Naturalism ... a self-refuting argument?

[Oneofthediaspora]

Asked and answered, but as you clearly don't like the answer, I won't bother responding.

Where?

 

[MaxP]

This thread seems to be about proving opponents of naturalism wrong, not proving naturalism. Naturalism can't really be proven correct until everything can be explained naturally, which we have not advanced scientifically enough to do(will we ever?). So naturalism is still a theory, and I don't see why the naturalists ridicule others' theories.

 

[b&wpac4]

This thread seems to be about proving opponents of naturalism wrong, not proving naturalism. Naturalism can't really be proven correct until everything can be explained naturally, which we have not advanced scientifically enough to do(will we ever?). So naturalism is still a theory, and I don't see why the naturalists ridicule others' theories.

The inverse of that is true as well. Until something is proved to be explained naturally, it can't be disproved either.

 

[TeddyKGB]

This thread seems to be about proving opponents of naturalism wrong, not proving naturalism. Naturalism can't really be proven correct until everything can be explained naturally, which we have not advanced scientifically enough to do(will we ever?). So naturalism is still a theory, and I don't see why the naturalists ridicule others' theories.

Naturalism is not a theory. It is both a metaphysical paradigm and a methodological assumption. This naturalist ridicules supernaturalist paradigms for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The supernaturalist usually is a naturalist in practice and a supernaturalist in concept. She tacitly accepts the naturalistic science behind medicine, electronics, chemistry, etc., then invokes God in precisely those situations where God's involvement is unobservable: The mother whose cancer goes into remission, the narrowly-avoided auto accident, the protection from terrorist attacks, etc.

2. The supernaturalist often is absurdly specific and self-sure. The God who healed her mother/helped us catch Saddam Hussein/created the universe must be Jehovah; it couldn't have been Vishnu or Loki or Amaterasu.

Ultimately, to explain everything "naturally" simply means without recourse to a purposeful entity.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I have been a little bit uncharacteristically smug in this thread tbh, maybe transcendentalism brings it out.
I'll have to confess, I'm not sure how I could put my argument in syllogistic form. You could help me out there possibly with a few prompts.

In philosophical circles the argument is known as the Transcendental Argument for God or TAG. Its major historical proponent was Cornelius van Til, and its major contemporary proponent is Greg Bahnsen. The wiki entry is rather weak, but some of the external links are worthwhile.

I say this in caution: In my opinion, TAG apologetics and their counterarguments are the most philosophically dense and often inscrutable scribblings I have ever had the chore of reading. The seasoned TAGist seems to believe that the more incomprehensible the argument, the more likely it is to be true. For that reason, I can only stand to take the obverse position so far.

 

[MaxP]

Naturalism is not a theory. It is both a metaphysical paradigm and a methodological assumption. This naturalist ridicules supernaturalist paradigms for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The supernaturalist usually is a naturalist in practice and a supernaturalist in concept. She tacitly accepts the naturalistic science behind medicine, electronics, chemistry, etc., then invokes God in precisely those situations where God's involvement is unobservable: The mother whose cancer goes into remission, the narrowly-avoided auto accident, the protection from terrorist attacks, etc.

Well, I, for one, tend to be consistent. I thank God for giving us the means to create computers, medicine, etc., and I also thank Him for doing things. I do not think He directly reaches down and bumps the car aside, or that He physically reaches down and squashes the cancer. I think anything He accomplishes in the natural realm He does naturally(except in a few instances of miracles).

2. The supernaturalist often is absurdly specific and self-sure. The God who healed her mother/helped us catch Saddam Hussein/created the universe must be Jehovah; it couldn't have been Vishnu or Loki or Amaterasu.

Well, that would be a debate as to the nature of God if He exists; ofttimes, people never actually think about it, but sometimes people have logically concluded their God best fits what they can infer from His nature. Unfortunately, any reasoned discussion of God's nature betwixt people of different faiths ofttimes simply breaks down into the participant condemning each other to a place of eternal punishment.

Ultimately, to explain everything "naturally" simply means without recourse to a purposeful entity.

So naturalism implies a cycle of infinite natural regress. I would also say "super" naturalism, per se, is not un-natural. Because naturalism seeks to assign a cause to everything. People who believe in God say that line of causes leads back to God, who is caused by virtue of existence being.
An uncaused cause is not any more of an illogical(and perhaps more logical?) conclusion than everything is causing everything else with no end or beginning.

EDIT: I don't ascribe to a cycle because I don't see how a cycle can be started if every part of it is indifferent to its and the others existence.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ahh you see, this is were things got a bit nasty before. That was my fault for not explaining properly but I can't let this go.
Now this is really fundamental so if it seems that I am stating the obvious; I am, but just to point out how much we assume when really we have no right to.

