Jump to content

Atheism And Philisophical Naturalism


Guest Valk0010
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

I suck at this question cause I don't know alot about it. I don't believe in any god. However I don't feel that I have the ability to say that the natural world is all that exists. This does not mean I entertain batshit crazy stuff. I agree with the idea that things like history and science are methodologically natural. I don't believe in god part due to failure of its logic and part to its failures that can be perceived through normally methodologically natural means. But I am getting more interested in I guess, Atheism as a subject and what that entails more then just lack of belief in god. I also wonder if atheism is contingent on materalism. I am not sure if it is. But I am curious what others thing. I don't think god is a scientific hypothesis because you can't test it with the scientific method and you can't really experiment with the concept from the aspect of say the creation of the universe? Your answering a mystery with a undefinable. You also can't disprove it cause you just rewrite what you tried to prove at a drop of the hat since god is undefinable. Its not falsifiable as well. And how can you even test the idea? If could be a god who doesn't do miracles for all you know. See why I think god is not a scientific hypothesis. But then how could this square with philosophical naturalism?

 

I am just wondering what this question or how this works in your life or how you understand reality?

 

Sorry if this seems disjointed.

 

EDIT: I managed to make a gaff on words, so I flipped them around so they are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

A theistic God can certainly be part of an initial scientific hypothesis, but it's not likely to pass many reproducible, falsifiable tests with much scrutiny--certainly no mathematical proofs. Naturalism certainly assumes non-theism, call it what you will. It's a non-supernatural term, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

A theistic God can certainly be part of an initial scientific hypothesis, but it's not likely to pass many reproducible, falsifiable tests with much scrutiny--certainly no mathematical proofs. Naturalism certainly assumes non-theism, call it what you will. It's a non-supernatural term, so...

I hope you caught my edit and I think we agree but are describing it differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

...do you have to be a philisophical naturalist to be a atheist.

Hmmm.... You can be a deist, but that's still technically atheistic. As far as polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.... Well....they all have theism in the description, don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

You can be a non-theistic naturalist and still believe in higher intelligence, other dimensions, and visiting aliens. It's still not clear to me from your OP what you are interested in. If you believe in the supernatural, you're not a naturalist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

...do you have to be a philisophical naturalist to be a atheist.

Hmmm.... You can be a deist, but that's still technically atheistic. As far as polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.... Well....they all have theism in the description, don't they?

Well why I am asking this, is because, if I can't say the natural world is all there is, so I am wondering if that is a necessity to use the word atheist and not be opening yourself up to error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

You can be a non-theistic naturalist and still believe in higher intelligence, other dimensions, and visiting aliens. It's still not clear to me from your OP what you are interested in. If you believe in the supernatural, you're not a naturalist...

I don't believe in the supernatural, but there is a difference in saying you don't believe in the supernatural and you know for 100 percent certainity that the natural world is all there is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Though atheism is commonly considered from a strong atheistic/anti-theistic perspective, it is actually compatible with agnosticism. You don't have to be sure that there is no God/gods or supernatural to be an atheist. Dawkins is an atheist and agnostic. He is only 99.?% certain, based on his own understanding of the odds that a theistic god does not exist. These terms don't actually seem to be helpful in today's religious climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Dawkins may only claims 95% or 97% certainty--I forget...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

And naturalism is actually a bigger stretch than atheism, since and atheist may still believe in the supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Though atheism is commonly considered from a strong atheistic/anti-theistic perspective, it is actually compatible with agnosticism. You don't have to be sure that there is no God/gods or supernatural to be an atheist. Dawkins is an atheist and agnostic. He is only 99.?% certain, based on his own understanding of the odds that a theistic god does not exist. These terms don't actually seem to be helpful in today's religious climate.

They aren't for me really. I am an atheist in only that I don't believe in god. But I am agnostic to most things regarding, supernatural stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'm fairly confident that, technically, most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists. The term "atheist" just tends to be more offensive to most religious folk, since they don't understand the terms. I think it wise to be humble and agnostic about everything, especially areas in which you have not yet reached a PhD level understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

And naturalism is actually a bigger stretch than atheism, since and atheist may still believe in the supernatural.

Well I guess my question is sort of a nonquestion, thanks for clarifying that for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I did not intend to discredit your question, Valk. You have demonstrated wisdom in your questioning, IMHO. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the supper natural exist then in a way it is natural, and it is certainly natural if it intervenes in our world. I dont think you must be a philosophical naturalist to be an atheist however i think based on our understanding it is the only conclusion holding any sort of meaning as a world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.