Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Science versus Naturalism - Cosmology

Expand Messages
  • Janis
    ... who ve been here awhile can attest, I ve left before and eventually return. But I reply to your invitation with an invitation to you to join the discussion
    Message 1 of 27 , Oct 1, 2006
      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts"
      <ken@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, Peter Ilgensch├╝tz
      <spitfire2525@> wrote:
      > Peter: Thanks for your reply and invitation to stay! As those
      who've been here awhile can attest, I've left before and eventually
      return. But I reply to your invitation with an invitation to you to
      join the discussion at appliednaturalism. I'm not hopeful that debate
      with supernaturalists will be very productive. We need a more
      constructive approach to memeing naturalism, though I support those
      who confront the religious head-on, here and elsewhere.
      >
      > Ken

      Janis: Ken, I can see that your gripe is formal religion and
      supernaturalism. That's okay, but I think you are failing in one
      aspect and that is understanding the reason people need religion in
      the first place. Whether it is true or not true is secondary to the
      need to have faith in a world that is chaotic. If naturalism can
      help to lessen the chaos, then religion will die a natural death.
      That is what you fail to see. You are placing the cart before the
      horse. You can continue to confront religious people head on, and
      you will only get a bruised ego and a very bad headache (for good
      reason), regardless of your "good" intentions. People want to feel
      better even if what they believe in is totally without proof. If
      they can live happier, why would you take this away from them unless
      you can replace it with something better? You haven't done that. I
      don't mean to bash you, but I am confused as to your motivation,
      otherwise, since you would have at least wanted to understand my
      thoughts (which do have merit, by the way) on the subject of
      determinism. I still contend that you are threatened by me, and I am
      not sure why. :(
      >
    • griggsy1
      ... reason to invoke God as ... have been judged to be a ... for the universe, or the ... physics --- there are ... completely formal, ... God would just make
      Message 2 of 27 , Dec 9, 2007
        --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts"
        <ken@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sean M. Carroll:
        >
        > "Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no
        reason to invoke God as
        > part of this description. In the various ways in which God might
        have been judged to be a
        > helpful hypothesis --- such as explaining the initial conditions
        for the universe, or the
        > particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle
        physics --- there are
        > alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a
        completely formal,
        > materialist description. I am therefore led to conclude that adding
        God would just make
        > things more complicated, and this hypothesis should be rejected by
        scientific standards.
        > It's a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern
        cosmology; but the dialogue
        > between people who feel differently will undboubtedly last a good
        while longer."
        >
        > Ken
        >
        >
        > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <ldg994@>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > The philosophy of naturalism is claimed to be based in science.
        So,
        > > let's go to science and ask the question: Does science tell us
        that
        > > the world is natural? Surprisingly, science is increasingly
        giving us
        > > new evidence that the world is not natural. In fact, science
        gives us
        > > much evidence that the world is quite unnatural. There are dozens
        of
        > > examples that can be found in various scientific disciplines, but
        here
        > > I give a single example of the most fundamental kind: the state
        of the
        > > universe.
        > >
        > > In a recent issue of Nature (April 27, 2006) is an article by
        Sean M.
        > > Carroll entitled `Is our Universe Natural?' Mr. Carroll is a
        physicist
        > > at the Enrico Fermi Institute in Chicago. The article begins with
        the
        > > statement, "When considering both the state in which we find our
        > > current Universe, and the laws of physics it obeys, we discover
        > > features that seem remarkably unnatural to us." Mr. Carroll goes
        on to
        > > describe two sets of empirical data that put our universe in the
        > > unnatural category. First, "the early Universe was in a state of
        > > incredibly low entropy" and has "delicately tuned features." It
        turns
        > > out that without the low entropy and finely tuned features, the
        > > galaxies, stars and planets would not form and we would not be
        here.
        > > Second, the five characteristic scales of the universe are
        enormously
        > > different from what should occur in a natural universe. These
        scales
        > > are derived from the laws of physics. Therefore, the laws of
        physics
        > > give us an unnatural universe.
        > >
        > > Physicists are not content with an unnatural universe and have put
        > > forward a variety of ideas to get back to a `natural universe',
        hence
        > > the title of Mr. Carroll's paper. Most of these ideas use some
        form of
        > > an infinity of universes, sometimes called `multiverses'. The
        problem
        > > is, as Mr. Carroll acknowledges, all these ideas are highly
        > > speculative. Not only that, they cannot be verified because the
        > > multiverses cannot be observed. Even worse, there is no way to
        > > disprove the ideas, so they exist, for now, on the fringe of
        science.
        > > Thus we are stuck with an unnatural universe. But how can this be?
        > > After hundreds of years of advances in the natural sciences,
        enormous
        > > sophistication in our instruments for taking the measure of the
        > > microscopic and the macroscopic, we discover that our universe is
        not
        > > natural.
        > >
        > > Other disciplines of science also give empirical evidence that the
        > > world is not natural. In future posts I will give examples from
        > > astronomy, physics, biology and astrobiology. The empirical data
        is
        > > relentlessly converging on an unnatural world.
        > >
        > > But, you say, science is always updating our worldview. Perhaps
        > > someday the pendulum will change and science will tell us the
        world is
        > > natural. Perhaps cosmologists will find evidence for
        multiverses.
        > > Yes, maybe someday. In the meantime, naturalists, have faith.
        > > Science is turning naturalism into a faith-based philosophy.
        > >
        > The presumpgion of naturalism is that natural causes are efficient,
        necessary, primary and sufficient.This neither begs the qestion nor
        sandbags theists but is merely to ask for evidence of divinity and is
        common ground.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.