"Naturalism"; Any takers?

[Politesse]

So I was bopping around the forum here and I noticed that many of our site sponsors espouse or promote a philosophy called "naturalism". I don't think I have ever paid attention to this particular emanation of Western secularism, and would be curious to know more about it. Does anyone here describe themselves as a naturalist? If so, what does the term mean to you? How is naturalism different from, say, materialism? What is the "nature" part of naturalism meant to refer to exactly? I can look up wikipedia on my own, but I am curious about your personal take.

 

[steve_bank]

I'll bite. Philosophically I generally ascribe to free thought and naturalism.

As I would explain it naturalism in part means by definition anything that exists is nati8ral. There can be no supernatural. That brings in curability.

If I se a ghost and it is real then there has to be a causal link between the ghost and my briain even if I can not discover the link.

If someone can emit lightning bolts from his and that knocks people down, there mist be an energy source. The bolt an not coem from nothing or nowhere.

It leads to the view that science is the best tool to explain reali9ty, given that our science may not be able to discover all of reality.

In science there are unseen forces, the Moon affects tides. Bu7t the unseen forces can be remeasured.

.

 

[brewer]

Clothing optional.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Clothing optional.

Yeah when I hear the word naturalist I think of people who go nude at beaches. I am aware of the philosophical meaning, but it is not the first thought that comes to me at the word.

 

[pood]

Methodological naturalism is the idea that the methods and tools of science are the best way to find out about the world, and even if a supernatural realm exists, science can say nothing about it. Metaphysical naturalism is the stronger claim that only the natural world exists, and there positively is no supernastural realm. The former is a component of science, and the latter phiilosophy (specifically metaphysics, hence the title).

Naturalism and materialism are not the same, philosophically. There is a distinction between metaphysical naturalist materialism and metaphysical naturalist idealism. The former holds that the world is entirely material and that everything, including concsious thought, supervenes on it. The latter holds that the world consists partly or wholly of mental states, and that materialism is therefore false. Both are considered naturalist positions in that both reject anything supernatural.

 

[steve_bank]

What does Politesse believe is the nature of reality? Interesting that he framed it as western secularism.

Is there both a natural and supernatural reality?

 

[bilby]

Clothing optional.

That's Naturism.

 

[brewer]

That's Naturism.

Oh yeah, show me.

 

[steve_bank]

Out of curiosity I searched on social naturalism to see if it exists, lo and behold it popped up.

AI Overview
Sociological naturalism is the view that human society and social behavior are part of the natural order and can be studied using the same methods as natural sciences.

Then I searched on 'back to nature; from the 60s-80s.

An interpretation and adaptation.

AI Overview
The slogan "back to nature" is the core watchword of Naturalism, a philosophical belief system asserting that nature is the entire reality and that everything is governed by natural, scientific laws

 

[Politesse]

Clothing optional.

I'm glad it wasn't just me.

 

[Politesse]

Methodological naturalism is the idea that the methods and tools of science are the best way to find out about the world, and even if a supernatural realm exists, science can say nothing about it. Metaphysical naturalism is the stronger claim that only the natural world exists, and there positively is no supernastural realm. The former is a component of science, and the latter phiilosophy (specifically metaphysics, hence the title).

Naturalism and materialism are not the same, philosophically. There is a distinction between metaphysical naturalist materialism and metaphysical naturalist idealism. The former holds that the world is entirely material and that everything, including concsious thought, supervenes on it. The latter holds that the world consists partly or wholly of mental states, and that materialism is therefore false. Both are considered naturalist positions in that both reject anything supernatural.

I was more curious about the philosophical stance, which struck me as not referring to the methodological naturalism we employ in the sciences. Which, for one, does not generally make reference to or use of "natural laws", as do many definitions I found for Naturalism. As scientists we generally regard things like the principles of inference or uniformitarianism as justified assumptions or parameters for study, not empirically discoverable universal laws as such.

 

[pood]

Methodological naturalism is the idea that the methods and tools of science are the best way to find out about the world, and even if a supernatural realm exists, science can say nothing about it. Metaphysical naturalism is the stronger claim that only the natural world exists, and there positively is no supernastural realm. The former is a component of science, and the latter phiilosophy (specifically metaphysics, hence the title).

Naturalism and materialism are not the same, philosophically. There is a distinction between metaphysical naturalist materialism and metaphysical naturalist idealism. The former holds that the world is entirely material and that everything, including concsious thought, supervenes on it. The latter holds that the world consists partly or wholly of mental states, and that materialism is therefore false. Both are considered naturalist positions in that both reject anything supernatural.

