How can you say Naturalism is right?
October 15, 2010 - 9:26am
At movie night last night, we again delved into the philosophical quagmire of "how can you know that naturalism is more correct than another, perhaps faith based, logical system?"
Nik was not present- though he first brought it up in our 12th podcast- but Joel also has a good grasp of the argument and was able to make the case. I won't repeat it because I fear I won't do it justice and likely tread on Nik's toes in the process, but suffice to say: the argument turned to the question: "why is basing an epistemology on repeatable observations more valid than basing an epistemology on logic and additionally the existence of some supernatural realm from which other unexplainable or contradictory events might arise"
What is more, the idea was suggested that, while naturalism may explain a phenomenon in one manner, another epistemology might have an explanation which is more complex and requires a supernatural but could still be true.
It's an interesting discussion which isn't easily dismissed. We have yet to bring it up and end in consensus, or with anything satisfying, so I want to start the debate here where we can fully discuss it with everyone at the table.
So for starters, I'll ask what Nik initially asked "how do we evaluate epistemologies and determine if one is 'more correct' than another?" or simpler: "why is science based reasoning objectively correct, and faith based explanation objectively incorrect?"
...go
November 15, 2010 - 9:45pm
#2
I guess I really should have posted here :) Although, I was really hoping for a Movie Night debate :( Maybe next time.
So, I really like Matt's idea that it is essentially a pragmatic approach. I also want to re-stress the idea that naturalism and science are robust enough to incorporate any valid new ideas. This may be semantic, but I don't think so --- To me, the word "supernatural" is essentially impossible. If it exists, the naturalistic perspective/scientific community can incorporate it. Therefore, there could never be a supernatural, just things we don't understand or have yet to observe. I find it to be a (useful) misnomer for things all things non-existent or needing more evidence. I welcome critiques of this perspective. It could use some fleshing out.
Elaborating on Joels questions (or Nik's, rather) - we know science is "correct" because it does what it says it will --- it offers useful predictions and accurately explains the world...or it is changed to do so over time.
Faith-based systems are more resistant to change, and do not tend to accept evidence. By virtue of the definition of "faith," it doesn't really matter whether what you believe is represented in reality. Furthermore, if what is represented in reality does not match your faith, you get EXTRA points for still believing the faith-based claims. Imagine if scientists, or even normal people in most aspects of their lives, took disconfirming evidence as an excuse to believe harder.
IE: You believe people who get cancer are evil and being punished. You are charitable, kind, loving - you've made mistakes, but tried to be a good person. You get diagnosed with cancer...
You could then take the faith approach and believe that you are evil and being punished, and are essentially taking on your deity for your self-respect and life. Or the naturalistic point of view wherein people get sick because of biology and medicine can treat it. Imagine that instead of you who has just been diagnosed with cancer, that it is your 5-year old child...
This example was meant to be somewhat extreme, but there are any number of mundane scenarios wherein a naturalistic perspective results in an accurate (as far as we can tell) conclusion vs. one that is guilt-riddled and inaccurate (as far as we can tell).
In conclusion, is it really incorrect/inaccurate/wrong to think that one of those positions is "correct" and one is not?
I would argue that by simply asking the question you are implementing the basic practice of the Naturalistic philosophy - I argue that Naturalism makes sense because it's what we use to survive and discern many judgments throughout our day. This is argument is pretty much just a pragmatic approach.