UTT - Blog Post 7

Does Non- Naturalism explain truth, reality and knowledge?

       Well, it’s best to start out with a little definition of non-naturalism that we can work with to reference here: In essence, it’s the heart of the new-age movement, or in scientific circles, cosmic humanism. The standing belief is that basically everything is spiritual and nonreal. All of reality is really spiritual and can be anything from divine to a piece of an overall God to anything else—nothing at all is simply physical. When you take this worldview and contrast it with the ideas of truth, reality, and knowledge, what you find leaves you wanting way more answers than they can provide.

       Let’s look at truth first, since that one relates to the others. If truth is spiritual, rather than physical, what can we really know is true? Not much, since we live in a world of physical issues. Also, that could really be a problem for the scientific community, because they focus their efforts on the physical, but non-naturalism negates all of that, so their scientific truth would be rendered useless. Honestly, they would treat truth like it’s all relative, since we really don’t understand the spiritual all that well anyways, so for them, they would explain truth like a postmodern would. It just seems too easy and boring, so I would say that no, the non-naturalism cannot explain the existence of truth because they wouldn’t acknowledge anything concrete anyways.

       To build on that, their idea of knowledge is relative and thus there really is no secure knowledge. The same way with truth, knowledge is relative since we don’t understand the spiritual, and thus unable to be seen or unexplained. So, non-naturalism doesn’t present any real explanation of knowledge, just like it doesn’t with truth. There’s nothing to discuss because they can refer to anything as spiritual, which we cannot understand.

       Even further, what about the non-naturalistic idea of reality as a whole? Again, nonexistent. To them, there is nothing that is physical or real, so therefore reality is just like a bad joke—something that will pass away because it doesn’t exist; it’s all just an illusion. So they don’t believe in reality at all.

       Overall, non-naturalism feels like a wishy-washy way to whitewash religion into any and everything. After all, they see it as an illusion that would just pass away and can’t even provide satisfactory explanations for truth, knowledge, or reality.

UTT - Blog Post 6

What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism?  Be complete.

       Well, that’s a pretty large topic if I do say so myself, but let’s break it down a little, okay? While both are atheistic in nature, so they believe there is no God, they have different definitions. Naturalism is a bit of the more common philosophy, and it’s the idea that science rules all, there is only nature, and all of existence is in this one little physical box, and there is nothing outside the box. So, basically, there is only the physical reality because there is no supernatural. Dialectical materialism—I’m pretty sure it hasn’t caught on mainly because of the huge name and how complicated it sounds—is the idea that there is a constant evolution of sorts called the dialectic, or “conflict.” They claim there is a thesis, or big idea, that develops an antithesis, or opposite idea, and the two conflict until they merge to form a synthesis of the two. Then, as time goes on, they claim a new antithesis emerges to combat the synthesis, and it goes on from there in a constant state of conflict, which is seen as evolution by them. But, let’s look at the differences a bit more in-depth, shall we?

       The two ideas contrast pretty greatly on their views of science. For example, naturalism sees science as the be-all, end-all that should be applied to everything. Have an issue? Science can solve it. It all fits into the “box” that science makes. Of course, that can run into some real issues when you consider things that can’t be scientifically measured like logic, morals, and thought in general—then the box develops some holes and an outside source leaks in. Now, dialectical materialism—ugh, waaaaay too big a phrase, honestly—is a bit more lenient on that topic. They see the universe as interdependent and all things need each other to survive rather than science being everything. Their laws are more philosophical, based on the ideas of the dialectic, or conflict, to further society. So, to them, science still has a purpose, but they put far more into their view of philosophy, since that is what they govern their world with.

