During a long and tedious attempt to pry a believers reasoning for belief in the immaterial here, the blog owner stated:
"I originally asked your to defend your world view and as yet you cannot. You have been on this blog for over 2 years and it has always been my world view. Man up mate and answer."
Well, apart from the fact that I've defended my "world view" on his blog, though perhaps not in direct enough manner for my acuser. I figured I'd post this to keep him quiet.
So, what is my world view?
I'd describe myself as a provisional naturalist. As far as I can tell, there seem to be no good reasons to believe in the "immaterial", the "supernatural", what have you, and so, after considering the arguments and evidence which I've found, by no means an exhaustive list, I reject the claims that there exists a "supernatural" realm apart from this reality, that there is an immaterial God, etc.
So, what is meant by "Natural" and "Supernatural"?
These have, I think, proven difficult to nail down, with each term often being taken as the negation of the other - the supernatural is that which is not natural.
The definition I'm going to go with here comes courtesy of Richard Carrier:
"In short, I argue 'naturalism' means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, 'supernaturalism' means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.
Now, I'm not saying that I know, for certain, that this is the case, or that this is an apriori assumption that ensures that I need to rationalise away or ignore evidence which goes against this position. It's simply that I'm unacquainted with any convincing evidence that fundamentally things are non-mental. This position seems to be a reasonable and conservative one to hold to at present, pending further evidence.
Now, I've been accused of being closed to any evidence which would disconfirm this position, due to what I feel are reasonable requirements on reasons and evidence. Apparently, asking for some objective or intersubjective reasons is unreasonable and closed minded. This is ridiculous. As Fishman states:
The crucial question is not, Is it science? or Is it supernatural?, but rather, Is there any good reason to believe that claim X is true? Whether the entities or phenomena posited by claim X are defined as ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ is irrelevant to the scientific status of the claim. If the fundamental aim of science is the pursuit of truth - to uncover, to the extent that humans are capable, the nature of reality - then science should go wherever the evidence leads. If the evidence were to strongly suggest the existence of supernatural phenomena, then so be it.
That sounds pretty good to me.
So, while this is not an indepth defence of my world view (which often run to book length), it's a start.
24 comments:
What would constitute a Good reason to believe in the immaterial?
Since you've been unable to provide ANY reasons to believe, whether good, bad, unrelated, whatever, I can safely discount your opinion, Phil.
AS Hitchens said "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
@ Havok,
I asked you what would constitute a good reason to believe in God? You have not answered but have gone on that I fail to provide evidence.
This is a distraction and off topic of my question.
Please answer.
Phil
Phil, sorry, you failed to realise that any reason will do.
rea·son (rzn) n.
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
You provide the reason, and then we discuss it to see if it is "good".
Ah
I See.
So what do you think is good,
Which do you mean?
good (gd)
adj. bet·ter (btr), best (bst)
1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
2.
a. Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
b. Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?
3.
a. Not spoiled or ruined: The milk is still good.
b. In excellent condition; sound: a good tooth.
4.
a. Superior to the average; satisfactory: a good student.
b. Used formerly to refer to the U.S. Government grade of meat higher than standard and lower than choice.
5.
a. Of high quality: good books.
b. Discriminating: good taste.
6. Worthy of respect; honorable: ruined the family's good name.
7. Attractive; handsome: good looks.
8. Beneficial to health; salutary: a good night's rest.
9. Competent; skilled: a good machinist.
10. Complete; thorough: a good workout.
11.
a. Reliable; sure: a good investment.
b. Valid or true: a good reason.
c. Genuine; real: a good dollar bill.
12.
a. In effect; operative: a warranty good for two years; a driver's license that is still good.
b. Able to continue in a specified activity: I'm good for another round of golf.
13.
a. Able to pay or contribute: Is she good for the money that you lent her?
b. Able to elicit a specified reaction: He is always good for a laugh.
14.
a. Ample; substantial: a good income.
b. Bountiful: a good table.
15. Full: It is a good mile from here.
16.
a. Pleasant; enjoyable: had a good time at the party.
b. Propitious; favorable: good weather; a good omen.
17.
a. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
b. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
c. Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.
18.
a. Well-behaved; obedient: a good child.
b. Socially correct; proper: good manners.
just so we don't waste time ;-)
Phil.
Still avoiding your part Phil.
We'll go with
2.
a. Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
b. Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?
So, the reason(s) you give should have the qualities that are desirable in a reason for believing something. Now, of course, you're going to ask me "What are those qualities".
I'll cut you off right there, Phil - begin to produce and flesh out your reason(s), stop equivocating or deflecting the claims, else I'll assume you are completely unable to provide any reasons, whether good or bad, and simply dismiss your future posts as irrelevant, and consider my world-view as justified, given your lack of response.
