Metaphysical naturalism and User talk:Tim Usher5: Difference between pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
General note: Vandalism on Talk:Gay. using TW
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== October 2008 ==
{{Unreferenced|date=September 2008}}
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Talk:Gay|, such as the one you made to [[:Talk:Gay]],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> [[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:''This article covers metaphysical naturalism as a worldview. [[Naturalism (philosophy)]] discusses methodological naturalism.''

'''Metaphysical''' or '''ontological naturalism''' is any [[world view|worldview]] in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, [[nature]] is all there is, and all things [[supernatural]] (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do not exist, or they are reducible to natural things. It is often simply referred to as [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], and occasionally as '''philosophical naturalism''' or [[ontology|ontological]] naturalism, though all those terms have other meanings as well, with ''naturalism'' often referring to [[methodological naturalism]].

==Definition==
===Metaphysical naturalism===
[[Metaphysics]] is the branch of [[philosophy]] concerned with what exists including what has been discovered by [[science]], thus metaphysical naturalism refers to a belief about the totality of what exists, excluding by definition [[deity|gods]], [[spirit]]s, and any other [[supernatural]] beings, objects, or forces. It is a [[belief]] that [[nature]] is all that exists and assumes that [[observation|observable]] events in [[nature]] are explained only by natural causes. Supernatural causes are not possible.

This particular definition rests in an ambiguity caused by the use of the term "supernatural" by Richard Carrier and other apologists for naturalism whereby this word indicates non-materially reducible entities (spiritual substances) rather than the traditional meaning (where a spiritual substance, if created, is encompassed within the natural world, though being a spiritual or immaterial substance).

===Sagan's concise definition===
{{quotation|The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be.|Carl Sagan<ref>[[Carl Sagan]], [[Cosmos (book)|Cosmos]], pg. 1</ref>}}

===Quasi-religion===

Metaphysical naturalism is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform the cognitive function of a religion. There is that range of deep human questions to which a religion typically provides an answer. Like a typical religion, metaphysical naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions. We may therefore say that naturalism performs the cognitive function of a religion, and hence ''can sensibly be thought of as a '''quasi-religion'''''.<ref> [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#NatSci [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]: religion-science]</ref>

The true natural philosopher is anyone inspired by a passion for pursuing wisdom and truth. The metaphysical naturalist begins by examining his 'epistemology'—theory of knowledge. Anything intended to be investigated, or asserted, first requires some criteria on hand to distinguish the true from the false—what can reasonably be asserted and believed, and what cannot. Constructing an epistemology in a reasonable and thoughtful way requires an examination of what is being investigated, how to discover if it is a possibility, and spending the time necessary to reach conclusions.

In practice, however, our epistemology is but superficially examined and applied simply by intuition. More often, one’s epistemology is simply borrowed—sometimes carelessly, sometimes not—from our parents, teachers, or peers and not examined or constructed by ourselves. If we have not even thought about it, much less carefully examined and tested what we think we know, how likely is it that our unexamined assumptions will just 'by chance' be sound and trustworthy? Everything we do, everything we believe, everything we aim at, depends entirely upon our knowledge being correct.<ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God: A defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, p. 23-24</ref>

Thus, it is the metaphysical naturalist’s duty is to question all things and have a well-grounded faith in what is well-investigated and well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted or well-liked. Metaphysical naturalism is a fundamental belief system. A religion wherein worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study, and scripture with the whole world and the whole of human learning. <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God: A defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, p. 26</ref>
====Basic beliefs====
From Sagan:

''is all there is'': In order to make this statement with surety someone must know everything there is to know about nature and the Cosmos. Else, it is an assumption based upon incomplete knowledge.
This cannot come from the scientific method, for if everything were known that could be known there would be no need for the scientific method.

''has ever been'': In order to know this for certain someone must have existed for as long as nature has existed and communicated this point to us, else it is a statement of belief based on partial data.

''ever will be'': In order to make this assertion someone needs to know the future as well as the past and present, else it is a statement of belief. The scientific method cannot inform for it deals with but the repeatable present.

These three assertions are religious assumptions believed to be true. They must be true for metaphysical naturalism to be true.

