.
🤔
St. Thomas writes,
> Metaphysics presupposes conclusions proved in the other sciences while it itself proves their principles. For the principles that another science (such as natural philosophy) takes from first philosophy do not prove the points which the first philosopher takes from the natural philosopher, but they are proved through other self-evident principles. Similarly the first philosopher does not prove the principles he gives the natural philosopher by principles he receives from him, but by other self-evident principles. So there is no vicious circle in their definitions. (Super Boethium De Trinitate Q. 5, A. 1, ad. 9)
I have two questions about this passage.
- What conclusions of natural science does metaphysics presuppose?
- What principles of natural science does metaphysics prove?
