Jay Elson Forrest, Bala Wax, Donald Trump discussed on Awakening with Jay Nelson Forrest
Welcome friends. I'm Jay Elson Forrest. Thank you for joining me for another addition of a weakening. So I wanna talk about scientific naturalism. So one of the difficulties is tried to explain how Bodey Taoism is different from any number of religions and the best way that I can explain it is that Bodey Taoism is based upon scientific naturalism. So I guess the, the most important thing for me to do at this particular point is explained what Bodey Taoism or what's scientific naturalism is that bodied, how is amiss based on. So this is my definition of scientific naturalism scientific naturalism is the view that based on the evidence. The natural world is all there is, and that science is the best means of knowledge about this world. So I'm gonna read that again. Scientific natural is is of you that based on the evidence the natural world has all there is, and that science is the best means of knowledge about this world. So that's the basic meaning of scientific naturalism. That's what Bodey Taoism is based on, if you don't agree with scientific naturalism than Bodey Taoism is not for you. We follow the evidence. We file were science leads us. Now. There's some things I want to point out in this definition. Because when I talked to people about naturalism, they get confused. There's a difference between what's called philosophical naturalism and. Methodological naturalism, methodological naturalism is what science uses science basically brackets, supernatural claims, and simply studies. In other words, they don't look for supernatural answers, if they pop up another matter, they haven't, but if they did. That'd be another matter, but they're not looking for them because there's no evidence and no reason to look for the supernatural. Results. So methodological naturalism is what science use uses now in philosophy. We use naturalism in a different sense. We mean the natural all there is, and that can be verified. If anybody wants to search into I mean, you really have to basic positions, naturalism, the natural world is all there is supernatural, the natural world is not all there is those are really your only two options, either the natural world is all there is or it's not. Of course, there is the option of not believing in the natural world at all. But that's a whole nother ball of Bala wax. I mean, if you really can't help you, if you don't believe in the natural world. I often suggest people go into the room and smack themselves until they believe in the natural world. But you have to begin with the natural world and the evidence shows if you follow the evidence there is no evidence for the supernatural. So if you hypothesize the supernatural you're doing so outside of evidence outside of faith, and really are not interested in truth. You're interested in what you believe in other words, truth is no longer important. Your belief is what's important. And that Trump's evidence. In other words, you have faith, faith is except in a claim as true without evidence, and that will get you into all kinds of problems. I mean, literally there hundreds of thousands of different religions both now and throughout history, and no to actually agree. So which one is the right one. There is no right, one because you have no standard to decide which ones. Right. So one belief is a good as another. So you can't criticize anybody. If you believe in, if you. Operate on faith. Anything is true for you. Truth doesn't mean anything. So for me, you have to begin with you have to be done with scientific naturalism, if you don't you might as well just believe whatever your ancestors, believed or whatever, whatever you feel like believing. I mean it really truth is not important at that point, it's basically whatever you like. And that's what most people in spirituality. Do they go through in there, if they don't like their particular region, the born in, they kind of make their own, eclectic Lee? Pick this a little bit of that. And you know I like this Abboud ISM has a good thing over here. I'll take that I'll take a little Hinduism over there, all take a side of Judaism, little Kabbalah about some NAS descent. And oh, let's see. So it's like a smorgasbord you just you go to the dinner to the, the potluck of re. Religions debt and current and you just pick, whatever you want. Because truth doesn't matter because evidence doesn't matter. If evidence doesn't matter, the truth doesn't matter truth is the correspondence between thought and reality, and they'll the way you're gonna know there, if there's correspondences by the evidence, that's the only way not sub subjective feeling not some hunch, you have to have the evidence and by evidence. I mean verifiable evidence evidence that everybody can see if it evidence just for you. It's not evidence, so you have to start with scientific naturalism. Now, there's a couple of things I wanna point out in my definition scientific naturalism is not a. Bias? It's not a. Hypothesis. It's based on the evidence. There is no evidence for the supernatural there is evidence for the natural. That's like saying, okay, we're going to operate, our lives based upon the belief that there are no unicorns. And until there is evidence of unicorns, we're going to believe that there's no unicorns that seems pretty reasonable. Okay. It's the same thing, the natural world exist. Therefore, we're gonna work on the assumption the natural world exists until there's evidence of a supernatural, then if the evidence is, is sufficient, then will believe in the supernatural, but we are not going to jump into that. Unless there's good reason to believe so good, solid in pure ical objective verifiable evidence. So that's why I put in there based on the evidence. It's not just a, it's a presupposition based on the evidence. It's not just an unfair verifiable presupposition. It's a subset, and it's based upon the, the idea of autumn's razor, do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary. If your if all spiritual experiences can be explained by the natural. There is no new need for supernatural and that's my argument. There is no need for supernatural, mystical experiences can be explained by nature mysticism your connection and interconnection with the cosmos, we know that people who have experiences of one this with nature have the same essential one nece with nature that people have with one -ness of what they call God, but they don't understand that. God is an interpretation. It's not the experience the feeling of one. This is the experience. The interpretation is God nature. Those are. Interpretations. You have to separate the experience from the interpretation and all experiences can be explained under the interpretation of naturalism without reducing it to non meaning new understand. There's some people that want to reduce it to, to nothing, you know that it's just allusion. No, the experiences are real that feeling one. This is real. And we know from science that everything is interconnected. So it actually makes sense that we'd have these experiences. So again, we go back to scientific naturalism the natural world is all there is. And that science is the best means of knowledge about this world. This is important, please, listen carefully. I did not say science is the only means of knowledge about this world, just the best. Okay. Science is not the only way we know things. But a lot of the things we know outside of science is open for interpretation and is unverified will or not usually verified. So some of those things are true about nature and some of those things might not be true about this world, but is our best, most reliable most solid knowledge that we have, but not our only, and you have to understand that because this is where people, you know, misunderstand scientific naturalism love is not a is not an empirical thing. You can show by science. That doesn't mean that love is not true or real or an actual thing in the world. It is. But it's not verifiable by science. The actions may be, and we might be able to, to get into some neuro science and stuff like that. That to verify a mental state of, of love or something like this. But right now, we don't have the capacity to do that. But just because science can't verify it doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. What I'm saying is in the natural world has all there is and sciences, the best means of knowing about this world. That's all I'm saying. So now that means that there are number of truth claims that are made, and I would say, a truth claim is wrong under these seven circumstances. A truth claim is wrong if it is not..