well, science does not make claims about the supernatural world in general,
but in order to function, it assumes, that the supernatural is not interacting with the natural.
If we assume christianity and science, to be true, it would be either contradicting, or making all scientific evidence invalid, that would be the end of science.
If a naturalist claims, that nothing supernatural is existing, he goes beyond the borders of science, but this does apply to deistic deities and gods only.
Christianity and science don't really contradict each other. If you assume both to be true at most only few scientific theories would be called into question. It wouldn't mean the end of science. It would only mean that the atheist couldn't hide behind it anymore.
No, the whole concepts on evidence, that is fundamental to science, bases on the assumption, that nothing interacts with our world, for that we cannot find evidence.
Of course this means, that it's impossible, to find evidence for it (the supernatural), not, that our technology is not good enough, to do so.
the very concept of "supernatural" is self-contradictory and, therefore, false. saying something supernatural exists is like saying there is a black crayon that is not black. science is perception and it's rules. perception is natural. imagination is limited by perception. for this reason one cannot truly imagine or speculate the supernatural. there is no "outside" the universe because "outside" is a property OF the universe. there is no "above" or "beyond" because these too are natural.
I looked it up and it says philosophy is, "the rational investigation of the truths..." so it looks like you're right! Based on this definition, naturalism isn't just "a" philosophy, it is THE philosophy. Even in imagination we cannot think outside of our 4-Dimensional prison, for everything we imagine is only a rearrangement of what we've already seen.
Dictionary of Philosophy (SECOND EDITION) by Thomas Mautner
"Naturalism: (in modern METAPHYSICS) the view that everything is part of nature, an all-encompassing world of space and time. It implies a rejection of traditional beliefs in supernatural beings or other entities supposedly beyond the ken of science."
Take note that this is a metaphysical position. Metaphysics is a discipline within philosophy..Therefore its a philosophical position.
This Theist vs. Atheist debate is a fight over words NOT meanings...that's what I've realized after reading your definition. You may look at a ray of Holy light and say, "it is supernatural because it is from God" while I may say "it is natural because it exists". All we are doing is applying different labels to the same thing. It's like if I saw a cat and said, "it is xy2" and you see the same cat and say, "it is rx2".
...This is strange. You presuppose that this light is "Holy". How would you define this word?
And I would agree that your beliefs shed light on how you look at the world.
But the question isn't how your views make you look at things, rather the question is: Is how the way you look at things the right way? Or, stated differently, do your beliefs correspond to the reality you propose they do?
I'm actually on the atheist side so I wouldn't presuppose that. The only point I'm trying to make is that theists use "supernatural" terminology like "holy light" to describe things that atheists label with scientific terminology like "chemical processes". The fact remains that there is "something", we all see it, and we give it different labels. I lean toward atheism because "supernatural" is a self-contradictory, and theism depends on it.
What I mean to say is that Dr. Craig already rejects naturalism like Christians reject Islam. People who reject a thing tend to misinterpret or misunderstand it, so you're best bet would be to ask an atheist if you want the most accurate answer. Another metaphor I could use is: it's like asking an atheist to explain the Holy Trinity.
"you're best bet would be to ask an atheist if you want the most accurate answer"
*your* :)
In this case he actually did. The committee (which was composed of naturalists) withdrew those statements because they knew they were implying a philosophy.
Furthermore, I don't care to look on Youtube to get a definition for what naturalism is.
That is why I quoted from a dictionary of philosophy.
"Is naturalism the same as science?"
Nope...
Naturalism is a philosophy
Science is a process of getting knowledge in according to rational discourse
Debating4n00bs 1 year ago
well, science does not make claims about the supernatural world in general,
but in order to function, it assumes, that the supernatural is not interacting with the natural.
If we assume christianity and science, to be true, it would be either contradicting, or making all scientific evidence invalid, that would be the end of science.
If a naturalist claims, that nothing supernatural is existing, he goes beyond the borders of science, but this does apply to deistic deities and gods only.
Nederdien 2 years ago
Christianity and science don't really contradict each other. If you assume both to be true at most only few scientific theories would be called into question. It wouldn't mean the end of science. It would only mean that the atheist couldn't hide behind it anymore.
lockdown260 2 years ago 5
No, the whole concepts on evidence, that is fundamental to science, bases on the assumption, that nothing interacts with our world, for that we cannot find evidence.
Of course this means, that it's impossible, to find evidence for it (the supernatural), not, that our technology is not good enough, to do so.
