Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndyTheBear; sionnsar; Stultis; Tax-chick; Anoreth; Dead Corpse
"My understanding of Naturalism is one where it is more ambitious. It includes the assumption that no events may have super natural causes. For example if I claim I recovered from a sickness because Jesus healed me, it would say, no, you must have gotten healed from natural causes. And if I claimed something that excluded natural causes such as my leg suddenly grew back in an instant then it would say, that I was either delusional or lying, or possibly nature works quite a bit differently than we thought. However it would never allow for a super natural agent such as God to have decided to heal my leg."

"Naturalism presumes that there is no God, or other super natural agents that transcend nature."

In searching about for a proper response to your post, I came across an interesting article. In a nutshell, the contention is that if you want to talk about thinking, it is necessary to think about talking.

This is a long article, but it is surprisingly rewarding. I also feel confidant that you will learn a few new words, as well as a new way of looking at a few things. You'll be surprised at which names and historical events get mentioned.

Initially, I researched Naturalism. I can see why you think it is a limited philosophy. It is by definition a limited philosophy.

Then I went looking for Scientific Empiricism. Gradually I came to a focus on the linked article. This is interesting stuff. Try not to discard it as too convoluted, off the subject, or difficult to understand. After all, if this can exist in our world ...

... then such as the rest of us can comprehend the meaning and import of the article I linked.

Where does it lead?

To the question why Plato had not developed science, ... because he got things backward.

... Plato started from rhetoric, which had displaced myth and poetry as processors of knowledge. But rhetoric was based upon persuasion in the vernacular. ... Consequently it was unsuited for dealing with the Form of wisdom in the realm of Idea.
Later, speaking not of Plato, but of the author of this philosophy ...
... he was looking for rules for the behavior of phenomena rather than causal properties of matter as such.
.

Anyway, this is going to require a great deal more study and reflection, for me as well as anyone else who wants to follow these faintly echoing footsteps.

71 posted on 12/19/2009 3:10:47 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It seems to me that a wise PALINa woman would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: NicknamedBob

Thanks, Bob. I’ll print it out later when I can use the computer that’s hooked to the printer. DP is configuring something at this time.

But honestly, I don’t believe Marilyn read a single word of Joyce.


72 posted on 12/19/2009 3:36:02 PM PST by Tax-chick (Here I come, with a sharp knife and a clear conscience!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: NicknamedBob
Initially, I researched Naturalism. I can see why you think it is a limited philosophy. It is by definition a limited philosophy.

Indeed their definition is close to what I had in mind.

I used to think of Naturalism as compelling, and even felt threatened by it (as I was raised Episcopalian). However, I have an insatiable appetite for thinking things through, and eventually realized Naturalism had irreconcilable flaws. After that I resented the hold it had on me, and I currently am inclined to lampoon it.

75 posted on 12/19/2009 4:19:28 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson