Metaphysical Naturalism

8/16/2019 Metaphysical Naturalism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/metaphysical-naturalism 1/5

Metaphysical Naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophicalnaturalism, and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there isnothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the

natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is anassumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysicalnaturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, thecorresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritualnaturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernaturalconcepts and explanations that are part of many religions.Definition

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy which maintains that nature

encompasses all that exists throughout spacetime. Nature (the universe orcosmos) consists only of natural elements or natural processes that reduce tonatural elements, whose fundamental building blocks are spatiotemporalphysical substance—mass–energy. For example, astronomer Carl Sagan, anagnostic, described the cosmos as "all that is or ever was or ever will be."[1]

Abstract concepts or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values,logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either superveneupon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account. The supernatural doesnot exist, which is to say, only nature is real.[2]

Naturalism, in recent usage, is a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible toexplanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified inthe natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects andevents. Hence, naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view thatthere exists or could exist any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation.

According to Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, anadvocacy group opposing creationism in public schools,[4] naturalism is ametaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism."[2]

Regarding the vagueness of the general term "naturalism", David Papineau tracesthe current usage to philosophers in early 20th century America such as JohnDewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars: "So understood,‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject



‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if notnecessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit’."[5]Papineau remarks that philosophers widely regard naturalism as a "positive"term, and "few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselvesas ‘non-naturalists’", while noting that "philosophers concerned with religion

tend to be less enthusiastic about ‘naturalism’" and that despite an "inevitable"divergence due to its popularity, if more narrowly construed, (to the chagrin of John McDowell, David Chalmers and Jennifer Hornsby, for example), those notso disqualified remain nonetheless content "to set the bar for ‘naturalism’higher".[5]

Philosopher and theologian Alvin Plantinga, a well-known critic of naturalism ingeneral, comments: "Naturalism is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform thecognitive function of a religion. There is that range of deep human questions to

which a religion typically provides an answer ... Like a typical religion, naturalismgives a set of answers to these and similar questions."[6]Methodological Naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism is an approach to metaphysics or ontology, which deals with existence per se. It should not be confused with methodological naturalism, which sees empiricism as the basis for the scientific method.

Regarding science and evolution, Eugenie C. Scott, a notable opponent of teaching creationism or intelligent design in US public schools, stresses theimportance of separating metaphysical from methodological naturalism:

If it is important for Americans to learn about science and evolution, decouplingthe two forms of naturalism is essential strategy. ... I suggest that scientists candefuse some of the opposition to evolution by first recognizing that the vastmajority of Americans are believers, and that most Americans want to retain theirfaith. It is demonstrable that individuals can retain religious beliefs and stillaccept evolution as science. Scientists should avoid confusing the methodologicalnaturalism of science with metaphysical naturalism.[7]

Lack of necessity for worship

The historian Richard Carrier, in his book Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, describes metaphysical naturalism thus: asa philosophy "wherein worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with diligence,holiness with sincerity, ritual with study, and scripture with the whole world andthe whole of human learning". Carrier wrote that it is the naturalist’s duty "to



question all things and have a well-grounded faith in what is well-investigatedand well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted or well-liked."[8]Science and naturalism

While not metaphysical naturalism per se, in the more general sense of

naturalism and philosophy expressed by Kate and Vitaly (2000) "there arecertain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method -namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity toperceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on

which science is grounded."[9] As noted by Steven Schafersman, methodologicalnaturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism withinscientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is notmetaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics forits success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but

methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesisfor science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature isall that there is."[2] Contrary to other notable opponents of teaching Creationismor Intelligent Design in US public schools such as Eugenie Scott, Schafersmanasserts that "while science as a process only requires methodological naturalism,I think that the assumption of methodological naturalism by scientists and otherslogically and morally entails ontological naturalism."[2] as well as the similarly controversial assertion: "I maintain that the practice or adoption of methodological naturalism entails a logical and moral belief in ontologicalnaturalism, so they are not logically decoupled."[2] On the other hand, Scottargues:

that a clear distinction must be drawn between science as a way of knowing aboutthe natural world and science as a foundation for philosophical views. One should

be taught to our children in school, and the other can optionally be taught to ourchildren at home. Once this view is explained, I have found far more support thandisagreement among my university colleagues. Even someone who may disagree

with my logic or understanding of philosophy of science often understands thestrategic reasons for separating methodological from philosophical materialism— if we want more Americans to understand evolution.[7][10]

However, there are other controversies, Arthur Newell Strahler embeds peculiaranthropic distinctions in the name of naturalism: "The naturalistic view is thatthe particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated throughall time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernaturalagency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamentalassumption."[11] Variously known as background independence, the



cosmological principle, the principle of universality, the principle of uniformity,or uniformitarianism, there are important philosophical assumptions that cannot

be derived from nature. As noted by Stephen Jay Gould: "You cannot go to arocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these

propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[12][13] "The assumptionof spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique togeology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Baconshowed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning inempirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, wehave no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore,no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations.(Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way "prove"the validity of induction - an endeavor virtually abandoned after Humedemonstrated its futility two centuries ago)."[14] Gould also notes that natural

processes such as Lyell's "uniformity of process" are an assumption: "As such, itis another a priori assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement aboutthe empirical world."[15] Such assumptions across time and space are needed forscientists to extrapolate into the unobservable past, according to G.G. Simpson:"Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on twogrounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—sucha rational interpretation."[16] and according to R. Hooykaas: "The principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but aprinciple, preceding the observation of facts . . . It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions. By explaining pastchanges by analogy with present phenomena, a limit is set to conjecture, for thereis only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in

which they could be supposed different."[17] Various associated beliefs

Contemporary naturalists possess a wide diversity of beliefs within metaphysicalnaturalism. Most metaphysical naturalists have adopted some form of materialism or physicalism.[18]Undesigned universe

Metaphysical naturalists argue that the scientific facts and theories that we haveto explain the origins of the universe provide no evidence for supernatural beingsor deities.[19] As Richard Carrier explains:

...no other worldview is directly and substantially supported by any scientificevidence, whereas all scientific evidence so far does support Metaphysical



Naturalism, often directly, sometimes substantially. Though naturalism has not yet been proved, it is the best bet going.[19]

One might say that either it has always existed or it had a purely natural origin, being neither created nor designed.

Abiogenesis and evolution

Since nature is all there is, and there was once no life, abiogenesis is implied: thatlife arose spontaneously from natural causes.[20][21] Naturalists reason abouthow, not if evolution happened. They maintain that humanity's existence is not

by intelligent design but rather a natural process of emergence.Ethics and meta-ethics

Some embrace virtue ethics and many see no compelling argument againstethical naturalism.[22][verification needed] Some may advocate for a Science of

morality. One example of an attempt to ground a naturalist Meta-Ethical systemis Richard Carrier's chapter "Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could FindThem)" which was peer reviewed by four philosophers. It sets out to prove aMoral realism centered around human satisfaction. Alexander Rosenberg hasexpressed a contrary position that naturalists, in general, have to accept moralnihilism.[23]

Documents

Metaphysical Naturalism