rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/12/85)
> It seems to me evolution is based upon naturalism/materialism. That is, > there was a time when there were no mammals so they HAD to come from the > reptiles, there was a time when there were no reptiles, so they HAD to come > from the fish, etc. Personality/consciousness MUST be explainable by > chemicals in the brain because there is NOTHING else TO explain it. [ARNDT] That's a rather odd way of looking at it. Naturalism/materialism REQUIRES that personality/consciousness be explainable by natural phenomena (what's a non-natural phenomenon?) such as chemicals, thus you seem to imply that naturalism/materialism is somehow flawed as a result? Is there something that you KNOW cannot be explained through such phenomena? Or do you simply feel more comfortable with the notion that there MUST be something *else* "in charge" of such things? Is this an example of wishful... (Whew! Caught myself! Almost used the word "thinking" to describe an action taken by Ken Arndt...) Seriously, what reason is there to believe that there MUST be something else unless it is because you want to do so, because it fits in with certain ingrained preconceptions? It's ass backwards to say "If materialism/naturalism is true, then personality/consciousness MUST be explainable through natural phenomena, and since I don't believe that to be so, naturalism must be wrong." What are the real reasons for "not believing that to be so"? [COMMENTS?????????] > But what are the > foundations of the metaphysical choices here?? Remember, materialism IS a > metaphysical choice. With all the 'goodness' and limitations of a > metaphysical choice. We all HAVE to make them, the opposite of having a > metaphysical framework is not no framework but merely an unexamined one. The "goodness" of the choice stems from the limits it places on presumption: of all the "choices", it is the least presumptive, it makes the fewest assumptions in arriving at its conclusions, and thus it is going to be the most accurate in the long term. What is this thing that is non-materialism? All any non-materialistic choice offers is speculation based on unwarranted assumption. Materialism confines itself to that which physically is, and the notion of "that which is, but in a non-physical sense" is self-contradictory. That which we cannot observe is just as physical as that which we can. (I have to keep re-explaining this because someone always remarks: "Why do you exclude the supernatural/non-physical?" It is simple: By definition, they do not exist. If they exist, they ARE physical. Sorry for the redundancy.) -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/13/85)
In saying ``the supernatural does not exist, for if it did it would be natural, and not supernatural'' you are begging the question, Rich. If elements of teh set of things which are commonly called ``the supernatural'' exist, then perhaps they should be called natural -- but ``do they exist'' is a question that must take precidence over ``what shall we call them'' and ``must we keep calling them what we have always called them''. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/16/85)
> In saying ``the supernatural does not exist, for if it did it > would be natural, and not supernatural'' you are begging the > question, Rich. If elements of teh set of things which are > commonly called ``the supernatural'' exist, then perhaps they > should be called natural -- [LAURA] My point exactly. > but ``do they exist'' is a question > that must take precidence over ``what shall we call them'' and > ``must we keep calling them what we have always called them''. [LAURA] The way they are categorized, as being "outside of the sphere of natural things" is itself a bogus notion. The notion that such things, things that at this point cannot be observed (and thus judgments about them are wishful thinking at best), are somehow "different" in any way other than that WE, the glorious anthropocentric humans, cannot see them, is presumptuous in the extreme. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/17/85)
Words cut more than one way, though Rich. Suppose I got up one morning
and, just of the wall, said that I believed in ghosts, and angels, and
ESP, and UFOs and ETs on Alpha Centauri, and faith healing, and the
real presence of Kali in my life. I may decide that they are natural
but want to call them supernatural for some very pragmatic reasons.
For one thing, a lot of these things have been traditonally called
``the sueprnatural''. For another, I may want to contrast what most
people believe in with what I, in my wonderfully enlightened state,
believe in. And for another, since all the materialists out there
will immediately either call me a fraud or insane and deny that
these things exist, I am going to get the label ``supernatural''
anyway, whether I want it or not. ``Supernatural'' is also a
convenient word to use when you do not really understand a lot about
what is going on. Finally, I may have, through my enlightened state,
discovered that I have a very different understanding of the word
``real'' or ``natural'' than unenlightened folk have. Perhaps my
definition encompasses what they call ``real'' and has a lot more,
but perhaps there are unresolvable conflicts.
Now I could spend a lot of time arguing that I have an understanding
of what is real which is better than the current understanding and
should be adopted by the world at large -- but, assuming that I
am in the guru business, this is probably precisely what I want to teach
to people who are interested -- and I don't want to argue with the
wrongheaded, mistaken, unenlightened mass out there. Assuming that I
am a great spiritual leader, I will lead my students to understanding,
at which point they will also understand why I used the word ``supernatural''
which may have been misleading at first.
Are all of these reasons invalid?
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura
ps -- no, I don't really believe in all of the above....and GOODNESS
NO! NO! NO! I am *not* in the guru business!!!ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/18/85)
> Words cut more than one way, though Rich. Suppose I got up one morning > and, just of the wall, said that I believed in ghosts, and angels, and > ESP, and UFOs and ETs on Alpha Centauri, and faith healing, and the > real presence of Kali in my life. I may decide that they are natural > but want to call them supernatural for some very pragmatic reasons. Actually, I don't *disbelieve* in ETs on Alpha Centauri, and would be willing to believe in them if presented with appropriate empirical evidence. I'm considerably more skeptical about the other items on that list, but I can think of kinds of evidence that might persuade me on those topics too (not that I ever expect to encounter such evidence). People love to believe in all sorts of things for which no physical evidence at all. I would guess that this is what Rich is talking about when he talks about the idiocy of believing in the supernatural. He seems to feel that life would improve significantly if this stopped. I'm not so sure about that, but I do have a modest hope of my own, that is that people learn to tell the difference between such beliefs and science. A second best would be if people learned to regard their favorite myths with the same sense of skepticism and tentative acceptance that any good scientist accords his favorite hypothesis. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/20/85)
> Suppose I got up one morning > and, just of the wall, said that I believed in ghosts, and angels, and > ESP, and UFOs and ETs on Alpha Centauri, and faith healing, and the > real presence of Kali in my life. I may decide that they are natural > but want to call them supernatural for some very pragmatic reasons. [LAURA] It would explain a lot about our concurrent discussions, vis a vis wanting to call things by certain names... :-? > For one thing, a lot of these things have been traditonally called > ``the supernatural''. Enlighten me please: So? Do you like the continuation of erroneously applied words? (I'm sorry, I know the answer to that question. :-) > ``Supernatural'' is also a convenient word to use when you do not really > understand a lot about what is going on. I would think, Laura, that when you don't really understand a lot about what is going on, you would say "I don't really understand a lot about what is going on" rather than looking for a "convenient" word. > Are all of these reasons invalid? I think so. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (03/23/85)
In article <727@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >> Are all of these reasons invalid? [Laura Creighton] > >I think so. >"It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr The purpose of using language is (hopefully) to communicate. The question therefore is, does using the word "supernatural" help or hinder communication? Laura's reasons for using it do hold some water, but Rich is right in this respect, I think: that it would probably be most clear if the word were avoided, in favor of (perhaps lengthy) explanations. (Explanations like: "this is something which I do not fully understand, and it is the type of thing which people often refer to as supernatural, but ..." (you get the picture, I hope).) And now, enough of this debate. -- "When there's something wrong with the popular views who do you call?" ICONBUSTERS! --The developing iconoclast, Paul V. Torek wucs!wucec1!pvt1047