BGoodForGoodSake wrote:He doesn't use that definition of naturalism. There are connotative meanings to words when taken in context.
Which definition of naturalism does he use then? He acknowledges the use of a metaphysical assumption to arrive at whatever definition of naturalism he uses. What is the underlying foundation of the metaphysical assumption? Is it theistic or not? You already showed that you believe it is deistic.
Here are some definitions, from a spectrum of sources.
"Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances."
http://www.naturalism.org/descriptions.htm
"Naturalism
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism."
" * (I) If nature is understood in the restricted sense of physical, or material, nature, naturalism will be the tendency to look upon the material universe as the only reality, to reduce all laws to mechanical uniformities and to deny the dualism of spirit and matter. Mental and moral processes will be but special manifestations of matter rigorously governed by its laws.
* (II) The dualism of mind and matter may be admitted, but only as a dualism of modes or appearances of the same identical substance. Nature includes manifold phenomena and a common substratum of the phenomena, but for its actual course and for its ultimate explanation, it requires no principle distinct from itself. In this supposition, naturalism denies the existence of a transcendent cause of the world and endeavours to give a full account of all processes by the unfolding of potencies essential to the universe under laws that are necessary and eternal.
* (III) Finally, if the existence of a transcendent First Cause, or personal God, is admitted as the only satisfactory explanation of the world, Naturalism claims that the laws governing the activity and development of irrational and of rational beings are never interfered with. It denies the possibility, or at least the fact, of any transitory intervention of God in nature, and of any revelation and permanent supernatural order for man." Catholic Encyclopedia
"naturalism
Naturalism is a metaphysical theory that holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast "machine" or "organism," devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires.....Naturalism does not deny the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation." Skeptic Dictionary
"The naturalist maintains that all of what there is belongs to the natural world. Obviously, a great deal turns on how nature is understood. But the key point is that an accurate, adequate conception of the world does not (according to the naturalist) include reference to supernatural entities or agencies. According to the naturalist, there are no Platonic forms, Cartesian mental substances, Kantian noumena, or any other agents, powers, or entities that do not (in some broad sense) belong to nature. As a very loose characterization, it may suffice to say that nature is the order of things accessible to us through observation and the methods of the empirical sciences. If some other method, such as a priori theorizing, is needed to have access to the alleged entity or to the truth in question, then it is not a real entity or a genuine truth. According to the naturalist, there is only the natural order." Encyclopedia of Philosophy
And what kind of naturalism is this? The kind that excludes miracles and whatnot.
Again, this proves my point. Does the Bible state that God interacts with the real world or not? On what basis do you exclude "miracles and whatnot"?
And why?
Because science is practical and pragmatic, how does one plan to observe a miracle and test the causes behind it?
Science is practical and pragmatic only for non-teleological sciences. Furthermore, and I guess this is a point I wll have to make several times during this discussion, your statement commits the logical fallacy of fact-value seperation. How do you right now account for the origin of life and the universe?
How do you know that the laws of nature are not the direct act of God? Is it possible that every tiny vibration and movement of every atom is the hand of God?
It's all perspective don't you think? Or do you beleive that God is limited like a man.
The point is that naturalism does not allow you to make assumptions like those, as can be seen above. It by definition requires the cause to be materialistic.
Then what causes the regularities? Science studies the regularities, it makes no mention of what caused them.
No, the assumption is that it is a natural cause. Logically, for naturalism of any kind to remain internally consistent, it needs to make that assumption.
Of course I believe that God is the cause of those regularities. That is inconsistent with the closed system approach of naturalism.
The fact remains that much of what we discovered in science can be described mechanically. Do you reject the results of experimentation which have brought forth the modern world?
As I already mentioned, that applies to non-teleological sciences, and I have no quarrel with that.
If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?
Not according to naturalism. And once again you are relegating God to a secondary cause, subject to a naturalistic explanation.
If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God.
And if you don't believe that, then what? It is equally valid in terms of its fact-value to an atheist.
The type of naturalism required to conduct science, is the kind which limits studies to natural occurances, this does not reject God a priori.
If you are referring to methodological naturalism, if you claim that it does not reject God a-priori, can you please describe the process under methodological naturalism whereby we can determine the existence of God, or His causal actions in nature?
Again, naturalism, in whichever guise, by definition excludes the metaphysical, even though it makes some metaphysical assumptions of its own.
My request still stands, please show how naturalism and theism is logically compatible. Theism by definition includes the involvement of God in His creation, every day, while naturalism excludes the possibility of that. Any attempt to reconcile the two requires compromising to one side or the other. God becomes a deistic God, relegated to secondary causes or naturalism is nonsense, as far as teleological or origin science is concerned.
) which adopts the idea that since God created or unpins the world within which we live, then studying nature can also tell us something of God.
