Never any Happy Mediums...

So, we've established that Naturalism is a load of ...well, yeah. This blog deals with Naturalism's alter-ego: NON-NATURALISM!!! BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

Q:   Does Non- Naturalism explain truth, reality and knowledge?

A:   It tries to. It fails hard, but it tries to. As the blatantly contradictory and extremist cousin of Naturalism, Non-Naturalism states basically that the world is an illusion, that our individual self is an indestructible life force outside the physical world, and that this self is but a part of a universal understanding of everything. So basically, physical reality is a lie called the Maya, the individual, called the Atman, is a god, and is therefore already part of some massive truth-Consciousness called the Brahman. Truth, then, is found inside you. And we aaaaall know how well that works out, when each man is left to his own definition of truth and his own devices. Reality is just a big a load of crap as Non-Naturalism is. Knowledge is ...well, apparently it is irrelevant. What matters is the enlightenment of being part of the Brahman. Any knowledge found outside of our Atman is probably an illusion anyway. wheeeeeeeeee.  

Nature vs. Marx

Q:        What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism ?


A:         ....That is a good question. Well, while both naturalism and dialectical materialism believe in a cause and effect world, oddly enough there is more hope for humanity on the Marxist side of the argument. Naturalism says that stuff happens and boo for you if it sucks. Karma is just coming to get you, it says, and why should it matter to you? There's no purpose for your life anyway. In the Naturalist's cause-and-effect, effect need not necessarily be progressive. Dialectical Materialism does believe, however, that the new synthesis, the "effect", is better, more progressive, than the clash of the thesis and antithesis, or "cause". There is still this idea floatin about that there's nothing that isn't the effect of something and the cause of something, but they think that the new thing is a combination of the best of the original two. They also think this type of cause and effect can be used by human beings in the proletariat for reform. So basically there's actually some idea of human life meaning something here. Besides this though, the two are basically the same.  

Problems with the "Box"

Q:  What are the philosophic problems naturalism has when trying to explain reality, truth, and knowledge ?


A:   Well, Let's take this step by step. First, naturalism claims that nothing exists outside the realm of the physical. So therefore, logic, numbers, ideas, even the thoughts inside your brain, are unreal and cannot be trusted. 
      Second, they believe that that which is proven by science and taught by science constitutes as knowledge. Problem is, science is changing so constantly that theory and even law morphs more quickly than theorists can keep up with. Things once considered fact like true Darwinian Evolution are fading out and dying. That means there is no real root to that which is knowledge, and the word knowledge itself loses meaning. Everything everybody thinks they know about anything could be destroyed in a moment. So basically we live in a knowledge-less, truthless void. 
      Thirdly, Naturalists believe that all of life is a game of cause and effect. That is, there is no one thing that happens without having being caused by something else and without, in turn, causing something else to happen. Nothing happens in and of itself and even Humans are part of that little game. Therefore, the reasons humans are as they are is due to the various influences of life upon their person, and there is no such thing as free will. Well, were that true there would be no point to living. Humans are not unique, are not special, they're not even "gods". They're just chemicals coming together and falling apart. Naturalism.org states that "Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body." So in a Naturalist's reality and truth of self, there really isn't a self, which completely negates any importance of life as a human, and limits life to monotonous, robotic functions, which experience of life itself negates and confuses. Besides, you cannot explain thoughts with chemicals, nobody has understood how synapses = thoughts. 
        Fourthly, and probably second-most-stupidly, Naturalism claims that there is nothing humans must answer to when it comes to morals, as they are not responsible for their actions. Their actions are the reactions of internal and external "Causes" defined earlier. However, at the same time naturalism says we need to try to temper people to adhering to actions deemed acceptable. Naturalism.org says "Naturalism doesn’t undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. "   However, if their first statement was also true, that humans cannot be held responsible for their actions, and life was but cause and effect, there is nothing moral to begin with; the word "Morals" looses it's meaning. And besides, how could anybody have any sense of anything being "acceptable" were there not some sort of underlying moral conscience anyway ? They have no right to deem anything wrong, if A: it could not have been avoided, taking the responsibility from the human, and B: is simply a cause of something else in the big game of life. Nothing is wrong or right in reality, in truth, it just is. Yet they try to uphold responsibility and morality....
         Fifthly, just read anything they post ever, and you will find contradictions that don't make any sense. For instance: (again from Naturalism.org) "We need not appeal to a supernatural standard of ethical conduct to know that in general it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, or otherwise treat people in ways we’d rather not be treated. Our naturally endowed empathetic concern for others and our hard-wired penchant for cooperation and reciprocity get us what we most want as social creatures: to flourish as individuals within a community."  ....considering previous points, yeah have fun with that. 

