he problem is with the nature of philosophy not with my statement describing the incompatible nature of supernatural assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

No the problem is with the opinion expressed by your statement. Clearly when the assumption of the supernatural is necessitated by a combination of the evidence, the definition of "natural", and logic, then philosophers ought to assume the supernatural. Your opinion is that philosophy should stop short of assuming the supernatural, even if the supernatural is necessitated by the logic. That's why your opinion is faulty.

We either have evidence for a natural mechanism or have zero evidence for a natural mechanism. This is the true dichotomy. — Nickolasgaspar

You left out evidence for something which has no natural mechanism. Take free will for example. We have evidence of free will, and there is no natural mechanism to explain it.

In order for the supernatural to be part the discussion, you will first need to demonstrating the existence of the supernatural. — Nickolasgaspar

This is not true. All that is required is evidence of something which is not natural. This effectively demonstrates the necessity for the supernatural to be part of the discussion.

Logic dictates that you need to have evidence for your claim( the supernatural). The lack of evidence for an other claim doesn't automatically render yours the answer. — Nickolasgaspar

As I said, evidence that there is something which is not natural, is evidence of the supernatural.

On in particular got my hackles up - "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful. — T Clark

Love your objection to the claim of Darwin’s alleged thrill-seeking nature, noting how the frivolous swashbuckler spent forty years studying worms in his backyard. :lol:

He also sired ten children in that period, so it wasn't all worms and pigeons.

No the problem is with the opinion expressed by your statement. Clearly when the assumption of the supernatural is necessitated by a combination of the evidence, the definition of "natural", and logic, then philosophers ought to assume the supernatural. Your opinion is that philosophy should stop short of assuming the supernatural, even if the supernatural is necessitated by the logic. That's why your opinion is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Logic can never necessitate an ill defined unfalsifiable assumption about a realm.
This is really simple. The supernatural is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we are unable to identify the cause of a phenomenon , we rush to make up an explanation with magical properties that defy natural roles. That is intellectual lazyness and has been proven a the main reason of delaying our epistemic advances. Every time we managed to solve a mystery we never verified anything supernatural.

You left out evidence for something which has no natural mechanism. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No when lacking evidence for a natural mechanism, means that we ....lack evidence for a natural mechanism. It doesn't mean that we have evidence for the supernatural!

-"Take free will for example. We have evidence of free will, and there is no natural mechanism to explain it."
-Whatlol? You are pulling my leg right? We don't have free will. We are bind by our biology and peer pressure and environmental influences etc. We have will that ins't free. We only have some really brief bursts of freedom mainly for superficial choices.
This is a theological not a philosophical concept.

This is not true. All that is required is evidence of something which is not natural. This effectively demonstrates the necessity for the supernatural to be part of the discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Declaring something you made up or don't understand non natural is not a good way to prove the supernatural.
Sorry its special pleading to change the standards of logic just because you dig magic.

As I said, evidence that there is something which is not natural, is evidence of the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry but we have no evidence of anything not natural. We have natural processes that we understand and natural processes that we don't understand.
You are making a fallacious argument from ignorance...and in the case of free will its a fallacy from Personal incredulity.

try to define what the preternatural is for you and try not to use an argument from ignorance (pointing to phenomena that you think they are non natural).

- "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful. — T Clark

That thread wasn't moved. you said

seems to me that setting that up as a conflict between Darwin and Aristotle is misleading. — T Clark

which as I mentioned before is spot on.

Logic can never necessitate an ill defined unfalsifiable assumption about a realm. — Nickolasgaspar

It seems you really do not understand the nature of logic.

Just because we are unable to identify the cause of a phenomenon , we rush to make up an explanation with magical properties that defy natural roles. — Nickolasgaspar

You are not reading what I said. I said when we are able to determine, that it is impossible that the phenomenon could have had a "natural" cause, according to how we define "natural", then we can conclude "supernatural". I am not talking about being unable to identify a cause, I am talking about identifying a cause as supernatural.

