The Natural

*sigh*
I hope that VampyreAngel will support my views. :(
Not that I can't stand for them on my own... In fact, I don't think I have "established" any "official" opinion in my mind concerning the natural.
For the sake of discussion, I'll try seeing things from an atheist's perspective (I love temporary change of views :D).
Okay, okay... So, here it goes, my first questions.

-Can an atheist (one who believes in no Creator) support the idea of universal and objective moral values?
-What do we define as the natural? What is natural? What is not natural?
-How should a naturalist be working?

-Can an atheist (one who believes in no Creator) support the idea of universal and objective moral values?

The phrasing is odd here so I'll have to clarify a bit.

CAN an atheist support the idea of objective morality? Yes. The term atheist only means "does not believe in God", and has no bearing on what the atheist actually DOES believe in. There are atheists that believe in an objective morality, but justify it differently.

DO atheists generally support the idea of objective morality? No, not usually and not in my experience, and I don't.

-What do we define as the natural? What is natural? What is not natural?

I'll get to this question in a bit, make another post later.

-How should a naturalist be working?

Further define this? What do you mean?

I doubt that I'll find any that easy, but I'd like to. Can you at least argue on universal/objective morals?

I could try, but since I think objective morality is a bunch of BS, I won't be very convincing. Usually they use some kind of intrinsic value system based on life mixed with a little Utilitarianism, but I've never run into one that had strict objective morality view. The closest I've seen is people saying "Life has intrinsic value so it is morally good to preserve it / increase pleasure and decrease suffering / etc", but usually this view allows for cultural differences while a strict objective morality as found in most religions does not.

Personally, I see no INTRINSIC value in life or OBJECTIVE morals. I see tenancies in behavior that appear universal such as the Golden Rule, altruism, and so on, and I acknowledge that life has subjective value. Those behavioral tenancies that appear universal have their roots in our biological evolution BUT they are by no means a system of "objective" morals... as often doing the "moral" thing goes against our 'programming'.

How does a naturalist observe nature and what does he define as natural? Since everything derives from nature, isn't everything natural?

Yes, everything would be natural. There can be no "super"natural. After all, if "supernatural" was a natural state of the universe, or significant parts of it, then it would be a natural state... which is my answer to your second question. There can be nothing that exists in this universe that is not natural in some way. Things can have artificial elements, such as plastics, which could not exist in "the wild", but the material that makes up the plastic itself is natural, even though the particular arrangement of atoms is not. It doesn't matter that it is a "product of natural beings", the product ITSELF can not exist "naturally".

If you argue that plastics and other synthetics are somehow "natural" because we made them, then you've made the word meaningless.

The difference between a beehive and plastics lie in the chemical makeup and origin of the materials. The chemical composition of a beehive is "natural" because all the chemicals can and do exist in nature in their original forms, since the beeswax used is a natural byproduct from the bees' bodies (not dissimilar to our earwax), used for what we might consider an "artificial" purpose. A plastic bag, for instance, is not a "natural byproduct" of anything, but synthesized entirely. The materials and chemicals are "natural" but the composition that makes what we call "plastic" is not. You can find a number of natural waxes produced as byproducts of bodily reactions, but you will never find a natural synthesized plastic.

I suppose the closest thing we get to natural plastic is rubber from rubber trees, but that's just resin in reality. We don't use rubber trees's resin anymore either, because it's cheaper and more practical to produce our own synthetic rubber.

Rubber still is classified as a "plastic" in terms of use. "Plastic" is a very broad category which is generally based on malleability or plasticity of the compound, not its chemical makeup... which is why I specialized it with "synthesized plastics". I generally mean it in my example to mean your legos, pvc pipes, shopping bags, and action figures.

RageofAnath said:
I suppose the closest thing we get to natural plastic is rubber from rubber trees, but that's just resin in reality. We don't use rubber trees's resin anymore either, because it's cheaper and more practical to produce our own synthetic rubber.

Rubber still is classified as a "plastic" in terms of use. "Plastic" is a very broad category which is generally based on malleability or plasticity of the compound, not its chemical makeup... which is why I specialized it with "synthesized plastics". I generally mean it in my example to mean your legos, pvc pipes, shopping bags, and action figures.



Here in Sweden there is a distinct difference between plastic and rubber, but I suppose on a molecular level the difference isn't as great. It's more of a language-difference though, not sure if English speakers make that strong differentiation.

LeaTelamon said:
Here in Sweden there is a distinct difference between plastic and rubber, but I suppose on a molecular level the difference isn't as great. It's more of a language-difference though, not sure if English speakers make that strong differentiation.

No, there IS a distinct difference between synthetic plastic and rubber on a molecular level. It is the PROPERTY of the material that classifies it as a "plastic" -- the ability to be poured into a mold.

