Views on Naturalism

8/16/2019 Views on Naturalism

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

Views on Naturalism

Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Notre Dame,[24] and a

Christian, has become a well-known critic of naturalism.[25] He suggests, in hisevolutionary argument against naturalism, that the probability that evolution hasproduced humans with reliable true beliefs, is low or inscrutable, unless theirevolution was guided (for example, by God). According to David Kahan of theUniversity of Glasgow, in order to understand how beliefs are warranted, a

justification must be found in the context of supernatural theism, as inPlantinga's epistemology.[26][27][28] (See also supernormal stimuli).

Plantinga argues that together, naturalism and evolution provide aninsurmountable "defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable",

i.e., a skeptical argument along the lines of Descartes' Evil demon or Brain in a vat.[29]

Take philosophical naturalism to be the belief that there aren't any supernatural entities - no such person as God, for example, but also no othersupernatural entities, and nothing at all like God. My claim was that naturalismand contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another - andthis despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the mainpillars supporting the edifice of the former. (Of course I am not attacking thetheory of evolution, or anything in that neighborhood; I am instead attacking theconjunction of naturalism with the view that human beings have evolved in that

way. I see no similar problems with the conjunction of theism and the idea thathuman beings have evolved in the way contemporary evolutionary sciencesuggests.) More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the

belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with currentevolutionary doctrine... is in a certain interesting way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent.

— Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, "Introduction"[29]

Robert T. Pennock

Robert T. Pennock contends[30] that as supernatural agents and powers "areabove and beyond the natural world and its agents and powers" and "are notconstrained by natural laws", only logical impossibilities constrain what asupernatural agent could not do. He states: "If we could apply natural knowledgeto understand supernatural powers, then, by definition, they would not be



supernatural". As the supernatural is necessarily a mystery to us, it can provideno grounds on which to judge scientific models. "Experimentation requiresobservation and control of the variables.... But by definition we have no controlover supernatural entities or forces." Science does not deal with meanings; theclosed system of scientific reasoning cannot be used to define itself. Allowing

science to appeal to untestable supernatural powers would make the scientist'stask meaningless, undermine the discipline that allows science to make progress,and "would be as profoundly unsatisfying as the ancient Greek playwright'sreliance upon the deus ex machina to extract his hero from a difficultpredicament."

Naturalism of this sort says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of thesupernatural, which by this definition is beyond natural testing. As a practicalconsideration, the rejection of supernatural explanations would merely bepragmatic, thus it would nonetheless be possible, for an ontological

supernaturalist to espouse and practice methodological naturalism. For example,scientists may believe in God while practicing methodological naturalism in theirscientific work. This position does not preclude knowledge that is somehow connected to the supernatural. Generally however, anything that can bescientifically examined and explained would not be supernatural, simply by definition.

W. V. QuineMain article: Naturalized epistemology

W. V. Quine describes naturalism as the position that there is no higher tribunalfor truth than natural science itself. There is no better method than the scientificmethod for judging the claims of science, and there is neither any need nor any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology,that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.

Therefore, philosophy should feel free to make use of the findings of scientists inits own pursuit, while also feeling free to offer criticism when those claims areungrounded, confused, or inconsistent. In Quine's view, philosophy is"continuous with" science and both are empirical.[31] Naturalism is not adogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it

simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universeand that those processes are what modern science is striving to understand.However, this Quinean Replacement Naturalism finds relatively few supportersamong philosophers.[32]Karl Popper



Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yetacknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science")

has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Itsupholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into adogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empiricalmethod.

— Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.

Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on

falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove atheory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientifictheories are characterized by falsifiability.Tom Clark

Tom Clark is currently maintaining the website naturalism.org, one created in1998 with the intention to "to raise awareness of worldview naturalism and itspositive implications, and to develop and promote policies consistent with anaturalistic understanding of ourselves."[33] The following quote is taken fromTom Clark, who is currently "a research associate at the Heller School for SocialPolicy and Management."[33][34][35]

Understanding our full causal connection to the world engenders compassionand gives us greater practical control. The naturalistic view of ourselves thus hasprogressive, humanistic implications for interpersonal attitudes and social policy.

By highlighting our complete connection to the cosmos and our currentcircumstances, worldview naturalism grounds an effective approach to personal,social and existential concerns; it therefore constitutes a positive alternative tofaith-based religions and other non-naturalistic philosophies. In particular,naturalism challenges dualistic notions of free will which suppose we transcend

the cause and effect laws described by science.

If you don’t believe in anything supernatural – gods, ghosts, immaterial soulsand spirits – then you subscribe to naturalism, the idea that nature is all there is.The reason you’re a naturalist is likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you putstock in empirical, evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what’s real, asfor instance exemplified by science. You probably (and rightly) hold that such



beliefs are usually more reliable and more objective than those based inuncorroborated intuition, revelation, religious authority or sacred texts. Kepthonest by philosophy and critical thinking, science reveals a single manifold of existence, what we call nature, containing an untold myriad of interconnectedphenomena, from quarks to quasars. Nature is simply what we have good reason

to believe exists.

We can see, therefore, that naturalism as a metaphysical thesis is driven by adesire for a clear, reliable account of reality and how it works, a desire thatgenerates an unflinching commitment to objectivity and explanatory transparency. Supernaturalism, on the other hand, thrives on non-scientific, non-empirical justifications for beliefs that allow us to project our hopes and fearsonto the world, the opposite of objectivity. As naturalists, we might not alwayslike what science reveals about ourselves or our situation, but that’s thepsychological price of being what we might call cognitively responsible, of

assuming our maturity as a species capable of representing reality.

To be a thorough-going naturalist is to accept yourself as an entirely naturalphenomenon. Just as science shows no evidence for a supernatural god “upthere”, there’s no evidence for an immaterial soul or mental agent “in here”,supervising the body and brain. So naturalism involves a good deal more thanatheism or skepticism – it’s the recognition that we are full-fledged participantsin the natural order and as such we play by nature’s rules. We aren’t exempt fromthe various law-like regularities science discovers at the physical, chemical,

biological, psychological and behavioral levels. The naturalistic understandingand acceptance of our fully caused, interdependent nature is directly at odds withthe widespread belief (even among many freethinkers) that human beings havesupernatural, contra-causal free will, and so are in but not fully of this world.

The naturalist understands not only that we are not exceptions to natural laws, but that we don’t need to be in order to secure any central value (freedom, humanrights, morality, moral responsibility) or capacity (reason, empathy, ingenuity,originality). We can positively affirm and celebrate the fact that nature is enough.Indeed, the realization that we are fully natural creatures has profoundly positiveeffects, increasing our sense of connection to the world and others, fosteringtolerance, compassion and humility, and giving us greater control over our

circumstances. This realization supports a progressive and effective engagement with the human condition in all its dimensions. So we can justly call it worldview naturalism: an overarching cognitive, ethical and existential framework thatserves the same function as supernatural worldviews, but without trafficking inillusions. By staying true to science, our most reliable means of representingreality, naturalists find themselves at home in the cosmos, astonished at the sheer



scope and complexity of the natural world, and grateful for the chance toparticipate in the grand project of nature coming to know herself.

— Tom Clark, http://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism/naturalism-in-a-nutshell

Documents

Views on Naturalism