In the words of Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism is basically atheism-plus: there is no God and nothing like God. All that exists is matter and energy. However, since matter and energy are dynamic, then what place is left for any laws of logic, mathematics, science or morality? In order for something to be truly law-like, it cannot be dynamic.
This means that on Naturalism, there can be no objective standards of reason. In order to assert that Naturalism is true, the Naturalist must presuppose the objectivity of these laws, and so his position is self-defeating. If the Naturalist denies the objectivity of any law, then neither can Naturalism be consistently held as true.
Formally, through reductio ad absurdum:
Prove A: Supernaturalism is true.
Assume ~A: Naturalism is true.
~A --> B: If Naturalism is true, then there are no objective laws of reason.
~B: There are objective laws of reason.
Hence, ~~A: by modus tollens.
Therefore, A: by negation.
Q.E.D.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It works, but my experience is that the moment an argument like this is deployed, most self-described naturalists will instead argue that platonism about math (and just about anything else, as needed) is acceptable on naturalism.
ReplyDeleteThat's true for some self-described Naturalists, but they're engaging in definitional revisionism of what Naturalism means. The traditional definition of Naturalism specifically rules out the possible existence of anything outside of matter and energy.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional definition of Naturalism specifically rules out the possible existence of anything outside of matter and energy.
ReplyDeleteCan you point me at a source for this definition? This is not me being snarky - I would love to have an authoritative definition reference of this onhand. (The SEP is utterly useless on this one.)
Wouldn't that make Quine a non-naturalist? Actually, given the Philpapers survey, I think that would take a dramatic chunk out of the number of self-reported 'naturalists' among those surveyed.
Yes, I'd say Quine would have rejected naturalism, even though he was an atheist. As for a source of this definition, one need look no further than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "[naturalists aim] to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing 'supernatural', and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the 'human spirit.'"
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
This isn't a very controversial claim, by the way. Naturalism has an even greater burden of proof to argue in favor of its contentions than atheism does. It's very unusual to find a naturalist who also holds that abstract objects exists. Given their transcendence of spatio-temporal relations, it only makes sense that naturalists would reject abstractions, such as objective laws of reason.
ReplyDeleteDoug,
ReplyDeleteYeah, but I recall that same SEP entry is extraordinarily squirrelly over what does or doesn't qualify as 'natural'. In fact I'm pretty sure it says as much right after the quote you gave (I can't check at the moment.)
It's very unusual to find a naturalist who also holds that abstract objects exists.
Is it though?
Here's the correlations listed on the Philpapers survey for 'mathematical platonism'. Look down at the results for naturalism v non-naturalism.
If you're correct, then we're in a situation where naturalists are an even smaller group among professional philosophers than most currently would seem to believe. On the other hand, that's because quite a lot of naturalist philosophers wrongly think they're naturalists.
Now, the argument seems to be that N, which is a dynamic system, could have behaved illogically, but that looks completely absurd, because soemthing illogical does not exist, so there is no such thing as illogical reality.
ReplyDeleteSo, for a naturalist to say that only natural things exist, is just to say that reality exists. There is no need for any Platonism here, because to say that reality exist is simply the same as saying logic exists.
The naturalist actually is in the exact same situation as the theist. For if God is all that exists , what place is there for the laws of logic etc? The only answer is that God is logic. But that is exactly the same claim as 'reality is logic' so it does not add anything to the equation.
Well, this isn't an argument for theism per se, so I won't address that last part. If you read any naturalist's work, you'll find they reject the existence of abstract objects. And, you're quite right that nature cannot behave illogically. That just proves that nature isn't the only thing that exists. Now, you're redefining "nature" as reality. Nobody does that, except for a naturalist who simply rules out the possibility of any reality distinct from nature. However, since nature is dynamic and objective laws of reason are not, that demonstrates the soundness of the argument.
ReplyDeleteNotice, of course, I never claimed that nature could behave illogically. What I said was that given nature's logical inclinations, it cannot be the case that nature alone exists.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. If nature cannot behave illogically, that does not necessarily mean that there are other things beside nature that exist. It could also mean that existence is necessarily logical, not beacuse there are some laws of logic in a platonic realm somewhere, but because that's what existence fundamentally is.
