Naturalism ... a self-refuting argument?

[cantata]

I'd define it differently:

Naturalism is the philosophical argument that truth can only be known through observable or testable causes and explanations.

That is to say, you cannot truly know anything that cannot be observed or experienced or tested.

So you think that naturalism is a philosophical position primarily concerning epistemology?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I'd define it differently:

Naturalism is the philosophical argument that truth can only be known through observable or testable causes and explanations.

That is to say, you cannot truly know anything that cannot be observed or experienced or tested.

That's evidentialism, the b*stard son of naturalism and materialism, but if you want to go with that it's OK.
Would you concede that using reason and logic we can infer valid "knowledge" from our observations and experience.

You would kind of have to concede this in fairness, because the last sentence of your post is an inference.

 

[Nathan45]

So you think that naturalism is a philosophical position primarily concerning epistemology?

Yes.

 

[Nathan45]

Would you concede that using reason and logic we can infer valid "knowledge" from our observations and experience.

Yes. i posted the first definition too quickly. you could use the second definition i posted.

 

[cantata]

Yes.

Hmmm.

What would you call the position that Oneofthediaspora describes thusly?:

"Everything is matter or energy or that which emerges from/or as a result of matter and energy."

 

[Nathan45]

That's evidentialism, the b*stard son of naturalism and materialism, but if you want to go with that it's OK.

Vocabulary was never my strong suit, really.

anyway i wouldn't accept a definition of naturalism that excluded the possibility of something supernatural, only one that stated that it's impossible to know anything about anything that is supernatural (edit: defining natural as that which can be observed or follows a pattern with things that can be observed)

 

[Nathan45]

Hmmm.

What would you call the position that Oneofthediaspora describes thusly?:

"Everything is matter or energy or that which emerges from/or as a result of matter and energy."

I'd call that unprovable speculation.

 

[cantata]

By the way - does mathematics fall under "observable or testable causes or explanations"?

 

[Nathan45]

I'd call that unprovable speculation.

although it might very well be true, but i'm not sure how you go about proving that "Everything" is related to matter or energy.

I think that going from "Everything anyone's ever studied" is related to matter or energy to "everything that exists" is matter or energy is too big of a leap.

Altneratively if you define everything as either some classification of matter or energy then you're just begging the question.

 

[cantata]

although it might very well be true, but i'm not sure how you go about proving that "Everything" is related to matter or energy.

I think that going from "Everything anyone's ever studied" is related to matter or energy to "everything that exists" is matter or energy is too big of a leap.

Altneratively if you define everything as either some classification of matter or energy then you're just begging the question.

I think that one might have a stab at make a philosophical argument for the non-existence of the supernatural.

 

[Nathan45]

By the way - does mathematics fall under "observable or testable causes or explanations"?

No, but it falls under patterns based on such. Sorry, I phrased it badly in my first post, use my 2nd definition.

Mathematics is only useful as far as it accurately describes reality. And it does seem too.

 

[quatona]

Me too.
So we're good to go.

No, not really. If you want to discuss with naturalists you would have to agree on a definition with them.

 

[Nathan45]

I think that one might have a stab at make a philosophical argument for the non-existence of the supernatural.

I don't see how you would. As far as I know, It's impossible to prove conclusively that any self-consistent concept doesn't exist.

There's no reason, in my mind, that everything that exists has to be possible to observe.

 

[quatona]

Concering the thread title: I don´t think that naturalism is an argument. Rather, it´s a position for which there may be arguments. Just saying.

 

[cantata]

I don't see how you would. As far as I know, It's impossible to prove conclusively that any self-consistent concept doesn't exist.

Well, that's why you'd go about arguing that the concept of supernatural entities is not self-consistent (or, perhaps, inconsistent with something else we know).

There's no reason, in my mind, that everything that exists has to be possible to observe.

I'm not saying that one can make such an argument conclusively. I'm just saying that it's possible that someone is going to before the death of this thread.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Okey-dokey then, here goes....

The naturalist argues that all that can be said to exist is matter, energy or that which can be percieved logically as deriving from matter or energy.
Nathan added something important along the lines of valid knowledge can only come from direct observation and experience and the logical inferences that the mind can draw from such things by using reason or rational thought.

Now here's the problem as I see it.
Matter and energy came about we know not how. That in itself is problematic but it's not the point of my post at the moment; which is to argue against naturalism as per the definition. One thing I am pretty certain of, however, is that no naturalist thinks it came about as the result of an eternal Mind or Reason.
Let's say it came about by accident. This is a rather inexact phrase, but all I mean by accident is that it was not caused by a rational being. If you can think of a better word than "accident" then please jump in.

So ... mindless matter and energy just goes about its business in accordance with the similarly uncreated and mindless laws of physics, chemmistry, probability etc.
By a very, very (but not impossibly) slim chance the environement in one part of the vast universe brings about a complex and self-replicating molecule. All by chance. No rational, planning mind behind it.
The laws of physics, biochemistry, natural selection etc bring about adaptations to these moleculels and we have something recognisable as "life". Chance mutations allow selection pressure to act and life evolves.
One product of this evolutionary process is a very odd animal indeed (I nearly said "creature" there, but it was not created).

This presumptuous little animal experiences its surroundings through a very highly developed series of pathways. It is bombarded with experiences and observations. It is presumptuous, however, because it attempts to make sense of these observations and experiences via what it calls logical and rational inferences. It claims that such inferences are valid and some of the more presumptuous human animals actually claim that some things are true and untrue.

Matter and energy and the laws of physics etc have no reasoning power and yet this human animal thinks it does. It thinks it can make inferences about how reality actually "is" or even might be, when in "reality" what is happening is that matter and energy are simply providing a subjective phenomenon we call consciousness. No reasoning is actually objectively valid. No truth can be perceived. What we experience when we are reasoning like everything else is simply the outworkings of mindless matter and energy at one point in its existence.

One such inference from observation and experience is that all that exists is matter or energy or that which can be derived from such. Such a reasoning is as merely subjective as all the rest.
Naturalism invalidates naturalism.
It is an argument that refutes itself.
As such, whatever is "true" about the universe; then it certainly is NOT naturalism as this is the negation of any truth or any reasoning or any inference being anything more than a completely subjective phenomenon.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

No, not really. If you want to discuss with naturalists you would have to agree on a definition with them.

I thought I did.
Can you point out how your definition differs please?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Concering the thread title: I don´t think that naturalism is an argument. Rather, it´s a position for which there may be arguments. Just saying.

Youre right. It's a positon that can be defended by argument.

 

[cantata]

As such, whatever is "true" about the universe; then it certainly is NOT naturalism as this is the negation of any truth or any reasoning or any inference being anything more than a completely subjective phenomenon.

I think you can, at best, prove with this argument that if naturalism is true, we are not in a position to argue that naturalism is true.

You have not, however, proved that it is not possible that naturalism is true.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I think you can, at best, prove with this argument that if naturalism is true, we are not in a position to argue that naturalism is true.

You have not, however, proved that it is not possible that naturalism is true.

I haven't proved anything in fairness.

I think I have provided an argument that shows you can either speak of knowing anything about existence or you can be a naturalist. In the latter case you can't even say that nauralism is supported by rational argument because "rational" and "argument" mean nothing. It is the refutation of epistemiology.