|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 28, 2018 2:47:00 GMT
Per that definition, minus #3, yes, I'm a naturalist.
My problems with #3 are basically (1) I'm not a strict realist on natural law, and (2) Partially due to my views on language, on the subjectivity of meaning, and so on, the notion that everything in nature is in-principle explainable is dubious.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 28, 2018 8:15:45 GMT
I don't believe in the "supernatural" and believe so called "miracles" can be scientifically explained, so I suppose so. I don't believe in the so-called supernatural either, but I'm not at all confident that "science" can explain all events if, by science, you mean what humans know or even CAN know. I am comfortable that there are and always will be, limits to what humans can figure out about the natural world. Maybe you mean that all events...even those that seem beyond our current understanding of the natural world are due to, and occur within, the natural world.
It gets kind of confusing to me, but I consider myself a default naturalist in that I'm comfortable that all there is is the natural. But that doesn't mean there might not be something natural that isn't physical. IOW, I don't think of myself as a strict materialist or physicalist. I think materialism connotates believing that all that exists is "material" or "physical" or is emergent from matter. I'm not at all convinced that's the case. I acknowledge the possibility that there are natural things that aren't made of matter and, importantly, that aren't emergent JUST from matter. OTOH, I see no point in acknowledging the supernatural.
Some might quibble and say that since I accept the possibility of the non-physical, that I am a supernaturalist, but I don't see the "non-physical" that might exist as the source or basis of the physical/material nor do I see it as conscious, personal or super in any way.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 28, 2018 9:13:22 GMT
I don't believe in the "supernatural" and believe so called "miracles" can be scientifically explained, so I suppose so. Are naturalist and materialist more or less the same thing? I often hear them used interchangeably. So do I. I believe that "the supernatural is the natural not yet explained". I tend to be materialist, but naturalist in the sense of the definition provided by the OP works too. Maybe natural realist might work, to avoid confusion with naturists. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", and a materialist by any other name would still be as reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2018 9:34:36 GMT
They're providing evidence for the historical reliability of some [my emphasis] of the stuff the NT talks about. And the reason people like yourself ignore it is because you dismiss it out of hand without examining it. Why? Because the implication would be that some supernatural stuff MIGHT have happened, and you can't believe that, because you are a naturalist (again, whether you want to admit it or not). If you were genuinely interested, you'd look into it...
And when one does look into it, one discovers that the most extraordinary claims made in the Gospels, at least (i.e. those most critical to the Christian faith) are not eyewitness accounts, are not mentioned by any other contemporary writers or authorities - not even the Jewish ones; can contradict each other; contain interpolations and some inaccuracies; and were most likely written in Greek at an increasingly wide historical remove from purported events. And that even arch-proselytizer Paul could add little, or nothing concrete to them. Is that a fair assessment?
As for being called a naturalist, on the definition given that is fine, as a most reasonable 'holding position', though I wouldn't make an assertion about God not existing on the back of it.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 28, 2018 9:47:01 GMT
No.
I believe in multiple universes, the collective unconscious, a spirit-world of some kind..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 12:24:34 GMT
They're providing evidence for the historical reliability of some [my emphasis] of the stuff the NT talks about. And the reason people like yourself ignore it is because you dismiss it out of hand without examining it. Why? Because the implication would be that some supernatural stuff MIGHT have happened, and you can't believe that, because you are a naturalist (again, whether you want to admit it or not). If you were genuinely interested, you'd look into it...
Is that a fair assessment?
No, as it goes to show you haven't devoted any time to actually looking into it. And until you do, you'll continue to not know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2018 13:06:23 GMT
Is that a fair assessment?
No, as it goes to show you haven't devoted any time to actually looking into it. And until you do, you'll continue to not know what you're talking about. Interesting. Which part of what I said is completely incorrect? Shall I look into it here? Taken at random:
Re: Gospel inaccuracies and contradictions
www.bartleby.com/essay/Historical-Inaccuracies-in-the-Gospels-of-Matthew-FKNTQ44CDMRA
Gospel interpolations:
www.becomingjewish.org/articles/scribal_interpolation_and_the_christian_new_testament.pdf
No matter how driven one might be to insist that the Bible we have today is the same as it always was, it certainly takes some swallowing that documents passed down by oral tradition, variously edited, interpolated and then written down by different people at increasingly later dates would coincide and agree exactly. This is not a criticism of 'the word' but an observation of the method of transmission and what one might reasonably expect.
bible.org/seriespage/12-are-there-contradictions-gospels
The above link, from an apologist website, gives an idea of the problems. As one sees however, eventually the law of diminishing returns sets in as the special pleading and creative interpretations pile on and up. It is more reasonable, and more convincing, to go with a graduated response.
