Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:04 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
#1
Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
Arcanus recently wrote on his blog about metaphysical naturalism being "defeated".

http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/naturalis...s-the-dust

Far from being a supporter of metaphysical naturalism in that I do not subscribe to the belief that *everything* in existence if material and described by natural causes. I hold that the state of existence is currently unknown, and that the only evidence we have for things existing comes from a naturalistic model.

Arcanus made some rather dubious statements though, and I thought I'd offer my rebuttal.

Quote:On the definitional point, I replied, it’s because everything needed to defeat the view is built into the view itself. A world view is essentially meaningless if we have no reason to think it’s true, and especially if we are incapable of determining its truth. So if we assume metaphysical naturalism—and we must if we’re to evaluate whether or not it self-destructs—do we find this to be the case under that world view?

Yes. According to that world view, the whole of reality is constituted by only natural things, causes, and forces; i.e., nothing exists but that which either can be described in purely natural terms or is reducible to such terms. But if we assume this view, then we suddenly find ourselves with no reason to think it’s true, because all of our thinking is nothing more than cells and atoms in various patterns of activity. Ergo, such things as truth, reason, knowledge, morality, etc., are suddenly rendered meaningless; since there is no frame of reference transcending the brain’s activity, we’re rendered unable to state that X is true or that Y is false—including reasoning between them—because it turns out that such categories and processes are all just various patterns of synaptic activity in the brain. When that view is held consistently under its own terms, we are denied any basis for evaluating one synaptic pattern of activity against another. We cannot say anything is true or better or incorrect. Just different.

Unless I've misunderstood his point, this is one big non-sequitur. It simply does not follow that from "the whole of reality is constituted by only natural things" you can get that there is no such thing as truth, reason, knowledge. These things exist as manifestations in the mind; as concepts, neuron firings that are common to our entire species. The same can be held for other concepts, such as mathematics. There isn't anything in the natural world that constitutes a "1", but the concept of "1" is held within our minds, and is therefore natural given our minds are natural products.

Secondly, just because taking one position means that thinking itself is the product of neurons firing does not negate metaphysical naturalism. Things like truth, knowledge are not rendered meaningless, just put in a subjective context. Truth is our interpretation of the happenings of the natural world; knowledge is our collection of truths. It does not matter that these things only exist in our brains; nor does it negate metaphysical naturalism that they are so. Only for people who think that logic somehow transcends us would this seem like a good argument at all, and from that perspective I can understand why Arcanus thinks it is. However, I would argue that logic does not transcend us; logic is the method by which our mind work, and is entirely natural in substance.

Finally, on the point that we cannot say anything is true or better or incorrect, just different; I agree. This doesn't do anything to affect metaphysical naturalism, nor logic, for logic can be seen as a subjective method for evaluating arguments (and indeed, many people can think that an argument is valid, which others think it is not). My position is one of agnosticism; that knowledge is subjective, logic a mental construct by which we understand our world and reason, and what we perceive as "truth" ultimately unknowable.

I'm not a metaphysical naturalist; I don't take up a position that only matter exists, only that the position of metaphysical naturalism is supported by the current evidence we have.

To create a counter-point, I could argue that your same argument against metaphysical naturalism applies to supernaturalism as well. Truth, knowledge, etc are meaningless if transcendant beings in some non-natural realm could influence our thoughts, or change things in the natural universe. To use a Catholic concept of transubstantiation as an example: if a communion wafer can be a wafer whilst also literally being the body of Jesus Christ, yet appears in all natural aspects to be a wafer, how can we know it is the body of Jesus Christ? How can we say this is truth, or better, or incorrect, just different?
Reply
#2
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
Yeah I've been pondering that post. Good call. *waits patiently*
Reply
#3
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
wouldn't a realm be natural in and of itself, yet seem unnatural to those in a different realm? Because of the frame of reference I don't think your equivocation exactly applies, IMO.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#4
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
My point was that knowledge is just as "meaningless" if you accept the existence of any other realm. If the natural realm is all there is, knowledge is nothing more than a human concept; neurons firing in our brains.

If the supernatural realm exists as well, then knowledge is nothing more than <insert supernatural explanation for knowledge here>. Any way you look at it, it boils down to one realm asserting knowledge as something, and the improvability of that assertion.
Reply
#5
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
I wouldn't say knowledge is meaningless just relative to the reality of the realm it applies to. If an entity in that other realm can affect this realm, the only meaningful pursuit from this realm would be it's effect on this realm if any. I see your point, would you consider another dimension another realm?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#6
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
Possibly, seeing as we exist in the 3rd dimension and cannot access any others. It all depends on how you define "realm". Tongue
Reply
#7
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
Actually it's your first usage so you can define it and I'll probably agree, I'm too tired to argue!Smile I'm just keeping the tpoic relevant until Arcanus has an opportunity to respond.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#8
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
(March 26, 2010 at 6:57 am)Tiberius Wrote: My point was that knowledge is just as "meaningless" if you accept the existence of any other realm. If the natural realm is all there is, knowledge is nothing more than a human concept; neurons firing in our brains.
I wouoldn't say knowledge is meaningless... how would it being (potentially?) wrong make it meaningless? What are we calling 'meaning' in this case?

Just trying to clarify what you mean here Smile
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#9
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
Knowledge itself may prove meaningless, but I believe our searching for it is what is important, and meaningful. As individuals, and as a species. Unnatural is not something we can't know, just something we don't know. Yet.
Reply
#10
RE: Response to Arcanus on Metaphysical Naturalism
Oh why the insistance on meaning?
Things just happen.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Best response to "You are being too bookish and nerdy!"? FlatAssembler 25 3088 April 5, 2018 at 5:39 pm
Last Post: *Deidre*
  Your position on naturalism robvalue 125 16252 November 26, 2016 at 4:00 am
Last Post: Ignorant
  Presumption of naturalism Captain Scarlet 18 3524 September 15, 2015 at 10:49 am
Last Post: robvalue
  On naturalism and consciousness FallentoReason 291 43644 September 15, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Last Post: dissily mordentroge
  Contra Metaphysical Idealism MindForgedManacle 71 14232 April 21, 2014 at 8:26 am
Last Post: archangle
  "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism Mudhammam 16 5511 January 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Does Science Presume Naturalism? MindForgedManacle 14 3734 December 28, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Last Post: Zen Badger
  Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: A Refutation MindForgedManacle 0 1057 November 21, 2013 at 10:22 am
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  rational naturalism is impossible! Rational AKD 112 35596 November 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Last Post: TheBeardedDude
  Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism. Mystic 58 11847 March 24, 2013 at 10:02 am
Last Post: Mystic



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)