[Janny2006]

This blog bothered me on more levels than I can list, but mainly the idea that naturalism is nihilism -- that if life itself has no specific meaning then we have no reason to ever care about anything. So wrong!!!

God Means Caring | Psychology Today

[cenRealliat]

I do not see anything wrong with what the blog said. If his definition of naturalism is right then in a few minutes, or a few hours or a few years it will not matter to you since you will be dead. Then that means that it is all over. In fact you can choose to end it all tonght and then you will have nothing to be concerned about.

What is certain about your future? The only thing that is certain is that you will die. What is the cause of death. The cause of death is birth. When a baby is born then the certain thing about his future is that he will die. But I do not believe in naturalism. I believe that the purpose of life is to be happy.

Here is my webpage about that: Enlightenment and Happiness It is my opinion that the purpose of life is happiness but this webpage shows that others have this same opinion like top psychologists, the Dalai Lama, Sigmund Freud, Aristotle and some briliant scientists.

It talks about Marty Seligman. He is a professor of psychology at UPenn and maybe the top psychologist in the country. He is the 13th most cited psychologist of all of them living and dead. He was elected president of the American Psychology Association by the largest margin ever. He is the director of the Positve Psychology Network.

Also it talks about cosmology. If someone is the physical body then when they die, they no longer exist so at that point nothing matters.

[23InetrySypekek]

If his definition of naturalism is right

Its not.

What is certain about your future? The only thing that is certain is that you will die.

I'm certain that I have a drive & motivation to be of service to others & to contribute to the advancement of society as a whole.

I believe that the purpose of life is to be happy.

But, as you just said, once you die, what you thought or felt no longer matters. So how can personal happiness be anything but totally inconsequential as a "purpose of life" for all peoples?

[ptmQqoxw]

I am with you OCT. He seems to be saying that you either believe like he does or yo believe in nothing, and if you believe in nothing then you can't care. Also, he seems to be saying that truth/facts are irrelevant but, he is convinced that his perception of the ability to care is supernaturally based. And, while there is clear evidence that is naturally based, you shouldn't accept that explanation because of the consequences, and not because of its validity. So, any who really cares does so because god makes us care and we should stop inquiring about natural or supernatural causes of caring because it has already been settled that god did it and this needs no evidence.

It was quite a dance.

[HakSpeame]

Gee, I just thought naturalism meant you paraded around naked...

[TritteTouff]

I am with you OCT. He seems to be saying that you either believe like he does or yo believe in nothing, and if you believe in nothing then you can't care. Also, he seems to be saying that truth/facts are irrelevant but, he is convinced that his perception of the ability to care is supernaturally based. And, while there is clear evidence that is naturally based, you shouldn't accept that explanation because of the consequences, and not because of its validity. So, any who really cares does so because god makes us care and we should stop inquiring about natural or supernatural causes of caring because it has already been settled that god did it and this needs no evidence.

It was quite a dance.

THANK YOU It was so much BS I had trouble even starting to cypher what it was that was specifically wrong. And notice, that's a PhD, professor emeritus!

OldMama, I think you mean link (SAFE )

[Ocqljudq]

I'm also with OCT. This is just a warmed-over version of the same non-arguments that we saw a lot of here until recently. Consider the following

Naturalism implies that we believe in evolution, not becuase it is true, but because of physical causes that force us to do so. In a naturalistic world, there is no truth. Instead of arguing there is no grandfather in the sky looking down on us, atheists need to defend a meaningless world in which everything is cause and effect and truth and falsehood don't matter. [In other words, "Straw Man + Straw Man =False Dichotomy]

I think naturalism implies nihilism, a world in which nothing matters because everything is a machine obeying cause and effect. Meaning and truth are illusions in a naturalistic world. I can't disprove naturalism any more than atheists can prove it. Yet I have faith that my life is meaningful. I reject nihilism and, thus, naturalism. [Or "Argument from personal incredulity + Straw Man = Argument from personal incredulity + Straw man"]

Meaning and truth are NOT illusions in a naturalistic world. Both do, however, appear to be illusory in this blog. When you look at what the guy actually says, it amounts to "I believe X, not Y, therefore Y is not true." His words have no truth, and no meaning, beyond their own own narrow self-referential framework, grounded only in the personal beliefs of their author, who really, REALLY needs to figure out how to turn on the spell-check function on that nihilistic box sitting on his desk.

And, OCT, in the academic world, "professor emeritus" all too often is a code phrase meaning virtually retired and verging on senility.

[DarrenBent]

There is something else niggling me... something about cause & effect... Humans are agents in an adaptive complex system, and cause & effect doesn't always hold true in those... Not quite crystallized yet.