You say that we have have 500 years of validated naturalism. We don't actually, but I see your point.
We have a hell of a long time of validated reason.

You, quite rightly in my opinion, make the inference "If repeatedly validated then likely to be true".

But this, in itself, is an inference from observation using reason and reason is the thing you wish to "prove" (OK maybe not prove exactly but you know what I mean and I'm running out of synonyms here) so the argument is circular.
I still maintain that on a very fundamental level naturalism cannot provide any explanation for reason. Reason just simply has to exist. When something just simply has to be you are getting into philosophy and metaphysics whether you like it or not.
When you say that "science works" I agree with you but you are not going far enough. It should be science works because of and on the assumption that reason is valid. Which is a very different thing.
That leaves science behind, not because science isn't useful (it is) but because science works because reason is valid.

Is your argument that because phenomenon tend to obey reason, then naturalists must provide an account of reason?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Well, I, for one, tend to be consistent. I thank God for giving us the means to create computers, medicine, etc., and I also thank Him for doing things. I do not think He directly reaches down and bumps the car aside, or that He physically reaches down and squashes the cancer. I think anything He accomplishes in the natural realm He does naturally(except in a few instances of miracles).

I guess it's nice that God is okay with post hoc reasoning, but you nonetheless still call the cable company first when you can't watch American Idol, and you still take your car to the Jiffy Lube when it needs an oil change, and you do all this without wondering whether God is going to help you out or not.

Well, that would be a debate as to the nature of God if He exists; ofttimes, people never actually think about it, but sometimes people have logically concluded their God best fits what they can infer from His nature. Unfortunately, any reasoned discussion of God's nature betwixt people of different faiths ofttimes simply breaks down into the participant condemning each other to a place of eternal punishment.

I daresay that no one has ever "logically concluded" anything about God's nature or identity. The moment you cry supernatural, the moment you bestow upon God existence and power beyond comprehension is the moment you cease to be able to "logically conclude" anything about who or what God is.

So naturalism implies a cycle of infinite natural regress. I would also say "super" naturalism, per se, is not un-natural.

Why does naturalism imply a "cycle of infinite natural regress"?

Because naturalism seeks to assign a cause to everything.

Since when? Have I not sufficiently explained the apparent randomness and acausality that arises from quantum theory?

People who believe in God say that line of causes leads back to God, who is caused by virtue of existence being.
An uncaused cause is not any more of an illogical(and perhaps more logical?) conclusion than everything is causing everything else with no end or beginning.

Perhaps not, but the universal assumption is that the "uncaused cause" of the cosmological argument is some conscious, purposeful uber-being. I submit that there is no reason to believe that.

EDIT: I don't ascribe to a cycle because I don't see how a cycle can be started if every part of it is indifferent to its and the others existence.

MY EDIT: So any fundamental truths about existence must have some teleological component?

 

[MaxP]

I guess it's nice that God is okay with post hoc reasoning, but you nonetheless still call the cable company first when you can't watch American Idol, and you still take your car to the Jiffy Lube when it needs an oil change, and you do all this without wondering whether God is going to help you out or not.

I never said God would help you while you sit on your ass. Catholics, for one, believe God will only assist humans if they firs initiate the act themselves.

I daresay that no one has ever "logically concluded" anything about God's nature or identity. The moment you cry supernatural, the moment you bestow upon God existence and power beyond comprehension is the moment you cease to be able to "logically conclude" anything about who or what God is.

I'd have to say Aquinas "logically concludes," quite a few things. Unless him being Christian means he can't think.

Why does naturalism imply a "cycle of infinite natural regress"?

Because everything can be explained. So can the explanation. So can that explanation, etc.

Since when? Have I not sufficiently explained the apparent randomness and acausality that arises from quantum theory?

But naturalism would seek to explain the theory naturally.

Perhaps not, but the universal assumption is that the "uncaused cause" of the cosmological argument is some conscious, purposeful uber-being. I submit that there is no reason to believe that.

I would submit that that which caused the universe, with nothing to build it from, would have to possess the qualities therein.

MY EDIT: So any fundamental truths about existence must have some teleological component?

No. But they must have a purposeful component to call its start. With ball bouncing back and forth, we can seek to explain the mechanism of the ball bouncing, or we can seek to explain how the ball started bouncing.


BTW, Merry Christmas you God-hating Darwinist!

 

[TeddyKGB]

I never said God would help you while you sit on your ass. Catholics, for one, believe God will only assist humans if they firs initiate the act themselves.

