The Naturalist

[Heissonear]

Naturalist use sound mental reasoning and the scientific method to explain the existence of the natural realm. The physical realm and its history can be explained by natural principals and processes. To a naturalist there is no obvious evidence of a Creator. In fact just the opposite, there is no sign of a Creator or God, and no need for one to explain things around us. The earth and life on earth has evolved through natural processes.

What is physical is physical. That is all our five senses can detect.

There is only one form of life on earth that can utilize the scientific method. That is mankind. In human history the naturalists see themselves as the pinnacle of life. And those who are religious, like Christians, are lacking understanding in how things are. How existence has come about and there no need of religious belief or superstitions.

Naturalist, with their five senses, and careful use of the Scientific Method, are now leaders in the way of life, and those who have obtained reality.

Many naturalist comment on this forum. This being a religious forum, those who speak about God, a Creator, and a Bible are behind times. Naturalist see their faith is in vain and empty.

Such was my upbringing. Such was my life. I studied geology in a well know secular university. Becoming an educated naturalist, I had obtained how things came about. Like other naturalist I had arrived.

All based on natural, physical capacities, including ones five senses and leaning on ones brain, intellect and reasoning.

 

[durangodawood]

Naturalist use sound mental reasoning and the scientific method to explain the existence of the natural realm. The physical realm and its history can be explained by natural principals and processes. To a naturalist there is no obvious evidence of a Creator. In fact just the opposite, there is no sign of a Creator or God, and no need for one to explain things around us. The earth and life on earth has evolved through natural processes.

What is physical is physical. That is all our five senses can detect.

There is only one form of life on earth that can utilize the scientific method. That is mankind. In human history the naturalists see themselves as the pinnacle of life. And those who are religious, like Christians, are lacking understanding in how things are. How existence has come about and there no need of religious belief or superstitions.

Naturalist, with their five senses, and careful use of the Scientific Method, are now leaders in the way of life, and those who have obtained reality.

Many naturalist comment on this forum. This being a religious forum, those who speak about God, a Creator, and a Bible are behind times. Naturalist see their faith is in vain and empty.

Such was my upbringing. Such was my life. I studied geology in a well know secular university. Becoming an educated naturalist, I had obtained how things came about. Like other naturalist I had arrived.

All based on natural, physical capacities, including ones five senses and leaning on one brain, intellect and reasoning.

This is really quite good. Though I might quibble over a couple details.

So why did you stop being a Naturalist?

 

[Heissonear]

Why one would not remain a naturalist is a good question.

But the answer is not for this thread, not to try and dodge it.

This thread is about Naturalist and Naturalism, and its supportive evidences. It is about how to arrive there.

 

[Resha Caner]

I got excited when I saw the title of this thread. I love the movie The Natural, and hope I'll have time to read the book sometime soon. Then I realized I had misread. This isn't about baseball. Too bad.

With that said. What is this about? I'm not quite sure. A naturalist who isn't a naturalist?

Naturalism has its flaws, but I would never say disciplines like geology (or their progenitors) are stupid or that they have nothing valuable to offer.

 

[Kristos]

are you drawing a distinction between naturalism and materialism?

 

[Heissonear]

Why one would not remain a Naturalist is a good question. The answer better be good or else they have become a fool. A real fool.

But the answer is not for this thread, not to try and dodge it. We arrive at positions in life for obvious reasons.

This thread is about Naturalists and Naturalism, and its supportive evidences. It is about how to arrive there.

Many people with religious backgrounds lack understanding about earths past physical, chemical, and biological history. True Naturalists are not dumb. They have much evidence in diverse subjects to explain about this present natural world.

 

[CabVet]

Do you have a question or some sort of point?

 

[GadFly]

Naturalist use sound mental reasoning and the scientific method to explain the existence of the natural realm. The physical realm and its history can be explained by natural principals and processes. To a naturalist there is no obvious evidence of a Creator. In fact just the opposite, there is no sign of a Creator or God, and no need for one to explain things around us. The earth and life on earth has evolved through natural processes.

What is physical is physical. That is all our five senses can detect.