DeleteAnd I am not defining nature as reality, I am not a naturalist who a priori rules out a reality distinct from nature. there might be a reality distinct from nature for all I care, but if nature were all there was, it would still not follow that nature could behave illogically, because it could be argued that behaving illogically equals non-existence.
As for this being no argument for theism per se, you start by quoting Plantinga, who defines naturalism as 'there is no God and nothing like God'. My point in the part you did not want to reply to is that positing a God or something like God does not solve the problem.
Sure, Plantinga's a theist. I could have also quoted Graham Oppy, an atheist. I guess I'll bite, though. Let's take the alternative that God is logic. Is this really the same as saying that reality is logic? Not at all. Reality includes nature, which is composed of dynamic, changing matter and energy. Since logic is not dynamic, and neither is God, it makes much more sense to ground logic in God than in nature.
DeleteWalter: "It could also mean that existence is necessarily logical, not beacuse there are some laws of logic in a platonic realm somewhere, but because that's what existence fundamentally is."
Sure, and then you'd be adopting a more Aristotelian account of realism. Notice, though, that you're still using the term, "existence," as opposed to nature. Nature is dynamic. There's really no debate about that. Since objective laws are not dynamic, then the instantiation of objective laws rules out the possibility of nature as being all that exists.
Walter: ". . . nature could behave illogically, because it could be argued that behaving illogically equals non-existence."
Exactly. Any nature that is 100% illogical would be non-existent. You're only further illustrating my point. Hence, nature cannot be all that exists.
Sure, I use "existence" because I leave open the possibility that there is something more than "nature", but conceding that nature cannot be illogical, means that logic is necssary even in a world in which everything is natural. So, it actually contradicts your poijt rather than illustrating it.
DeleteThe point is that the naturalists you are talking about do not view laws as distinct from nature, but as necessary aspects of nature.
What if e.g. there is a law that says 'Eevrything is dynamic' That would be a static objective law that nevertheless accurately describes a completely dynamic system.
I must also say that I find it weird that you decribe God as static. I would think that a personal being is necessarily dynamic.
My view is that God is immutable, and you know that. Call it weird if you want, but that doesn't bother me.
DeleteAs for your first point, I agree that logic is necessary. The problem still remains unexplained, though. Nature is dynamic. Logic is not. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. I know you don't like it, but maybe it's time you rethink your worldview.
So, I'll ask again: how do naturalists account for anything immutable? Nature is dynamic. Period. If they're going to give an account, it cannot be found in the mutability of nature.
The notion that everything is dynamic is not only self-contradictory, but demonstrably false. Laws of logic, remember?
I do not have to rethink my worldview because i am not a naturalist.
DeleteFurthermore, I have never claimed that everything is dynamic, but in the hypothetical case that everything were dynamic,it would still be possible to give a completely objective description. 3everything is dynamic" would only be self-contradictory if such law exists in and out of itself in some platonic realsm or oether. But not if it describes a necessary aspect of nature.
Besides, nature may be dynamic, but it is also a fact that nothing in nature both exists and not exists. So it can be argued that logic is a necessary aspect of nature.
As for your claim about God, I know you believe God is immutable, but that was not my question. My question was whether God is static, and that's something quite different. There may be some mysterious way in which immutable entities can act, but static entities that act are a contradictio in terminis.
Actually, you did say my belief is that God is static:
Delete"I must also say that I find it weird that you decribe God as static. I would think that a personal being is necessarily dynamic."
No, God is not static as you've described the term.
Now, saying nature is dynamic and logic isn't just won't cut it if you're also saying that logic is part of nature. If you want to take an Aristotelian view (again, this isn't unique to Plato) and say that universals, such as logic, are part of nature, then we still arrive at the same conclusion. We have a dynamic reality, and an immutable reality. I'm happy to accommodate the change in terminology if that's what it takes.
Glad to hear you're not a naturalist, by the way.
Yes, I did say your belief is that God is static, and by static I meant "not dynamic", so now it seems that you have special pleaded a new kind of static into existence, that, very conveniently, only applies to God.
