Posts

Showing posts with the label naturalism

Simple and Uniform Nature

Man will never cease to be erroneous in his reasonings, while he departs from the simple and uniform ground of nature; the only solid basis of all conclusive argumentation, the only true source of all important science. It is in the physical constitution of existence in its real relations, in its energies, in its effects, that he must seek for principles by which to construct a useful and well cemented fabric; by which to arrange and methodize thought, and apply it to the diversified purposes of human life. The imperfection of his faculties does not enable him to seize upon all these objects in such a manner to preclude the possibility, and even probability of many errors; but these errors are to be destroyed only by a constant recurrence to the fundamental "data", from which correct conclusions must ever be deduced. --Elihu Palmer (1764-1806), Principles of Nature; or, A Development of  the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery Among the Human Species

Supernatural Religion Exposes Its Own Fraud

If supernatural religion were a thing founded in truth, it would not seek for so many divers [sic] means of support, but would rest itself upon the decisions of human judgments and the general science of the world. A true system of ethics disclaims all foreign aid, all violation of Nature's laws, and stands upon its own intrinsic merit. Miracles make it neither better nor worse; if it be false, miracles cannot make it true, and if it be true in its own nature, the working of miracles cannot make it more true. There cannot, therefore, be any use in miracles, since they do not alter the nature of things, or destroy the force and extent of evidence. --Elihu Palmer (1764-1806), Principles of Nature; or, A Development of  the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery Among the Human Species

"He that Believeth Not Shall Be Damned"

Religion, not content with the consistency and harmony of Nature, has sought for redress in the violation of her laws, and nothing short of miracles could satisfy the extravagant desires of "pious and holy fanaticism". Pride and vanity have tempted man to establish religion upon a supernatural basis. The idea of associating with heaven, and holding an intercourse with celestial powers, was a circumstance of extravagant and delicious enjoyment, with a privileged order, and laid the foundation of that terrifying severity of judgment contained in the gospel declaration, "He that believeth not shall be damned." --Elihu Palmer (1764-1806),  Principles of Nature; or, A Development of  the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery Among the Human Species

What about Religious Experience?

Callers to online atheist talk shows frequently cite their personal experiences as evidence for the existence of God or a god. That is, they directly perceive God through their sensations. This will not do. What's open to challenge is not the experience itself--we may take the callers at their word--but their interpretation of what they feel. They can be absolutely certain they felt something, but what they may not be regarded as infallible about is their explanation of their experiences. To be taken seriously, their explanations must be open to examination and criticism. I can witness a breathtaking sunset at the beach and be overcome by a good feeling I never experienced before. But how I interpret that feeling is another matter entirely. If I explain it by the sheer splendor of the sight, that is entirely plausible and worthy of acceptance by others. Not so my claim that I experienced God's presence or something extranatural. If I submit that as evidence for the existence of...

Naturalism versus Supernaturalism

Naturalism has the priority over supernaturalism, not because it is the more economical of two explanations, but because it is the only framework in which explanation is possible.... [T]he contest between naturalism and supernaturalism is not a battle between two rival modes of explanation, in which naturalism is selected because it is a better or more economical mode of explanation. Rather, naturalism is selected because it is the only possible  method of explanation. Naturalism is the only context in which the concept of explanation has meaning.   Once the theist removes himself from the framework of natural causality and the general principles or "laws" by which man comprehends the universe, he forfeits his epistemological right to the concept of explanation and precludes the possibility of explaining anything. --George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God , 1974

What if Darwin Was Wrong?

What if Darwin was wrong? Would it matter for the God argument? No, it would not matter one whit. In the latest latest installment of The Atheist Experience (24.20, May 17, 2020), Jenna Belk and Anthony Magnabosco (the "street epistemologist") argued with a theist who claimed to be an expert in -- and a debunker of -- the theory of evolution. The three of them wasted precious time arguing over how one qualifies as such an expert. *Big Yawn* Who cares? The reason it doesn't matter is that evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the God question. If Darwinist theory were to fail tomorrow because of palpably conflicting fossil evidence, that could not resurrect God as an explanation of the origin of species (or of life). It would simply mean that the naturalists would have to look for a new theory. This sort of thing has happened throughout the history of science. It would indeed be a big setback for biologists and related scientists -- given that evolutionary theory has b...