===Distinguishing metaphysical & methodological naturalism===

Metaphysical naturalism is most commonly distinguished from [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] that refers to the long-standing convention in [[science]] of the [[scientific method]] making the assumption that [[observation|observable]] events in [[nature]] are explained only by natural causes. Methodological naturalism entails the [[belief]] that for one reason or another [[empirical methods]] will only ascertain [[nature|natural facts]]. The supernatural is not explicitly denied, but supernatural explanations are considered outside of science.

=== Relationship of metaphysical & methodological naturalism ===

The relationship between metaphysical and methodological naturalism is not one-dimensional and varies among individual thinkers. To understand this relationship, two varieties of methodological naturalism should be distinguished. ''Absolute methodological naturalism'' is the view that it is in some sense impossible for any empirical method to discover supernatural facts, even if there are some. [This is compatible with (but does not entail) the view that something other than empirical methods might be able to discover supernatural facts.] ''Contingent methodological naturalism'' entails the belief that, judging from past experience, empirical methods are far more likely to uncover natural facts than supernatural ones. It is generally an ill-advised waste of resources to pursue supernatural hypotheses, but it would not be impossible to confirm them empirically if any were true. Thus not all methodological naturalists will be metaphysical naturalists.

=== Physicalism & pluralism ===

There are many different varieties of metaphysical naturalism, but all can be separated into two general categories, [[physicalism]] and [[Pluralism (philosophy of mind)|pluralism]]. ''Physicalism'' entails the claim that everything everyone has observed or claimed to observe is actually the product of fundamentally mindless arrangements or interactions of matter-energy in space-time, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe anything else exists. ''Pluralism'' (which includes [[Dualism (philosophy of mind)|dualism]]) adds to this the existence of fundamentally mindless things besides matter-energy in space-time (such as reified [[problem of universals|abstract objects]]).

===The mind is caused by natural phenomena===

What all metaphysical naturalists agree on, however, is that the fundamental constituents of [[reality]], from which everything derives and upon which everything depends, are fundamentally mindless. So if any variety of metaphysical naturalism is true, then any [[mental properties]] that exist (hence any mental powers or beings) are [[causality|causally]] derived from, and [[ontology|ontologically]] dependent on, [[systems]] of nonmental properties, powers, or things. This means metaphysical naturalism would be false if any distinctly mental property, power, or entity exists that is not ontologically dependent on some arrangement of nonmental things, or that is not causally derived from some arrangement of nonmental things, or that has causal effects without the involvement of any arrangement of nonmental things that is already causally sufficient to produce that effect.<ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 135-136</ref>

In lay terms, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena. If metaphysical naturalism is false, then some minds, or some of the contents or powers or effects of minds, are causally independent of nature (either they partly or wholly cause themselves, or they exist or operate fundamentally on their own).

Belief in the latter entails some form of [[supernaturalism]] (the opposite of naturalism), which is not limited to supernatural beings, but can encompass mindless things with distinctly mental properties, like magical objects (see [[Magic (paranormal)|magic]] and [[incantation]]) or causally efficacious [[Platonic realism|Platonic forms]] or the existence of [[love]] as a cosmic force.

==Common beliefs==

Contemporary naturalists possess a wide diversity of beliefs and engage each other in healthy debate and disagreement on many issues. However, besides the basic beliefs already described [[Metaphysical naturalism#Definition|above]], most if not all contemporary naturalists believe the following as the logical consequences of the core beliefs of naturalism. These form the basis for naturalistic interpretation of science. Logically, they do not and cannot come from science.

===Undesigned, eternal universe===

The [[universe]] has either always existed or had a purely natural origin, being neither created nor designed. Either way, naturalists hold [[nature]] (rather than, say, [[God]] or [[Tao]]) to be the eternal ground of all being. The popular [[Big Bang]] cosmology was developed within this assumption, proposing that the observable universe had a beginning, unfolding from a process of natural laws. But this does not does not resolve the question of whether all that exists began to exist at once or whether something of some sort has always existed. Some naturalists propose a [[Multiverse (science)|multiverse theory]] where it is thought that the observable universe is only part of a much larger whole. Citing the first law of thermodynamics, other naturalists propose that matter has always existed; matter, not the universe in its current state, exists eternally. <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 75-82</ref>
===Deep Time===

Since the universe or universes are eternal and have always existed, Deep Time -- the concept of infinte time -- is an indispensable part of metaphysical naturalism. Deep Time is not a scientific hypothesis, but an accepted fact within metaphysical naturalism.