No when lacking evidence for a natural mechanism, means that we ....lack evidence for a natural mechanism. It doesn't mean that we have evidence for the supernatural! — Nickolasgaspar

Look Nickolasgaspar, no evidence of a natural mechanism for a particular thing, is evidence of no natural mechanism for that thing, no matter how you spin it. Now, when the evidence becomes such that it is impossible that there is a natural mechanism, according to accepted definition of "natural", then you can keep searching for that non-existent natural mechanism forever, which you will not find because there is no evidence of it, or you can turn around to face reality, and make an attempt to understand the supernatural.

-Whatlol? You are pulling my leg right? We don't have free will. We are bind by our biology and peer pressure and environmental influences etc. We have will that ins't free. We only have some really brief bursts of freedom mainly for superficial choices.
This is a theological not a philosophical concept. — Nickolasgaspar

I see it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you.

seems to me that setting that up as a conflict between Darwin and Aristotle is misleading.
— T Clark
which as I mentioned before is spot on. — Banno

Thanks for the clarification.

It seems you really do not understand the nature of logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can not promote an argument from ignorance fallacy and accuse me for not understanding the nature of logic. Do you see the irony in that statement?

I said when we are able to determine, that it is impossible that the phenomenon could have had a "natural" cause, according to how we define "natural", then we can conclude "supernatural". I — Metaphysician Undercover

-Really , you can demonstrate impossibility and distinquish it from personal incredulity? How would you do that???? Do you know everything there is to know about natural causes? Really?
How can you verify a supernatural cause when you don't have a way to observe it or describe it? How can you be sure that the cause of phenomenon is not just a natural mechanism that you just happen to ignore?
After all our long history of epistemology has proven that every time we rushed to declare something supernatural, when we finally managed to explain it...the explanation was never a supernatural one!
These are not serious arguments sir!!!!

Look Nickolasgaspar, no evidence of a natural mechanism for a particular thing, is evidence of no natural mechanism for that thing, no matter how you spin it. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Yes I understand that this is what you believe The question is why would you ever hold such an irrational belief!
No evidence means.... no evidence, it doen't mean positive evidence or even indications for a magical realm.
Any claim SHOULD stand on its own merits or else you just end up with an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again you don't have a way to exclude our inability to observe or puzzle together facts that can provide evidence for a mechanism.
And again, we have been doing that for ages...positing supernatural stories to explain things.
Mysteries do not qualify as answers for other mysteries, plus every single time we solved a mystery, the solution turned out to be natural.....we have never verified a supernatural cause.

We can not justify the supernatural as an explanatory tool in our metaphysics. Its intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Don't you care avoiding fallacies in your arguments?

Now, when the evidence becomes such that it is impossible that there is a natural mechanism, according to accepted definition of "natural", then you can keep searching for that non-existent natural mechanism forever, which you will not find because there is no evidence of it, or you can turn around to face reality, and make an attempt to understand the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

-You DON'T KNOW that. Impossibility needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
You are confusing the term "there is no evidence" with " our current facts are not enough to provide evidence". You are poisoning the well with your assumptions(one more fallacy).
You don't know if we have all the facts and if advances in our technology will allow new observations to produce additional facts that could support our evidence for a mechanisms. (the history of science...)

There isn't anything to understand about the supernatural because it's a made up bin where magical thinkers through everything we currently don't understand in there. The supernatural is ill defined so it has no explanatory power. We don't observe or verify supernatural causation and we shouldn't use it on things we currently do not understand.
Imagine if we stopped searching for the cause of diseases because our superstitious ancestors came up with supernatural explanations like gods and theodicy,evils spirits , evil eye, cursing etc.
Again your arguments are superstitious and outdated.