No kidding. That's a doctrine honed by 2000 years of God not healing plague victims or stopping genocides or fixing cable or changing oil.

I'd have to say Aquinas "logically concludes," quite a few things. Unless him being Christian means he can't think.

Well, he tried to. Doesn't mean he actually succeeded.

Because everything can be explained. So can the explanation. So can that explanation, etc.

Or there exists at least one brute fact. That is also a position consistent with naturalism.

But naturalism would seek to explain the theory naturally.

And a perfectly consistent natural explanation might be 'particles come into and go out of existence randomly and causelessly.'

I would submit that that which caused the universe, with nothing to build it from, would have to possess the qualities therein.

That is a fallacy of composition. The builders and machines responsible for the LHC do not each need to be able to accelerate particles to relativistic speeds.

The most we can say about the hypothetical cause of the universe is tautological: The cause of the universe must be sufficient to cause the universe.

No. But they must have a purposeful component to call its start. With ball bouncing back and forth, we can seek to explain the mechanism of the ball bouncing, or we can seek to explain how the ball started bouncing.

I still fail to grasp how you conclude that the Cause of All Things "must" be this and not that.

BTW, Merry Christmas you God-hating Darwinist!

Lulz. I'll come back to this when I have come up with a sufficiently snarky reply. Perhaps God is inhibiting my sarcastic cortex at the moment.

 

[MewtwoX]

Do I detect someone trying to use the Problem of Induction from a position of Naturalism? I would think that such a problem could easily be raised against any other competing position of metaphysics.
In favour of Naturalism, I would simply argue that Inductive logic is shown useful with deductive reasoning based on probability theory. I think one of Boyle's earlier theories of Scientific Induction offered up this route.

 

[MaxP]

No kidding. That's a doctrine honed by 2000 years of God not healing plague victims or stopping genocides or fixing cable or changing oil.

It's an old doctrine, actually.

Well, he tried to. Doesn't mean he actually succeeded.

So what would you find invalid or untrue in his logic?

Or there exists at least one brute fact. That is also a position consistent with naturalism.

So you would contend that brute fact IS the cycle?

And a perfectly consistent natural explanation might be 'particles come into and go out of existence randomly and causelessly.'

But not baselessly(or perhaps even not without object. If there is an onject to the existence of the particles, and there is no other way to explain them, you could say there existence is caused by the necessity of them. Much like God. )

That is a fallacy of composition. The builders and machines responsible for the LHC do not each need to be able to accelerate particles to relativistic speeds.

No, they don't. But if I came over and willed the LHC into existence, then I have the components necessary for the LHC. It's a more complicated argument; others make it better. I'm no genius.

The most we can say about the hypothetical cause of the universe is tautological: The cause of the universe must be sufficient to cause the universe.

The cause of the universe must be the first cause. From that we can infer, as Aquinas does, much(or a lot).

I still fail to grasp how you conclude that the Cause of All Things "must" be this and not that.

I have asserted it "must" not be indifferent as to the start of all things, or else things would never have started. It would have been the potential cause(with NOTHING to react or set it off) for eternity. If there is a cause(there's gotta be), its not random. Would you disagree?

Lulz. I'll come back to this when I have come up with a sufficiently snarky reply. Perhaps God is inhibiting my sarcastic cortex at the moment.

He obviously is not.

 

[TeddyKGB]

It's an old doctrine, actually.

I know. But God's visibility problems are substantially the same this millennium as last.

So what would you find invalid or untrue in his logic?

Pretty much anything having to do with knowledge gained through supernatural revelation.

So you would contend that brute fact IS the cycle?

It could be. It seems we must acknowledge that even 'an infinite regress of causes' is itself a brute fact.

But not baselessly(or perhaps even not without object. If there is an onject to the existence of the particles, and there is no other way to explain them, you could say there existence is caused by the necessity of them. Much like God. )

I don't follow. How is "baselessly" related to or different than "causelessly"?

No, they don't. But if I came over and willed the LHC into existence, then I have the components necessary for the LHC. It's a more complicated argument; others make it better. I'm no genius.

I don't know anything about willing stuff into existence. Whatever might logically follow from that is beyond my ability to discern.

The cause of the universe must be the first cause. From that we can infer, as Aquinas does, much(or a lot).

He does so, however, using the highly dubious framework of supernatural revelation.

I have asserted it "must" not be indifferent as to the start of all things, or else things would never have started. It would have been the potential cause(with NOTHING to react or set it off) for eternity. If there is a cause(there's gotta be), its not random. Would you disagree?

Not at all. The multiverse conjecture, for example, is an attractive naturalistic model and relies heavily on randomness and causelessness.