There are a LOT of definitions to the word "plastic", here's a link to the dictionary.com definitions. There are 17 definitions! The specific definitions I mean when I say rubber is a "plastic" are 1, 6, 7, 8. Notice that resins are specifically included in definition 1.

Lea, Plastic also means "töjbar" in English. That's the main difference to remember. :P

Waldheri said:
If you mean as opposed to synthetic, then one can argue that anything created by man that an animal would not naturally produce with intent, for its benefit (tools, materials) can be called synthetic, not natural.
Why that? We are also animals, therefore anything we produce should be natural as well.

If you mean as opposed to unnatural, any kind of behaviour that is different than the expected behaviour can be called "unnatural"; such as unnatural behaviour of an ant that has been infected by a virus or the unusual behaviour of males to be infatuated with other males.
Again, why should this not be natural? Diseases/viruses etc. are 100% natural as well.

If you mean natural as opposed to supernatural, I wear my naturalist hat and say "anything that occurs in this universe, obeys the laws and restrictions of this universe, and therefore the supernatural does not exist."
I thought that Vampy once said that there's a possibility for everything, like that there is a 1/100.000.000 chance for us to pass through a wall.

What if we find plastic and other synthetic materials in some other planet? Will that make them natural?

I don't have a definition for natural yet, this is why I started that thread.
But what if I define everything as natural? I can easily say that plastic is natural. I can say that being mad is natural. Or even being a pervert paedophile is natural, since I don't believe that mental diseases aren't natural. In the same way, the greatest altruist is as natural as Hitler (Godwin's law).

Passing through a wall would mean a suspension of electromagnetic forces that usually prevent us from going through it. I happen to think such a temporary suspension is impossible: Fail.
What happened to the 1/1.000.000.000... possibility? Is it so small so as not to consider it valid in our everyday life? Or do the chances equal 0?

And the thing about plastic found on other planets was for Anath.

LeaTelamon said:
*confused* Well, we certainly don't have THAT many definitions of the word "plastic" :S For us, resin is something completely different for example, and is linguistically more related to glue.

I can think of 3 examples right now where we use the word platic for various meanings; one referring to a synthetic material that is NOT soft in its texture, when referring to something looking or feeling synethetic, "she looked very plastic", and the specific form of plastic surgery.

The "soft, malleable" aspect of the term comes from when it is hot enough to be poured into a mold. The keyboard you are using is most likely made of plastic, you might not think the material to be malleable and soft but it HAD TO BE at one point in order to be formed into the hard, rigid shape it is now. Some plastics' final forms are softer than others of course. Resin generally is something vastly different than synthetic plastic (I believe it comes naturally from trees), but both technically qualify as "plastics" for their USE.

Most people don't use the term that way in everyday use though, the distinction is really technical.

What if we find plastic and other synthetic materials in some other planet? Will that make them natural?

If we find synthetic plastic on another planet, it is most likely we will regard it as signs of intelligent beings, depending on what form we find it in. Synthetic plastic does NOT occur in nature (hence: artificial by Waldheri's definition), and has no purpose but the forms we fashion it into. Remember that our most dangerous litter items are plastics, as they do not decompose, provide nutrients for anything, and are generally dangerous to wildlife. If we find "synthetic plastic deposits" through mining, we may study it more in depth to see if it is an alien landfill, and if it turns out the deposits are natural, there will be a lot for geologists to talk about. It is highly unlikely that we will find any "natural synthetics" based on what we know of planet and star formation. It would be a good idea to study actually these topics to understand why, since obviously you have it set in your mind that you're not going to listen to us.

Why that? We are also animals, therefore anything we produce should be natural as well.

Yes and no. Our waste products and secretions are natural, but those are the only things that actually can be considered things "we produce". Everything else is a result of behavior. It is natural TO MAKE tools, but TOOLS WE MAKE are not natural.

I don't have a definition for natural yet, this is why I started that thread.
But what if I define everything as natural? I can easily say that plastic is natural. I can say that being mad is natural. Or even being a pervert paedophile is natural, since I don't believe that mental diseases aren't natural. In the same way, the greatest altruist is as natural as Hitler (Godwin's law).

If you're going to make your definition equal everything, then as Waldheri said, why waste your time? The word "Natural" has specific definitions and connotations that you can find in the dictionary, and that Waldheri, Lea, and I outlined for you.

What happened to the 1/1.000.000.000... possibility? Is it so small so as not to consider it valid in our everyday life? Or do the chances equal 0?

So small as to be invalid. The only way it would be possible is if every atom in our bodies jumped to the required energy level at once and all our electrons managed to phase at the same time and reassemble pretty close to perfectly on the other side. (or something like that, I'll have to get the exact quote from my book later) Not happening. You could walk into a wall for the current age of the universe, and then some, and it will never happen.

Well, one thing is sure. I have to start reading about QMs.

Aha, yes, that's where I read it, thanks.