Dennis B Murphy >>>>>>>>>>

Philosophy - the rejection of supernaturalism

Essentials of philosophy

Updated April 16, 2008: There are essentially two world views struggling for supremacy in modern society. The rational/empirical versus the supernatural. (there are other views- nihilistic views, and such- but these are of smaller impact)

Many people believe in a worldview that is based on supernaturalism- There's been no empirical proof of supernatural explanations for a anything- ever. Period. So the ROOT of this world view is simply unproven. And given the thousands and millions of believers and the heavy hand which religions play in all societies and yet this proof isn't evident- there is simply no reason -no rational logical reason- to expect that supernaturalism can answer any questions about existence or morality or ethics or meaning.

I rest upon a worldview based on a naturalistic explanation for existence - The fact that this naturalistic explanation has not answered every single question ever devised by men is no reason to doubt this approach- the naturalistic approach HAS answered far more questions -empirically- than a supernatural approach. There's a track record and a more rational reason to accept a naturalistic view for resolutions and solutions.

So the choice is between a naturalistic explanation for existence and such- or supernatural.

It really doesn't matter whether you want to classify someone's view as agnostic, atheistic, or whatever- or whether you want to get into the "I live by unprovable things and so do you" tit-for-tat. That's all wordgames and blahblahblah. Cut away at the blather and we are reduced to those two simple positions. The theist really likes to dig into this manner of debate and discussion... it allows for sophistry-oriented wordgames, attacks on the other persons' positions - the whole approach is to "level the playing field" in order to make their (supernatural) argument the same as your (empirical) argument.

No, naturalism hasn't answered EVERY question. Some questions may simply be unanswerable- or the answer so far in our future of discovery as to be unknowable to humanity for the foreseeable future. Typical of this type of "created" question is: "Why are we here" and "What is the meaning of life" ...

The answer to the first can be another question- or questions- why is the dog here? the protozoa, the ficus plant? do those biological entities go through the thought-exersize of "why am I here." There's no reason to presume that they do. Which brings me to my own statement: Just because man can consider a meaning to life, doesn't mean there is one.

Supernaturalism of any sort - well, they are all the same in my view. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, shinto, Hindu, animism, santeria, voodoo- simply all the same- with an at-root view that supernatural forces can and do intervene and that supernatural entities have some sort of personal view or interaction with the world and can (and do) alter the laws of nature or physics or biology.

There is no difference between believing that sticking a pin in a doll will cause pain in a remote unknowing person and accepting that a supernatural deity created an embryo in a teenage girl.

__________________________

Update 3.27.07- I have had the opportunity to discuss and debate my outlook with a good friend (who is from quite the opposite - aka theistic- viewpoint). What I found is that our discussions essentially mirrored and reflected the same debates I see between the two philosophical factions. These discussions with my friend did not change my basic outlook though it did offer me a chance to clarify my positions.

1. No supernaturalism- There has been no proof of supernatural entities or elements. By proof, of course, I mean scientific and objective proof and validation. Hence, with NO supernaturalism having ever been proven, this rules out deities- deities, of course, by the very nature of their description by religious advocates are supernatural. One is left with naturalism
2. No deities means atheism- period- no quibbles or caveats.
3. Natural explanations and reasons- since science and naturalism have explained quite alot in the past (and supernaturalism have explained nothing- in fact actually creating more questions than answers) it is natural to turn to naturalism for answers. Will all answers be found right away (or ever) for all questions? Likely not, but that is no reason to turn to the "god of the gaps" solution to fill in the blanks for our knowledge.
4. My inability to explain where X comes from (love, for example) by natural means does NOT mean the theistic approach (God) is correct- Theists have the obligation to prove their position

Interestingly, I've been accused of being "emotional" in my atheism- which is frankly quite astounding- as I am not emotional in this regard at all- it's just plain simple facts. Another interesting fact is that critics or Richard Dawkins consider him "angry." I've seen the man in person- he's hardly an angry person at all. His writings are pretty lucid, straightforward and non-emotional.

Just because man can consider the meaning of life doesn't mean there is one- Dennis Murphy (me)

For some reason, people feel the need for some transcendence. This need exhibits itself with propogations of deities and mythologies- all well and good- but man's need doesn't make deities and these theologies true.

