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 28, 2024, 8:12 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
#1
"Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
I have been engaging with this theist for quite some time (full disclosure, he's my brother) and while surfing the internet today, I discovered that he had posted this argument elsewhere, still proclaiming it to be a "knockdown" argument against naturalism (apparently my counters haven't penetrated the extraordinary stupidity). I would value anyone's insights. Anyway, here is the argument in full. If anyone would like to engage with him yourself, the link to his post is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7790596/

"Naturalism vs. Naturalism"
Naturalism is the belief or idea that nature is all that exist (not merely the belief that the natural world exists). On naturalism, atheism (the belief that God does not exist or else the non -belief in the existence of God) necessarily follows. However, on atheism, naturalism does not necessarily follow. So naturalism is stronger than atheism in that it denies the existence of anything besides the physical world (such as a deity) and asserts that nature is all that exists. So to give a couple examples, the naturalist holds that the origin and cause of the universe must be explainable naturalistically. Perhaps, by this he or she might hold that there exist some unknown laws that eternally existed and gave rise to our universe and that there are eternal or transcend space, time, and energy, existing in a singularity or whatever. In any case, presiding at the origin and as the cause of the universe was something other than a personal necessary omnipotent being. Also they would hold that over a long period of time, energy produced the mind with its capacity to hold the belief or idea that nature is all that exists (that naturalism was true). If nature is all that exists, it is necessarily true that what has existed to the present are a random rearrangement of particles and that the human mind is made up of the particular arrangement of these particles through this random process. Further, each individual particle is determined to act according to natural laws and nature from the eternal state that caused our universe, to our galaxy, to every star, to our planet, to the formation of first life, and then eventually to conscious persons who came to hold this particular worldview to be true. Particles are determined by those laws to move and to develop not just our physicality but also our minds with the entirety of our beliefs (beliefs are determined as well since the mind is the sole result of naturalistic processes). Granting then that all beliefs are the determined product of these forces, (the mere result of random energy particles coalescing over time to produce the mind and all beliefs), what is the likelihood that our belief that naturalism is true is a true belief ? The chance of our belief that naturalism is true being on the grounds of naturalism - energy, time, and chance, ect., does not provide any justification for the belief that naturalism is true and a falsification for those beliefs. The argument here is not really that naturalism is false per se (although if many of our beliefs are actually true in general as opposed to merely perceptually true, then naturalism seemingly should be rejected), but rather that there can be no rational justification for believing that naturalism is true (determined energy/nature alone) if the basis for those beliefs is naturalism (the random coalescing of particles from the cause of the universe). Or to put it another way, if I am a product of nature alone, then my beliefs are a determined product of nature alone, the reliance on our belief that naturalism is true is entirely the result of nature alone which provide us with no justifiable grounds for believing in naturalism. On the proposed grounds for our beliefs, why would we accept that our belief or idea about naturalism being true is correct when as it arises in the mind, the inclination to believe that it is true is sole the result of random determined processes ? Apparently, the belief ought to be rejected on the basis of what those beliefs are predicated on. The probability of that belief would be too low. I conclude then that naturalism ought not to be believed since our beliefs about naturalism being true are undercut by the idea that naturalism is true. Our belief that naturalism is true (that we have a true belief about naturalism) then requires the defeater that naturalism is true since in such a case our beliefs about naturalism is without merit and with a high probability that such a belief as opposed to some other random one (and here there could be trillions) is false. In such a case, the probability for our belief that naturalism is true is so improbable that it lacks justification for belief. So it seems to follow that naturalism is not a rationally justifiable idea or belief and ought not to be believed. Or in any case, there exist no rational justification for believing it to be true since believing that it is true provides a defeater for believing it to be true.
Reply
#2
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
Why are you repeating what you did here:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22329-page-3.html

??
Reply
#3
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
I'm not sure anyone believes the supernatural does definitely not exist. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the supernatural does exist. Without a complete knowledge of the laws of the universe (or possibly omniscience), one cannot determine whether something has a natural or supernatural cause. If you can't do this you have no good reason to believe in it.

Let's take an example. A supernatural being exists and every 30 seconds creates a neutron at a point in space. How could you tell that the cause is supernatural and not natural? The most we could deduce is that at point x every 30 seconds a neutron appears. We have no idea why. It could be supernatural, or it could be natural and something we do not yet understand about the laws of physics.

Every time someone has said something has a supernatural cause, it has either later been found to have a natural cause, or is still not understood. E.g. Thunder being an angry god.


ps Atheism doesnt follow from naturalism necessarily, God could be natural. Even if a God did exist, you'd have no idea whether it was supernatural or not.
Reply
#4
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
omg not a wall of text!!

