Naturalism

Friday, November 21, 2008

There are different definitions of the naturalistic view, but I think this is a pretty decent summary:

Naturalism holds that nothing exists beyond what can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.


There is a sense in which this view is self-refuting, in that it cannot be proven by its own criteria. That is to say, you can't prove through sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell that nothing exists beyond sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell.

This may seems like a technical cop out answer. What do I mean by "technical cop out?" Often, when I listen to debates, I am frustrated by someone acting as if they have refuted another person's argument simply by finding a technically false thing in the specific words the opponent used. Here is a quick example, not to get too far off point:

Let's say a friend says to you, "I know you are the one who stole my cookie." From the philosophical standpoint, it is impossible to know anything 100%, so they cannot be 100% sure it was you. You could take that approach to argue against them. But it wouldn't address the real issue. What's really happening is that your friend thinks you stole their cookie. It is more important to answer the thing that is really bothering them, than to "cop out" with some technicality about word choices.

In the same way, one could say that the idea of the naturalist view being self-refuting is a technical cop out. But it actually isn't. It is not just the choice of words being used here, it is the actual idea itself in question. Here is another example where the view itself seems to self-refute:

Humanists believe that truth is very personal, individual, and relative. Your truth can be different than my truth. All people should have the right to do the things that are important to them, and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise. This view is self-refuting. Different views cannot always coincide without collision. For example, should Creationism be taught in schools? One person's truth says absolutely not, and another's truth says yes. Both truths cannot take precedence. Also, the view self-refutes by saying everyone should have the right to believe what they want, and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise. It doesn't work, because some people believe they should be able to tell someone otherwise. You can't be able to tell someone what to do, and not be able to tell them, at the same time. Thus the view doesn't work unless all agree with it, and that ruins the whole point of the view.

Back to the topic of naturalism, I find it quite self-refuting to assume that all there is must be known through our natural senses. A perfect example of this is the fact that there are certain colors that cannot be seen with the naked eye. I remember being in chemistry class and watching a demonstration of this. The fact is that these colors do exist, and always have existed, as far as we know, but we did not know they existed before they were discovered very recently. That means that hundreds and thousands of years went by without anyone knowing these colors existed, but they did anyway. So to say that reality only consists of what we can experience with our five senses is most certainly a false statement.

posted by Matthew E Taft,

---

5 Comments:

At Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:12:00 PM,  George said...

Very interesting! And I love ya Matt...but, just because one can prove there are MANY "things" that exist that cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, and tasted by a human, doesn't prove the things we "hope" or "wish" or "believe" to exist, do.

Just throwin' that out there;-)

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

 

At Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:43:00 PM,  Matthew E Taft said...

Thanks, George! You are correct; saying that something "may" exist does not prove it "does" exist, but it is a step forward from the naturalist's position that it "can't" exist, and that was the purpose of this article. I suppose a follow up article to this would be something like, "Now that we acknowledge something can exist even if our natural senses cannot experience it, what other criteria can be used?"

 

At Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:22:00 PM,  Anonymous said...

Hi Matt, I did notice because I clicked onto your blog from mine and you weren't there. I'm a big believe that I don't need proof. I know it in my soul. I've seen it in my out of body experiences. I can feel it from special people I know. Proof is in the believing that God is everything and everywhere. There is only love and fear and God is love. Love you all, Aunt Peggy

 

At Friday, April 24, 2009 5:02:00 PM,  Del said...

One could expand on Aunt Peggy's response in a number of ways.
- one could define her "soul" as a sensory organ, and confer reality on the things that she perceives through this "sixth sense." New Age pagans like this one, because they can to "make up" their own faith.
- better, one could invoke Natural Law, and note that ALL HUMANITY has a long awareness of a spiritual realm. While not conclusive, this give a high probability that a super-natural reality exists.
- One could relate accounts of miracles, where super-natural forces reveal themselves in the natural reality.
- And finally, one could point to the Gospels, as historical eyewitness accounts of God revealing Himself to us, with sense-perceptible signs and miracles, and spoken information as well.

The Materialist will usually answer that there are no such thing as miracles -- and you can ask him where this dogma comes from.

The postmodern Materialist then insists that he has not dogmas... and you can ask him again, how does he know that there are no miracles?

Always keep a few good miracle stories in your pocket, and you can educate the most stubborn Materialist!

 

At Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:16:00 PM,  Anonymous said...

I do think this is a most incredible website for proclaiming great wonders of Our God!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home