In short, either you stop going round and round in circles or I stop you :-)
You said,
I'll cut you off right there, Phil - begin to produce and flesh out your reason(s), stop equivocating or deflecting the claims, else I'll assume you are completely unable to provide any reasons, whether good or bad, and simply dismiss your future posts as irrelevant, and consider my world-view as justified, given your lack of response.
My Reply,
Fine Havok, but here is the problem. We are getting somewhere though so I am encouraged. You say reason and logic but by whose standard, aren't we arguing to find was it reasonable and logical? Can't you see why it appears to me that you go round in circles with your philosophy when assessing the immaterial?
Phil.
Phil: You say reason and logic but by whose standard, aren't we arguing to find was it reasonable and logical?
You're equivocating again, Phil.
Logic is a set of rules we follow to come to (deductive/inductive) conclusions.
It seems reasoning is what we do when we're we think and discuss things in a logical fashion, trying to ensure that each conclusion follows (deductively/inductively) from the preceeding premises and conclusions.
I don't see that there are "standards" here (unless you want to use different systems of logic), and you're once again, it seems, trying to deflect the argument from providing your own reasons.
@ Havok,
You said,
Logic is a set of rules we follow to come to (deductive/inductive) conclusions.
My Reply,
But what type of rules, linear, circular, game theory, stem logic, etc, You use logic ambiguously as a term. This is where you don't want to be tied down.
You said,
It seems reasoning is what we do when we're we think and discuss things in a logical fashion, trying to ensure that each conclusion follows (deductively/inductively) from the preceeding premises and conclusions.
My Reply,
I agree but there are many different ways go about discussing depending on you approach to logic.
You said,
I don't see that there are "standards" here (unless you want to use different systems of logic), and you're once again, it seems, trying to deflect the argument from providing your own reasons.
My Reply,
No Havok, just want to tie you down. Just want to see if you world view is internally coherent before you try and force it onto me.
P.
Phil: But what type of rules, linear, circular, game theory, stem logic, etc, You use logic ambiguously as a term. This is where you don't want to be tied down.
Why are you so argumentative, Phil?
Any consistent logical framework will do, as long as you either indicate which one you've chosen or enumerate the rules beforehand, so as to make it clear what it is you're saying.
Why go through all of this when you ought to know better?
Phil: No Havok, just want to tie you down. Just want to see if you world view is internally coherent before you try and force it onto me.
How am I "forcing" you onto my world view, Phil?
Please, don't bother answering the questions above, because it will simply serve to distract the discussion. You seem to be making some progress on your own blog at present, so how about you either adopt the same attitude here, or simply give up?
You said,
Why are you so argumentative, Phil?
My Reply,
He he he, Havok it is you on my blog all the time for two years arguing with me. You really need a good dose of self awareness.
You said,
Any consistent logical framework will do, as long as you either indicate which one you've chosen or enumerate the rules beforehand, so as to make it clear what it is you're saying.
My Reply,
So which one is it Havok?
You said,
Why go through all of this when you ought to know better?
My Reply,
Now this is unbecoming, I do recall you posting and re-posting in the same manner????? Come on, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
You said,
How am I "forcing" you onto my world view, Phil?
My Reply,
By not telling me what type of 'proof' you would accept for God. I have said this to you before, do you remember? Did you forget and/or would you like the link to the comment strand where I told you?
You said,
Please, don't bother answering the questions above, because it will simply serve to distract the discussion. You seem to be making some progress on your own blog at present, so how about you either adopt the same attitude here, or simply give up?
My Reply,
Have, just wanted to let you know I'm back from annual leave? ;-)
P.
Phil: He he he, Havok it is you on my blog all the time for two years arguing with me. You really need a good dose of self awareness.
To my knowledge Phil, I try to provide straight answers, and don't dance around the issues.
You on the other hand seem to do very little else. It was that behaviour, and not general dialog and disagreement I was refering to.
Phil: By not telling me what type of 'proof' you would accept for God. I have said this to you before, do you remember? Did you forget and/or would you like the link to the comment strand where I told you?
This is the behaviour I meant. I've told you before what proof. I've mentioned things you could provide which would add support to your claims, and still you claim these things.
Phil: Have, just wanted to let you know I'm back from annual leave? ;-)
Great. I was beginning to think you'd started ignoring these threads in the same fashion as you've ignored so many others over at your blog.
So Phil, stop the dancing and start with the demonstrating. Someone who is as certain of their conclusions as you are ought to have no problem with that, right?
@ Havok,
You said,
To my knowledge Phil, I try to provide straight answers, and don't dance around the issues.
My Reply,
Would you like me to show you where you have done this? That way your knowledge can be corrected ;-)
You said,
You on the other hand seem to do very little else. It was that behaviour, and not general dialog and disagreement I was refering to.