(didn't read much beyond the second line)

Major major problem: define nature and define what is outside of nature. Every time people say outside of nature it usually just means shit scientists haven't found yet.
Reply
#5
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
(January 2, 2014 at 11:04 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why are you repeating what you did here:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22329-page-3.html

??
I forgot that I when I had mentioned it in that other thread, it was the exact same argument. I thought this was a variatian of the point (I have had many tiring back and forths with him on this), not a verbatum repeat. It looks like it is. My apologies.

(January 2, 2014 at 11:11 am)FreeTony Wrote: I'm not sure anyone believes the supernatural does definitely not exist. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the supernatural does exist. Without a complete knowledge of the laws of the universe (or possibly omniscience), one cannot determine whether something has a natural or supernatural cause. If you can't do this you have no good reason to believe in it.

Let's take an example. A supernatural being exists and every 30 seconds creates a neutron at a point in space. How could you tell that the cause is supernatural and not natural? The most we could deduce is that at point x every 30 seconds a neutron appears. We have no idea why. It could be supernatural, or it could be natural and something we do not yet understand about the laws of physics.

Every time someone has said something has a supernatural cause, it has either later been found to have a natural cause, or is still not understood. E.g. Thunder being an angry god.


ps Atheism doesnt follow from naturalism necessarily, God could be natural. Even if a God did exist, you'd have no idea whether it was supernatural or not.

He would then say, see, Naturalism is a faith because it cannot rationally justify the following (his list): 1. Nothing like God exists. 2. No miracles have ever occurred. 3. Natural processes are all that exist and account for why something exists rather than nothing (the universe), all events, our planet, life, our minds, and our beliefs. (However natural here is defined by the particular naturalist is apparently irrelevant to the argument). 4. Determinism is true and there exists no human freedom. (Beliefs are determined as well). 5. All religion is human-made. 6. Human value is subjectively determined but an objective illusion. 7. Ethics are subjectively determined but an objective illusion. 8. There is no life after death. 9. The universe has no objective purpose or meaning. 10. Every person's life has no objective purpose or meaning.
Reply
#6
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:
(January 2, 2014 at 11:04 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why are you repeating what you did here:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-22329-page-3.html

??
I forgot that I when I had mentioned it in that other thread, it was the exact same argument. I thought this was a variatian of the point (I have had many tiring back and forths with him on this), not a verbatum repeat. It looks like it is. My apologies.

hehe... it happens... tese people do make us loose our marbles every now and then! Wink


(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:
(January 2, 2014 at 11:11 am)FreeTony Wrote: I'm not sure anyone believes the supernatural does definitely not exist. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the supernatural does exist. Without a complete knowledge of the laws of the universe (or possibly omniscience), one cannot determine whether something has a natural or supernatural cause. If you can't do this you have no good reason to believe in it.

Let's take an example. A supernatural being exists and every 30 seconds creates a neutron at a point in space. How could you tell that the cause is supernatural and not natural? The most we could deduce is that at point x every 30 seconds a neutron appears. We have no idea why. It could be supernatural, or it could be natural and something we do not yet understand about the laws of physics.

Every time someone has said something has a supernatural cause, it has either later been found to have a natural cause, or is still not understood. E.g. Thunder being an angry god.


ps Atheism doesnt follow from naturalism necessarily, God could be natural. Even if a God did exist, you'd have no idea whether it was supernatural or not.

He would then say, see, Naturalism is a faith because it cannot rationally justify the following (his list): 1. Nothing like God exists.
Can anyone rationally justify that a god exists?
Is there proof for it?
(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 2. No miracles have ever occurred.
Why would someone have to justify the absence of something?
(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 3. Natural processes are all that exist and account for why something exists rather than nothing (the universe), all events, our planet, life, our minds, and our beliefs. (However natural here is defined by the particular naturalist is apparently irrelevant to the argument).
Don't know.... scientists are working on it.

(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 4. Determinism is true and there exists no human freedom. (Beliefs are determined as well).
Can anyone observe anything different?

(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 5. All religion is human-made.
Sure look like that.
(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 6. Human value is subjectively determined but an objective illusion.
Well, that depends on how you define "subjective" and "objective".
It depends on humans, yes.... but on the collective understanding of the value of each life...
If we define Objective as that which is accepted by the vast majority of elements in the group and subjective as that which a single element accepts, then... it is objective.

(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 7. Ethics are subjectively determined but an objective illusion.
Again, depends on how you define subjective and objective...
See above description.

(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 8. There is no life after death.
And why should I think there is?
I haven't ever seen any form of animal return from death... no human, no dog, no cat, no bird, no insect, no bacteria, and no virus.... have you?

(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 9. The universe has no objective purpose or meaning.
Why should it have a purpose? much less an "objective purpose", whatever that means....

