Justification for Naturalism

[Love4All]

Someone wrote in another thread,

"Naturalism is a mere dogma for which there is little or no justification whatsoever. "

This strikes me as incorrect, although I myself do not hold to Naturalism. (I hold, rather, that there are unseen realities.)

Naturalism is the doctrine that all that is, can be subsumed under the general category, “Nature.” Now, I am aware that the Church teaches that angels and demons and human souls are part of nature, but that is not what is generally meant by Naturalism. Naturalism per se tends to be contiguous with Physicalism.

But it is defined differently. There are two important forms, namely Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism. They differ thus: Methodological Naturalism is a dogma of the sciences, and a useful one. It specifies that all phenomena have natural causes. Thus, miracles are ruled out as possible subjects of study. Any phenomenon claimed to be miraculous is examined like any other phenomenon, to find the natural cause. If no natural cause can be found, the alleged miracle is left unexplained. Methodological Naturalism cannot, by definition, make any further declaration on such a matter beyond, “we do not know.”

Philosophical Naturalism, on the other hand, is not a limitation on the kinds of things we can study, but rather a limitation on the kinds of things that are, or that can possibly be. This is, perhaps, what was meant by the statement I quoted above, that Naturalism is a mere dogma. Leaving aside for the moment what a philosophical naturalist would do who witnessed a miracle firsthand, it remains that apart from miracles, there is nothing at all to contradict Philosophical Naturalism, apart from Natural Theology, which entails metaphysical speculation.

The prevailing notion of the Philosophical Naturalist appears to be that,

1. Metaphysical speculation is on shaky ground,
2. A functional understanding of the world can be arrived at under Naturalism,
3. Therefore belief in the Supernatural is unnecessary (from 2), and undesirable (from 1).

Given the above, Philosophical Naturalism seems justified.

Comments?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Someone wrote in another thread,

"Naturalism is a mere dogma for which there is little or no justification whatsoever. "

This strikes me as incorrect, although I myself do not hold to Naturalism. (I hold, rather, that there are unseen realities.)

Naturalism is the doctrine that all that is, can be subsumed under the general category, “Nature.” Now, I am aware that the Church teaches that angels and demons and human souls are part of nature, but that is not what is generally meant by Naturalism. Naturalism per se tends to be contiguous with Physicalism.

But it is defined differently. There are two important forms, namely Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism. They differ thus: Methodological Naturalism is a dogma of the sciences, and a useful one. It specifies that all phenomena have natural causes. Thus, miracles are ruled out as possible subjects of study. Any phenomenon claimed to be miraculous is examined like any other phenomenon, to find the natural cause. If no natural cause can be found, the alleged miracle is left unexplained. Methodological Naturalism cannot, by definition, make any further declaration on such a matter beyond, “we do not know.”

Philosophical Naturalism, on the other hand, is not a limitation on the kinds of things we can study, but rather a limitation on the kinds of things that are, or that can possibly be. This is, perhaps, what was meant by the statement I quoted above, that Naturalism is a mere dogma. Leaving aside for the moment what a philosophical naturalist would do who witnessed a miracle firsthand, it remains that apart from miracles, there is nothing at all to contradict Philosophical Naturalism, apart from Natural Theology, which entails metaphysical speculation.

The prevailing notion of the Philosophical Naturalist appears to be that,

1. Metaphysical speculation is on shaky ground,
2. A functional understanding of the world can be arrived at under Naturalism,
3. Therefore belief in the Supernatural is unnecessary (from 2), and undesirable (from 1).

Given the above, Philosophical Naturalism seems justified.

Comments?

Neither of these belief systems have any method by which to define what is “good” and whAt is “evil.” Under either of them, good an evil are subjective, and therefore fluctuating and liable to change with society. Since I rationally know this not to be the case (Murder is evil, child rape is evil, etc. These things are absolutes, they cannot change) Since there are goods and evils which cannot change, any system which is incapable of defining a base point by which good and evil can be measured is incomplete, and therefore unable to provide for a true basis of belief. Since naturalism cannot effectively define “good” and “evil,” it is not a good basis of belief.

To go even further, philosophical naturalism is made incomplete by the fact that it is limited by ideas that we can understand. God, by His nature, cannot be understood, therefor philosophical naturalism has no method by which to even contemplate God, let alone attempt to enter into a relationship with Him (or any overarching deity for that matter.)

Naturalism can only attain a passing understanding of the natural world based on the current, limited understanding of science and nature. It is devoid of any of the concepts that define man (soul, mind, ideas, etc.), and removes the worth of a man by placing him in the same category as any lower animal. I don’t really know what else to say, so I’m going to leave it here.

 

[ilikepizza1]

Philosophical Naturalism, on the other hand, is not a limitation on the kinds of things we can study, but rather a limitation on the kinds of things that are, or that can possibly be. This is, perhaps, what was meant by the statement I quoted above, that Naturalism is a mere dogma. Leaving aside for the moment what a philosophical naturalist would do who witnessed a miracle firsthand, it remains that apart from miracles, there is nothing at all to contradict Philosophical Naturalism, apart from Natural Theology, which entails metaphysical speculation.