===Abiogenesis===

Since matter is all there is, and since there is no god (or gods) to mess with things, Abiogenesis, life arising from inorganic matter according to natural law, is an unqualified certainty, not an hypothesis. There are several hypotheses, but thus far an explanation of how it could happen remains elusive. <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 166</ref> The concepts of [[Panspermia]] and [[Panspermia|Exoenesis]] move the origin of life to elsewhere in the universe rather than starting on earth.

===Life unplanned===

[[Life]] is an unplanned product of blind, random natural processes. In our case, this meant the combination of a chain of chemicals called [[amino acid]]s, into a pattern that was self-replicating (possibly as [[Autocatalytic set|autocatalytic]] [[RNA world hypothesis|RNA]] or [[Peptide nucleic acid|PNA]]), in a sheltered but energy-rich, unordered, random environment. The extreme improbability of such a combination suggest that life may be extremely rare. However, though life may be rare, the observable universe is so incredibly old and large that even very improbable events are virtually guaranteed to happen a few times within it, and life on earth is one of those nearly inevitable outcomes. Our existence is therefore seen as lucky rather than planned or intended, and most naturalists call upon everyone to appreciate and make the best of their good fortune rather than devaluing or squandering it. <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 167</ref>

===Evolution===

Since there was once only simple life forms and now there is a rich diversity of life on earth (and since there is no god to mess with things), [[Evolution]] by [[natural selection]] or other means is a verity of the naturalist worldview. While scientific hypotheses of how evolution developed slowly and imperfectly over deep time are widely discussed, belief in the fact of evolution is unshakable.

Our own existence as conscious animals of superior intelligence and sagacity, is explained not as the outcome of [[intelligent design]] nor as a mere accidental combination of chemicals (such as originated life), but as the product of a dynamic, random system that generates highly complex order on its own, without any guidance. Since this entails that the properties of living organisms like ourselves have been randomly derived solely according to their differential reproductive success, naturalists interpret cells, organs and species as having a "purpose" or "function" in terms of their ability to increase differential reproductive success, but do not perceive in this any moral goal that should be emulated or furthered, since nature is the cause, and nature has no compassion or plan. However, this does not exclude the possibility of true moral propositions derived from evolved facts (see [[Metaphysical naturalism#Value of society|Value of society]] and [[Metaphysical naturalism#Primacy of happiness|Primacy of happiness]] below). <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 169-171</ref>

===Mind as brain===

Human beings have no independent [[soul]] or [[spirit]], but only a material [[brain]], which operates to produce a conscious [[mind]]. Since our mind, and hence our identity and existence as [[persons]], is entirely the product of a physical process, three conclusions follow. First, all mental contents (such as [[idea]]s, [[theories]], [[emotions]], moral and personal [[values]], or [[beauty]] and [[ugliness]]) exist solely as the computational constructions of our brain, and not as things that exist independently of us. Second, damage to the brain (from disease, drugs, malnutrition, or injury) frequently entails damage to the self and therefore should be of great concern. Third, the death or destruction of our brain cannot be survived, and therefore all humans are mortal. That means, given present technology, death is inevitable and entails our complete extinction. Since this entails there is no present hope of an afterlife, naturalists argue humans need to accept this and make the most of what they have. <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 133-134</ref>

===Utility of reason===

[[Reason]] is the refinement and improvement of naturally evolved faculties, through discovering, then learning, and then employing methods and procedures that are found to increase the frequency with which we arrive at true conclusions and correct information about ourselves and the world. Naturalists thus believe that reason is superior to all the other tools available to us in ascertaining the truth, so anyone who wishes to have more beliefs that are true than are false should seek to perfect and consistently employ their reason in testing and forming beliefs. One outcome of this principle has been the discovery that empirical methods (especially those of proven use in the sciences) are unsurpassed for discovering the facts of reality, while methods of pure reason alone can securely discover only truths inherent in concepts and systems of ideas. <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 53</ref>

===Value of society===

Humans evolved as [[social animals]], which is the only reason we have developed [[culture]] and [[civilization]], and now in fact depend on them. This means that even in the neutral terms of differential reproductive success, as a species our future depends on developing and maintaining a healthy and productive culture and civilization. Any behavior contrary to that end threatens our survival and the survival of our neighbors and kin and all their descendants. Likewise, this means humans have been "designed" by blind natural forces to require a healthy society in order to flourish and feel happy and content. Therefore the pursuit of human happiness requires the pursuit of a healthy [[society]] so people can live in it, interact with it, and benefit from it.

