Naturalism - What is it all about

[thejuice]

I think he's saying:

he wants to know what love is, he wants you to show him.

[nifan]

I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.

How can science not giving you the physical, material evidence you demand possibly mean that a god who created us in his own image makes sense?
You demand a lot more from one argument than you do for the other there. Evolutionary biology and neroscience can be easily written off unless they can provide you the entire picture, but for the god side it just makes sense?
Even if there is some form of deity that exists, how could you make the jump to "created us in his image" - how could we possibly know that.

[J70]

I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.

But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
What is conscience?
What is the mind?
Does only the brain exist?


I'd still like to hear about or see the physical, material evidence I asked for from the beginning of this thread. I am not as Hardy said simply waving my hand and rubbishing your responses. I asked where these all came from. I asked someone to show me them in the natural world like you were able to show atoms, stars, hydrogen.......
Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.

Account for these things.

If you are not in agreement with the Naturalist worldview then don't respond.

How can someone show you a law of mathematics in nature or the touch or smell of morality? And will you honestly be satisfied if someone gives you a "breakdown" of love, explaining the biochemical processes in the brain that occur when you see your woman or eat some chocolate. Or will you just ignore it and say we're not anwering your questions and that's not what you're looking for?

[The Iceman]

I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.

Correct J70 you can't show me any of these things in nature. Just like I can't physically show you God. How I get to God in all of this is surely irrelevant in the conversation of where or how the Naturalist World accounts for any of these things we know to exist in our human experience......

I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do. If you're throwing your hat in with the Naturalist worldview perhaps you should understand what the "thinkers" say about love and emotions, about our conscience, about virtues and person-hood. Things we all know make up our human experience.

My goal in all of this was to have people think about things - just as I have been challenged countless times to think about my own faith, to question my beliefs and see what answers I get.

Peace

[Hardy]

I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do.

Did I say that?

Iceman, I've been as honest as I can in answering every question you posed. Can I ask you to give me your thoughts on the questions I asked about your reasoning process in reaching the conclusion that (1) the inability of nature, as you perceive it, to account for some phenomena means that a god exists and (2) that this god is the only god and the correct god and therefore all gods proposed by others are wrong and how you know this?

Or, if you maintain that these questions are irrelevant to the thread, can you tell me, if your perception is that Naturalism cannot account for the phenomena you mention, what does account for them?

[nifan]

Or, if you maintain that these questions are irrelevant to the thread, can you tell me, if your perception is that Naturalism cannot account for the phenomena you mention, what does account for them?

I think Icemans already said what he believes accounts for them - the question is more how there is how this can be proven in any way - can it be analyzed with even a fraction of the criteria he is applying to naturalism.

[Denn Forever]

I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.

Correct J70 you can't show me any of these things in nature. Just like I can't physically show you God. How I get to God in all of this is surely irrelevant in the conversation of where or how the Naturalist World accounts for any of these things we know to exist in our human experience......

I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do. If you're throwing your hat in with the Naturalist worldview perhaps you should understand what the "thinkers" say about love and emotions, about our conscience, about virtues and person-hood. Things we all know make up our human experience.

My goal in all of this was to have people think about things - just as I have been challenged countless times to think about my own faith, to question my beliefs and see what answers I get.

Peace

No cats were killed in the formulation of arguments expressed in any of the posts.

[J70]

I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.

Correct J70 you can't show me any of these things in nature. Just like I can't physically show you God. How I get to God in all of this is surely irrelevant in the conversation of where or how the Naturalist World accounts for any of these things we know to exist in our human experience......

I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do. If you're throwing your hat in with the Naturalist worldview perhaps you should understand what the "thinkers" say about love and emotions, about our conscience, about virtues and person-hood. Things we all know make up our human experience.

My goal in all of this was to have people think about things - just as I have been challenged countless times to think about my own faith, to question my beliefs and see what answers I get.

Peace

Sorry Iceman, but you're just falling back on the god of the gaps. If that satisfies you, fine, although I don't know how your faith will be sustainable as science inevitably provides answers, at least to answerable questions. Questions about the smell of morality or whatever are just irrelevant philosophical nonsense (but an interesting academic exercise I guess), but if that provides a refuge and honest rationale for continued faith, then good for you if it makes you happy. It all seems intellectually dishonest to me however, a willful refusal to connect the dots.

