Naturalism - What is it all about

[muppet]

What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?

Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?
Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?

Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.

The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.

If God created the cosmos and everything in it, did God thus not create evil?

[Hardy]

What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?

Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?

Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?

Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.

The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.

You provide two statements supporting the existence of God.

1. Scripture says he exists.
This is a simple circular argument. Scripture is said to be the word of God. So God says he exists. I think you'll understand I need a little more than that.

2. The universe self-evidently needs a creator as the cosmos would be unintelligent without one (I'm not sure about the concept of an intelligent cosmos, but I'll assume you refer to human intelligence).
Again, this is a circular argument (God is the creator because the universe needs a  creator) or at best an unsupported conjecture. It is not an axiom that intelligence needed a creator and couldn't have evolved. In fact, the opposite is the case. Everything we KNOW (rather than conjecture)  about the universe tells us that intelligence is a product of natural selection.

You say that humanity remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism. If you refer to our existence, in what way is it inexplicable? Which parts of what we know about humanity do you accept and which do you reject? Presumably you accept the facts of medical science, the biology of the human body and the physics of how we live and move about, etc. Where, then, do you draw the line and say science works fine for this bit, but not for that bit?

If your statement is limited to the inexplicability of the purpose of our existence, I agree – there is no known explanation. (But why assume a purpose – is it not entirely plausible, or indeed probable that there isn't one?) In any case, there is no logical path from the statement that existence is inexplicable to the conclusion that God is what makes it explicable.

[Eamonnca1]

Where was God on 9/11? Where was God during the South Asian/Pacific tsunami? Where was God during the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear emergency? Where was God in Auschwitz?

[The Iceman]

What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?

Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?

Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?

Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.

The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.

You provide two statements supporting the existence of God.

1. Scripture says he exists.
This is a simple circular argument. Scripture is said to be the word of God. So God says he exists. I think you'll understand I need a little more than that.

2. The universe self-evidently needs a creator as the cosmos would be unintelligent without one (I'm not sure about the concept of an intelligent cosmos, but I'll assume you refer to human intelligence).
Again, this is a circular argument (God is the creator because the universe needs a  creator) or at best an unsupported conjecture. It is not an axiom that intelligence needed a creator and couldn't have evolved. In fact, the opposite is the case. Everything we KNOW (rather than conjecture)  about the universe tells us that intelligence is a product of natural selection.

You say that humanity remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism. If you refer to our existence, in what way is it inexplicable? Which parts of what we know about humanity do you accept and which do you reject? Presumably you accept the facts of medical science, the biology of the human body and the physics of how we live and move about, etc. Where, then, do you draw the line and say science works fine for this bit, but not for that bit?

If your statement is limited to the inexplicability of the purpose of our existence, I agree – there is no known explanation. (But why assume a purpose – is it not entirely plausible, or indeed probable that there isn't one?) In any case, there is no logical path from the statement that existence is inexplicable to the conclusion that God is what makes it explicable.

Hardy I'm enjoying the sensible, respectful and intelligent conversation with you.

I do accept the facts of medical science but science cannot account for basic aspects of human experience: morality, knowledge, human dignity, freedom and meaning.

With naturalism nothing exists but the natural world, the realm of material objects. All natural objects or entities, including you and me - come into existence and pass out of existence by purely natural causes and processes. There are no such things as "souls". Nothing exists or can exist that lies outside the realm of physical lawas operating withing the natural realm, which is all that exists. Knowledge of the world at any given time is what science tells us at that time about the world.

But this view doesn't account for anything I have asked about. Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?

[Eamonnca1]

That question was asked and answered on the Lent thread.

[Hardy]

Hardy I'm enjoying the sensible, respectful and intelligent conversation with you.

Likewise.

Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?

I think naturalism would say that morality, or a sense of right or wrong, evolved by natural selection to the stage where we humans who share a common morality are the result of a selection process that favoured the consensus that now exists.

A sense of morality, probably a component of our intelligence, is one of the factors that drove humans to the top of our branch of the evolutionary tree at the expense of species that didn't develop this trait.

Morality, like altruism that we discussed earlier, is clearly a necessary, or a least an enabling trait in a species that has evolved to live in highly interdependent communities. Societies where there isn't a highly developed morality don't tend to be successful in the long term.

In return, can you explain to me how it's evident that morality comes from a belief in God and how it's necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

The problem with a creator is, who created the creator? In turn who created the creator's creator's creator? and so on into infinity.