===Primacy of happiness===

There is nothing of any greater value than human [[happiness]]. Therefore, all conduct and behavior should be oriented toward that aim, maximizing its availability while minimizing opposing risks. Though happiness is an accidental product of naturally and culturally evolved attributes of the human animal, it exceeds everything else in human experience in terms of its enjoyability and desirability, and therefore it is self-contradictory to assert that there is anything humans would enjoy or want more than their own happiness. However, there are tangible differences between happiness in this sense (as a form of pleasant contentment that everyone would desire more than anything else) and mere pleasure, as also between physical and intellectual pleasure. There are also complex realities involved in pursuing happiness, most notably those created by the complexities and limitations of natural human psychology and the complexities and limitations of living within (and depending upon) a social system. When all these distinctions and complexities are understood, a system of behavioral or attitudinal principles can be deduced, which is what naturalists define as morality. It is probably a universal conclusion among naturalists that this analysis ultimately produces a commitment to the [[Ethic of reciprocity|Golden Rule]], with many contemporary naturalists further concluding that by cultivating the personal virtues of compassion and honesty we most effectively realize this Rule and, as a result, most effectively increase our access to happiness (in frequency, degree, duration, and probability). <ref>Carrier, Richard, 2005, Sense and Goodness without God, p. 316-319</ref>

==History==
===Ancient period===

Metaphysical naturalism appears to have originated in early Greek philosophy. The earliest [[presocratic|presocratic philosophers]], such as [[Thales]], [[Anaxagoras]] or most especially [[Democritus]], were labeled by their peers and successors "the ''physikoi''" (from the [[Greek language|Greek]] φυσικός or ''physikos'', meaning "natural philosopher," borrowing on the word φύσις or ''physis'', meaning "nature") because they sought to explain everything by reference to natural causes alone, often distinctly excluding any role for gods, spirits or magic in the creation or operation of the world. This eventually led to fully developed systems such as [[Epicureanism]], which sought to explain everything that exists as the product of atoms moving in a void, or the advanced [[Aristotelianism]] of [[Strato of Lampsacus]], which sought to explain everything that exists as the inevitable outcome of uncreated natural forces or tendencies.

In their definition of nature, the ancient Greeks distinguished "nature" from "artifice." Anything that resulted from the innate properties of a thing was regarded as having a natural cause, regardless of whether those properties themselves were intelligently arranged or not, while anything that resulted from intelligent action was regarded as having an artificial cause, regardless of whether the intelligence itself was the product of natural causes. Thus, natural causes were partially distinguished from intelligent causes. It was often assumed that some intelligent causes were primary causes and not solely the product of natural properties, but not everyone agreed. Following the ''physikoi'' and their successors, some ancient intellectuals denied the existence of any intelligent causes that were not entirely the product of natural causes (thus reducing all intelligent causes to natural causes), and they represent the earliest metaphysical naturalists. However, only a few Greek and Roman intellectuals embraced such a view, though of those few, [[Epicurus]] and [[Strato of Lampsacus]] were the most famous.

Metaphysical naturalism is most notably a Western phenomenon, but an equivalent idea has long existed in the East. Though unnamed and never articulated into a coherent system, one tradition within [[Confucian]] philosophy embraced a view that can correctly be called metaphysical naturalism, dating back at least to [[Wang Chong]] in the 1st century, if not earlier. But this tradition arose independently and had little influence on the development of modern naturalist philosophy or on Eastern or Western culture.