(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 10. Every person's life has no objective purpose or meaning.

There's the collective purpose of maintaining the species and keep evolving... staying alive, like the beegees said.
Each individual has the purpose he/she attributes to him/her-self.
Reply
#7
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
(January 2, 2014 at 10:19 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I have been engaging with this theist for quite some time (full disclosure, he's my brother) and while surfing the internet today, I discovered that he had posted this argument elsewhere, still proclaiming it to be a "knockdown" argument against naturalism (apparently my counters haven't penetrated the extraordinary stupidity). I would value anyone's insights. Anyway, here is the argument in full. If anyone would like to engage with him yourself, the link to his post is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7790596/

"Naturalism vs. Naturalism"

Paragraphs, dude!
Reply
#8
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
(January 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm)pocaracas Wrote:
(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I forgot that I when I had mentioned it in that other thread, it was the exact same argument. I thought this was a variatian of the point (I have had many tiring back and forths with him on this), not a verbatum repeat. It looks like it is. My apologies.

hehe... it happens... tese people do make us loose our marbles every now and then! Wink

In all seriousness pocaracas, I think I am losing my marbles in dealing with my theist brother (or all religious hacks... scratch that, all hacks). You see, I have also gone through many of the same points you offer with him and there's always some incoherent philosophical retort that is so befuddled in bad logic and abstract thought but mixed with enough "commonsense" premises that make it tedious to dissect...over and over. That's my opinion anyway but then again, when theist philosophers often speak on ontologies I think its bullshit. Daniel Dennett summed it up perfectly when he described William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

Essentially I see my brother's argument as "theism is true because I assume it is true." This is the last response he gave me (his posts are always obnoxiously lengthy):

On the list (1-10), (3) and (4) are of particular importance. (3) is explicit to naturalism (it cannot be denied without denying naturalism since it is the very definition of naturalism or what makes naturalism distinctively naturalism). (4, determinism) is necessarily true if (3) is true. So on naturalism, though in my view I do not think that we would exist, granting that we would for the sake of the argument, we might have an apparatus for holding some true beliefs. That is to say, if it were possible that the law and constants necessary for permitting life came into being with time, space, and energy 13.8 billion years ago, and then by a chance of 10 to the 40,000th power life began according to Fred Hoyle (note: the number of atoms in the observable universe is 10 to the 78th to 10 to the 82nd power), and eventually produced creatures with minds like ours, I grant that I would be able to have true beliefs. That is to say, I may be able to hold the belief that there exists in front of my condo a tree, and the car in the parking lot is not a red Dodge Viper but a grey Toyota Corolla, and so forth. These beliefs are grasped empirically, and so since we have the ability to transfer short-term memory into long-term memory, and later in the evening when I am writing a response to you, I can access these memories and then use them to reply to your response. In this way the imprint of the event of observing the grey Toyota Corolla can be poorly reproduced as an abstraction. Logic, mathematics, and any belief that is not presently empirical (the computer in front of me for example) is held in some mental way either sub-consciously or intuitively, or as an abstraction. So let us grant all of this on naturalism. However, on naturalism the method of obtaining all of our present abstract beliefs (as opposed to data that we do not presently observe is by (3), a natural phenomenon occurring that causes something rather than nothing and (4) determinism from those early moments in which laws and energy came into being.

So let us take (3) and (4) and consider them for a moment in how they would relate to our apparatus for knowing truth on naturalism. On naturalism, a physical event causes a mental event, which generates a particular non-empirical idea or belief (or abstract thought). The physical event always proceeds the mental event and the generation of a particular idea. That is to say, on naturalism, there is no genuine free thinking. A belief that Christianity is false is the result of nothing more than a build up of electrons in the brain and a particular arrangement of neurons that produced the belief that Christianity is false. You made no genuinely free choice in this particular manner whatsoever as the physical event proceeds the generation of that belief or idea. As the naturalist must hold, his or her belief is the result of a physical event (the event caused and coerced your mind into the present belief that Christianity is false and in my case that Christianity is true). Well, then this would apply to series (1-10) on naturalism. Beliefs (3) and (4) are are held on the basis of a physical event, which caused neurons to fire in such a way to generate the idea that (3) and (4) are true. However, (3) and (4) are ideas, they are not held as an immediate or present empirical experience like in the case of the grey Toyota Corolla, the tree in front of my house, or my computer when I am observing them (nor have they ever been observed or shown to be true in any way that would amount to evidence for believing naturalism or rejecting the apparent truth that humans can act intentionally). So, not only are they non-empirical, we have no good reasons to think that any single part of the series (1-10) is true. Further, some of them are apparently false such as is the case with 4, 6, and 7 (and I personally hold 1 and 3 as well).

