Naturalism explained by Matt Dillahunty

Matt explains naturalism and the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

Notice the double face palm after Lee Strobel :)

[FULL EPISODE]
Atheist Experience #848 HD + Aftershow: Brain Dead Is Dead

WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?

The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin. The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.

VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES

If you are able and willing to donate to the community who makes the show possible, please do so.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use

[Spiderx]

I like how they both face-palmed at the same time when caller mention Lee Strobel. lol

[jaymiddleton]

Can you define unnatural? Everything that exists is automatically apart of nature. If God were real, and quantifiable by science, then God would be natural. There's no unnatural, there's no supernatural. That would be the position of philosophical naturalism.

[xxxSmittyxxx]

As someone who was given one of lee strobels stupid books. I relate to that double face palm all to well. Lol

[PaulTheSkeptic]

Love the thumbnail on this one. I generally try to avoid philosophy but when cornered, I like philosophical skepticism. Just doubt everything. Easy enough to defend.

[masonkane]

I wonder what is keeping Matt from having a larger presence. He is one of the most well-spoken atheists out there.

[TheEternalOuroboros]

There are more types of naturalism than just two.

[IshfaqBhatm]

Methodological naturalism[ WIKI]
The myth of Methodological naturalism [1] is said to be concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is claimed to be strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events, though by definition it adopts a bias against the supernatural by ruling out such possibilities in advance.

[davids]

I love the video pics matching double face palm!

[brianmonks]

Nothing but the natural exists by the definition of what is natural. Anything that exists in nature, i.e. reality, is natural by definition. The only thing that supernatural can mean is something that doesn't exist in reality, or something that is natural but not understood. It's not at all odd that everything once claimed to be supernatural has ended up being one of those two options when understood because there is no other option for it to be. If souls, magic, psychic powers, ghosts, etc. actually existed in reality they would be natural like everything else. The supernatural is an incoherent concept, at least within reality.

[larjkok]

Ahh, the double face palm.
That is code for, “Help. We are being held against our will. We really do believe in Cheezus. We’re not atheists”.
Saw right through it.

[dynamicloveministries]

Contradiction, Matt is contradicting himself.

[lightbeforethetunnel]

It's great he realizes Naturalism is indefensible, but he's not grasping why Methodological Naturalism also is. Here's where the problem lies: Right now, when the scientific community cannot answer a question with observation, Methodological Naturalism forces scientists to simply make up & have faith in whatever Naturalistic explanation would make the theory work on paper. They're forced to do this even if all the evidence/data points to a different non-naturalistic explanation. That's precisely what has happened with the process of information being added to the genome in the Theory of Evolution. No one has ever observed it, but it's needed to make the Theory of Evolution work, so they just assume it must be a real process without actually verifying it is scientifically.

Now, the reason why most Evolutionists don't see this for what it is... is because they're not familiar enough with Creation to realize that all the fossils, DNA, and other observable evidence used to support the idea that this process exists ALSO works with Creation (which doesn't include this process of information being added to the genome)

[jwrsob]

Matt said, "For everything we found an explanation for,  the answer has been natural."

Really? So what is the naturalistic explanation for the Origin of Life and the Origin of the Universe?

[Kaymen]

Concerning philosophical naturalism, and how it asserts that the supernatural does not exist.

Well, why should we entertain the notion that something exists which is not a part of reality..? If we discovered a reality that is seperate from our own, what would make the new reality "super", and why wouldnt it be natural? If a being did in fact create the cosmos as we know it, why wouldn't that be the natural cause of the universe, and why wouldnt that being not be natural? The term "supernatural" is nonsensical to me, and only exists to explain fable creatures in books and movies.

It is my position that everything that exists is "natural", and therefore the supernatural can't exist.

[feynman]

Can't agree with Matt's characterization of philosophical naturalism as an indefensible posistion. Methodological naturalism is an assumption used to get reliable knowledge when doing science. Philosphical naturalism is a belief. It is a belief based on evidence. There is no evidence for the supernatual and all the evidence we have suggests that a naturalistic worldview is sufficient to explain everything in the world around us. Therefore, I accept philosophical naturalism as true unless shown otherwise by new evidence. How this is an indefensible posistion I do not understand.

[rustione]

Do you believe and accept that a female can declare to be male, or vice versa? Is that natural? One can claim something, and it is so.

[yrrej]

"Big If  Scenario" Matt Dillahunty dies and face's the G-D of the Bible; G-D asks Matt, why should I let you into Heaven? Matt answers, because I know that you are a loving and forgiving G-D; G-D asks Matt, did you believe in Me when you were on earth? Matt, no, G-D, why? because no-one on earth could prove your existence to me. G-D did you not believe my Word the Bible? Matt no, G-D why? because there were so many other countless Ideologies and Religions out there and the Bible was just another book. G-D to Matt, you see Me now, don't you? Matt yes. G-D to Matt, you heard my Word, you knew my Word, and yet chose to reject my Word.  Here is what I said in:
[Romans 1:19-20] - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
G-D to Matt, depart from me, I never knew you, into everlasting damnation prepared for the Devil and his Angels.