Delete"We have a dynamic reality and an immutable reality". No, we don't. The immutable aspect of reality is not a separate entity, but merely a description of reality. For many naturalists, the 'laws' of logic are useful fictions that make it possible for us to describe reality. As I said, "Reality is dynamic" is an immutable description of somethign that is obviously not immutable. your conclsuion only follows if you treat laws of logic etc. as prescriptive, something a naturalist will not do. If laws of logic are prescriptive, however, they also prescribe the properties any part of reality, including God. Prescriptive laws are necessarily Platonic entities, and as such would have to possess causal powers of some sort.
Descriptive laws can be treated as fiction and don't lead to the same problems.
As for the fact that I am not a naturalist, that does not mean I believe in 'something like God'. Saying that people who do not presuppose that matter and energy all al there is believe in something like God is a straw man.
I never said you believe in something like God, but your rejection of naturalism is a good sign. What does your non-naturalism look like, then, if all you believe exist are matter and energy? Sounds a whole lot like naturalism to me.
DeleteWalter: "Yes, I did say your belief is that God is static, and by static I meant "not dynamic", so now it seems that you have special pleaded a new kind of static into existence, that, very conveniently, only applies to God."
Special pleading? Not at all. Special pleading only applies to the treatment of one entity differently than an entity of the same class. God is immutable, where matter and energy are dynamic. God isn't matter and energy, so there's no special pleading here. God alone is immutable, just like God alone is omnipotent. Would that be special pleading too? Hardly.
"No, we don't. The immutable aspect of reality is not a separate entity, but merely a description of reality. For many naturalists, the 'laws' of logic are useful fictions that make it possible for us to describe reality."
So as I said, naturalists hold that only matter and energy exist. You're illustrating my point, once again.
"your conclsuion only follows if you treat laws of logic etc. as prescriptive, something a naturalist will not do."
"Normative" is a better term. In any case, unless a naturalist can show that the laws of logic are dispensable, they're better off abandoning their naturalism in favor of something else.
"If laws of logic are prescriptive, however, they also prescribe the properties any part of reality, including God."
I've never said anything different. Of course, you know that I'm also a conceptualist.
"Prescriptive laws are necessarily Platonic entities, and as such would have to possess causal powers of some sort."
Neither of those statements are true. Prescriptive/normative laws may exist as necessary concepts, but that's not important. On Platonism, laws (abstract objects) are causally inert, just as they are on nearly every position.
I do not believe that all that exists is matter and energy. there may be something else, but to say that that the only possibilities are matter, energy and God-like entities is completely incoherent.
DeleteThe opposite of "dynamic" is "static", not "immutable", Doug. You are claiming that dynamic equals mutable, except for God who is dynamic but immutable. That's special pleading.
Yes, naturalists hold that only matter and energy exist, and if they are correct, laws do not exist as separate entities but as descriptions of nature. What your argument attempts to do is say that naturalists should not believe in objective laws and that therefore they cannot prove that naturalism is correct, and that is true, but that does not mean that naturaism cannot be correct, you should not confuse the possible truth of naturalism with a possible proof of naturalism. You may have successfully argued against the latter, but not against the former.
And I knwo that on Platonism,laws are causally inert, which is actually my point. Causally inert entities cannot prescribe anything because a prescription of what reality is, causes reality to be the way it is. That's also the basic problem with conceptualism. To say that concept are necessary means that the laws of logic prescribe them. That leads to circularity because in orde for concepts to prescribe something, they must be prescribed to exist but in order for them to be prescribed to exist, they must prescribe themselves.
The only way to avoid this probelmis by treating lass as descriptive, not prescriptive.
When did I say that God is dynamic? Show me and I'll admit I made a mistake.
Delete"You may have successfully argued against the latter, but not against the former."
Well, that was kind of the point of the post. I doubt you'll find many naturalists who don't claim that naturalism is true, however.
"And I knwo that on Platonism,laws are causally inert, which is actually my point. Causally inert entities cannot prescribe anything because a prescription of what reality is, causes reality to be the way it is."
That's incorrect. A prescription states not what something is, but what it should be. That's why I call the laws of logic "normative." The laws of logic don't act on things.
"That's also the basic problem with conceptualism. To say that concept are necessary means that the laws of logic prescribe them."
Again, that's the wrong term.