===Middle ages to modernity===

With the rise and dominance of [[Christianity]] and the decline of [[philosophy|secular philosophy]] in the West, metaphysical naturalism became heretical and eventually illegal, thus making it difficult to document the history of metaphysical naturalism in the [[Middle Ages]]. When the [[Renaissance]] reintroduced numerous lost treatises by Greek and Roman natural philosophers, many of the ideas and concepts of naturalism were picked up again, contributing to a new [[Scientific Revolution]] that would greatly advance the study and understanding of nature. But social and legal hostility continued to prevent advocates of metaphysical naturalism from coming forward, if there were any, until the political advances of the [[Age of Enlightenment]] made genuine [[free speech]] possible. Then a few intellectuals publicly renewed the case for metaphysical naturalism, like [[Baron d'Holbach]] in the 18th century.

In this period, metaphysical naturalism finally acquired a distinct name, [[materialism]], which became the only category of metaphysical naturalism widely defended until the 20th century, when advances in physics as well as philosophy made the original premise of materialism untenable. In physics, [[matter]] was found to be a form of [[energy]] and therefore not the fundamental constituent of reality as materialists had been presuming.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} In [[philosophy]], renewed attention to the [[problem of universals]] and other undeniable but "immaterial" realities further called materialism into question. These developments refined naturalism into the two forms now widely advanced ([[physicalism]] and [[Pluralism (philosophy of mind)|naturalist pluralism]], as explained [[Metaphysical naturalism#Definition|above]]), both corresponding more closely to the system historians believe was articulated by Strato, rather than the system advanced by Epicurus as is commonly thought.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

Currently, metaphysical naturalism is more widely embraced than ever before, especially but not exclusively in the scientific community, where acquaintance with the facts of nature is broader and more secure, though metaphysical naturalism is still a minority worldview. The vast majority of the population of the world remains firmly committed to supernaturalist worldviews. However, it is likely that a substantial minority or even a majority of the population in certain [[Europe]]an and other [[first world]] countries might embrace metaphysical naturalism in some basic, unarticulated sense. To date, nothing that is not physical has ever been discovered, and so metaphysical naturalism remains a valid position based upon what is currently known. Today, noteworthy proponents are too numerous to count, but prominent defenders of metaphysical naturalism as a complete worldview include [[Mario Bunge]], [[Richard Carrier]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]], and [[David Mills (author)|David Mills]].

===Marxism, Objectivism, and secular humanism===

As a final note to the history of metaphysical naturalism, certain extreme varieties of politicized naturalism have arisen in the West, most notably [[Marxism]] in the 19th century and [[Objectivist philosophy|Objectivism]] in the 20th century.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Marxism is an expression of [[communism|communist]] or [[socialism|socialist]] ideals in a naturalist framework, while Objectivism is the exact opposite, an expression of [[capitalism|capitalist]] ideals in a naturalist framework. However, today most advocates of metaphysical naturalism in [[first world]] countries reject both extremes and embrace the more moderate political ideals of [[secular humanism]].

==Arguments for naturalism==

There are many arguments for belief in metaphysical naturalism. Only a few will be surveyed here, and only in brief. There are many others, but most involve refinements, variants or sub-arguments to the following.

===Argument from precedent===

For over three hundred years empirical methods have consistently discovered only natural things and causes, even underlying many things once thought to be supernatural. Meanwhile, no other methods have produced any consistent conclusions about the substance or causes of anything, much less anything supernatural. The logical inference is that since countless past gaps in knowledge have been filled by naturalism, and by nothing else, probably all remaining gaps in knowledge will be filled by naturalism as well. This simply extends a principle fundamental to [[science]] as a whole, that we should presume any new phenomenon obeys known laws of physics until we have empirically proven otherwise. Hence we should presume that any unexplained fact has a natural explanation until we have empirically proven otherwise. Therefore, since we have not found empirical proof of anything supernatural, and since we have abundant reason from past precedent to expect that natural explanations underlie everything, metaphysical naturalism is most probably true.

===Argument to naturalism as best explanation===

Some naturalists argue that sound naturalist hypotheses about facts still scientifically unexplained outperform all other hypotheses in explanatory scope and power, relative to explanatory simplicity. If that's true, then metaphysical naturalism is the best explanation of everything we observe and experience, and is therefore probably true. This amounts to arguing that everything makes more sense if naturalism is true, many details about ourselves and the world are more probable if naturalism is true, and to explain even the most mysterious of facts naturalism has to resort to fewer ad hoc assumptions than any known alternative. For example, resorting to the supernatural as explanation typically requires an array of completely ad hoc assumptions about the abilities, nature, limitations, and desires of supernatural forces. Even so, much of what remains unexplained is then elucidated as simply the "mystery" of the enigmatic will of the supernatural or as beyond human ken. Naturalism, on the other hand, relies much more heavily on assumptions already scientifically established as precedents and principles, and makes more specific predictions about what the observed results would be if naturalism were true, which align very well with actual observations.