I see it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Superstitious beliefs in the supernatural is NOT philosophy.
Philosophy should produce wise claims to assit our understanding of the world....not to point to mystery worlds we have to way to testing them...lol

The supernatural is Pseudo Philosophy.

Really , you can demonstrate impossibility and distinquish it from personal incredulity? How would you do that???? — Nickolasgaspar

We use logic to demonstrate impossibility.

No evidence means.... no evidence, it doen't mean positive evidence or even indications for a magical realm. — Nickolasgaspar

No evidence of X, means no evidence of X, but no evidence of X might still be evidence of Y. No evidence of X does not mean no evidence absolutely as you imply here. You seem to be ignoring what I've reiterated numerous times, that "natural" requires a definition.

You don't know if we have all the facts and if advances in our technology will allow new observations to produce additional facts that could support our evidence for a mechanisms. — Nickolasgaspar

Are you suggesting that we change the definition of "natural" in the future, to allow for what would now be necessarily supernatural.

There isn't anything to understand about the supernatural because it's a made up bin where magical thinkers through everything we currently don't understand in there. The supernatural is ill defined so it has no explanatory power. We don't observe or verify supernatural causation and we shouldn't use it on things we currently do not understand.
Imagine if we stopped searching for the cause of diseases because our superstitious ancestors came up with supernatural explanations like gods and theodicy,evils spirits , evil eye, cursing etc.
Again your arguments are superstitious and outdated. — Nickolasgaspar

I propose we define "natural" in the common way, as "not artificial". Do you agree that artificial things must be supernatural?

Superstitious beliefs in the supernatural is NOT philosophy.
Philosophy should produce wise claims to assit our understanding of the world....not to point to mystery worlds we have to way to testing them...lol

The supernatural is Pseudo Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

A discussion of free will is philosophy. And any hypocrite who denies oneself free will is incapable of understanding reality. So until you change your attitude, it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you.

We use logic to demonstrate impossibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

No no no no...no no no.
When we deal with vague existential claims that we have zero data to contract logical evaluations, the only way is by an objective methodology that is capable to verify any thing that exists.

No evidence of X, means no evidence of X, but no evidence of X might still be evidence of Y. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No.since we have never demonstrated Y to be possible so we can not just assume it and pretend we solved the problem.
No evidence of an x mechanism means that we don't know if we have all the facts to arrive to a reasonable conclusion.

-" You seem to be ignoring what I've reiterated numerous times, that "natural" requires a definition."
- So you really don't know the definition of natural, but you insist in declaring phenomena that you don't understand "supernatural".
In Science Natural is every process or phenomenon that manifest in reality through verified building blocks of the physical would and or their advanced properties.
When a claim states that a specific phenomenon/process is non contingent to those elements and their properties, that is a supernatural claims.

I propose we define "natural" in the common way, as "not artificial". Do you agree that artificial things must be supernatural? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, since, we as human produce artificial things, but they are not supernatura because in order for them to exist a long line of natural processes must take place first. (i.e. QM, emergence of atoms, emergence of molecules, emergence of chemical properties, emergence of biological properties and structures, emergence of mental properties, emergence of skills through training....thus production of a artificial things (i.e. jewellery).
In order for an artifact to be supernatural that would demand the existence of mind properties non contingent to the causal line described above somehow interacting in matter and producing the artifact.

A discussion of free will is philosophy. And any hypocrite who denies oneself free will is incapable of understanding reality. So until you change your attitude, it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure it is, and by the time we introduce our scientific knowledge we realize that we are not really free to make free choices.
Our biology, our peers, our given needs and circumstances limit our free will in really mundane choices.

I will suggest to you to educate yourself on Human behavior. Try the Robert Sapolsky's book "Behave" or his lectures and talks on Human behavior.
The next time you mesh up your diet or you do something that you now found it stupid ....start questioning your misconceptions.
If free will was a real thing.....marketing would NOT work.
Take care mate. I hope my definitions help your steer yourself away from magical answers like the supernatural.

btw our efforts to free our will from all this power noise produced by biological drives,environmental influences, peer pressure, cultural indoctrination and prototypes, pleasure traps of cost effective andy and fast rewards etc etc) is not a supernatural phenomenon...its just cognitive deliberation. Its a well understood phenomenon and it assist many our our cognitive abilities that allow us to reflect on scenarios.

