metaphysical naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

Definition

In Carl Sagan’s words: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

According to Arthur C. Danto, naturalism, in recent usage, is a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is ''natural'' in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events. Hence, naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view that there exists or could exist any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation.

Regarding the vagueness of the general term "naturalism", David Papineau traces the current usage to philosophers in early 20th century America such as John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook, and Roy Wood Sellars: "So understood, 'naturalism' is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject 'supernatural' entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the 'human spirit'." Papineau remarks that philosophers widely regard naturalism as a "positive" term, and "few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as 'non-naturalists'", while noting that "philosophers concerned with religion tend to be less enthusiastic about 'naturalism'" and that despite an "inevitable" divergence due to its popularity, if more narrowly construed, (to the chagrin of John McDowell, David Chalmers and Jennifer Hornsby, for example), those not so disqualified remain nonetheless content "to set the bar for 'naturalism' higher."

Philosopher and theologian Alvin Plantinga, a well-known critic of naturalism in general, comments: "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, naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions".

Science and naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophical basis of science as described by Kate and Vitaly (2000). "There are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method – namely, 1) that reality is objective and consistent, 2) that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that 3) rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded. Philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision we make or position we take, it is obvious that correct philosophy is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place." Steven Schafersman, agrees that methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success, but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."

Various associated beliefs

Contemporary naturalists possess a wide diversity of beliefs within metaphysical naturalism. Most metaphysical naturalists have adopted some form of materialism or physicalism.

Natural sciences

According to metaphysical naturalism, if nature is all there is, the Big Bang, the formation of the Solar System, abiogenesis, and the processes involved in evolution would all be natural phenomena without supernatural influences.

The mind is a natural phenomenon

Metaphysical naturalists do not believe in a soul or spirit, nor in ghosts, and when explaining what constitutes the mind they rarely appeal to substance dualism. If one's mind, or rather one's identity and existence as a person, is entirely the product of natural processes, three conclusions follow according to W. T. Stace. Cognitive sciences are able to provide accounts of how cultural and psychological phenomena, such as religion, morality, language, and more, evolved through natural processes. Consciousness itself would also be susceptible to the same evolutionary principles that select other traits.Stace, W. T., ''Mysticism and Philosophy''. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1960; reprinted, Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1987.

Utility of intelligence and reason

Metaphysical naturalists hold that intelligence is the refinement and improvement of naturally evolved faculties. Naturalists believe 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. 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 logical errors.

View on the soul

According to metaphysical naturalism, immateriality being unprocedural and unembodiable, is not differentiable from nothingness. The immaterial nothingness of the soul, being a non-ontic state, is not compartmentalizable nor attributable to different persons and different memories, it is non-operational and it (nothingness) cannot be manifested in different states in order it represents information.

Arguments for metaphysical naturalism

Argument from physical minds

In his critique of mind–body dualism, Paul Churchland writes that it is always the case that the mental substance and/or properties of the person are significantly changed or compromised via brain damage. If the mind were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured? Indeed, it is very frequently the case that one can even predict and explain the kind of mental or psychological deterioration or change that human beings will undergo when specific parts of their brains are damaged. So the question for the dualist to try to confront is how can all of this be explained if the mind is a separate and immaterial substance from, or if its properties are ontologically independent of, the brain.

Modern experiments have demonstrated that the relation between brain and mind is much more than simple correlation. By damaging, or manipulating, specific areas of the brain repeatedly under controlled conditions (e.g. in monkeys) and reliably obtaining the same results in measures of mental state and abilities, neuroscientists have shown that the relation between damage to the brain and mental deterioration is likely causal. This conclusion is further supported by data from the effects of neuro-active chemicals (e.g., those affecting neurotransmitters) on mental functions, but also from research on neurostimulation (direct electrical stimulation of the brain, including transcranial magnetic stimulation).

Critics such as Edward Feser and Tyler Burge have described these arguments as "neurobabble", and consider them as flawed or as being compatible with other metaphysical ideas like Thomism. According to the philosopher Stephen Evans:

Argument from cognitive biases

In contrast with the argument from reason or evolutionary argument against naturalism, it can be argued that cognitive biases are better explained by natural causes than as the work of God.

Arguments against

Arguments against metaphysical naturalism include the following examples:

Argument from reason

Philosophers and theologians such as Victor Reppert, William Hasker, and Alvin Plantinga have developed an argument for dualism dubbed the "argument from reason". They credit C.S. Lewis with first bringing the argument to light in his book '' Miracles''; Lewis called the argument "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism", which was the title of chapter three of ''Miracles''.Victor Reppert ''C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea''. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

The argument postulates that if, as naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. However, knowledge is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it (or anything else), except by a fluke.