"To say that concept are necessary means that the laws of logic prescribe them. That leads to circularity because in orde for concepts to prescribe something, they must be prescribed to exist but in order for them to be prescribed to exist, they must prescribe themselves."
Prescriptions aren't self-referential. The proposition, "rape is wrong," doesn't apply to itself, since propositions are causally inert. It's meaningless to talk about a proposition raping someone. Hence, there is no circularity.
Doug
Delete"When did I say that God is dynamic? Show me and I'll admit I made a mistake."
When you said that "God is not static" The opposite of static is dynamic.
"Well, that was kind of the point of the post. I doubt you'll find many naturalists who don't claim that naturalism is true, however."
Of course naturalist as you define them will claim that naturalism is true, just like Catholics claim Catholicism is true and Muslims claim that Islam is true. And I agree that none of these can prove they are right, but that in itself does not mean they are wrong. As I have shown, there can be an objective standard of reason on Naturalism, but that standard cannot be completely known, hence, in that respect, Naturalism is an assertion. And that is why I reject Naturalism, and that is also why I reject any belief system.
"That's incorrect. A prescription states not what something is, but what it should be. That's why I call the laws of logic "normative." The laws of logic don't act on things."
Then why are things the way they are and not different?
"Prescriptions aren't self-referential. The proposition, "rape is wrong," doesn't apply to itself, since propositions are causally inert. It's meaningless to talk about a proposition raping someone. Hence, there is no circularity."
That's the point, if propositions are causally inert, it cannot be that, due to the proposition, "God is good", it is true that God is in fact good. And it cannot be true either that the proposition, "God necessarily thinks that 1 + 1 = 2" makes it true that God thinks 1 + 1 = 2.
If you say that it is God who makes this true, then you deny that abstract objects like 1 + 1 = 2 are necessarily true.
But this actually opens the can of worms of conceptualism, which would lead us too far from your actual argument here.
Walter: "When you said that "God is not static" The opposite of static is dynamic."
DeleteYou're twisting my words. "Static" usually refers to a thing's being causally inert. I've explained over and over again why an immutable thing can stand in causal relations.
" . . . And that is why I reject Naturalism, and that is also why I reject any belief system."
How about your own?
"Then why are things the way they are and not different?"
As far as logic is concerned, it's because logic is necessary.
"That's the point, if propositions are causally inert, it cannot be that, due to the proposition, "God is good", it is true that God is in fact good."
No. Propositions about goodness are abstract objects. Abstract objects are causally inert, but they still correspond to concrete instantiations, e.g. that God is good.
"And it cannot be true either that the proposition, "God necessarily thinks that 1 + 1 = 2" makes it true that God thinks 1 + 1 = 2. If you say that it is God who makes this true, then you deny that abstract objects like 1 + 1 = 2 are necessarily true."
The Euthyphro Dilemma to the rescue, huh? God is the good, and God is the the locus of rationality, so you're presenting a false dilemma.
"But this actually opens the can of worms of conceptualism, which would lead us too far from your actual argument here."
I mention my conceptualism not because it has anything to do with the post, but because you made the claim that realism with respect to abstract objects leads to Platonism. I only wanted to correct this common mistake.
Static refers to a thing not doing anything. You claim that an immutable being is not static, which I shall accept for the sake of this argument, but that means that it is dynamic.
DeleteAs for my own belief system, I don't have one. It would not be very logical to reject all belief systems except my own.
"No. Propositions about goodness are abstract objects. Abstract objects are causally inert, but they still correspond to concrete instantiations, e.g. that God is good."
If God's goodness corresponds to an abstract object, then abstract objects must exist apart from God. Otherwise you get to extreme circularity in which God's goodness corresponds to God's goodness. In that case, there is nothing preventing God from being cruel and selfish. The only difference would be that in that case, we might consider cruelty and selfishness 'good'
Moreover, if abstract objects merely describe concrete ones, then your objection against Naturalism fails, because IF nature is all that exists and nature is dynamic then it is objectively true that nature is all there is and nature is dynamic. And if the dynamic aspect of nature is describable in mathematical equations, then that is a mathematical law.
