Let's define Naturalism as the view that only nature, e.g. physical space, time, matter and energy exists. Not only does God not exist, but nothing like God exists, either. I propose that a commitment to the positive ontological status of the laws of logic refutes Naturalism.
1. The laws of logic are immutable. (Premise)
2. Nature is dynamic. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the laws of logic cannot be part of nature. (Implied by 1 and 2)
The laws of logic, if they exist at all, include the laws of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, modus ponens, and so forth. These are not to be confused with the laws of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces). The laws of logic are immutable. Square-circles cannot suddenly become possibilities. It can never be the case that A is ~A.
Nature, on the other hand, is dynamic (mutable). It is in a constant state of flux. Acorns have their potentialities actualized into oak trees, for example.
What this implies, according to (3), is that the laws of logic cannot be part of nature. After all, if the laws of logic were part of nature, then that would imply the laws of logic could change. Since this is impossible, it follows that the laws of logic exist independently of nature. Since Naturalism is the view that only nature exists, the existence of the laws of logic refutes Naturalism. One is either left with Platonism or theism (as a result of conceptualism).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How are you sure nature is dynamic? Why is logic like God? Seems like a false analogy.
ReplyDeleteLogic is just the best why we have to explain how things are, like math, and kinda like science. The supernatural or divine can over turn natural order. Logic is just a way to explain aspects of nature's order.
Nature is just defined as the physical cosmos. Hence, "Naturalism" is the view that all that exists is matter and energy. Since physical things are in a constant state of flux, the existence of immutable laws runs counter to Naturalism.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the naturalist can challenge premise 2, and claim that nature includes things that are immutable (Like the above Laws of Logic). Or they can subscribe to a sort of Parmenidean Eternalism, and claim that change in nature is an illusion, because the past, present and future exist simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteThe gravity may be different for objects of different densities, but the law of gravity is not in flux. The equations don't change...not sure what the distinction is here. Naturalists believe the world follows the order of nature, ideas like the law of non contradiction works fine within that framework. I always figured theists had to be the ones rejecting laws of logic, after all most believe the entirety of the bible is true while it contains many contradictions.
ReplyDeleteSince this isn't a debate about the coherence of the Bible's claims, I'll only reply to what you say about gravity. Are you saying that gravity literally cannot change, e.g. that this would pose some contradiction? If so, can you explain what the contradiction is?
ReplyDeleteI have no more reason to believe that the equations explaining gravity will become less accurate than I do that any specific law of logic will become less valid.
ReplyDeleteI think the difference is that a denial of the laws of logic is self-defeating. A denial of gravity, meanwhile, even if it's misplaced, is coherent.
ReplyDeleteRemember, we're not just talking about something being changeless, but literally immutable.
What's the difference between changeless and immutable in this case?
DeleteA thing is immutable if it cannot change. This is stronger than saying a thing is merely without change.
DeleteSo immutable assumes the future can be known? That's it?
DeleteIt has to do with modality: if not-possibly ~p, then necessarily p.
DeleteLogic fits p, whereas the laws of nature presumably do not.
I just don't see the distinction, other than you believeing that God can violate laws of nature but not laws of logic.
DeleteNot to mention, in some hypothetical multiverse, the universal constants (such as the constant of Gravitation) and behavior of matter may differ from ours radically, and thus would require different equations to describe them, or at the very least would yield different constants. It is coherent to say that our equations for describing the universe may not apply to all possible worlds, but it is incoherent to say that the laws of classical thought may not apply to all possible worlds. Though I think Grundy rightly states that the physical equations for our universe are virtually set in stone, however, that does not mean that they cannot vary between hypothetical universes, unlike the laws of logic.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think theists liked multiverse theories because they damage the Fine Tuning argument for God. If we are getting into theoretical physics I could talk about quantum states that could violate causality and schrodinger's cat violating the law of noncontradiction. If gravity is up for grabs, classical logic may be as well.
DeleteL.W., will you submit your reply without the profanity? I'll publish any comment when it's clean, even though yours was off-topic. Cheers.
ReplyDelete