In Science Natural is every process or phenomenon that manifest in reality through verified building blocks of the physical would and or their advanced properties. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks", but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks". That's what we deal with in metaphysics. If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural. Do you agree?

No, since, we as human produce artificial things, but they are not supernatura because in order for them to exist a long line of natural processes must take place first. (i.e. QM, emergence of atoms, emergence of molecules, emergence of chemical properties, emergence of biological properties and structures, emergence of mental properties, emergence of skills through training....thus production of a artificial things (i.e. jewellery). — Nickolasgaspar

That natural things are necessary for the effect A, does not exclude the possibility that supernatural things are also required for the A effect.

In order for an artifact to be supernatural that would demand the existence of mind properties non contingent to the causal line described above somehow interacting in matter and producing the artifact. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, remember I mentioned "free will". And the hypocrite that you are, chose to reject the reality of free will.

Sure it is, and by the time we introduce our scientific knowledge we realize that we are not really free to make free choices.
Our biology, our peers, our given needs and circumstances limit our free will in really mundane choices. — Nickolasgaspar

That the extent to the freedom of the will is limited, does not necessitate the conclusion that it is not real. Look at the above, natural causes are required for the occurrence of A , and also supernatural causes are required for A. If it is a fact that the natural effectively restricts the supernatural, this does not necessitate the conclusion that the supernatural has been excluded.

Hasty generalization fallacy. Philosophical criticism and rejection of theism in no way entails social or political "hostility" to theists. Your baseless claim that antitheists/atheists are just "bigots against theists" is nothing but an ad hominem.

Sure, the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks", but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks". That's what we deal with in metaphysics. If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

-"the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks",
-yes
-"but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks".
-yes
-" That's what we deal with in metaphysics."
-yes
-"If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural.Do you agree?"
-No, how do you prove that?

-"That natural things are necessary for the effect A, does not exclude the possibility that supernatural things are also required for the A effect."
-What natural things are necessary of is irrelevant to how we establish and verify possibilities.The possibility of the supernatural must be demonstrated, not assumed.
How can you do that? Easy, by just pointing to a single example where the supernatural has being demonstrated to be true, beyond reasonable doubt and by the use of objective evidence accessible to everyone and without of the need of an auxiliary assumptions or a fallacious argument from ignorance.
Do you have such a case?

Yes, remember I mentioned "free will". And the hypocrite that you are, chose to reject the reality of free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again declaring a natural phenomenon of cognitive deliberation "supernatural" is not evidence for the supernatural.
You can NOT POINT TO AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT DESCRIBES THE INABILITY OF HUMANS TO MAKE CHOICES FREE FROM OTHER INFLUENCES AND CLAIM TO BE SUPERNATURAL!!!!!!!
I'am not an hypocrite, you are scientific illiterate and irrational and that makes everyone who corrects you appear to your eyes as a hypocrite!

-"That the extent to the freedom of the will is limited, does not necessitate the conclusion that it is not real."
-Sure, our will is a real phenomenon......declaring it "fee" is scientifically ignorant because none of our choices are really free from the system we are in.

-"and also supernatural causes are required for A. "
-Stop this sophistry. You need to demonstrate that supernatural causality is real and that it is required for A. You don't get to assume it you need to demonstrate ti. You don't even define what supernatural causality would mean for A. What we should expect if it was natural and what if it was supernatural causality???