I was more curious about the philosophical stance, which struck me as not referring to the methodological naturalism we employ in the sciences. Which, for one, does not generally make reference to or use of "natural laws", as do many definitions I found for Naturalism. As scientists we generally regard things like the principles of inference or uniformitarianism as justified assumptions or parameters for study, not empirically discoverable universal laws as such.

The idea of universal laws has always struck me as misguided, because I see no evidence that such “laws” “govern” the universe. I think they are mere descriptions of stuff that happens. Some of that stuff consists of invariable regularities, like gravity; some of it, like thermodynamics, is statistical; some of it, like what shirt I put on in the mornning, is variable and unpredictable, and some of it, like quantum mechanics, is indeterministic.

 

[Politesse]

That's certainly how I understand it. If there are "natural laws", we have no more direct access to them than we have the ability to interview St Gabriel Archangel. Phenomena, we can make reasonable interpretations of based on intersubjective observations over time. But to say that an object must do this or that seems... off. Going far beyond what can be empirically confirmed.

I dislike the term determinism for similar reasons, despite being a "hard determinist" myself in the common parlance.

 

[pood]

That's certainly how I understand it. If there are "natural laws", we have no more direct access to them than we have the ability to interview St Gabriel Archangel. Phenomena, we can make reasonable interpretations of based on intersubjective observations over time. But to say that an object must do this or that seems... off. Going far beyond what can be empirically confirmed.

I dislike the term determinism for similar reasons, despite being a "hard determinist" myself in the common parlance.

Well then I think you abandon hard determinism.

 

[Politesse]

I have this problem that how I'd define myself is seldom how others describe me.

 

[steve_bank]

Region, philosophy, and science have the same social processes. Intellectual collaboration.

The difference with science is it results in a predicable testable experiment. The proof of aerodynamic theory is a flying jet. There is no ambiguities or interpretations.

It probably began with observation of flying birds. Observation and analysis of bird wings led to the idea of an airfoil, an aircraft wing.


Relggion and philosophy can in interpret science experiments in any number of ways.

Naturalism rejects superstition and the supernatural. Ancienpeople might think an eclipse is an omen, or an act of a god.

Reporting from Africa says in te Ebola crisis many rural people go to a church instead of a hospital. Superstition.

Today modern science models tell us when an eclipse will occur. From naturalism one might say it is just reality as it is.


It is int a dead issue or academic debate. Modern prominent Christens have called natural disasters god’s punishment for homosexuality.

Some preach today’s earthquakes are a biblical sign of end times, ignoring the science that shows the causes of earthquakes and that they always existed.

Yes, science can be indirect. Quantum theories on atoms are based on macro scale experiments, we do not actually see atoms or atomic particles. But again quantum theory is proved by using it to build electronic devices that work as predicted.

Whether atoms exist or not is irrelevant, what maters is the theory is predicative,.

Yes naturalism Is secular, but as to atheist there are many versions of atheism. An atheist may reject gods but believe in the supernatural.

The RCC has always been an odd mix of religion and science.

I expect forms of naturalism have always existed to some degree.

 

[steve_bank]

Adding that if you are steeped in mythology, mysticism, or the occult making a change to naturalism could be very difficult.

However science works regardless of how you think or philosophize about it. The airplane flies regardless of your beiefs..

 

[GenesisNemesis]

But to say that an object must do this or that seems... off. Going far beyond what can be empirically confirmed.

Why? Do we have any reason to think an object wouldn't fall down in the same way on a planet with the same gravity as Earth's, billions of light years away?

 

[brewer]

Why? Do we have any reason to think an object wouldn't fall down in the same way on a planet with the same gravity as Earth's, billions of light years away?

Well obviously that planets surface would have to be covered with a sufficient mass of absurdinium.

 

[steve_bank]

A lot of it is colloquial speech.

Laws are a misnomer these days. To say an object mist behave a certain way is more a manner of speaking. Within bounds of applications a baseball is expected to have certain predictable behavior given an applied force, Newtonian mechanics. Newton's 'laws' of motion. It has been used so much that any exceptions would be a major event.

We have Newton;s Laws Of Motion but they are not universal. They do not directly work at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Science is descriptive . The universe does not obey our scientific theories. To say reality acts in accordance with theory is a manner of speaking.

It is difficult to work with and talk about science while being pedantically correct all the time. When it comes to dong something it comes down to equtions.

People will differ on views of sconce and how it is talked about, but in the end itis only about the eqyations.