       As well, both hold differing views of the future, which is very significant for people who wish to ascribe to an atheistic viewpoint (citation for the idea goes to Victoria Sitterley). On one hand, naturalism is a very bleak outlook on the future and how life will progress: stuff happens, get used to it and get what you can before you’re gone for good. You get one shot, and if something happens to you, well, that’s too bad—you got shafted. At least it wasn’t me. I, personally, couldn’t stand that kind of viewpoint because it just feels so empty and useless that I would go insane (although I’m probably halfway there already, but you know what I mean). At least with dialectical materialism (I’m tempted to call it dm because it’s just too weird to type), they acknowledge conflict and that the best of both sides will come through and continue to be refined, even if it is with the process of evolution. You see, this way, at least the future looks brighter, and that offers some hope. Either way, though, you will die and get nothing in the end—one shot. Still depressing, but not as bad.

       So there you have it—some key differences between naturalism and dialectical materialism. While they may share some of the same viewpoints, they also split in a lot of important ways. And, honestly, neither sounds all that great because you still have no hope about life after death, just a quick and depressing end. How empty.

UTT - Blog Post 5

What are the philosophic problems that naturalism has when it tries to explain reality, truth and knowledge? 

        So, then, let’s talk about naturalism for a bit, shall we? After all, it is a rather prevalent view in today’s world, even though it has some pretty big theological holes. But, that’s why you gave me this question, right? To shine my little sardonic flashlight through those holes and explain why they’re there.

       Let’s start with a definition of naturalism, okay? Naturalism is like looking at nature as a box. You could go so far as to say that it, as a viewpoint, claims that the entire world and universe is one box of physical reality, and there is nothing outside of the box. Theologically, this denies any existence of miracles, God, or the existence of the supernatural, since it claims that the physical is all that there can be. So, with that in mind, how does naturalism respond to the origins of reality, truth, and knowledge? Believe me, not as well as you might expect.

       First of all let’s examine reality. The naturalist would claim that reality is just the physical and nothing else, right? But how does that explain the basic concepts that cannot be measured, such as our idea of the soul (does that mean all humans don’t have souls? Do we not have deeper feelings than just chemicals in the brain? Isn’t that a depressing thought?) or logic? They can’t be measured and they surely aren’t physical, so that would mean naturalistically they don’t exist. Yet, we acknowledge that these non-“real” concepts definitely do exist. So, reality itself can’t be seen from a naturalistic viewpoint because there is obviously more than simply the physical involved in everyday life. Strike one, as it were.

       For my next pitch, let me look at truth. According to the naturalist, truth would only result from physical actions, which we can definitely agree with—after all, actions speak louder than words, right? It’s pretty common knowledge. But, if that concept is extended to history, to our conversations, to daily interaction, how can we trust anything we read? That leads to extremist deconstruction and a breakdown of all truth and trust altogether, which would essentially dehinge our society. Not a good thing to try and start out with, especially since we have operated for so long under a concept of truth that hasn’t broken down yet. Aren’t there commonly-accepted truths that aren’t physically provable, like love, emotion in general, and thought? Those would become relative and unaccepted to a naturalistic world. How depressing, right? Strike two.

       And, for my last trick of the night, let’s take a look at knowledge from a naturalistic viewpoint. I know I touched on this earlier and this is probably dragging on for a bit since I know the reader here would much rather be out running up the Seahurst hill right now, so I’ll make this quick. Knowledge, as it is not physical is relative to a naturalist thinker. Therefore, we have no absolute truth, and once again we look at a destabilized society and social destruction. Really, not appealing from my point of view. Besides, there are areas of knowledge in science (which is odd since this is where most of the naturalistic thinkers reside), medicine, and philosophy that are all accepted as common and true, even if it isn’t physical. I mean, half of psychology is based on reactions, which can be physical but our inferences as to what is behind those reactions, which are accepted as scientifically accurate, are definitely not so concrete or physically provable. So, what gives? Are they right or not? I mean, isn’t even a naturalistic thinker basing his claim on some knowledge, which to him is relative and therefore incorrect? I smell an eternal loop here, so I’ll just leave it spinning. Strike three, and the visiting is taking a hike. =3

UTT - Blog Post 4

Sarah and Mark both believe that God is a human invention, with Mark adding that we should evolve past our "need" for God.  How would you answer that?

