As to this definition privided by atheists, “the natural world is the world of reality and the world we inhabit. It's the world described by propositions that are true and it's the world that is represented by our various senses (more or less) and which is described with somewhat greater fidelity by our sciences.”
This too is imprecise and needn’t exclude such phenomena that is embraced by various philosophical perspectives and even theology, e.g. God, the soul, metaphysics, etc. As I mentioned earlier concerning earlier definitions of nature which included such phenomena, as described by Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., this definition does not exclude these phenomena.
Often atheists say, “In that world, we exclude supernatural claims and whilst we may not have a final precise definition of the word "supernatural" and it may well be somewhat slippery and open to redefinition in light of new evidence (not an uncommon phenomena in the sciences) we certainly have accepted instances of what we would consider to be supernatural events (if they actually held true)”
Again, supernatural by an exclusion of phenomena such as God, the soul, etc. This is a pejorative and loaded term because it arbitrarily defines such phenomena per mentioned as OUTSIDE of nature and nature EXCLUDES such phenomena. But that is only because they deny such phenomena NOT because they are NOT natural. Magic wands, ghosts, etc., are not included in philosophical or theological discourse and as such the mention of these is irrelevant. Furthermore, comparing meteorology to Thor is a categorical mistake. Meteorology is the study of phenomena in the atmosphere. Thor is a supposed identity that is associated with nordic spiritual and religious themes. You don’t study theology like meteorology. Theology is a study of shared spiritual experiences and titles given to persona associated with these vague, mystic, but nonetheless real experiences. One could chalk it up to psychology. But nonetheless it is NOTHING like meteorology and therefore it doesn’t test things and their predictability, it interprets themes that have already been instantiated, in a similar way as we do history, not by reproducing events but interpreting events that can’t be reproduced but interpreted. Some spiritual experiences can be reproduced, but historical revelations can’t be.
“If it turned out that we were wrong with respect to some conclusion that we would currently consider to be a supernatural claim, than we'd be faced with 2 options: 1) - broaden the definition of naturalism to include the sorts of things we would now understand to be part of reality or 2) maintain our current sensibilities as to the sorts of things that are supernatural and acknowledge that in point of fact some such things actually do occur.”
Again, this strategy by atheists does not wnecessarily exclude theology however. Now, if they point to specific scientific disciplines, well of course these exclude theology since they are focusing on their specific purview of investigation and the phenomena proper to it.
“I think there are patterns in the sorts of things that we think are supernatural which I think I've already set out - which includes some form of agency that takes place but which is inconsistent with the notion that sentience and agency is uniquely a property of a functioning neurological structure (or the equivalent). In other words, a disembodied intelligence or sentient being does not fall within the constraints of naturalism, nor would a zombie absent a functioning neurological structure.”
Barring the use of the term supernatural here, which as I have stated ad nauseum, is inappropriate, if one assumes a priori that consciousness emerges from neurons then of course one is going to be able to address consciousness outside of that context. However, if one views the brain as a receptor of consciousness, like a radio receives radio signals, then intentionality would be primal and would instantiate particles and materiality and not the other way around. We can’t say which one is the case and as far as I can tell, given the constraints of observation, I would say it is impossible to determine whether reality is an emergent property or an emanating set of properties from some higher source, i.e. God.
“There's nothing a priori about concluding that our universe could not have been inhabited by gods or created by a singular god.... but any sort of evidence that supports that claims - things like being able to apply teleological reasoning with respect to the universe at large or identifying some communication for such a deity or being able to identify possible interventions by such a deity invariable fails. We just don't have the evidence to suggest that our universe belongs to the subset of logically possible universes which have such a deity or deities. And frankly, the universe of all logically possible universes isn't something worth investigating... it's simply too huge and so we need must look to the logically possible universes in which we have some evidence.”
This is circular reasoning since it states that we need evidence to support theological claims. However, we only accept evidence from a form of naturalism which excludes what you call supernatural claims (a misnomer) which is a treatment of nature that excludes intentionality and theology a priori. So, I would argue that this is wrong here and it is an a priori, presuppositional, claim. Now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true and one may be right. But not based on scientific analysis, but based on philosophical presups that seem to make the most sense to one.
“You're no doubt familiar with the notion of the neural correlates of consciousness but these theories go further and attempt to identify what it is about the brain that creates consciousness - see for example:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness
These theories make testable predictions as to when someone will or will not be conscious based upon certain features of their neural network.... and of course make no reference to miracles or divine interventions. We are still early days. And whilst consciousness is still a mystery, it's one that is slowly being rolled back by scientific method.... and I fail to see how the notion that it remains somewhat mysterious helps you? There's a wide consensus amongst neurobiologists that mental phenomena are the result of brain activities and that we need not look to some invisible homunculus somehow attached to our bodies as an explanation as to how we see or hear or think.”
In this example of a typical atheist rebuttal to the mind being something external to, or separate from, neural causes these tests rely on a person reporting certain conscious states and then corresponding neural events occur. This presupposes that a conscious state is experienced AND a neural event occurs. If a body is made of nerves, neurons, etc., then these which bring in information from the world around it will correspond to events commensurate with the body of nerves and neural systems. Of course, one has such and such an experience. This says nothing to the conscious event being caused by the neurons, only there is a correspondence to their instantiation.
“A philosopher today not familiar with the sciences relevant to his area of expertise would be essentially blind. It's the science that is pushing the philosophical trends and not the reverse. One doesn't decide what's natural from an a priori perspective but rather based upon experience.”
Likewise, a scientist unfamiliar with philosophical themes, research topics, etc., may improperly define a philosophical principle as associated with a phenomenon within their own purview of research. Most scientists are hesitant to bridge the gap between theology/philosophy and science and for good reason. They recognize, which is sensible to do, that the content of their investigation does not necessarily, if at all, speak on behalf of philosophy or theology. They restrict their findings to their own specific discipline. When scientists run into trouble is when, like people like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, take off their scientist hat and put on their philosopher one, and switch back and forth presenting rather confusing views on philosophy and science. It is best to recognize the boundaries, see that there is an infinite smallness and greatness (as observed by Blaise Pascal) which one can never traverse, and allow space for other disciplines based on conceptual, spiritual, and religious experiences as well,
And so, I would say that it is fine to be a naturalist. However, naturalism is not provisional in the sense that many are trying to argue it is. I think the provisional portion of naturalism is in reference to scientific facts that are included into the lexicon and language of a naturalism which denies intentionality and theology, which is fine. But again this is a presupposition and not one that is unanimous in all the fields of science. Some scientists share this view, but they do so as philosophers NOT as scientists. I can provide many sources from scientists that would agree with my view and criticize some of their colleagues on their misassociation of science with philosophical themes. And so, while I am sure many will continue to see my side as being against the historical trajectory of the sciences, which is fine, I hope you can see my side as being critical of scientists that confuse their own fields with philosophy. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong, and their colleagues that share my view are right. But I hope what you take from this is that it isn’t as plain as many in this group and many antitheist groups portray the supposed contention between religion and science.
No comments:
Post a Comment