Naturalism - What is it all about

[The Iceman]

So many posters on here claim to be Atheist, so I wanted to know about Naturalism and what it all means.
If a subscriber to the belief system could explain it and what it means to people today perhaps that would be helpful. If you want questions then here are some to begin with:

What is Naturalism?
What does it say about humans, where we came from and why we're all here?

I'd like to get real answers to the questions rather than "this is what we don't believe"......

[J70]

Everything unfolded naturally without the interference of a magical, supernatural being. We humans are here because our species evolved from other species. Basically, you don't need supernaturalism to explain nature and existence.

[muppet]

The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
        field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
        to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
        every living creature, that was the name thereof'.

And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
        which the LORD God had made.'

Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?

This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.

[Denn Forever]

I think J70 has nailed it.  It an acceptance that things are what they are and we have to work it out for ourselves.

[ziggysego]

The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
        field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
        to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
        every living creature, that was the name thereof'.

And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
        which the LORD God had made.'

Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?

This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.

He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.

[muppet]

The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
        field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
        to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
        every living creature, that was the name thereof'.

And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
        which the LORD God had made.'

Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?

This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.

He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.

If the Bible is correct He created evil.

[The Iceman]

You still haven't answered the question Muppet, you simply fall back on your typical challenges to believers. Different thread.
This is about Naturalism...maybe try again......

[Thefisherking]

Am I the only one who clicked on this thread to find out why people feel the need to parade about with no clothes on? 

[muppet]

You still haven't answered the question Muppet, you simply fall back on your typical challenges to believers. Different thread.
This is about Naturalism...maybe try again......

You don't answer anything. You merely trot out vague questions such as 'where does conscience come from?' as answers.

As I was saying....Naturalism is the inevitable consequence of the rejection of the plausibility of Creationism. It is the realistic search for answers that make sense. It creates theories, tests them, adopts some, rejects others and starts again searching for new ones. All the time a very high burden of proof is required before any modicum of acceptance is granted.

[ziggysego]

The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
        field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
        to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
        every living creature, that was the name thereof'.

And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
        which the LORD God had made.'

Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?

This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.

He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.

If the Bible is correct He created evil.

Evil is a man-made concept. God gave us a free will to make our own choices, some people made evil choices.

[muppet]

The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
        field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
        to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
        every living creature, that was the name thereof'.

And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
        which the LORD God had made.'

Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?

This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.

He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.

If the Bible is correct He created evil.

Evil is a man-made concept. God gave us a free will to make our own choices, some people made evil choices.

That is not what the Bible says Ziggy:

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Hardy]

Theism/religion claims to know the answers to the so-called metaphysical questions - where we came from and why we're here and the questions like those Iceman posed on another thread - what conscience is, what altruism is, how we choose between right and wrong, etc. (In its most radical forms it also intervenes in physical questions and challenges known facts about the physical universe – e.g. the age of the universe – where they don't fit with particular theistic beliefs, but let's treat that as the lunatic fringe.)

Naturalism simply says we haven't discovered any purpose in existence, but we don't need to invent supernatural explanations for how the world works. Naturalism, through science,  presents the best theory that fits all known facts as the most likely answer to any question - the Occam's Razor principle. And when we can't know the answer to a question, based on known facts and observations, it doesn't make one up.

For instance, we don't know for sure how altruism developed in humanity (science doesn't know anything for sure – it proceeds on the basis of probability), but the most likely explanation – the Occam's Razor answer – will employ the theory of natural selection that explains everything else we know about how life evolved and developed. This suggests that altruism was a naturally selected trait – species that developed altruism did better in the survival stakes.

Anything else is just unsupported speculation and one unsupported speculation is as valid as another, since they are not based on any known facts or reported observations. Hence the  proposition of Russell's cosmic teapot as equally valid an explanation of what governs the universe as the God explanation.

Theists will respond that all of science is also speculation and, in the limit, it is. But it's supported by facts and observations and no speculation is accepted if a single fact or observation is found that doesn't support it. In essence, science is simply the presentation of the most probable explanation for everything we know and no explanation at all for anything that's unknowable based on the information available to us at present.