Nederdien 2 years ago
@lockdown260 If that is true it is because Christianity keeps redefining itself everytime science proves one of it's closely held beliefs wrong.
spoddie 1 year ago
@spoddie Mmhmm. and which closely held Christian belief has been proven wrong by science?
lockdown260 1 year ago
@lockdown260 creation and the flood, and that's only the first nine chapters of the Bible.
spoddie 1 year ago
@spoddie Neither of those have been disproven by any scientific study.
lockdown260 1 year ago
@lockdown260 LOL
spoddie 1 year ago
world views in conflict. nothing is new under the sun
shedininja001 2 years ago
they shouldn't have asked him this. it's like asking a Christian if Islam is correct.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
@WolfSyndrome wrong
shedininja001 2 years ago
why?
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
Naturalisem is a pholipical idea that all is natural. Thats nothing like asking if Islam is correct. AT ALL.
Nor was it asking if naturalisem is corect. Its clarifying that naturlisem is not science.
shedininja001 2 years ago
the very concept of "supernatural" is self-contradictory and, therefore, false. saying something supernatural exists is like saying there is a black crayon that is not black. science is perception and it's rules. perception is natural. imagination is limited by perception. for this reason one cannot truly imagine or speculate the supernatural. there is no "outside" the universe because "outside" is a property OF the universe. there is no "above" or "beyond" because these too are natural.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
CONCLUSION: Naturalism is NOT a philosophy.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
everything you said is philophy. I am sad that you can not understand that. But, good luck.
shedininja001 2 years ago
define philosophy.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
get this book, its called a dictonary, and look it up.
shedininja001 2 years ago
I looked it up and it says philosophy is, "the rational investigation of the truths..." so it looks like you're right! Based on this definition, naturalism isn't just "a" philosophy, it is THE philosophy. Even in imagination we cannot think outside of our 4-Dimensional prison, for everything we imagine is only a rearrangement of what we've already seen.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
Dictionary of Philosophy (SECOND EDITION) by Thomas Mautner
"Naturalism: (in modern METAPHYSICS) the view that everything is part of nature, an all-encompassing world of space and time. It implies a rejection of traditional beliefs in supernatural beings or other entities supposedly beyond the ken of science."
Take note that this is a metaphysical position. Metaphysics is a discipline within philosophy..Therefore its a philosophical position.
TerraFirma92 2 years ago
This Theist vs. Atheist debate is a fight over words NOT meanings...that's what I've realized after reading your definition. You may look at a ray of Holy light and say, "it is supernatural because it is from God" while I may say "it is natural because it exists". All we are doing is applying different labels to the same thing. It's like if I saw a cat and said, "it is xy2" and you see the same cat and say, "it is rx2".
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
@WolfSyndrome
...This is strange. You presuppose that this light is "Holy". How would you define this word?
And I would agree that your beliefs shed light on how you look at the world.
But the question isn't how your views make you look at things, rather the question is: Is how the way you look at things the right way? Or, stated differently, do your beliefs correspond to the reality you propose they do?
TerraFirma92 2 years ago
"You presuppose that this light is 'Holy'."
I'm actually on the atheist side so I wouldn't presuppose that. The only point I'm trying to make is that theists use "supernatural" terminology like "holy light" to describe things that atheists label with scientific terminology like "chemical processes". The fact remains that there is "something", we all see it, and we give it different labels. I lean toward atheism because "supernatural" is a self-contradictory, and theism depends on it.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
@WolfSyndrome
Since I'm interested, let me ask you something. How would you define a miracle?
TerraFirma92 2 years ago
God is natural as well, in Jesus. And supernatural, in that He made the universe. Both are true.
Keep studing :)
shedininja001 2 years ago
Do you reject philosophy?
TerraFirma92 2 years ago
What exactly are you asking? Please clarify because your statement "it's like asking a Christian if Islam is correct" is nebulous.
TerraFirma92 2 years ago
What I mean to say is that Dr. Craig already rejects naturalism like Christians reject Islam. People who reject a thing tend to misinterpret or misunderstand it, so you're best bet would be to ask an atheist if you want the most accurate answer. Another metaphor I could use is: it's like asking an atheist to explain the Holy Trinity.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
@WolfSyndrome
"you're best bet would be to ask an atheist if you want the most accurate answer"
*your* :)
In this case he actually did. The committee (which was composed of naturalists) withdrew those statements because they knew they were implying a philosophy.
Furthermore, I don't care to look on Youtube to get a definition for what naturalism is.
That is why I quoted from a dictionary of philosophy.
TerraFirma92 2 years ago
Great answer from Dr Craig!!
xtrashed 2 years ago
good answer.
diuryl 2 years ago
Excellent from Dr Craig as usual.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago 9