Through this logic, the statement "I have reason to believe naturalism is valid" is inconsistent in the same manner as "I never tell the truth." That is, to conclude its truth would eliminate the grounds from which it reaches it. To summarize the argument in the book, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane, who appeals to a similar line of reasoning:

In his essay "Is Theology Poetry?", Lewis himself summarises the argument in a similar fashion when he writes:

But Lewis later agreed with Elizabeth Anscombe's response to his ''Miracles'' argument. She showed that an argument could be valid and ground-consequent even if its propositions were generated via physical cause and effect by non-rational factors. Similar to Anscombe, Richard Carrier and John Beversluis have written extensive objections to the argument from reason on the untenability of its first postulate.

Evolutionary argument against naturalism

Notre Dame philosophy of religion professor and Christian apologist Alvin Plantinga argues, in his evolutionary argument against naturalism, that the probability that evolution has produced humans with reliable true beliefs, is low or inscrutable, unless their evolution was guided, for example, by God. According to David Kahan of the University of Glasgow, in order to understand how beliefs are warranted, a justification must be found in the context of supernatural theism, as in Plantinga's epistemology. (See also ''Supernormal stimuli''.)

Plantinga argues that together, naturalism and evolution provide an insurmountable "''defeater'' for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable", i.e., a skeptical argument along the lines of Descartes' evil demon or brain in a vat.

Branden Fitelson of the University of California, Berkeley and Elliott Sober of the University of Wisconsin–Madison argue that Plantinga must show that the combination of evolution and naturalism also defeats the more modest claim that "at least a non-negligible minority of our beliefs are true", and that defects such as cognitive bias are nonetheless consistent with being made in the image of a rational God. Whereas evolutionary science already acknowledges that cognitive processes are unreliable, including the fallibility of the scientific enterprise itself, Plantinga's hyperbolic doubt is no more a defeater for naturalism than it is for theistic metaphysics founded upon a non-deceiving God who designed the human mind: " eithercan construct a non-question-begging argument that refutes global skepticism." Plantinga's argument has also been criticized by philosopher Daniel Dennett and independent scholar Richard Carrier who argue that a cognitive apparatus for truth-finding can result from natural selection.

See also

* Atheism
* Daoism
* Dysteleology
* Ethical naturalism
* Hylomorphism
* Liberal naturalism
* Materialism Controversy
* Natural Supernaturalism
* Naturalist computationalism
* Naturalistic fallacy
* Naturalistic pantheism
* Platonized naturalism
* Poetic naturalism
* Reductive materialism
* Religious naturalism
* Revisionary materialism
* School of Naturalists
* Scientism
* Scientistic materialism
* Spiritual naturalism
* Supernaturalism
* Transcendental naturalism

Notes

References

;Books
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Veli-Matti Karkkainen. (2015). Creation and Humanity: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 3. Pg 36. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0802868558.
*
;Journals
*
;Web
*
*
*
*

Further reading

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

* Gary Drescher, ''Good and Real'', The MIT Press, 2006.
* David Malet Armstrong, ''A World of States of Affairs'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
* Mario Bunge, 2006, ''Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism'', University of Toronto Press. and 2001, ''Scientific Realism: Selected Essays of Mario Bunge'', Prometheus Books.
* Richard Carrier, 2005, ''Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism'', AuthorHouse.
* Mario De Caro & David Macarthur (eds), 2004. ''Naturalism in Question''. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
*Daniel Dennett, 2003, '' Freedom Evolves'', Penguin. and 2006
*Andrew Melnyk, 2003, ''A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism'', Cambridge University Press.
*Jeffrey Poland, 1994, ''Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations'', Oxford University Press.

Con

*James Beilby, ed., 2002, ''Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism'', Cornell University Press.
*William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, eds., 2000, ''Naturalism: A Critical Analysis'', Routledge.
*Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, 2008, ''Naturalism'', Eerdmans Publishing.
* Phillip E. Johnson, 1998, '' Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education'', InterVarsity Press. and 2002, ''The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism'', InterVarsity Press.
*C.S. Lewis, ed., 1996, "Miracles", Harper Collins.
* Michael Rea, 2004, ''World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism'', Oxford University Press.
* Victor Reppert, 2003, ''C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason'', InterVarsity Press.
* Mark Steiner, 2002, ''The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem'', Harvard University Press.

External links

"Naturalism" in the ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''

"Naturalism" in the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''

"Naturalism in Legal Philosophy" in the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''

"Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics" in the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''

"Physicalism" in the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''



Center for Naturalism


entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary

Naturalism Library
at the Secular Web


resource page by Richard Carrier

A Defense of Naturalism
by Keith Augustine (2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Metaphysical Naturalism
Metaphysical theories
Metaphysics of religion
Metaphysics of science
Naturalism (philosophy)