 

[MaxP]

I know. But God's visibility problems are substantially the same this millennium as last.

Depends where you're looking. At your toaster, or at Guadeloupe or Fatima.

Pretty much anything having to do with knowledge gained through supernatural revelation.

When arguing about the existence of God, he doesn't use a scrap of it. And he uses revelation very, very infrequently, only to refute arguments of those who believe something else based on revelation, so the arguments that would concern you do not have a scrap of revelation in them, just logic.

It could be. It seems we must acknowledge that even 'an infinite regress of causes' is itself a brute fact.

The cause itself is in the abstract, then. I also don't think infinite time solves the problem of dependent existence.

I don't follow. How is "baselessly" related to or different than "causelessly"?

They have a "base" from which to come into existence. So, really, in order for them to exist it requires another thing to exist. it is still dependent existence.

I don't know anything about willing stuff into existence. Whatever might logically follow from that is beyond my ability to discern.

Then think of it this way; if I cut off my finger, i would possess most of the qualities of that finger, no?

He does so, however, using the highly dubious framework of supernatural revelation.

As I said before, he doesn't use a scrap of "supernatural revelation" except to refute those who infer things falsely from said revelation.

Not at all. The multiverse conjecture, for example, is an attractive naturalistic model and relies heavily on randomness and causelessness.

It also assumes the existence of many other universe we can't, an probably never will, see. the argument for God only presumes the existence of this universe, whose existence is something we know, not something we guess.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Depends where you're looking. At your toaster, or at Guadeloupe or Fatima.

Exactly. If you go stare at this statue God might or might not cure your asthma, but God won't fly you there or fly you home. God will only fit into this little tiny space over here precisely where we can keep you from looking too hard.

When arguing about the existence of God, he doesn't use a scrap of it. And he uses revelation very, very infrequently, only to refute arguments of those who believe something else based on revelation, so the arguments that would concern you do not have a scrap of revelation in them, just logic.

You are talking about the Five Ways, of course. Forgive me.

I don't think there is any way to address all five arguments at once. We have substantially covered the cosmological (unmoved mover), so feel free to specify any of the others for further discussion.

The cause itself is in the abstract, then. I also don't think infinite time solves the problem of dependent existence.

I don't think most cosmological models posit mathematically infinite time anyway. The universal dimension known as time came into existence at the same time as the spatial dimensions: immediately after t = 0.

They have a "base" from which to come into existence. So, really, in order for them to exist it requires another thing to exist. it is still dependent existence.

True enough, but I am not convinced that this is a problem. Since a true something-from-nothing model is necessarily without cause or prior condition, I do not believe we will be able to get there by reason or empiricism.

Then think of it this way; if I cut off my finger, i would possess most of the qualities of that finger, no?

Weird question. Do you have a fingerprint?

It also assumes the existence of many other universe we can't, an probably never will, see. the argument for God only presumes the existence of this universe, whose existence is something we know, not something we guess.

Not quite. God presumes 'universe + God'.

 

[MaxP]

Exactly. If you go stare at this statue God might or might not cure your asthma, but God won't fly you there or fly you home. God will only fit into this little tiny space over here precisely where we can keep you from looking too hard.

I was referencing the events that happened there, not any subsequent pilgramages or devotion you may be thinking of.

You are talking about the Five Ways, of course. Forgive me.

I don't think there is any way to address all five arguments at once. We have substantially covered the cosmological (unmoved mover), so feel free to specify any of the others for further discussion.

Yeah, I suppose it came down to whether people thought a cycle could simply exist, by existing. I do not think dependent existence can exist by its own merit.
I don't know, which one would you like to discuss?

I don't think most cosmological models posit mathematically infinite time anyway. The universal dimension known as time came into existence at the same time as the spatial dimensions: immediately after t = 0.

So then the argument is as to the nature of the Uncaused Cause?
Would you mind a copy + paste of Aquinas or a link?
I can understand if you would like me to present his arguments rather than forcing you to do the footwork.

True enough, but I am not convinced that this is a problem. Since a true something-from-nothing model is necessarily without cause or prior condition, I do not believe we will be able to get there by reason or empiricism.

While, like I said earlier, when an argument excludes reason and that which we can sense as a possibility for arguing against it, there is no way to prove, or disprove it, or even logically argue for it.

Weird question. Do you have a fingerprint?

Good, point, but the analogy doesn't translate.
Perhaps cutting a chunk off a piece of cheese would be a better analogy.
Since God is the basis of existence(the big cheese) the pieces of existence (little cheese) must contain at least some of the properties of the base, but they lack the grandness of the base.

