Quince
National Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Academics, read please (Naturalism vs Theism?)
If you are a faculty member, take a look at this:
http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm
Yes, it's way too long, but the point he makes is very, very important.
[Edited on 21-2-2005 by chemoleo]
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
And what is the point?
I don't get it. Yes, the article is very long, with complicated language that serves rather to confuse than to clearly state a point...
So it's making the argument of naturalism versus theism, the trust in logical deduction that is NOT based on belief, rather than to ascribe the
unexplainable to the supernatural (theism?)?
I never quite saw the argument, to be honest, in the first place.
Science is about reproducibility, it's about logical deduction, theories that can explain the states of matter and so on.
Religion/Theism is about assigning all the worlds wonders primarily to a higher being (i.e. the universe, consciousness, 'soul' etc), and it
seems the theists (so I ahve read elsewhere) would like to explain the currently unexplainable by introducing the 'logical necessity' of a
supernatural being.
Fair enough, they may, and they will unfortuantely have to retract their argument as soon as the previously unexplainable becomes explained 
Not that I reckon EVERYTHING that there is to explained will be understood one day.
Nonetheless, naturalism does NOT exclude the presence of a higher being. So what's all the fuss about? Same goes for evolution (you know about
that case in Georgia where the term 'evolution' was temporarily scrapped from school books). Evolution does not exlude the presence
of a higher being.
After all, a 'god' may have set the rules of the universe, and all the rules that it is governed by, and then let it run on its own, to
create everything that we observe and can observe in a scientific manner.
So- if naturalism doesn't exclude a higher being, then what's all the fuss about?
But Quince, since you fully read that article, please post away regarding the precise point it makes
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
I read it
The point was not that naturalism is wrong, but that most philosophers who embrace naturalism have remained ignorant about challenges to their
standard arguments that have emerged since the 1960s. This ignorance of theistic philosophers' work has made naturalists' own work less
rigorous or compelling than it might otherwise be. If the naturalists are correct, most of them are currently correct "by accident" since
they have not adequately defended their position against theistic challenges. The author outlines how he believes that naturalist philosophers can
regain the upper hand, but in order to do so they must understand and confront the challenges that their position faces. They must become
"informed naturalists."
Interesting though it was, I don't think the essay is intended or expected to have much impact outside the field of philosophy itself. The essay
is about philosophy, not science. Scientists often make embarassing blunders when they write about philosophy. The same is true of many endeavors
where people who are experts in one domain attempt to play expert in an unfamiliar domain, like economists talking about ecologies or engineers
talking about the legal system. So I suspect that the less is said about this article, the better it will be.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
I see 
Does the author give examples as to how the presumed naturalist's ignorance about the work of theistic philosophers makes their work less
'rigorous' or 'compelling'?
What precisely are the theistic challenges that the naturalist does not bother to face?
I don't quite understand how 'the naturalists' lost the upper hand, it's not science versus religion, there IS science (for any
questioning mind) and there IS religion for those who choose so.
Hmm. I really should read it I guess. Tomorrow.
Oh, and why do the naturalists have the burden of proof? After all, it's the theists who are trying to prove something unprovable
Edit: Does anyone, on the very off chance, have access to this philoonline journal? THere are a few articles that seem of interest, i.e. Laurance Carlin, 'Can Any Divine Punishment be Morally
Justified?' (he argues it doesn't).
[Edited on 21-2-2005 by chemoleo]
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
Quince
National Hazard
Posts: 773
Registered: 31-1-2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
One noteworthy component of the article is that he reframes theism as criticism of naturalism, and then states that atheism, rather than being a mere
skepticism of theism and a subfield of philosophy of religion, should be seen in a different light:
"Atheism should be considered as a defense of naturalism against skeptical attacks, and thereby to play a foundational role in justifying the
presuppositions of positive naturalist philosophy."
Actually, the author in some of his other articles shows that one can indeed argue from a scientific standpoing against theism:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/quantum_cosmology's_implication_of_atheism_(1997).htm
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/a_sound_logical_argument_from_evil....
This completely contradicts the notion some people hold that science and religion are completely separate and one cannot say anything on the other.
There is much more interesting material he's written at that TLD (qsmithwmu.com). I don't mean to uncritically accept this stuff, but
he's doing a pretty good job (plus I already hold similar views, and I'm glad to see them supported by more rigorous arguments than the ones
I've played out in my mind).
One thing I've found I disagree with is his view on the necessity of QM in cognition research:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/why_cognitive_scientists_cannot_ign...
This argument depends on the interpretation of QM one adopts, and as I tend towards Mohrhoff's (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9903051), I disagree with this completely. Even when one considers consciousness, it seems like it's close
to bein nailed down without QM (see Damasio's excellent "The Feeling of What Happens" . From my studies of neuroscience and cognitive psychology, I can see that most of the experts in that field agree.
The main relevant thing that QM has on the issue is the Bekenstein bound, which limits the number of possible distinguishable quantum states in a
finite region. This finiteness places strict limits on the information processing power of any physical system, including the brain. The Godelian
and Turing restrictions on algorithmic computational systems apply to human minds just as much as they apply to computers (Penrose's discredited
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding).
Finally, this one is quite interesting:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/moral_realism_and_infinte_spacetime...
I think many people have already had such an idea in mind; I know I have
[Edited on 21-2-2005 by Quince]
\"One of the surest signs of Conrad\'s genius is that women dislike his books.\" --George Orwell
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1070
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
| Quote: |
Nonetheless, naturalism does NOT exclude the presence of a higher being. So what's all the fuss about? Same goes for evolution (you know about
that case in Georgia where the term 'evolution' was temporarily scrapped from school books). Evolution does not exlude the presence
of a higher being.
After all, a 'god' may have set the rules of the universe, and all the rules that it is governed by, and then let it run on its own, to
create everything that we observe and can observe in a scientific manner.
So- if naturalism doesn't exclude a higher being, then what's all the fuss about?
But Quince, since you fully read that article, please post away regarding the precise point it makes |
Chemleo you could not be more correct. I try to keep an open ear and mind to the religious fanatics but when they are deliberately defiant in the
face of logic, I can't help feeling frustrated. You cannot explain too clearly without stomping all over their belief system. Furthermore, if
one of these sheeple is someone you normally resepct and care for, its best to turn away for a while.
I believe that God did create us in his own image and he wants us to use the gift of intellect so we can make informed descisions. Honestly, if
someone is a follower of God only to receive acceptance from peers how can God trush him/her if the decision was not a truly informed one. 
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