Well, that’s an interesting statement, and although I can’t really see what the reasoning behind this is, let me start by giving you a few questions to ask:

       First and foremost: 1. Why say this? What is so overwhelmingly offensive about the concept of God? That could lead to some interesting responses and open the door for you to discuss the ideas of morality (how we share a common Moral Law and how that is evidence for God, as argues a famous Christian author named C.S. Lewis—I’m sure you’ve heard of him), answering to a higher power than ourselves, and maybe a whole other host of issues with Christianity. Either way, it’d be a wonderful starting point to get further into what Sarah and Mark believe and how you would answer that.

       And, secondly, 2. How else do we explain the strangeness that surrounds us? I mean, honestly, there are some pretty crazy things out there around us that we really can’t explain. I mean, I remember hearing about there are better chances that a group of monkeys banging on typewriters would make a letter-perfect copy of Macbeth rather than this world evolve by chance—and that doesn’t even look at the complexity of the human body or our ecosystems. I mean, just look around on the Internet and you’ll see some good examples, although I can give you a few talking points off the top of my head: The woodpecker, with its insanely long tongue and skull formation and bone structure, all of which needed to appear at once for the bird to survive, or the human eye which we still don’t fully understand today, and which is more complex than our best silicon microchips. A really hard thing to evolve, right? I just can’t see that happening by chance. So, from that standpoint, God is our only real answer for the crazy stuff that we see in our world—and to “evolve” past that would leave humanity with a lot of unanswered questions that really need responses.

       Finally, 3. What would be left if we “evolved” past God? From their point of view, let’s give them something to think, about: We would have another kind of religion altogether—the religion of nothing. Think about how depressing that would be for society as a whole, to live for a bit and then you die and that’s all. There wouldn’t be anything to live for, so people would break out on their own and cause major social unrest. From a pragmatic view of society, that would be both dangerous and possibly fatal. But, honestly, this is a lesser point to the first two—try to focus on those if you can.

       Keep it coming, though. They ask good questions! =)

UTT - Blog Post 3

Here's blog post number 3, regarding Nate's video on Pantheism:

This video by Nate really has me kind of disturbed as I was watching it—because it has so many holes in it that I don’t really know where to start. But, from a logical perspective, not even a purely Christian  I’d like to take on at least 3 ideas to give you some discussion points and an idea of where to start when discussing this with Nate in the future. He really needs to look at this thing objectively, because it honestly leaves a lot to be desired.

1. I am the All and the universe exists to serve me – This statement really doesn’t make too much sense in the long run. I mean, if everything exists to serve me and make me who I am, then how come I can die or be hurt by something? A bolt of lightning sure won’t be serving me when it strikes me on the head and fries me all the way through, at least as far as I know. I honestly would prefer to survive. As well, he specifically mentioned atoms—and those can be mutated and multiply in their cellular form to cause cancer, and that wouldn’t be serving me either. Why can’t I control if I have cancer, if my atoms and cells exist to serve me? I don’t know why, but this idea just seems so self-centered.

2. But, my friend is also the All and all people, animals, and anything living are all neighboring “Alls” – I can’t agree with this either because it really contradicts itself. If the universe itself exists to serve me, how can it also exist to serve them? I don’t understand that—I thought the whole universe was just about me, according to Pantheism. That just doesn’t add up. Besides, it doesn’t really explain the ideas of altruism or human affection because it doesn’t benefit me specifically, and that’s all I’m supposed to do.

3. The All is infinite and never had a beginning or an end – But we have to have a history. If there was only infinity, where would the present be? It wouldn’t, honestly, because the present doesn’t really exist in a system like that. History needs to have a starting point or else we wouldn’t be here at all. So that, right there, is one of the huge problems with this theology, and one that I, personally, can’t get past.

4. The All can’t be understood – This is just a quick point in closing. This feels like a real cop-out because it means that he’s not responsible for accuracy or explaining what he believes. He just claims that nobody can understand the All so we don’t really know; we just have to believe with no evidence and just all by faith. Maybe try and ask him about evidence for what he believes? That could bring up some interesting answers.

Hope that helps. =)