So the difference between theism and atheism is that theism either presents God as the explanation for everything or at least employs "the god of the gaps" to explain anything we don't know, while atheism doesn't accept that speculating about a god is any more valid than speculating about a cosmic teapot or magic or astrology as they all have equal amounts of supporting evidence – zero.

And the difference between religion and naturalism is that religions present a myriad of different and often mutually exclusive (and all unsupported) speculations to explain the purpose of existence and the laws that govern the universe, whereas naturalism states that we haven't been able to discern a purpose in existence but here is what we know about the laws of the universe and as soon as we learn more, we'll let you know.

In human terms, it always appears to me to be the difference between a conman and a teacher.

J70 said this in two lines, but I don't have the gift of conciseness.

[Eamonnca1]

The universe is cool enough without making up crap about it.

[thejuice]

http://paulkurtz.net/

Paul Kurtz is a good author to read. He is one of the main voices within secular humanism today. He's not as confrontational as Hitchens or Dawkins and a bit more respectable.

I also personally believe the reading of classic and modern philosophies is very beneficial to any person. You don't have to believe all of it but there is great wisdom to draw upon. Indeed some of it had  quite a big influence on western Christianity since the middle ages.

I think that itis important for aethists to collectively organise and come together as people to propagate new ideas. It's very easy in a liberal society for arguments on morality to be left to religious groups. I know this is difficult to get a consensus on  an issue from a community that openly and actively challenges its own beliefs however it must make its voice be heard.

With communities no longer congregating at mass like they used to but surely local communities ought to come together to debate issues of morality or any relevant issue within the locality. I know some do but not enough. And often it is not about what's important. 

[ONeill]

Theism/religion claims to know the answers to the so-called metaphysical questions - where we came from and why we're here and the questions like those Iceman posed on another thread - what conscience is, what altruism is, how we choose between right and wrong, etc. (In its most radical forms it also intervenes in physical questions and challenges known facts about the physical universe – e.g. the age of the universe – where they don't fit with particular theistic beliefs, but let's treat that as the lunatic fringe.)

Naturalism simply says we haven't discovered any purpose in existence, but we don't need to invent supernatural explanations for how the world works. Naturalism, through science,  presents the best theory that fits all known facts as the most likely answer to any question - the Occam's Razor principle. And when we can't know the answer to a question, based on known facts and observations, it doesn't make one up.

For instance, we don't know for sure how altruism developed in humanity (science doesn't know anything for sure – it proceeds on the basis of probability), but the most likely explanation – the Occam's Razor answer – will employ the theory of natural selection that explains everything else we know about how life evolved and developed. This suggests that altruism was a naturally selected trait – species that developed altruism did better in the survival stakes.

Anything else is just unsupported speculation and one unsupported speculation is as valid as another, since they are not based on any known facts or reported observations. Hence the  proposition of Russell's cosmic teapot as equally valid an explanation of what governs the universe as the God explanation.

Theists will respond that all of science is also speculation and, in the limit, it is. But it's supported by facts and observations and no speculation is accepted if a single fact or observation is found that doesn't support it. In essence, science is simply the presentation of the most probable explanation for everything we know and no explanation at all for anything that's unknowable based on the information available to us at present.

So the difference between theism and atheism is that theism either presents God as the explanation for everything or at least employs "the god of the gaps" to explain anything we don't know, while atheism doesn't accept that speculating about a god is any more valid than speculating about a cosmic teapot or magic or astrology as they all have equal amounts of supporting evidence – zero.

And the difference between religion and naturalism is that religions present a myriad of different and often mutually exclusive (and all unsupported) speculations to explain the purpose of existence and the laws that govern the universe, whereas naturalism states that we haven't been able to discern a purpose in existence but here is what we know about the laws of the universe and as soon as we learn more, we'll let you know.

In human terms, it always appears to me to be the difference between a conman and a teacher.

J70 said this in two lines, but I don't have the gift of conciseness.

How do you explain Marty Morrissey then?