[Denn Forever]

Where was God on 9/11? Where was God during the South Asian/Pacific tsunami? Where was God during the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear emergency? Where was God in Auschwitz?

Brad Paisley trys to answer this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6rwo--Zsx0

[The Iceman]

Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?

I think naturalism would say that morality, or a sense of right or wrong, evolved by natural selection to the stage where we humans who share a common morality are the result of a selection process that favoured the consensus that now exists.

A sense of morality, probably a component of our intelligence, is one of the factors that drove humans to the top of our branch of the evolutionary tree at the expense of species that didn't develop this trait.

Morality, like altruism that we discussed earlier, is clearly a necessary, or a least an enabling trait in a species that has evolved to live in highly interdependent communities. Societies where there isn't a highly developed morality don't tend to be successful in the long term.

But morality is not in fact an entity that exists in the physical realm. Morals clearly exist. They are standards above the mere preference and taste of cultures, societies and individuals and they are universally perceived.
If as you say they are traits of a species necessary for survival who is to say that today's modern liberal society is any better than Nazi society, or the morals of a group like St. Vincent dePaul are any better than those of the UVF. Its all survival, all evolution, all natural. And if these morals are only traits, then there is no moral measuring stick and isn't it nonsense for us to argue that the hijackers in 9/11 or what happened at Auschwitz was wrong? Perhaps they simply live by a different set of conventions and who are we to judge...?

In return, can you explain to me how it's evident that morality comes from a belief in God and how it's necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense?

I don't think it is necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense. I think we are born with it, in the image and likeness of God.  Picture in your head a crooked line - not straight, but nearly straight. The only way to discern how straight the line is would be to know what a truly straight line looks like. You have an ideal straight line against which all other lines can be compared.  If you don't presuppose the ideal of a perfectly straight line, it is impossible to talk about other lines as "more" or "less" straight.
The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It's human. It's God given, because God is good. People all over the world and throughout history know instinctively what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean they always obey these moral truths, but their failure to abide the unwritten, unnatural law or morality does not negate it.
The theist worldview can account for the real existence of a moral law as well as humanity's universal recognition of that law. The theist worldview provides the preconditions that make our experience of this essential issue of life intelligible.
Morality isn't a small insignificant part of our experience. Its at the very heart of it. God's existence as a personal and moral being and our creation in God's image are the preconditions that render our experience intelligible.

The naturalist worldview is simply that right and wrong has no real existence and that there is no objective standard  in this natural universe by which to judge the morality of an individual, or society or civilisation; that ethics are personal and relative, that we simply choose whats right for "us" and wrong for "them"......

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?

I think naturalism would say that morality, or a sense of right or wrong, evolved by natural selection to the stage where we humans who share a common morality are the result of a selection process that favoured the consensus that now exists.

A sense of morality, probably a component of our intelligence, is one of the factors that drove humans to the top of our branch of the evolutionary tree at the expense of species that didn't develop this trait.

Morality, like altruism that we discussed earlier, is clearly a necessary, or a least an enabling trait in a species that has evolved to live in highly interdependent communities. Societies where there isn't a highly developed morality don't tend to be successful in the long term.

But morality is not in fact an entity that exists in the physical realm. Morals clearly exist. They are standards above the mere preference and taste of cultures, societies and individuals and they are universally perceived.
If as you say they are traits of a species necessary for survival who is to say that today's modern liberal society is any better than Nazi society, or the morals of a group like St. Vincent dePaul are any better than those of the UVF. Its all survival, all evolution, all natural. And if these morals are only traits, then there is no moral measuring stick and isn't it nonsense for us to argue that the hijackers in 9/11 or what happened at Auschwitz was wrong? Perhaps they simply live by a different set of conventions and who are we to judge...?

In return, can you explain to me how it's evident that morality comes from a belief in God and how it's necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense?

I don't think it is necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense. I think we are born with it, in the image and likeness of God.  Picture in your head a crooked line - not straight, but nearly straight. The only way to discern how straight the line is would be to know what a truly straight line looks like. You have an ideal straight line against which all other lines can be compared.  If you don't presuppose the ideal of a perfectly straight line, it is impossible to talk about other lines as "more" or "less" straight.
The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It's human. It's God given, because God is good. People all over the world and throughout history know instinctively what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean they always obey these moral truths, but their failure to abide the unwritten, unnatural law or morality does not negate it.
The theist worldview can account for the real existence of a moral law as well as humanity's universal recognition of that law. The theist worldview provides the preconditions that make our experience of this essential issue of life intelligible.
Morality isn't a small insignificant part of our experience. Its at the very heart of it. God's existence as a personal and moral being and our creation in God's image are the preconditions that render our experience intelligible.