Fallacies of the Human Mind

Well, first I would stop and take a check on my facial features to prevent exploding into the "what the HECK you talking about you IDIOT" expression....then I would give myself a moment or two to look thoughtful (while actually thinking).


First thing out of my mouth, to Mark: "What do you mean ?"


Nearly the entire discussion is based upon where Mark takes it, because look: I know my world view, and I know truth. However, Mark does not, and therefore his warped view on whatever he means by "evolve passed our 'need' for God" could be any number of things. Perhaps he thinks science and technology eliminates our need to believe in something that can protect us or grow us. I mean, with life support and all them fancy medicines, humans can take care of themselves right ? Or perhaps he takes the postmodern view, that claims we cannot know any ultimate truth, and that God and religion are things reserved to the personal, private life, and therefore this idea of God should be purged from society's eyes. Either way really, it is an issue of (apparent) progression of human understanding, whether it be of their mental, moral, or physical/worldly estate. 


Once I understand what his deal is, I can start poking little, subtle, near-painless holes in his ideologies. I can probably assume, having not actually had this conversation, that Mark's statement means he doesn't really believe in God in the first place, and is alittle more annoyed with the idea of his presence than he is threatened by it. So step one at this point: rout him back towards an idea that there must be a God. "Look at what science has discovered: see how intricate it is ? See how beautifully but simply complex? See how it supports this other facet of complex life? Do you understand what science is showing you? We had nothing to do with any of this; just because we get it doesn't mean we are special, or any more advanced, really, than our predecessors. Some of the smartest, greatest men lived well before the time of technology. How could any of these things be an accident? How could the complex relationships of electrons be an accident?" and so on, and so forth. Of course, I would probably not bombard him so, but rather turn some example he used of science or technology, go into detail of it's intricacies, and then ask him, basically, would it not be more probable to say there was some sort of Designer? ...Or perhaps he took the other view, that we cannot know truth. Well, then i'd get all C.S. Lewis on his behind and pull examples of the moral law we all have an understanding of, despite any written law. I'd ask him how he could claim x y or z was wrong if that idea was relative. 


Either way, I'd make the idea of God look abit more logical to him. Then perhaps future discussions will truly get to the heart of his beef with God. It is always a process, hopefully this is a semi-decent first step, be Mark a reasonable man, and Sarah willing to listen as much as i am and would be. 

Uhm....What????!!??

....that was my initial response upon watching that Forever All video.
                                                                             .........yeaaaaahhh.

My brain hurts just trying to understand how .....no, no, i am getting ahead of myself. One point at a time, right?

Okay, so the video is listing off all these concrete things that make up this "All", right? Like gravity and water and atoms and the heat source of the sun...but if these are the things that make up the All, and are infact the things that make US the All by sustaining us, how the heck can truth be relative and each of us be unique ????? Those things seem preeeeetty singular/concrete in nature, and are basically truths within themselves. I feel as though the only solid conclusion you can make if you are the All is that you are simply made to continue the cycle. You can have no hope or relativity! You're just atoms made to live off other atoms, no matter how many bloody universes your "mind" travels through. And if you cannot completely know this "All", how are you to draw any conclusions in the first place ?? What is the point of truth if you cannot know it ? And, if you think about it, saying that you cannot ever completely know truth is a truth, so you have A truth you can completely comprehend. But that truth still leaves you in a pretty helpless situation. So let's all just be cool with bein atoms and eatin atoms, mkay? ...Yeah bloody right. >_> hey mom, in the next life can i be a pizza atom? mmm...

Wow, okay...I guess I rolled too many things into one....some general question-arguments sprung to mind though:
How can we BE the All and not understand the All ?
Why would a Pantheist encourage us to look away from the "light of truth" at times, if that is somehow within us, and (should be, therefor) attainable ?
Why is truth not attainable, and how are we unique if we are all part of the same thing ?
And, SERIOUSLY, how can you see a world based upon such intricate complexities and delicate balances, understand them, base your worldview on them, and think them UNCREATED??!?!?! baaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!

Honestly, Pantheism sounds like it can be summed up as "conceited ignorance", the end. ...And how could that video say you will truely know that kingdom and the kingdom is you if you really cannot comprehend it and are even advised to not look at it directly...gehh...nooooo, okay, I AM DONE NOW.