Interbane wrote:From Spinoza, Einstein and Bertrand Russell, methodological naturalism is the same as atheism.
Methodological naturalism is agnostic.
Agnostic about everything? I have encountered some of these rigorous pedantic naturalists lately. Some even do not believe the universe exists, simply because they cannot prove it by their hallowed ‘methodological naturalism’. This meme in the philosophy of science is linked to a pernicious scientistic dogma known as ‘mind dependent reality’, arguing that because all knowledge is linguistic therefore we cannot know that anything exists independently of our minds.
I look at these terms in their broad social use, not in terms of a narrow logical solipsism, which is what agnosticism leads to. Naturalism assumes that nature is real. That is unfortunately a metaphysical statement of faith, and anyone who rejects all metaphysics will tend to say that the claim that nature is real is meaningless. I just have trouble understanding anyone who thinks that nature might not be real.
Interbane wrote: Philosophical rather than methodological naturalism posits the world as essentially atheistic. This still doesn't mean philosophical naturalism is the same as atheism.
Okay, so have we corralled method in naturalism as the agnostic idea that we can know nothing? Naturalism is the idea that everything is natural. That means nothing is supernatural. Pedantically, of course we could find some version of atheism that admits the supernatural. But I was talking about the broad intellectual tradition of modern scientific culture with roots in Spinoza, Einstein and Russell.
ant will want to mock Russell for wearing a tea cozy to keep himself warm, or something like that, but ant is a religious supernatural propagandist and can be discounted in his mockery of atheism.
Interbane wrote:
I want a venn diagram. I would draw a large circle that is philosophical naturalism, and a smaller circle within it(with a small area outside of it) that is atheism. I could prove the diagram with examples from the real world. They simply are not the same thing Robert.
I was referring to Albert Einstein, widely seen as the greatest genius of the last century, and a pantheist and atheist in the mould of Spinoza. The term atheist contains cultural baggage, especially through its co-option by Marxism, and by people with a bigoted hatred towards religion. So we find that great thinkers such as Einstein keep the content while being careful about the associations of the label.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... t_Einstein illustrates some of this ambiguity regarding atheism, with Einstein distancing himself from atheism as a label while also saying “the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously” and “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.”
One can well imagine that Einstein, once touted as possible Israeli President, would prefer politically not to offend believers by too overt a statement on religion, even though atheism is the logical implication of his views quoted here.
Interbane wrote:Beyond appealing to various authorities on the subject, you haven't given an argument for why you think atheism is the same as one of the two naturalistic worldviews.
Atheism is historically the doctrine of scientific enlightenment, objective rational materialism.
You say this, but the truth is that they are not the same thing. Show me the doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spi ... atheist.3F is a good source. Here is an extract: “Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time…. Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...." Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God is the antithesis to the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.”