===Argument from absence===

One major way in which naturalism explains things better than alternatives is that if the supernatural exists (whether as gods, powers, or spirits), it is so silent and inert that its effects are almost never observed, despite vast and extensive searching. Even the relatively few alleged observations take place only under dubious conditions lacking in sound empirical controls or tests, and on those occasions when they are subsequently subjected to sound controls or tests, they turn out to be false. Our inability to uncover clear evidence of anything supernatural is somewhat improbable if anything supernatural exists, but very probable if nothing supernatural exists, and therefore metaphysical naturalism is probably true.

===Argument from physical minds===

Scientists have accumulated vast evidence that the human [[mind]] is a product of a functioning [[brain]], which is entirely constructed from different [[Cognitive Science|interacting physical systems]] that evolved over time through the animal kingdom, and that our brain is now the most complex machine found anywhere in nature, and that our minds appear limited to our brain's physical needs and capabilities. We have discovered no clear evidence of any other kind of mind, nor any clear evidence that our minds can exceed the limitations of our physical brain, nor any clear evidence that our brains did not slowly evolve through billions of years of natural selection. This is the only way we would observe the facts to be if naturalism were true (since there is no other way to have a mind on naturalism ''except'' as the product of a slowly evolved, highly complex physical system like our brain), but if supernaturalism were true (and therefore some minds or mental content exist independently of a physical machine like our brain), what we observe is not the only way things could be (since by now we could have and likely would have observed some supernatural elements of our or other minds or observed mental powers in other things). Since this observation is less probable if supernaturalism is true, metaphysical naturalism is more likely to be true.

===Cosmological argument for naturalism===

If naturalism is true, then the formation of intelligent life via natural processes in any one given small corner of a young universe is unlikely. Therefore, the only way we would be observing life to exist if naturalism were true, is if the universe were so immensely old and big that events of such an improbability will be very rare but still likely to occur. We observe the universe to be that immensely old and big and life to be that rare. In addition, the universe is almost entirely lethal to life. By far most of what exists is a deadly radiation-filled vacuum, and by far most matter in the cosmos composes lethal environments like stars and black holes. Insofar as supernaturalism allows other possible arrangements for us to observe, such as universes more universally hospitable to life, universes far too young or small to produce life by mechanical accident, or universes in which life is far more common, what we observe to be the case is less probable given supernaturalism than given naturalism, and therefore metaphysical naturalism is more probably true.

===Argument from the implausibility of alternatives===

Finally, joining the first two arguments to the rest, we have an argument from implausibility. The only supernatural hypothesis that does not fall to any of the above arguments is a hypothesis wherein the proposed supernatural entity or ability is so rare, so obscure, so inert, so unrelated to human experience, and so strange and complex as to entail exactly the same observations already entailed by naturalism, that there is no reasonable argument to be made for believing it. [[Occam's razor]] is invoked - In the absence of any reasonable argument to believe anything supernatural exists or explains anything, and in the presence of some reasonable arguments to believe the natural world exists and explains everything, metaphysical naturalism should be accepted until disproved.

==Arguments against naturalism==

In much the same way that [[theology]] consists largely of working out which theories of divinity are plausible and coherent (and which are not), so naturalist philosophy consists largely of working out which naturalist worldviews are plausible and coherent (and which are not). Consequently, [[Straw man|attacking inept constructions]] of naturalism or caricatures of naturalism is akin to attacking inept theologies or caricatures of theology. Just as critics of the existence of God need to address the most carefully constructed and best defended theologies, critics of naturalism need to address the most carefully constructed and best defended naturalist worldviews.

That said, metaphysical naturalism has no lack of critics. It has been loathed by countless defenders of supernatural worldviews for thousands of years and has been subject to countless attacks. Some arguments present significant challenges to naturalist philosophy. Those arguments will be briefly surveyed here.

