Mega 1
Writing in Markdown format is a simple and fast way to add styled text to your web pages.
- Ordered and Unordered Lists.
- Simple Links: Stacks can use Markdown Syntax too.
- Simple formatting: Bold and Italic.
- Code snippets:
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
Mega 2
Writing in Markdown format is a simple and fast way to add styled text to your web pages.
- Ordered and Unordered Lists.
- Simple Links: Stacks can use Markdown Syntax too.
- Simple formatting: Bold and Italic.
- Code snippets:
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
Naturalism
"DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” —- "Richard Dawkins
“bad things, like good things don't happen any more often than they ought to by chance. The universe has no mind, no feelings, and no personality, so it doesn't do things in order to either hurt or please you. bad things happen because things happen.”
― Richard Dawkins
This is the thinking of a Naturalist or Materialist or Physicalist. Carl Sagan said it best "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." A Naturalist believes that molecules, atoms, matter and energy are all that exist and everything that exist happened by random chance.
There is nothing outside the natural world. Everything in the cosmos is a product or component of the physical stuff of nature. They of course do not believe in anything supernatural. They will say that everything can be explained in time by biology, chemistry and mostly physics.
To argue against Naturalism you only have to identify that something is not caused by natural causes. You certainly don't need to argue that nothing is caused by natural causes. All developed knowledge is dependent on science. Some scientist say all knowledge comes from science, but a scientific experiment has to be interpreted after it is done and that requires the laws of logic. They also have to reason to even set up the experiment. If we know anything about the world we are forced to trust our reasoning. So a Naturalist can not account for reasoning from the Naturalistic World View. We are depended on these "Laws of Logic" in order to reason accurately.
The problem is that the Laws of Logic cannot be verified scientifically. We all know that these laws of logic work but science cannot verify it because to verify it would require the Laws of Logic.
Another approach to this is from the philosopher Richard Taylor. He said if you were riding on a train and you saw some rocks on the ground that were spelling out words and sentences telling you what was the next stop, You could wonder if the rocks naturally appeared there through wind and erosion etc. The other choice would be to figure that an intelligent being must have put that sentence together. The most reasonable conclusion would be the latter.
So a naturalist when explaining things like consciousness have some difficulties. If a Naturalist believes that our senses and minds came about by chance, then we should not really believe what we are told by our senses and mind. If these things came together by random impersonal forces there is no reason we should trust them. So Naturalist are trusting their randomly formed senses to give them accuracy rather than the thought that this could have been given by an intelligent being.
Naturalism includes atheist and most humanist.
“bad things, like good things don't happen any more often than they ought to by chance. The universe has no mind, no feelings, and no personality, so it doesn't do things in order to either hurt or please you. bad things happen because things happen.”
― Richard Dawkins
This is the thinking of a Naturalist or Materialist or Physicalist. Carl Sagan said it best "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." A Naturalist believes that molecules, atoms, matter and energy are all that exist and everything that exist happened by random chance.
There is nothing outside the natural world. Everything in the cosmos is a product or component of the physical stuff of nature. They of course do not believe in anything supernatural. They will say that everything can be explained in time by biology, chemistry and mostly physics.
To argue against Naturalism you only have to identify that something is not caused by natural causes. You certainly don't need to argue that nothing is caused by natural causes. All developed knowledge is dependent on science. Some scientist say all knowledge comes from science, but a scientific experiment has to be interpreted after it is done and that requires the laws of logic. They also have to reason to even set up the experiment. If we know anything about the world we are forced to trust our reasoning. So a Naturalist can not account for reasoning from the Naturalistic World View. We are depended on these "Laws of Logic" in order to reason accurately.
The problem is that the Laws of Logic cannot be verified scientifically. We all know that these laws of logic work but science cannot verify it because to verify it would require the Laws of Logic.
Another approach to this is from the philosopher Richard Taylor. He said if you were riding on a train and you saw some rocks on the ground that were spelling out words and sentences telling you what was the next stop, You could wonder if the rocks naturally appeared there through wind and erosion etc. The other choice would be to figure that an intelligent being must have put that sentence together. The most reasonable conclusion would be the latter.
So a naturalist when explaining things like consciousness have some difficulties. If a Naturalist believes that our senses and minds came about by chance, then we should not really believe what we are told by our senses and mind. If these things came together by random impersonal forces there is no reason we should trust them. So Naturalist are trusting their randomly formed senses to give them accuracy rather than the thought that this could have been given by an intelligent being.
Naturalism includes atheist and most humanist.