Theistic people- particularly in the USA, Christians- have the burden and proof of validating their outlook. The non-theist and the atheist are under no compunction to prove the non-existence of God or gods. In their zeal to prove something that cannot be proven, theists pursue all sorts of rationalizations and convoluted sophistries.

To speak plainly- I am an atheist. I identifed myself as such, in my concious thinking, when I was about 15 or 16 years old. I do remember at one point at about age 14-15, considering myself as a Deist. I shortly rejected this as totally illogical. One cannot have a "god" that is only manifested as the mechanics of the universe- that is no God at all. The very nature of what diety is implies that such deities would be involved in man's life. One can glean this from reading ANY writings on gods from the ancient hebrews or egyptians, ancient greeks through to modern religions. It is notable that Taoism does not posit a specific deity, but rather "forces" of opposition (yin and yang) in the world- and more akin to a dual deism.

My atheism is not "against" anything- except supernaturalism. People that accept supernaturalism do so cafeteria-style to make it fit their particular worldview. Christians accept supernaturalism in a deity and miracles, and perhaps even ghosts, but reject werewolves and vampires. It would be much the same with any other supernatural based belief system. I see nothing supernatural in the world or universe. Thunder was once the gods fighting or bowling... we now know the true scientific reasons for thunder. Just because we cannot explain it now is no reason to posit forces outside the laws of physics or nature. A natural causation will eventually be discovered.

Here's a quote I saw the other day!

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying baldness is a haircolor

I remember being sent to vacation bible school as a youngster (my mom thought she should expose us to religion- but she had no clue of what she was exposing us to). I remember the teachers reading the water-to-wine stories and other fantastic stories and thinking..."yeah yeah whatever." Such stories struck me as just more of the fantasy tales I was already reading. (I began reading at a young age and by sixth grade checking out books in the adult stacks of the library. I was also selected for a speed reading course at the local community college as a sixth grade student).

Other than the stoic philosophy (and perhaps a touch of Taoism- which I consider the eastern variant of stoicism) I do not proclaim to advocate for any of the philosophies noted. I merely find them interesting and intriguing, bringing richness the discussions of humanity.

Epictetus

Epictetus- a prominent voice for the philosophy of Stoicism. If I had to accept a philosophical label it would be Stoic. I particularly consider the Enchiridion's driving theme: There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own. Beyond our power are body, property, reputation, office, and, in one word, whatever are not properly our own affairs. Now, the things within our power are by nature free, unrestricted, unhindered; but those beyond our power are weak, dependent, restricted, alien. Remember, then, that if you attribute freedom to things by nature dependent, and take what belongs to others for you own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you take for your own only that which is your own, and view what belongs to others just as it really is, then no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you, you will find fault with no one, you will accuse no one, you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm.

A stoic approach to life adds serenity and forces one to consider what is actually important and worth worrying about. The downside is to elicit, perhaps, too much detachment. Elements of stoic style thinking can also be found in the eastern philosophies of Taoism, Confusionism, and Buddhism. The eastern methods are frequently to imbued with mysticism for my anti-supernatural thought processes.

________________________________________________________

Richard Dawkins- One of my favorite scientist/philosophers

________________________________________________________

Michael Collins

With Michael Collins, we enter a realm of political philosophy with diversions into the modern Irish Republican Army. The views of Collins were impacted by the direct oppression of the English upon Ireland politically, economically, and culturally. The best biography of him is Michael Collins- the man who made Ireland by Tim Pat Coogan

________________________________________________________

John Stuart Mill

Utilitarianism

________________________________________________________

Kant

Reason destroyed... stay tuned

________________________________________________________

Ayn Rand

Objectivism and some superb novels- The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged

________________________________________________________

Nietzsche

The will to power of the superman

________________________________________________________

Tom Paine and Samuel Adams

The true radicals of the revolution and how their vision was sold out by a more regressive government. The Age of Reason, by Tom Paine, was a highly influential book in my teen years. You can read it free on line here since Paine voluntarily gave up any profits and freely encouraged it to be printed and given away.

________________________________________________________

William James

The Will to Believe. Yes- America- you too have spawned philosophers.