===Argument from despair===

The most commonly voiced argument against naturalism is that it leads to human despair, though this argument does not address the truth value of naturalism. There are many forms of this argument. Some emphasize the fact that naturalism entails there is no cosmic [[meaning of life]], others propose that a [[religion]] promising eternal [[salvation]] is a safer bet (as in [[Pascal's Wager]]), while others claim naturalism entails the elimination of [[free will]], which allegedly entails there is no [[knowledge]], [[hope]] or [[moral responsibility]]. This is an example of an [[Appeal to consequences]].

===Argument from religious experience===

Many people claim to have seen, felt, or talked to God or any number of other spirits, and claim these [[religious experiences]] refute naturalism. It is important to note that this argument does not conflict with some naturalistic beliefs which claim that what is commonly called supernatural is, in fact, part of the natural world. Proponents of other branches of naturalism dispute the validity of the experiences offered as proof for this argument.

===Argument from miracles===

Often some [[miracle]] is offered as evidence refuting naturalism, including alleged cases of [[faith healing|supernatural healing]], fulfilled [[prophecy|prophetic]] or [[psychic]] predictions, or the supposed impossibility of composing some book (like the [[Bible]] or the [[Koran]]) without divine aid. Naturalists often doubt the validity of these miracles.

===Argument from the necessity of God===

One of the more esoteric arguments against naturalism is to claim that it is in some sense impossible for the universe to exist unless it is caused or cohabited by a supernatural entity.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} There are several forms of this argument, some requiring a demonstration of the premise that the universe began to exist (like the [[Kalam cosmological argument]]). Others argue that even if the universe has always existed, the act of getting from some distant point in the past to now would involve transcending an infinite amount of time through consecutive addition, an arguably impossible feat. As the impossible has allegedly been demonstrated as having occurred, the opponent of naturalism suggests the necessity of supernatural activity.

===Argument to cosmological design===

Also known as the [[Fine-tuning|Fine Tuning]] argument, this is the claim that the fundamental constants of physics and laws of nature appear so finely-tuned to permit life that only a supernatural engineer can explain it.

===Argument from improbability of life===

Many claim the [[origin of life]] was too improbable to have occurred without supernatural intervention and therefore naturalism fails to explain the appearance of life. This argument is usually based on statistics and figures that supposedly tell the probability of life occurring through natural means. It is argued that this probability is so small as to be safely assumed to be zero.

===Argument to biological design===

Recently popular is the legally unscientific<ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139 Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 79]</ref> claim that certain structures in evolved organisms are too complex to have evolved by natural selection and can only be explained as the result of [[intelligent design]]. This argument suggests that certain biological instances (the favorite example being the eye) could not have occurred gradually, but must have come to be instantaneously. This is referred to as the argument from [[irreducible complexity]].

===Argument from consciousness===

Since no one has yet scientifically explained the qualitative nature of [[consciousness|conscious experience]], otherwise known as [[qualia]], some argue that naturalism is therefore refuted or should not be believed. Proponents of this argument suggest that naturalism's lack of a definite explanation on this matter is not a result of a simple lack of research (which would indicate that science may one day explain qualia), but that naturalism cannot explain qualia because no valid physical explanation exists.

===Argument from reason===

Some have argued that certain features of human [[reason]] cannot be explained by naturalism. For example, it is claimed that naturalism cannot explain [[intentionality]], [[mental causation]], or the existence of [[logic|logical laws]] or [[abstract objects]].

===Argument from physical law===

Some claim naturalism cannot explain the existence of [[physical laws]]. This argument takes many forms, but the two most common are the claim that the mathematical nature of physical laws entails a supernatural mind behind them and the claim that naturalism can provide no ontological foundation for physical laws, requiring some supernatural power or being to realize and maintain them. Yet another argument, related to the argument from incoherence, states that because all data available to naturalists is based on physical laws, any attempt on the part of naturalism to explain physical laws would be an instance of [[begging the question]].

===Argument from incoherence===

Sometimes it is claimed that naturalism entails self-contradictory commitments. This argument involves the claim that metaphysical naturalism precludes all nonphysical data in its premise. Because metaphysical naturalism assumes that everything is physical, using physical data in support of it would constitute [[circular reasoning]]. At this point in the argument, the only data that could plausibly support metaphysical naturalism would be nonphysical data. Opponents then argue that any existence of such data would be a direct contradiction of metaphysical naturalism. Finally, it is concluded that metaphysical naturalism is an illogical worldview.