If it is a fact that the natural effectively restricts the supernatural, this does not necessitate the conclusion that the supernatural has been excluded. — Metaphysician Undercover

-You just don't get it. You keep promoting the same Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Don't you value valid arguments at all?
The natural tells us nothing about the supernatural. A natural explanations renders a mechanism Necessary and Sufficient...that's all!!!!
Whether a supernatural explanation is relevant,that is on you do demonstrate sufficiency and necessity through objective positive evidence in favor of the supernatural...not by making arguments through the use of gaps in our epistemology.

Again you need to define and demonstrate that the supernatural exists, is possible and it can interact with natural systems by a specific mechanisms. Can you do that by providing objective evidence.
PLS DON'T make the same fallacious claims on us not being able to prove the supernatural impossible.....or that "free" will is evidence for the supernatural...

Does anti-facist mean ‘critical of fascism’?

Look, I stated I was hasty so saying such does nothing. ‘Anti’ is not the same as ‘critical of’ AND I clearly stated that I am ‘anti-theistic’ in SOME areas yet don’t see my singular view on how education works as bigoted.

Maybe it is possible to get you to admit that someone can be bigoted towards theists. If you can then it is just a question of where the lone is drawn.

I certainly do not regard ‘criticism’ as ‘opposed’/‘against’ anything. Criticism is just criticism, and it can be both positive and negative - hopefully both! That is usually how I spot bigotry. If someone cannot offer a positive and negative aspect then they may well be bigoted.

:roll:

emojis are now philosophical points? :D

We're not having a philosophical discussion. :roll:

I cannot help it if you act dickish.

If you are anti-nazism you are utterly opposed to a nazi, right? Surely that follows?

Whilst if you are anti-racism you are not necessarily opposed to ‘racists’ only those that ‘act out’ (so to speak). Generally if someone is opposed to racism they are opposed to racists, right? Of course, the devil is in the detail of what constitutes a ‘racist act’ that impairs the rights of other fellow humans.

Then splice in anti-theism and theist. ALSO note that I admitted that these are not the same thing, but it is certainly the case that anti-theism can - but does not always - mean opposed to theists.

What EXACTLY is not philosophical here? I thought I was exploring the distinctions between where bigotry begins and ends whilst you just seem, being honest, a bit petulant because I originally implied that being ‘anti-theism’ meant such was ‘bigotry’. I have REPEATEDLY, and almost immediately, altered that initial, and blithe, comment.

Just to be clear, ‘bigotry’ is open prejudice (unreasonable opposition) against persons/peoples attached to or part of certain groups.

Of course you can argue that opposition to ‘religious beliefs’ (theistic in particular) is a reasonable argument. My argument against this would be in the intricacies of what constitutes ‘theist’ (meaning what is meant by ‘god’/‘deity’). As an idea of some overarching, conscious supernatural beardy guy/gal … I’m opposed to that too. I think it is a stretch to state that that is what all theists mean when they say ‘god’/‘deity’ - judged on the hundreds I’ve personally spoken to.

Philosophical criticism and rejection of theism in no way entails social or political "hostility" to theists. — 180 Proof

-No, how do you prove that? — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, rather than call what is outside of natural "supernatural", would you prefer "non-natural"? I don't really care about the terminology. If you dislike the term "supernatural" let's just call it "non-natural".

What natural things are necessary of is irrelevant to how we establish and verify possibilities.The possibility of the supernatural must be demonstrated, not assumed. — Nickolasgaspar

When it is demonstrated that there is something other than the natural, then we must call it something. You defined "natural" as what manifests through verified building blocks, so the manifestation of the building blocks themselves must be something other than natural. Can we call this the "non-natural"?

-Sure, our will is a real phenomenon......declaring it "fee" is scientifically ignorant because none of our choices are really free from the system we are in. — Nickolasgaspar

A "system" is a human construct. This statement makes no sense.