The naturalist worldview is simply that right and wrong has no real existence and that there is no objective standard  in this natural universe by which to judge the morality of an individual, or society or civilisation; that ethics are personal and relative, that we simply choose whats right for "us" and wrong for "them"......

Morals, alturism etc. are no different from love, mere chemical reactions in ones brain. All are evolutionary accidents, that resulted in certain idividuals surviving and others not.

How certain are you that animals do not have morals or similar emotions to humans. The dolphins in the Shannon Estuary were found to be bioloically the same family group as Fungi that used to live in the waters of Kerry. The doplhins in the Shannon Estuary have been shown to attack family members who exhibit homosexual behaviour. Fungi was believed to be gay due to its reactions to other dolphins that passed hes way. It is believed that Fungi moved to new waters because he was shunned by his family group.

I saw a documentary a few years back where Lions attacked Elephant calfs and killed them. Later the parent Elephant tracked down the Lions and hearded them away from their Lion cubs and stamped all the cubs to death. Is this an example of revenge.

Chimps have been shown to indulge in war, and also murder for fun.

Dogs affections for humans, often even when mistreated.

Dogs brought up with cats, chasing other cats, but protecting the cats they where reared with.

On a different note, both monkies in Japan and Orcas have been shown to have developed distinct cultures from others of their same species. As in some Orcas eat meat and others fish even when both are in supply. Some monkies in Japan took up the practice of washing clothes in a pool after seeing humans do this, they have for generations stolen clothes and taken them to the same pool to wash (sounds almost like a spiritual experience to me).

[Eamonnca1]

Oh dear. Iceman's not talking to me. 

[ludermor]

MGHU is talking to himself as well 

[Hardy]

The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It's human. It's God given, because God is good. People all over the world and throughout history know instinctively what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean they always obey these moral truths, but their failure to abide the unwritten, unnatural law or morality does not negate it.
The theist worldview can account for the real existence of a moral law as well as humanity's universal recognition of that law. The theist worldview provides the preconditions that make our experience of this essential issue of life intelligible.
Morality isn't a small insignificant part of our experience. Its at the very heart of it. God's existence as a personal and moral being and our creation in God's image are the preconditions that render our experience intelligible.

The naturalist worldview is simply that right and wrong has no real existence and that there is no objective standard  in this natural universe by which to judge the morality of an individual, or society or civilisation; that ethics are personal and relative, that we simply choose whats right for "us" and wrong for "them"......

Iceman, sorry I don't have time for anything but a brief reply. MGHU's reply was pertinent, I thought, to your first point, which is effectively about moral relativism (I think). The fact that morality is a naturally selected trait doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have an absolute, commonly shared morality. In fact, I'd say it tends towards the opposite conclusion – natural selection would surely tend to ensure that we share a common morality, just as we share common physical characteristics.

The following is where, for me, your case for God and theism breaks down.

The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural.

Yes – that's exactly what I'm arguing.

It's human.

Exactly

It's God given, because God is good.

This is where logical argument stops and is replaced by a statement – a complete non-sequitur. This, to me is a neat summary of the failing of theism. There is no logical presentation of a case. It's simply "because we can't think of another answer, God is the answer". The god of the gaps.

[seafoid]

"The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural"

Way too simplistic. BP Shareholders love dividends and couldn't care less about the environmental damage BP creates through its actions. What is the status of dividends? Good or evil ?   

[The Iceman]

I'm sorry I didn't know I had to address every single point raised by every single person. I was the one asking about naturalism.

I think you are all missing my point. Being able to recognize good or evil, right or wrong is an argument against what you as Atheists or subscribers to naturalism believe. Without a supreme standard of good, then nothing can be called good or evil, it just "is". You may not like or agree with certain things that happen but in the Atheist world you have no basis higher than your own private preferences. In a naturalist universe evil doesnt exist. Nothing exists but material things simply doing what they naturally do. In order to argue differently as an Atheist, surely you are assuming the existence of God or a higher power?