Not quite. God presumes 'universe + God'.

God arguments go "Universe leads to God."
Multiverse theories, however, go "This, this, this and this, which we have really little/no evidence for, and scant logical reasoning for(logical reasoning most likely, frankly, based on the premise trying to be proved by the theory, at least for naturalists), could potentially prove our philosophical ideology correct."

 

[TeddyKGB]

I was referencing the events that happened there, not any subsequent pilgramages or devotion you may be thinking of.

I know.

Yeah, I suppose it came down to whether people thought a cycle could simply exist, by existing. I do not think dependent existence can exist by its own merit.

I am no more intuitively comfortable with infinite regression than the next Teddy, but I do know that cosmological models are much less conceptual and much more mathematical at their lunatic fringes. Throw in what we already know about quantum mechanics, and I am consequently hesitant to conclude that a theory-of-everything must align with my common sense.

I don't know, which one would you like to discuss?

Which ones do you think strongly argue for specific characteristics of God? I'm looking for more than quaint vagaries like "umoved," "perfect," and "purposeful."

So then the argument is as to the nature of the Uncaused Cause?
Would you mind a copy + paste of Aquinas or a link?
I can understand if you would like me to present his arguments rather than forcing you to do the footwork.

Do you have in mind anything other than the Five Ways?

While, like I said earlier, when an argument excludes reason and that which we can sense as a possibility for arguing against it, there is no way to prove, or disprove it, or even logically argue for it.

Of course.

Good, point, but the analogy doesn't translate.
Perhaps cutting a chunk off a piece of cheese would be a better analogy.
Since God is the basis of existence(the big cheese) the pieces of existence (little cheese) must contain at least some of the properties of the base, but they lack the grandness of the base.

Well, if you choose a sufficiently homogeneous analogue then your otherwise unidentified target looks similarly homogeneous in comparison. Trivially so. But is that really what you are trying to advance: The universe is like God only smaller?

God arguments go "Universe leads to God."

Interesting. How did that work 400 years ago when our understanding of the universe was essentially nil?

Multiverse theories, however, go "This, this, this and this, which we have really little/no evidence for, and scant logical reasoning for(logical reasoning most likely, frankly, based on the premise trying to be proved by the theory, at least for naturalists), could potentially prove our philosophical ideology correct."

"Multiverse theories" are really nothing of the sort; even their staunchest proponents admit this. They are conjectures for sure, perhaps hypotheses (insofar as they are capable of being tested), and occasionally models, and are useful for little more than producing solutions to equations at the moment.

 

[MaxP]

I know.

So the sun in the sky thing at Fatima and the image at Guadeloupe aren't miraculous?
Thing is, God never was in your toaster(at least actively). People just thought He was. But when you have miraculous happenings that people predicted because of revelation form God, or even had the ability to cause through God, that is where He is, actively.

I am no more intuitively comfortable with infinite regression than the next Teddy, but I do know that cosmological models are much less conceptual and much more mathematical at their lunatic fringes. Throw in what we already know about quantum mechanics, and I am consequently hesitant to conclude that a theory-of-everything must align with my common sense.

Then there would be no way to determine the cause of the universe, would there? Ever? I tend to think common sense as a working of the intellect existence.

Which ones do you think strongly argue for specific characteristics of God? I'm looking for more than quaint vagaries like "umoved," "perfect," and "purposeful."
Do you have in mind anything other than the Five Ways?

Well, I mentioned those "quaint vagaries" in the other thread as a basis for the more complex ones.
And yes, since the problem seems to have shifted form God's existence to His intelligence;
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm
(just article 1)

Of course.

Alrighty then.

Well, if you choose a sufficiently homogeneous analogue then your otherwise unidentified target looks similarly homogeneous in comparison. Trivially so. But is that really what you are trying to advance: The universe is like God only smaller?

The universe is based on God in essence, but has developed characteristics, by the free will given to the men in the universe, God does not possess.

Interesting. How did that work 400 years ago when our understanding of the universe was essentially nil?

Was it? Many would say this; but our knowledge of the universe is still, "essentially nil." Our knowledge of the Earth on which we live has advanced, but not so much that basic observations made by even those 2,000 years ago - Aristotle, Plato, etc. - are invalidated. They are, in fact, affirmed. It does not require intimate knowledge of the world(although I'm sure such knowledge would have helped) to make basic observations about the properties of the world, and the visible universe.

"Multiverse theories" are really nothing of the sort; even their staunchest proponents admit this. They are conjectures for sure, perhaps hypotheses (insofar as they are capable of being tested), and occasionally models, and are useful for little more than producing solutions to equations at the moment.

Very well.