There is only one form of life on earth that can utilize the scientific method. That is mankind. In human history the naturalists see themselves as the pinnacle of life. And those who are religious, like Christians, are lacking understanding in how things are. How existence has come about and there no need of religious belief or superstitions.

Naturalist, with their five senses, and careful use of the Scientific Method, are now leaders in the way of life, and those who have obtained reality.

Many naturalist comment on this forum. This being a religious forum, those who speak about God, a Creator, and a Bible are behind times. Naturalist see their faith is in vain and empty.

Such was my upbringing. Such was my life. I studied geology in a well know secular university. Becoming an educated naturalist, I had obtained how things came about. Like other naturalist I had arrived.

All based on natural, physical capacities, including ones five senses and leaning on one brain, intellect and reasoning.

You are in error because a person can sense the spiritual from nature. This is a religious forum so it is appropriate for me to state evil in your naturalism for all to hear.

There is no facts that says any cosmology was not created by an ontology, which prove the existence of God as a creator. Everything that is, is proof of existence and evidence of a Creator. It is nonsense to say nature and the things of this universe is not evidence of God.

 

[jayem]

Here's my 2¢:

I'm a naturalist. I believe that everything in existence is purely a function of matter, energy, and the fundamental forces of nature. I reject the existence of any supernatural entities, such as gods. I recognize that I can't prove this with absolute metaphysical certainty. So I don't deny faith. I have faith in my worldview much like any religious believer. But I support my faith with a posteriori logic. Everything that was once thought to be mystical and beyond comprehension, but which we now understand, has turned out to be a perfectly natural phenomenon. In all of history, a supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So, why should I accept a supernatural origin for those things we still don't understand? It's simple inductive reasoning.

I know this view is not for everyone, and I don't expect to convert anyone. I don't think I belittle religious belief (at least I try not to.) But I honestly think that a supernatural explanation is worse than no explanation at all. Because you can't do anything with it. It has no utility. If the laws of nature can be suspended at any time by supernatural forces, you can never make confident predictions. It's also true that naturalism doesn't have an answer for everything. And what knowledge there is must always be seen as tentative, and subject to change. But to me, that's what makes it exciting. Seeking natural explanations is a never-ending journey. Once you invoke the supernatural, you close off further inquiry.

 

[Loudmouth]

Everything that is, is proof of existence and evidence of a Creator.

So God creates every lightning bolt, and every new bacterium?

It is nonsense to say nature and the things of this universe is not evidence of God.

What evidence would lead us to the conclusion that a deity had anything to do with it?

 

[Heissonear]

You are in error because a person can sense the spiritual from nature. This is a religious forum so it is appropriate for me to state evil in your naturalism for all to hear.

There is no facts that says any cosmology was not created by an ontology, which prove the existence of God as a creator. Everything that is, is proof of existence and evidence of a Creator. It is nonsense to say nature and the things of this universe is not evidence of God.

GadFly,

I'm not questioning you about the natural realm is a Creation but this thread is about being a Naturalist. There are real reasons why so many people become Naturalist. Excluding the Bible, through isotope geochemistry and application of principles of stratigraphy the age of this present natural realm can be dated. If a person does not believe the Bible than what are they going to believe?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I got excited when I saw the title of this thread. I love the movie The Natural, and hope I'll have time to read the book sometime soon. Then I realized I had misread. This isn't about baseball. Too bad.

I have to say, IMHO, The Natural is one of the few films which was better than the book.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have to say, IMHO, The Natural is one of the few films which was better than the book.

Really? That's good to know. So what didn't you like about the book?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Really? That's good to know. So what didn't you like about the book?

Too depressing, IMO.

(Don't worry -- no book spoilers here)

The film had a completely different ending, which I normally despise, but this is one of the few instances where I don't mind.

Yes, it's the sappy Hollywood happy ending, but sappy Hollywood happy endings are as American as baseball itself.

And, the scene itself is iconic -- no way they could've pulled it off like they did in the book.

The Natural - Home Run Scene - YouTube

 

[Resha Caner]

Too depressing, IMO.

(Don't worry -- no book spoilers here)

np. I appreciate the advice.

Yes, it's the sappy Hollywood happy ending, but sappy Hollywood happy endings are as American as baseball itself.