Dig, did you read Mind of the Market? I know Shermer discussed ACS in there. I also read about them in Maubousson's Think Twice, but I'm so busy right now (and not terribly bright) so its just a niggle...

Complex adaptive system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[PWRichard]

Ecochuck's posts bring out the silly in me, OTC.

Anybody else miss Humber? The blog isn't the same without him.

[Voliscietle]

There is something else niggling me... something about cause & effect... Humans are agents in an adaptive complex system, and cause & effect doesn't always hold true in those... Not quite crystallized yet.

Dig, did you read Mind of the Market? I know Shermer discussed ACS in there. I also read about them in Maubousson's Think Twice, but I'm so busy right now (and not terribly bright) so its just a niggle...

Complex adaptive system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have not read those.

Reiss' article is no more than another simplistic attempt to "prove evolution wrong" without considering the evidence for it. It disagrees with his beliefs, and therefore it just can't be true. These arguments carry no more weight than Humber's did.

The comments on the blog are informative.


CAS (complex adaptive systems) are fine in concept, but because of their very complexity, they can be hard to operationalize. There always seems to be a "black box" somewhere within them, a point where you have to make a lot of assumptions. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it helps explain why systems theory has not lived up to the initial promise--in my field at least--that so many envisioned in the '60s and '70s.

It's not that cause and effect "doesn't hold true" It's just that it's difficult to quantify, or in some cases even observe the relationship between them.

[bettingonosports]

Its not.


I'm certain that I have a drive & motivation to be of service to others & to contribute to the advancement of society as a whole.

But, as you just said, once you die, what you thought or felt no longer matters. So how can personal happiness be anything but totally inconsequential as a "purpose of life" for all peoples?

I was talking about his beleif that I do not agree with. So I looked up naturalism and it only accepts science and not the spiritual. But cosmology that is talked about on that webpage is scientific (based on Eintein's paper), but it also deals with what is not physical. They know in science that at one time the physical universe did not exist. Many physicists believe that at some point it will cease to exist.

[Rapiddude]

The comments on the blog are informative.

oooo last I'd checked there was only one comment... SO glad to see such a lively discussion! (& thanks for participating in this one.)

CAS (complex adaptive systems) are fine in concept, but because of their very complexity, they can be hard to operationalize. There always seems to be a "black box" somewhere within them, a point where you have to make a lot of assumptions. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it helps explain why systems theory has not lived up to the initial promise--in my field at least--that so many envisioned in the '60s and '70s.

It's not that cause and effect "doesn't hold true" It's just that it's difficult to quantify, or in some cases even observe the relationship between them.

Thanks, not a topic I'm terribly familiar with, but Reiss' assertion that all can/ should/ will be distilled to cause & effect, and the fact that this is so near impossible with CAS I was remembering is a common error in decision making. Attaching the wrong cause to an effect can (& often does) trip people up in executive processing.

[Garry Richardson]

I was talking about his beleif that I do not agree with.

Nothing personal but I kinda wanted to talk about what Reiss is saying re: naturalism & nihilism, & why its not correct. We can discuss your beliefs on another thread if you like. I'm game.

They know in science that at one time the physical universe did not exist. Many physicists believe that at some point it will cease to exist.

Its theorized the universe didn't always exist as it does now, but its not "known." We have good reason to believe such, tho. We covered this pretty well on the creationism thread.

[Ibrattnofich]

Ecochuck's posts bring out the silly in me, OTC.

Anybody else miss Humber? The blog isn't the same without him.

I miss him. It was the never-ending slow motion train wreck syndrome that I found appealing.

I can only hope he is meeting the same level of friction whereever he continues to spout his nonsense.

[Anykeylo]

I miss him. It was the never-ending slow motion train wreck syndrome that I found appealing.

I can only hope he is meeting the same level of friction whereever he continues to spout his nonsense.

We are all poorer for not having Paul to chat with.

[Bejemoelemymn]

We are all poorer for not having Paul to chat with.

What I miss:

I miss the predictability of the creatard arguments...

I miss the factual errors that prompted me to research the correct answers...

I miss the secure knowledge that there was a bigger horse's ass on the forum than me...

What I don't miss:

I don't miss the lies...

I don't miss the distortions...

I don't miss the passive aggressive form of argument...

I don't miss the unsupported assertions that were dropped and never defended (but that instead were later referred to as "proved")...

Did I mention that I don't miss the lies?

[angeldimmon]

I miss the secure knowledge that there was a bigger horse's ass on the forum than me...

Fear not. I'm still here.