Walter: "Static refers to a thing not doing anything. You claim that an immutable being is not static, which I shall accept for the sake of this argument, but that means that it is dynamic."
DeleteI don't care what you call them. Maybe it would be best to say "mutable" and "immutable."
"If God's goodness corresponds to an abstract object, then abstract objects must exist apart from God."
God's goodness may correspond to his own inherent character, so your objection is fallacious.
"Otherwise you get to extreme circularity in which God's goodness corresponds to God's goodness."
Rather, God just is the Good, so there's no circularity or regress to be had.
"In that case, there is nothing preventing God from being cruel and selfish. The only difference would be that in that case, we might consider cruelty and selfishness 'good'"
No, God is immutable. Therefore, the Good is immutable.
"Moreover, if abstract objects merely describe concrete ones, then your objection against Naturalism fails, because IF nature is all that exists . . ."
That's an awfully big "if."
". . . then it is objectively true that nature is all there is and nature is dynamic. And if the dynamic aspect of nature is describable in mathematical equations, then that is a mathematical law."
That's no different than saying, "if all that exists is dynamic, then all that exists is dynamic." It's trivially true, but fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) the conditional is false anyway. Name one indispensable thing that also doesn't exist.
Crude, it wouldn't surprise me if there are fewer naturalists than one might think. On the other hand, there are some who reject the objectivity of reason, and I suspect their desire to hold onto naturalism is one explanation. As for the inconsistent naturalists, we also know that 21% of "atheists" believe in God! :)
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, there are some naturalists who attempt to reconcile their worldview with Platonism, the latter of which is a form of law-realism. Bernard Linsky and Edward Zalta's paper, "Naturalized Platonism Versus Platonized Naturalism," is such an attempt. Still, that's a minority view.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we could all agree to a compromise:
ReplyDeleteProve A: Transcendence exists.
Assume ~A: There is no transcendence.
~A --> B: If there is no transcendence, then there are no immutable laws.
~B: There are immutable laws.
Hence, ~~A: by modus tollens.
Therefore, A: by negation.
Q.E.D.
"... but they're engaging in definitional revisionism of what Naturalism means."
ReplyDeleteWhen pushed by reason -- and a person who will not allow them to wiggle, who will not make excuses for, or cover up their intellectual dishonesty -- atheists will *always* retreat into irrationalism. The only question, as applies to the individual atheist, concerns the precise point at which he will give up his pretense to rationality.
"To be fair, there are some naturalists who attempt to reconcile their worldview with Platonism, ..."
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say, there are some 'naturalists' who imagine that by positing Unthought Thoughts as being the Fundamental Reality, they have thereby disposed of God.
It's weird, I know. When we look at polls of philosophers who believe in God, it's only about 25%. However, when you poll philosophers whose expertise is in arguments for and against God's existence, the results are overwhelmingly theistic (more than 90%). I just don't think many naturalists (not all, I don't want to overgeneralize) have really thought about the implications of their beliefs, or lack thereof.
Delete"... but to say that that the only possibilities are matter, energy and God-like entities is completely incoherent."
ReplyDelete*eyeroll*
Walter, as I mentioned before, when I say you're suspended for a week, I'm not bluffing. Take some time away from the blog. If you have anything to add after the week is over with, then I'll publish your comments. If you continue to post when you're not supposed to, I'll be deleting them. Take the suspension seriously. If you continue to defy me on my own blog, then your suspension will be extended indefinitely.
ReplyDeleteOne objection I see to Pure Act is the following:
ReplyDelete1) God is immutable.
2) God can cause/change things.
People find that these premises contradict. But I think that this objection sort of begs the question. In order for there to be a contradiction between those premises, we have to assume something like:
3) It is not possible for A to change B without A undergoing change.
But I don't see how you can demonstrate the premise 3 as necessarily true.
Hi ozero,
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly where the problem lies. One atheistic objection is to cite another one of Newton's laws - namely, that in order for A to change B, A must also change. However, this only applies to a certain type of change. I like to give the example of a man looking at a beautiful painting. The man is said to be "moved" by it, even though the painting doesn't have to change. In this illustration, the painting moves the man as an object of desire. Likewise, the Unmoved Mover may be likened to God's character, which is the supreme good and highest object of desire.