===Moral argument===

There are two kinds of moral argument: the claim that naturalism eliminates [[morality]] and the claim that moral facts exist that naturalism cannot explain. The first claim, that there can be no moral truth if naturalism is true, is a variety of the [[Metaphysical naturalism#Argument from Despair|argument from despair]] already noted above, and naturalists respond in the same way here as there. In addition, naturalists argue we can derive moral propositions from actual facts about human needs and desires and the social and physical environment we inhabit. As to the second claim, naturalists respond that no one has ever demonstrated the actual existence of any moral facts that naturalism cannot explain.

===Evolutionary argument against naturalism===

{{main|Evolutionary argument against naturalism}}

[[Alvin Plantinga]], a contemporary philosopher of [[epistemology]] at [[University of Notre Dame|Notre Dame]] has argued that anyone who holds to the truth of both [[metaphysical naturalism]] and [[evolution]] is irrational in doing so. His argument relies on establishing that the probability that unguided evolution would have produced reliable cognitive faculties is either low or inscrutable. If so, one who holds both naturalism and evolution acquires a “defeater” for every belief he holds, including the beliefs associated with naturalism and evolution.

==See also==
* [[Atheism]]

==Select bibliography==
===Historical Overview===

*Edward B. Davis and [[Robin Collins]], "Scientific Naturalism." In ''Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction,'' ed. Gary B. Ferngren, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, pp. 322-34.

===Pro===
* [[David Malet Armstrong]], ''A World of States of Affairs''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. [ISBN 0-521-58064-1]
*[[Mario Bunge]], 2006, ''Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism'', University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-9075-3 and 2001, ''Scientific Realism: Selected Essays of Mario Bunge'', Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-892-5
*[[Richard Carrier]], 2005, [[Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism]], AuthorHouse. ISBN 1-4208-0293-3
* Mario De Caro & David Macarthur (eds), 2004. ''Naturalism in Question''. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01295-X
*[[Daniel Dennett]], 2003, ''[[Freedom Evolves]]'', Penguin. ISBN 0-14-200384-0 and 2006, ''[[Breaking the Spell]]: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon'', Viking. ISBN 0-670-03472-X
*[[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]], 2005, ''[[The End of Faith]]: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason'', W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5
*[[Andrew Melnyk]], 2003, ''A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism'', Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82711-6
*[[David Mills (author)|David Mills]], 2004, ''[[Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It]]'', Xlibris. ISBN 1-4134-3481-9
*[[Jeffrey Poland]], 1994, ''Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations'', Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-824980-2

===Con===
*[[James Beilby]], ed., 2002, ''Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism'', Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8763-3
*[[C.S. Lewis]], ed., 1996, "Miracles", Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-065301-9
*[[Phillip E. Johnson]], 1998, ''Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education'', InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0 and 2002, ''The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism'', InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2395-6
*[[William Lane Craig]] and [[J.P. Moreland]], eds., 2000, ''Naturalism: A Critical Analysis'', Routledge. ISBN 0-415-23524-3
*[[Michael Rea]], 2004, ''World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism'', Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924761-7
*[[Victor Reppert]], 2003, ''C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason'', InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2732-3
*[[Mark Steiner]], 2002, ''The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem'', Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00970-3

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.naturalism.org/ Center for Naturalism]
* [http://skepdic.com/naturalism.html Naturalism] entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/ Naturalism Library] at the Secular Web
* [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/naturalism.html Naturalism as a Worldview] resource page by Richard Carrier
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html A Defense of Naturalism] by Keith Augustine (2001)

[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Metaphysics]]
[[Category:Meta-ethics]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Secularism]]

[[is:Frumspekileg náttúruhyggja]]
[[he:נטורליזם מטאפיזי]]
[[hu:Filozófiai naturalizmus]]
[[sh:Metafizički naturalizam]]
[[fi:Naturalismi (ontologia)]]
[[zh:形上學自然主義]]

Revision as of 01:51, 11 October 2008

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Gay, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metaphysical_naturalism&oldid=244491549"