If metaphysical naturalism is true, then how would one explain life and death in nature?

[IWantGod]

Why would a physical object be concerned about it’s mortality?

Wouldn’t the existence of that very concern contradict metaphysical naturalism insomuch as it presupposes the existence of something and the potential loss of something that has no objective reality?

If physical reality is fundamentally blind undirected processes with no goal direction in it’s nature, then what could it possibly mean to be alive or dead given such a world view? When an organism ceases to be, the physical reality of which it was comprised still exists. The atoms do not cease to be.

So what is a nature that we can say it is alive or dead?

 

[Wozza]

Entropy…

 

[IWantGod]

Entropy…

That’s a scientific statement, it does not treat the philosophical question of what it means for a nature to be alive or dead given metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Vico]

Why would a physical object be concerned about it’s mortality?

For an animal, instinctive fear favors the continuation of species.

 

[IWantGod]

For an animal, instinctive fear favors the continuation of species.

Yes, but does the existence of such a thing makes sense in a world where metaphysical naturalism is true. And by metaphysical naturalism i mean the idea that only physical things exist and that physical reality is fundamentally blind undirected processes with no goal direction in it’s nature.

Does it even make sense to speak of an animal being alive.

 

[Vico]

… physical reality is fundamentally blind …

It does seem that naturalism has a contrary idea that philosophical theories are species of scientific theories but such philosophical theories cannot be known, and do not represent the world.

 

[Wozza]

Vico:

For an animal, instinctive fear favors the continuation of species.

Yes, but does the existence of such a thing makes sense in a world where metaphysical naturalism is true. And by metaphysical naturalism i mean the idea that only physical things exist and that physical reality is fundamentally blind undirected processes with no goal direction in it’s nature.

Does it even make sense to speak of an animal being alive.

The fact that nature is a blind and unguided process doesn’t preclude the existence of life. And hence death. One either accepts that or assumes some higher purpose.

Although mostly it works top down. One already accepts that God exists so must therefore believe in a purpose.

 

[IWantGod]

The fact that nature is a blind and unguided process doesn’t preclude the existence of life.

Why? Don’t just say that it’s because you can see that life exists, because that would be a circular argument.

We are comparing the philosophical idea of metaphysical naturalism to the world we see.