[muppet]

I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.

You are the one hiding behind restricting the discussion.

And no you don't have to win, but you can sure lose heavily.

[Maguire01]

A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do.

You don't have to have thought out all of the alternatives to dismiss the theist theory.

[Eamonnca1]

I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.

But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?

A chemical reaction in the brain causing heightened senses of pleasure in the company of a specific person, and closeness to that person in the form of a bond. It arose in the process of natural selection as a means of keeping people together long enough to raise offspring, a job that is better and easier done as a team, particularly considering the long childhoods that humans have. There's a good Ted talk about it here.

What is conscience?
What is the mind?

Trickier one to answer. I'll have to get back to you on that one because I don't have time right now.

Does only the brain exist?

I don't understand this question.

[Mike Sheehy]

I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.

But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
What is conscience?
What is the mind?
Does only the brain exist?


I'd still like to hear about or see the physical, material evidence I asked for from the beginning of this thread. I am not as Hardy said simply waving my hand and rubbishing your responses. I asked where these all came from. I asked someone to show me them in the natural world like you were able to show atoms, stars, hydrogen.......
Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.

Account for these things.

If you are not in agreement with the Naturalist worldview then don't respond.

Try stopping a speeding train. I predict you will "feel" some fundamental "laws of mathematics in nature" kick in. Maybe you can then ask your maker about them when you meet him shortly thereafter !

As for Morality that you can touch or feel......well, morality itself is not a sensation so you can't experience it physically...however, you could do a simple experiment  to highlight its "physical" root in brain behavior

normally moral person + alcohol + car keys + 5 miles to walk  = immoral behavior

so a simple chemical reaction in the brain explains how someones moral behavior can be modified.

[nifan]

Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.

Ive said to you about this before.
Physics/mathematics go hand in hand and there are innumerable examples you can see all around you if you'd choose to acknowledge them.

Do you acknowledge that if i drop a bowling ball from a height of 100 m you can predict accurately how long its going to take to hit the ground, and this will be the case irreproachably, and if someone else does it?

What if not mathematics in nature is that?

[muppet]

[thejuice]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0501/1224315408779.html

Good news.

THE GOVERNMENT is expected to agree today to back legislation giving humanists the same status as organised religions and civil registrars in conducting marriage ceremonies.

Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton is due to ask her ministerial colleagues to support the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill at this morning's Cabinet meeting.

The legislation was introduced in the Seanad as a Private Members' Bill by Trinity College Senator Ivana Bacik and is due to pass final stages in the Upper House tomorrow.

The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004, which regulates the registration of civil marriages.

The 2004 Act stipulates that, apart from Health Service Executive registrars, only a member of a "religious body" may celebrate legal marriages.

This is defined as "an organised group of people, members of which meet regularly for common religious worship".

This includes organisations such as the Pagan Federation Ireland and the Spiritualist Union of Ireland, which have obtained registration under the Act.

But the definition excludes members of the Humanist Association of Ireland, who currently conduct humanist wedding ceremonies even though these are not legally recognised.

The Bill proposes to extend the right to conduct civil marriages to nonreligious groups such as the HAI. A group of this nature must be a "philosophical and nonconfessional body", have been performing marriage ceremonies for at least five years, and at least 20 couples must have participated in the ceremony.

Once the Bill has passed through the Seanad tomorrow, it will proceed to the Dáil, where it is expected to be introduced by Ms Burton.

Brian Whiteside of the HAI said that, in the past, it had been "left out in the cold" but persisted in its efforts to obtain the right to solemnise marriages and have "parity of esteem" with religious bodies.

There had been "no real progress" until the change of government last year, when Ms Bacik agreed to take up their cause.

"As the law stands presently a couple cannot have a legally binding, nonreligious marriage ceremony on a Saturday, as the State registrars work only Monday to Friday," he added.

The proportion of couples choosing a non-religious, civil wedding ceremony in Ireland has increased from 6 per cent in 1996 to more than 23 per cent in 2006, according to the Central Statistics Office.

Humanism is defined as "an ethical philosophy of life, based on a concern for humanity, which combines reason with compassion".

The HAI has nine accredited celebrants who conducted 153 marriage ceremonies last year.