Finally, an interesting thread. :-) I'm going to start it by moving the two definitions being discussed up from the bottom:
> > > Naturalism:- The system of thought holding that all > > > phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes > > > and laws. > > > > > > Materialism:- The theory that physical matter is the > > > only reality and that everything, including thought, > > > feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms > > > of matter and physical phenomena. --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <richardhughes...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "compost1uk" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > > > Sounds like someone is holding out for a supernatural > > > solution to the mystery. > > > > No, not at all! Only if you equate naturalism with materialism. > > Stenger appears to do just that, but you have yourself helpfully > > provided definitions (below) which show how these two 'isms' are > > logically distinct. I'm going to have to agree with compost1uk here. As stated above, I feel an affinity to "naturalism" that I do not for "materialism." I have no reason to believe that the universe is composed entirely of physical matter, and plenty of subjective reasons to not believe that. > > Materialism would seem to be under some threat from modern > > physics (e.g. the peculiarity of action-at-a-distance with > > quantum entanglement). Not to mention the transitions from matter to energy and back again that seem to be clearly possible in physics. If we were to believe the rather absolutist definition of "materialism" above, are to conclude that its author believes that all energy is matter? That said, I remain non-theist in that I perceive no need to postulate a God to explain any phenomenon in the universe. And using Occam's Razor as a guideline, if postulating such a God would complicate something simple, it is less likely that the complicated version is correct. I am *open* to the idea that there might be a God and do not find that idea in any way threatening. It's just that I have no need for such an idea. It neither comforts nor frightens me. Why I sometimes poke fun at theists is that many of them, including a few on this forum, seem to believe in God for the latter reason -- they're *afraid* of Him/Her/It. They seem to be, and in fact state that they are, afraid that He/She/It will do Bad Things to them if they don't follow His/Her/Its "rules," which they know because they were written down in books written by or dictated by Him/Her/It. And they know *this* because someone *told* them that these books were written by or dictated by Him/Her/It or cognized by someone whose spiritual Facebook page had been "friended" by Him/Her/It. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as rank superstition. I have no problem with the believers in God who have a more positive relationship with what they think of as God. I enjoy the books by G.K. Chesterton and other theists whose approach seems to be one of wonder and appreciation for what they consider God. I do not see that as that much different than my sense of appreciation and wonder at Wonder itself. Unlike them, however, I stop short of calling my sense of Wonder "God," or anything else. I don't know, and am comfortable with not knowing. I am content with just wondering about Wonder. As mentioned in the original article, I am comfortable with spiritual approaches that, like me, have no need to postulate a God or any supernatural entity "running things," or even with a "plan" for How Things Should Be Run. I find no more comfort in the notion of "God's Plan" than I do in the notion of the universe as pure Chaos. Less, in fact...if there is a God running things, one look around and at the Nightly News should clue us in to the fact that He/She/It is a total fuckup.