You need to demonstrate that supernatural causality is real and that it is required for A. — Nickolasgaspar

It's already been demonstrated. According to your definition of "natural", nature builds things from building blocks. But obviously the building blocks are necessary for whatever nature builds. And whatever produces the building blocks is outside of nature, not natural, according to your definition. Yet it is definitely a requirement for whatever nature builds, because nature requires the building blocks to build stuff. If you do not like the term "supernatural" we'll just call it "non-natural". I'm not partial to "supernatural" myself.

Whether a supernatural explanation is relevant,that is on you do demonstrate sufficiency and necessity through objective positive evidence in favor of the supernatural...not by making arguments through the use of gaps in our epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

I've demonstrated the necessity to assume a cause which is not natural, by your definition of "natural". If you do not want to call it "supernatural", because "supernatural" means something else to you, I really don't care, we can just call it something else. How does "divine" sound to you? That's got a much better ring than "supernatural".

But the term ANTI- does. Not always, but it certainly can imply hostility..

Why are you acting like I have not made that clear as day you stubborn fool.

For the slow ones way in the back ...

Philosophical criticism and rejection of theism in no way entails social or political "hostility" to theists. — 180 Proof

You marked yourself as an ‘anti-theist’ here. The point being an anti-theist can be critical about certain aspects a theist holds.

You did not originally state ‘I am critical of and reject theism’ you merely outlined you were anti-theist.

Again though, my interest here is in how we take the term ‘anti-‘ in different contexts. We would call someone who is ‘anti-women’s rights’ something more or less like a bigot, yet when it comes to ‘anti-nazism’ we would not call them bigots because we perceive their stance and highly irrational and actively damaging.

The question is then where anti-theism can fall? I can see that some would look superficially at religious beliefs as ‘childish’ and therefore deem their stance to be opposing, as I put it, ‘irrational and actively damaging’. That is a reasonable argument in some cases, but it would partially involve actively opposing anyone who participates in and encourages such ‘irrational and actively damaging’ traditions, right?

I am certainly not stating there is a clear answer to this. I am just trying to look for a way around the clear statement that hostility towards nazis is not considered bigotry. I think my issue here is in dealing with the idea as if separate from the individual. If a human lives by certain ideals we find abhorrent then we find them abhorrent because they hold such ideals, rather than saying they are not abhorrent they just hold to certain ideals I find abhorrent.

It is precisely in this confusion that a great deal of needless hostility and patronising tones come to the fore when religious beliefs are being discussed.

A quick grab from wiki is enough to show the diversity of the term:

- “Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. C. Hitchens (2001) writes

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."”

I would say that Hitchen’s is kind of bigoted here. He is clearly stating active opposition and hostility to religions. The details of how far he takes this are something else. As for someone like Dawkins, he is happy for people to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t adversely effect others.

Then there is the bottomless argument of anyone who exists necessarily having a negative effect on someone else somewhere some how. The ‘intent’ alone seems unimportant if pure ignorance causes untold harm and damage to many people.

My view in regards to bigotry is that if someone cannot find a single positive reason for an argument they are veering into bigotry or already bigoted. The manner in which Hitchens conveys his view suggests that his judgement is made on the net effect (“- positively harmful.”).

If you don’t care about this fair enough. NP

It is something that I find intriguing and problematic.

If you want to show religious bigotry just show how someone is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, that is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards theists or religious folk.

I don’t want to show anything.

I've already posted a sketch of what I mean when by claiming to be an antitheist (see embedded link)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680796

and have discussed where I agree with your non-philosophical point and how a philosophical approach to antitheism / atheism is not "bigotry".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680943

Sushi, you're shadowboxing with a strawman which you've lit on fire. If you refuse to accept My Stated Position (I don't see what Hitchens' polemical usage of "antitheist" has to do with my philosophical usage – don't understand the difference, do you?), then maybe you are "the bigot" (or idiot) here. :shade:

Philosophical criticism and rejection of theism in no way entails social or political "hostility" to theists. — 180 Proof

This is not about you? Forget it. Maybe someone else has something to say even though it is off topic.

:scream: Look Out...