Substance of reality

[godslanguage]

My question is, how can a naturalist acknowledge or even define a term such as love, evil, good, emotional responses etc...in the way humans have defined these words based on more of a spiritual grounds/significance/essence then on mere "natural" feelings/laws. These words can be categorized as completely natural feelings/laws, but the naturalist would be inclined to breakdown these terms into they're sub-atomic particles, in the end become nothing more then just chemical reactions or purposeless biological fluff, all these words have been defined through logical considerations of the human mind, but have implications based on where and how they originated from, which would and should be in this case, pointed out as a "spritual delusion" or logical fallacy by the naturalist. Dawkins says many things, I find it very interesting he uses words such as "evil" to describe religion, there are universal meanings to these words which humans can define and understand, however I don't see how and why a naturalist would want to use them in any shape or form when they in fact are shapeless and have no real meaning or substance. Based on these premises and parameters, it becomes a question of what significance reality is and if science has anything to do with reality or has any bearing at all at answering questions such as the meaning of life etc...when as a naturalist, they evade the most certain reality of the human mind. I'm not implying practicing of scientific disciplines should not dumb down mind to physical properties, rather, there should be a barrier between the breakdown approach science uses and the other parts of the hierarchical significance that are just as real or more real as they're counterparts and sub-counterparts. Simply, after a somebody alludes him/herself as a "naturalist", they should be more consistent...

[animal]

Your contention here is just silly.

To call a naturalist inconsistent simply because he or she chooses to use certain words I find absurd. If you want to frame the way a 'naturalist' should or should not use language to communicate a thought in attempt to pigeon-hole a 'naturalist view' - be my guest, but why waste your time with such a petty argument?

[godslanguage]

Your contention here is just silly.

To call a naturalist inconsistent simply because he or she chooses to use certain words I find absurd. If you want to frame the way a 'naturalist' should or should not use language to communicate a thought in attempt to pigeon-hole a 'naturalist view' - be my guest, but why waste your time with such a petty argument?

Why waste your time denying what a naturalist is, and accept the very foundation they base they're status on? The only thing that is absurd animal, is the petty arguments you bring to this forum, while at the same time you believe to refute claims using those petty counter-arguments.

[animal]

Right. Petty arguments you seem to fail to address and even evade... so much for aptitude.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Simple. A naturalist is a human being.
As a human being they understand emotions and feelings.

A builder may catalog the materials needed to build a home. They will want to know how to obtain bricks and pipes, planks of wood, electrical wiring and cement. They will likely know the quantity of each material required and how to put them together.

But at the end of the day when they go home to their families they still understand what a "home" really is.

A naturalist may see how nature operates in a way you find unfamiliar, and apparently repugnant. However this does not imply that they are not human.

It would seem your definition of naturalist must be wrong as it doesn't seem to fit anyone. Perhaps you need to review your definition, that I think is the source of this conundrum of yours.

[godslanguage]

The point is Bgood, that these emotions are quite more subjective to the naturalist, and therefore defining and meaning of these words are more likely to be deduced into a more physical form which takes away that meaning and its correspondence to a hierarchal reality, which is just as real as the lower parts that define it.

The problem is in my view, that the "substance of reality" is between the differences in;

mind over matter versus matter over mind

I don't doubt a naturalist goes home and being human, shares the same feelings and emotions as others etc...But now you see that its not that simple. Because there is a huge differance I have pointed out between opposing views, the second one "matter over mind", which I do not share, but the naturalist doesn't mind.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Again, I think your imagination is getting the best of you.

No one, be they naturalist or spiritualist has a complete grasp on love, hate, good and evil. Even beauty.

Everyone tries to categorize and define things. You see them as absolute entities. A naturalist may see it as a result of chemical reactions. The feelings however are real to the subject.

The point is Bgood, that these emotions are quite more subjective to the naturalist, and therefore defining and meaning of these words are more likely to be deduced into a more physical form which takes away that meaning and its correspondence to a hierarchal reality, which is just as real as the lower parts that define it.

There are contradictions in everyoneone's world view. That does not mean we cease to function properly. We are human beings not robots. For example if right and wrong is absolute, as it appears this is your belief, and well defined why are there disagreements on what is right and wrong? I am sure you have done some reasoning to account for this. You may not be completely aware of this fact, and the same will go for the naturalists.

You again appear to fail to consider that this does not represent the thought processes of a naturalist. They (meaning naturalists), appear to "operate" fine with the idea that the whole is greater than its parts.
You take one concept and attempt to incorporate it to your worldview in an attempt to analyze the idea. Of course there will be a problem in your "hierarchal reality". This whole framework probably does not exist in a naturalists mind, and identifying the cause of emotion may not take away from it's reality in their personal lives. This may be the key to your understanding.

What you are doing is taking a component from a Japanese engine and trying to fit it into your Ford truck. Then declaring the part faulty.

Perhaps you should reconsider your analysis.

[animal]

Well said, BGood.

[godslanguage]

Bgood has spelled it out for me...

The naturalist has already boiled down mind into atoms in the scientific circle
The naturalist will now render mind nothing but...
The naturalist will now legalize partial birth abortions
The naturalist will now believe he has absolute knowledge of reality
Therefore the naturalist will be the only authority to be the only ones capable of explaining reality, including what is morally right or wrong, what is justifiable etc...

As you can see Bgood, my argument goes far beyond what a naturalist feels when he goes home....

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Bgood has spelled it out for me...

The naturalist has already boiled down mind into atoms in the scientific circle
The naturalist will now render mind nothing but...
The naturalist will now legalize partial birth abortions
The naturalist will now believe he has absolute knowledge of reality
Therefore the naturalist will be the only authority to be the only ones capable of explaining reality, including what is morally right or wrong, what is justifiable etc...

As you can see Bgood, my argument goes far beyond what a naturalist feels when he goes home....

I did not state these things.
I stated that some have a tendency to see things from the bottom up. And others the reverse.
This can lead to different world views.
The inability of an individual to come to terms with the others position is understandable.

I never stated that the naturalist will render the mind nothing, nor that they would have absolute knowledge of reality.
I am sure that there are many people in the world be they naturalist or not who believe they stand on firm ground in terms of what is real or not.

Perhaps you missed the whole point of the home analogy. That breaking down something to its components does not necessarily render something meaningless or nothing in that individuals worldview.

This only underscores my point. That it is difficult to put one's own perspective aside when attempting to understand opposing points of view.

I would also like to submit the following ideas.
Emotion tends to get in the way.
And attempts at understanding, readilly turn into attempts to undermine the opposing viewpoint.