Yes, and sometimes sappy is good. Especially when one realizes it can happen in real life, such as Big Papi in 2004.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All based on natural, physical capacities, including ones five senses and leaning on ones brain, intellect and reasoning.

Reasoning is another word for rationalization.

 

[durangodawood]

Reasoning is another word for rationalization.

Only if youre doing it wrong.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Naturalist use sound mental reasoning and the scientific method to explain the existence of the natural realm.

And this is? I am not sure scientists know the cause of the natural realm, although they seem to know a lot about stuff threrein.

 

[Heissonear]

GrowingSmaller,

From a point of view, you are correct between cause verses therein. What was before the beginning (Big Bang, Steady State, etc.) there is no scientific evidence. A weakness possibly in seeing things come about through natural processes, but without any true evidence of God then any belief that God was before this 15.3 billion year old present cosmos has no evidence. Pure speculation about that point in time.

But as pointed out there is much evidence of slowly evolving process to form the geologic features of the earth since earth formed some 4.6 billion years ago (as determined by radioisotope measurements).

 

[KWCrazy]

The problem with naturalism is that it assumes something which is entirely incorrect and denies anything which contradicts the assumption that natural law is the dominant force of the universe. That's a view that is held by a relatively small portion of individuals. While veracity isn't found in consensus, neither is it found in minority opinion.

The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time. It cannot account for the origination of anything because by natural law matter/ energy cannot be created, only changed in form. So faced with the logical question, "how did all this begin," the truthful naturalist can only respond "I don't know." While he may subscribe to the latest theory du jour of spontaneous auto-creation, if he has any reason at all he knows it to be folly.

So if his world is limited to the physical sensations, he must remove from it abstract thought which does not follow physical limitations. He must also contend that every single supernatural event seen, heard or recorded must be false because there is no room for such things in the natural world. In fact, the very process of dreaming flies in the face of naturalism because you see, hear, smell touch and taste things which do not exist.

So let's look at the numbers.

Craig Keener cites a large variety of sources that give us numbers for different groups, and he often refers to hundreds of millions of miracle witnesses (Miracles [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011], 762). One survey found that 48 percent of people in the United States claimed to have witnessed at least one miracle (238). Even among noncharismatic Christians alone in the United States, more than a quarter claim to have witnessed a healing (505-506). Surveys and other sources have found that half or more of converts to Christianity in China claim healing, their own healing or somebody else's, as one of the reasons why they converted (264, 297, 300-302). Keener notes that "In sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, 56 percent of Christians claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing." (313) He cites data showing that most doctors claim to have witnessed one or more miracles among their patients (427-428, 721). In some countries, half or more of Christians claim to have witnessed an exorcism (813).
source

So by the numbers, hundreds of millions of people give witness to miracles. This is a problem for a naturalist, because in his world there can be no miracles. Even a single miracle proves his entire world view false. How about hundreds of millions? Let's say that most aren't actually miracles and let's limit it to things science cannot possibly explain. How many are left? A million? A thousand? The problem with taking an absolute view and pretending that the physical world is all that exists is that even a single contradiction disproves the theory. It's the scientific method, remember? You can't have an absolute law with even a single contradiction. That's an incredible amount of faith you put in that world view.

In this forum alone there are people who have experienced the supernatural. Being among them myself, it's easy to see why I see a purely naturalistic universe as a scientific impossibility. The denial it takes to live in such a world speaks volumes about your faith, though it is perhaps misplaced.

My challenge to all those who deny God's existence remains the same, though most lack the courage to take me up on it. The Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him. Those who deny His existence have never looked for Him. It's like saying that I don't have a 1/2" wrench in my toolbox without ever looking. It's the voice of ignorance proclaiming something to be a fact and yet having never investigated it fully. The problem with looking for God is that you might find Him. That would toss a monkey wrench into everything that you believe. The search for God, however, would add credence to your contention that He doesn't exist.

People who proclaim that there is nothing beyond the natural world who have never looked for anything beyond the natural world have no evidence to buoy their assertation. A wise man seeks his own answers and believes the result of his own investigations. There are people on this forum who don't THINK you're wrong, they KNOW you're wrong because they've had personal experiences to prove it. Why not ask them?