Paul and the Gospels:
Acts 17:2 states clearly that Paul taught 'from the scriptures', i.e. not from the evidence of eyewitnesses. There are 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament. Romans and 1 Corinthians are very long and were written to teach people about the Gospel. But in all of Paul's long letters there is almost nothing about the life of Jesus. Paul knew that Jesus had been crucified, but he never mentions any miracles, any parables, any exorcisms etc. He never mentions the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the 3 Wise Men,Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan etc etc. He never refers to Jesus as the 'Son of Man', one of Jesus's favourite ways of describing himself. 1 Timothy 6:13 mentions Pilate, but 1 Timothy is not by Paul. On this paltry showing Christians ought to be relieved that Paul does, at least, eventually mention the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). But overall the most natural observation is that Paul never mentions Gospel stories much because he did not know them.
Gospels most likely written in greek originally (admittedly not all agree with this one but it is a common enough view):
www.academia.edu/4408005/In_What_Language_Were_the_Synoptic_Gospels_Written
Dates of gospel composition (no one ever claims that they are contemporary documents, that I have seen): stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html Gospels strictly not eyewitness accounts: steemit.com/bible/@sean-king/the-gos See also (because the claim seems to exercise traditionalists the most): And, if you have discovered any bible-independent, contemporary writings separately reporting the central Jesus miracle-tales and the Resurrection, please link to your discovery. You will be famous. The first in order usually mentioned is that of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. And even this appears to have been tampered with Christians, who obviously felt the need by then to shore things up. www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources None are contemporary. While details of the central Christian myths are almost entirely absent. (In fact so sketchy and belated is such coverage it is enough to make some question the existence of Christ altogether, though I am not one of them). You'd have thought such amazing stuff would have been prominent if it was widely circulating. So its probably time for you to look into it again, my friend, and not to be so dismissive.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 28, 2018 17:33:36 GMT
I'm perfectly willing to believe that something other than the natural exists. Just let somebody show me compelling evidence of it. I'd recommend reading the books I posted in the other thread if you're actually interested (particularly the first two). What other thread? Can you link us to it so I don’t have to search?
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 28, 2018 18:03:19 GMT
I'd recommend reading the books I posted in the other thread if you're actually interested (particularly the first two). What other thread? Can you link us to it so I don’t have to search? Click on Dennis Reynolds's name and search his post history.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 28, 2018 22:10:28 GMT
I don't believe in the "supernatural" and believe so called "miracles" can be scientifically explained, so I suppose so. I don't believe in the so-called supernatural either, but I'm not at all confident that "science" can explain all events if, by science, you mean what humans know or even CAN know. I am comfortable that there are and always will be, limits to what humans can figure out about the natural world. Maybe you mean that all events...even those that seem beyond our current understanding of the natural world are due to, and occur within, the natural world.
It gets kind of confusing to me, but I consider myself a default naturalist in that I'm comfortable that all there is is the natural. But that doesn't mean there might not be something natural that isn't physical. IOW, I don't think of myself as a strict materialist or physicalist. I think materialism connotates believing that all that exists is "material" or "physical" or is emergent from matter. I'm not at all convinced that's the case. I acknowledge the possibility that there are natural things that aren't made of matter and, importantly, that aren't emergent JUST from matter. OTOH, I see no point in acknowledging the supernatural.
Some might quibble and say that since I accept the possibility of the non-physical, that I am a supernaturalist, but I don't see the "non-physical" that might exist as the source or basis of the physical/material nor do I see it as conscious, personal or super in any way. I totally agree with your first paragraph. An interesting example is the new discoveries in force fields that are in the atmosphere and now they have discovered in the oceans which may explain how and why birds and fish migrate Fascinating stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 28, 2018 22:28:32 GMT
I don't believe in the "supernatural" and believe so called "miracles" can be scientifically explained, so I suppose so. Are naturalist and materialist more or less the same thing? I often hear them used interchangeably. So do I. I believe that "the supernatural is the natural not yet explained". I tend to be materialist, but naturalist in the sense of the definition provided by the OP works too. Maybe natural realist might work, to avoid confusion with naturists. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", and a materialist by any other name would still be as reasonable. The word "naturalist" has more than one meaning. One of them is interchangeable with materialist. Another is more useful in this modern world of so many automobiles and so much pavement to refer to the study of wild plants and animals. Given this it would probably be more clear to say "materialist" when that's what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 28, 2018 22:55:29 GMT
gozzy
You have become too predictable. I was waiting for you!
|
|