My Reply,
To my knowledge I give appropriate straight answers and try to dialogue the flaws in other pints of view. You however do not.
You said,
This is the behaviour I meant. I've told you before what proof. I've mentioned things you could provide which would add support to your claims, and still you claim these things.
My Reply,
And when I have shown your answer to be illogical and irrational then it is not a valid answer. You seem to think just because you say a word then it is justified, this is not the case. You provide little to no evidence for your claims and when you post a link to support your point you don't even read the link, now who's behaviour is bad and dodging?
You said,
Great. I was beginning to think you'd started ignoring these threads in the same fashion as you've ignored so many others over at your blog.
My Reply,
Ah yes, a man is not allowed to have a life outside the net!!!!!!! I forgot, ;-)
You said,
So Phil, stop the dancing and start with the demonstrating. Someone who is as certain of their conclusions as you are ought to have no problem with that, right?
My Reply,
Ok, your right straight to it then. Now tell me where would you like me to start, what type of proof of the divine would you as an agnostic accept?
Phil.
Phil: Would you like me to show you where you have done this? That way your knowledge can be corrected ;-)
Please do Phil.
Phil: And when I have shown your answer to be illogical and irrational then it is not a valid answer.
You've shown no such thing. You tend to try to turn things around, as you did above with logic - you wanted me to decide on a system of logic for you to use in justifying your claims of the supernatural.
Why not simply justify your claims using your favoured system, and we can discuss the flaws, perceived or otherewise, in your argument?
Phil: You seem to think just because you say a word then it is justified, this is not the case. You provide little to no evidence for your claims and when you post a link to support your point you don't even read the link, now who's behaviour is bad and dodging?
I'm not even sure which link this was Phil, nor why you felt it didn't support my argument. You've brought this up repeatedly over the last few months in what appears to be an ad hominem attack - don't trust these argument because this person is intellectually lazy.
Phil: Ah yes, a man is not allowed to have a life outside the net!!!!!!! I forgot, ;-)
When it's a common behaviour of yours to drop an argument when it seems to be going against you, then I feel I was justified in the claim, even though it was tongue in cheek :-)
Phil: Now tell me where would you like me to start, what type of proof of the divine would you as an agnostic accept?
More dancing. Nothing but dancing. Dancing and prancing, with no substance. You've neither made a point against what the post stated, nor begun to justify your own claims. You are arguing, again, in what appears to be bad faith, Phil.
But please do continue to avoid anything substantive. You're provide fantastic examples of the shallowness of your faith ;-)
Phil, it just occurred to me what all of your dancing about the issue may be about.
It seems you believe you have some darn good, strong evidence to support your contention, and it is simply my closed mind and biased attitude which are/would prevent me from accepting it.
Instead of continually trying to weasel me around to a position where I would accept this evidence of yours, why not simply present it and then demonstrate why my non-acceptance is somehow irrational, incoherent, or simply a bad faith move on my part?
@ Havok,
Hey Havok I just realised why you cannot answer the question 'what proof would it take' because in reality you do not want change you mind or position or lifestyle or both but rather cast dispersion on the religious one, just like posting a link you have not read?
Just man up and dialogue properly with honesty.
Phil.
Phil: Hey Havok I just realised why you cannot answer the question 'what proof would it take' because in reality you do not want change you mind or position or lifestyle or both but rather cast dispersion on the religious one, just like posting a link you have not read?
Please don't try to attribute motivation to me Phil - you're only going to get things wrong and embarrass yourself.
Phil: Just man up and dialogue properly with honesty.
That's rich coming from the champion of dodgeball himself.
@ Havok,
You said,
Please don't try to attribute motivation to me Phil - you're only going to get things wrong and embarrass yourself.
My Reply,
I doubt it.
You said,
That's rich coming from the champion of dodgeball himself.
My Reply,
Shouldn't be too hard then?
P.
So you're ready to stop dancing around and dialog yourself Phil?
Doubt it :-)
Waiting for your answers Havok? Your slander is getting tired.
Phil, slander requires that the statements be false. Since you insist on dancing around the subject, refuse to argue in good faith, and generally avoid actually providing any justification for the claims you make, I am simply calling you out on it.
Slander it ain't :-)
@ Havok,
You said,
Phil, slander requires that the statements be false.
My Reply,
I have shown you that it is. Would you like me to copy and past it from the comment stands of my blog?
Consequently slander it is ;-)
Again, calling you out on your actual behaviour isn't slander Phil, regardless of whether it damages your reputation or not.
If I were stating untruth's you might have a point, but your continued inability to engage in an argument and justify your claims shows that my comments are justified.
Please, demonstrate me wrong by justifying your claims here (or someplace o your own blog - you dance equally well in either place it seems).
@ Havok,
I see you have equated dancing with waiting for you to answer my questions? Interesting...?
Phil.
Post a Comment