So, the argument was not that we could not have a reliable cognition to hold true beliefs but that granting the idea that naturalism is true and thus determinism is true, I must also hold that a physical event preceded and caused my belief in naturalism (1-10, and thus 3 and 4). If I hold that these particular ideas were imposed on me as the result of a physical event that caused me to think that they are true (since this is the way in which I am constrained to believe that I developed my metaphysical worldview on naturalism), there can be no justification for holding that these ideas would be very likely to be true ideas granting the kinds of ideas that we are presented with on series (1-10) on the basis of the means by which the naturalist must believe that he or she holds them. Rather the means provide justification for disbelieving that they are true. And so it follows necessarily that there could be no justification for believing that naturalism is true. That is, the idea arising in our minds that naturalism is true in itself provides a defeater for believing in naturalism.

On Christian theism the series 1-10, could look something like this,

1. A personal God exists.
2. Miracles have occurred.
3. Natural processes exist and account for all regularities within the universe.
4. Determinism applies to physical processes but limited human freedom exists.
5. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
6. Humans have objective value and this can be subjectively apprehended.
7. In coherence with 4, we have objective moral obligations and can partially carry them out.
8. There is a resurrection and thus life after death.
9. The universe has an objective purpose or meaning.
10. Every person's life has an objective purpose or meaning.

Granting (1), (4), (5), the dilemma is not in any way applicable to Christian theism as beliefs are not merely the result of a determined process in which physical events determined all of my worldview beliefs. Notably, human freedom, God himself being personal (revelation of himself, and then the possibility for specific self-authenticating revelation), his providence in guiding persons into truth, as well as (4), (6), and (7) being apparently true, demands the conclusion that not only does "Naturalism vs. Naturalism" not apply to Christian belief, but series (1-10) could be justifiably be held provided that (1) and (5) are true. So then, even if the Christian granted physical and mental determinism, (1-3 and 5-10) could still be justifiably held to be true provided that (1) and (5) are true. That is to say, the proposed argument is unique to naturalism by way in which a naturalist is constrained by his or her belief, (if they think it through) to also find within their belief a defeater for their belief.


Sometimes I wish I had more atheist friends who enjoy debate because all of my debates with him are on Facebook and there is usually a Christian buddy or two that chime in with their sheer stupidity. It is very annoying and yet I am compelled to engage because I personally would like to see the lack of critical thought promoted by religion eliminated from serious dialogue.
Reply
#9
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
I feel for you. My entire family is made up of Mormons and Catholics. You can't reason with them, and you can't get them to stop watching Faux News. My mother, after a lengthy discussion on religion, gave me the copout reply of "I'm too old to change my ways," or, in other words, "I think you may have a valid point, but I'm too set in my ways to consider a new lifestyle."
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#10
RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
(January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: He would then say, see, Naturalism is a faith because it cannot rationally justify the following (his list): 1. Nothing like God exists. 2. No miracles have ever occurred. 3. Natural processes are all that exist and account for why something exists rather than nothing (the universe), all events, our planet, life, our minds, and our beliefs. (However natural here is defined by the particular naturalist is apparently irrelevant to the argument). 4. Determinism is true and there exists no human freedom. (Beliefs are determined as well). 5. All religion is human-made. 6. Human value is subjectively determined but an objective illusion. 7. Ethics are subjectively determined but an objective illusion. 8. There is no life after death. 9. The universe has no objective purpose or meaning. 10. Every person's life has no objective purpose or meaning.

In my post I didn't say that the supernatural doesn't exist. I'm saying it is impossible to demonstrate that it does. I don't think I am making any assumptions about the existence of a supernatural realm.

The list doesn't make a lot of sense. Theists tend to do this as they are not generally interested in finding out what is/isn't true, rather they try to justify their own beliefs in any way they can. The list is a long argument from ignorance. "If you can't explain everything on my list, we must assume the supernatural exists".
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism SenseMaker007 25 2865 June 19, 2019 at 7:21 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Argument against Intelligent Design Jrouche 27 3062 June 2, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice Edwardo Piet 53 7907 June 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God Edwardo Piet 58 13611 May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense. Mystic 158 67823 December 29, 2017 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Your position on naturalism robvalue 125 16248 November 26, 2016 at 4:00 am
Last Post: Ignorant
  2 Birds, 1 Stone: An argument against free will and Aquinas' First Way Mudhammam 1 1147 February 20, 2016 at 8:02 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Presumption of naturalism Captain Scarlet 18 3524 September 15, 2015 at 10:49 am
Last Post: robvalue
  An argument against God Mystic 37 8690 October 20, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Last Post: TreeSapNest
  On naturalism and consciousness FallentoReason 291 43639 September 15, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Last Post: dissily mordentroge



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)