Scientific Naturalism: let's lose the attitude

[Jayhawker Soule]

The current description states:

• For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is based on ignorance and counter-productive to scientific inquiry.

This is wholly inappropriate. While many naturalists may characterize the supernatural as above, naturalism, and in particular methodological naturalism, simply asserts that the supernatural is out of scope. So, for example, Strahler states:

• In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)....
  
  Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
  
  - Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues

A far better definition of naturalism can be found in Barbara Forrest's Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection:

• I shall use “methodological naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism” to mean what Paul Kurtz defines them to mean in the first and second senses, respectively:
  

  • First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible . . .
    
    There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture ...

  Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemologyas well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz’s definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.

I suggest that we rename the group "naturalist" and lose the attitude.

[zoro]

Jayhawker Soule:

Well, I can appreciate your point and in theory (or in a better world!) I could agree with you, but when you state, “let’s loose the attitude” and “this is wholly inappropriate”, my response is: What’s the objective?

That is, if the objective were only to proceed with scientific inquiry, then I’d agree that saying supernaturalism as based on “ignorance” is superfluous – since it’s obvious!

Unfortunately, however, there’s the political reality that a whole bunch of kooks are running around, not only claiming knowledge of the unknowable but also working to cram their stupidity down other people’s throats (or cut them). Witness: “intelligent design”, “faith-based initiatives”, the “religious Reich’s” influence in American politics, Zionists claiming that some giant landlord in the sky gave them some land, and worst, the Islamists, who plan on ruling the world – including demanding that each and everyone of us obey their “over 50 rules for urinating and defecating.”

Therefore, given such political realities, I would agree that we should change our “attitude”, but we should change them in a different direction: stop being politically correct and start telling them “like it is” – that they’re a bunch of lame-brained egotists whose stupidity has been tolerated far too long and that, unless they get off the pot and try to show some intelligence, then they should start learning the 50 rules for urinating and defecating demanded by their Muslim rulers.

[Jayhawker Soule]

... stop being politically correct and start telling them “like it is” – that they’re a bunch of lame-brained egotists

Speaking of which ...

I'm not a big fan of obnoxious bigotry, yours included.

[zoro]

Jayhawker Soule:

Well, it’s good to see that you’re not intimidated by the PC patrol, but you may want to work some on improving your vocabulary and your perceptions. To those ends, on the one hand, perhaps the following from my dictionary will help you:

THE RIGHT WORD
An enthusiast displays an intense and eager interest in something (: a sky-diving enthusiast). A fanatic is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm; fanatic suggests extreme devotion and a willingness to go to any length to maintain or carry out one's beliefs ( | a fly-fishing fanatic who hired a helicopter to reach his favorite stream). A zealot exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal ( | a feminist zealot who spent most of her time campaigning for women's rights). An extremist is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context ( | a paramilitary extremist who anticipated the overthrow of the government). But it is the bigot who causes the most trouble, exhibiting obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions…

And on the other hand, if you’d have a look at my book at www.zenofzero.net , perhaps you’ll gain some appreciation for the possibility that I do not exhibit “obstinate and often blind devotion to [my] beliefs and opinions” but have weighed them carefully, evaluated probabilities, and concur with the reasoned conclusion of many others, including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett (to name just a few). Further, if you gain the impression from my book that any of the synonyms for bigot (“chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist”) seem appropriate, then please let me know and I’ll try to correct the impression.

But feel free to continue to bury your head in the sand – though you might want to make sure that, when you do so, you’re facing Mecca.

[Furrowed Brow]

Steady chaps.

I’ve been banging on about naturalism for a few days now. And I’ve been struggling to hide my disdain for supernaturalism. So when I saw this thread I thought I was going to see myself quoted. Kind of glad I find this thread to be about someone else’s attitude. Though essentially I’m not that far removed.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

Really don't think this guy gets it at all. What is left when we reach the limit of what can ever be known? I think the answer to that is nothing that we can talk about that makes sense. Strict methodological naturalism goes hand in hand with some form of positivism. The naturalists are not really troubled by this because they can confine their attention to what can be talked about meaningfully. The theist or supernaturalism wants to enter into a discourse that literally has no meaning for a naturalist.

[zoro]

Furrowed Brow:

I agree (both with the “steady chaps” and your text). I probably should have stayed out of this one, because I don’t know what Jayhawker is referring to; he gives no reference for his first quotation. Similarly, I don’t know the origin of your quotation. So, I’ll pass on this one and get back to work.

[Furrowed Brow]

Furrowed Brow:

I agree (both with the “steady chaps” and your text). I probably should have stayed out of this one, because I don’t know what Jayhawker is referring to; he gives no reference for his first quotation. Similarly, I don’t know the origin of your quotation. So, I’ll pass on this one and get back to work.

It's a pragraph cut and pasted from the Strahler quote provided in the OP

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really don't think this guy gets it at all. What is left when we reach the limit of what can ever be known? I think the answer to that is nothing that we can talk about that makes sense.

Einstein once wrote:

• "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

It is simply naive to assert as a criteria for truth that we can talk about it in a way that "makes sense" to us. The guy "gets it" quite nicely ...

[Furrowed Brow]

Really don't think this guy gets it at all. What is left when we reach the limit of what can ever be known? I think the answer to that is nothing that we can talk about that makes sense.

Einstein once wrote:

• "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

It is simply naive to assert as a criteria for truth that we can talk about it in a way that "makes sense" to us. The guy "gets it" quite nicely ...

Naïve? Well possibly. But what are we talking about here? And what definition of truth are you working with? Either there is something going on which we can engage with or not. Lets assume there is something metaphysical/supernatural going on beyond any ability to quantify, measure, judge, predicate, interact, and engage with etcetera. The point is that whatever that something it is it is completely meaningless not because we cannot comprehend it, but rather for the reason that we are unable to engage with it in any meaningful way. To then start talking about the supernatural is not a very sensible thing to do on any terms that cam be defined: supernaturalism is attempting the impossible. And that is on the assumption that there is indeed something more. An idea we have absolutely no reason for accepting or even entertaining. Permanently stuck to this side of problem the supernaturalism goes beyond the limit of what can be said sensibly. I’m sorry but I find the kind of epistemology advocated by Stahler puddle deep.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point is that whatever that something it is it is completely meaningless not because we cannot comprehend it, but rather for the reason that we are unable to engage with it in any meaningful way. To then start talking about the supernatural is not a very sensible thing to do ...

To "talk about it" is not the same as to "appeal to it".