But the claim that metaphysics is mere speculation is precisely what Non-philosophical naturalists would dispute. I’m not sure why we’d leave aside the questions of miracles; if miracles simply = phenomena not reducible to natural causes then it’s directly related to the validity of Naturalism and the only real disagreement between Naturalists and others.

The prevailing notion of the Philosophical Naturalist appears to be that,

1. Metaphysical speculation is on shaky ground,
2. A functional understanding of the world can be arrived at under Naturalism,
3. Therefore belief in the Supernatural is unnecessary (from 2), and undesirable (from 1).

Given the above, Philosophical Naturalism seems justified.

Comments?

I disagree with #1, proper metaphysics is not mere speculation, it is rigorous argumentation and one cannot have a solid ground for understanding the Universe without introducing some form of metaphysics. #2 seems to beg the question; whether or not a thorough understanding of the universe can be arrived at under Naturalism is exactly the disagreement between Naturalist and Non-Naturalist philosophers.

 

[Tyrion]

First, the usage of “dogma” is highly incorrect, since dogma means something “unquestionable”. As such, the “naturalist” stance is merely a “working hypothesis”, not something cast in “stone”. Second, the problem is not metaphysics, since it is truly just speculation, rather it is epistemology. As long as there is no objective method to discern if something is “beyond” nature, the “unnatural” (not “supernatural”) assumption is without a leg to stand on. Before one can even ask: “is this phenomenon not natural”, there needs to be way to find out “how does one answer this question”?

Many times, many people tried to get a reply about the “supernatural epistemology” and there is no answer. The naturalist stance is the default position, as long as the question of epistemology is unanswered. So go for it! How do you ascertain if there is an “immortal soul”? How do you show that “angels” and “demons” exist?

 

[Love4All]

First, the usage of “dogma” is highly incorrect, since dogma means something “unquestionable”. As such, the “naturalist” stance is merely a “working hypothesis”, not something cast in “stone”. Second, the problem is not metaphysics, since it is truly just speculation, rather it is epistemology. As long as there is no objective method to discern if something is “beyond” nature, the “unnatural” (not “supernatural”) assumption is without a leg to stand on. Before one can even ask: “is this phenomenon not natural”, there needs to be way to find out “how does one answer this question”?

Many times, many people tried to get a reply about the “supernatural epistemology” and there is no answer. The naturalist stance is the default position, as long as the question of epistemology is unanswered. So go for it! How do you ascertain if there is an “immortal soul”? How do you show that “angels” and “demons” exist?

How does one know God? If one can know God, then the other questions fall into place. God has revealed the immortality of the human soul and the reality of angels and demons, but how does one ascertain that what is claimed to be God’s revelation really is?

What is God? According to anyone who talks about God, God is not part of Nature, so Naturalism naturally excludes God from consideration. Then a good question becomes, is it at all possible to find out whether God’s revelation is authentic, basing oneself on a world view that excludes consideration of God a priori?

But if God is anything at all, and if whatever that is is relevant to us in any way, then it can only be that He has interacted with us somehow. So how would one, searching for God, go about finding Him? Specifically, what must one believe, a priori, to go out in search of God in the first place?

I am assuming I am talking to someone who does not specifically hold that God is real, but who is open to evidence or argument that He is. My question for you is, what is the basis of your world view? What things do you already accept are real? You alluded to Naturalism as a “working hypothesis,” but if your working hypothesis is that, a priori, there is no God, then how will you go in search of Him?

 

[Tyrion]

How does one know God? If one can know God, then the other questions fall into place. God has revealed the immortality of the human soul and the reality of angels and demons, but how does one ascertain that what is claimed to be God’s revelation really is?

What is God? According to anyone who talks about God, God is not part of Nature, so Naturalism naturally excludes God from consideration. Then a good question becomes, is it at all possible to find out whether God’s revelation is authentic, basing oneself on a world view that excludes consideration of God a priori?

But if God is anything at all, and if whatever that is is relevant to us in any way, then it can only be that He has interacted with us somehow. So how would one, searching for God, go about finding Him? Specifically, what must one believe, a priori, to go out in search of God in the first place?

I am assuming I am talking to someone who does not specifically hold that God is real, but who is open to evidence or argument that He is. My question for you is, what is the basis of your world view? What things do you already accept are real? You alluded to Naturalism as a “working hypothesis,” but if your working hypothesis is that, a priori, there is no God, then how will you go in search of Him?

Excellent post! You touched on all the pertinent points.

Yes, you are correct. I do not exclude that God might exist. I am open to objective evidence. My view is based upon a simple thing: I see no evidence for God’s existence. And, of course, I do not search for God, just like I do not search for claims of the paranormal. I am simply willing to listen and evaluate what is being said. I leave the court wide open, looking for the claims to be substantiated.

There is one thing, however: someone’s “word” is not enough. Even the church says that “private” revelations are without merit. I simply say that there were no and there are no “public” revelations. Today, with all the wonderful technology at our disposal with be the perfect time to come forth with a really public rvelation.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Goodness Me… If only I could leave the Pseudo intelligentsia crowd and become like you people…