Before I write about the main topic of this post, let me do a brief introduction:
Whoever is familiar with contemporary philosophy knows that metaphysical naturalism, ontological materialism and atheism are taken from granted for most philosophers (and academics in general); and most of the philosophical work is thereby done inside the naturalistic framework.
No thinking is allowed outside of the metaphysical naturalist and materialistic mindset. This creates the illusion that naturalism is true, or probably true, because after all "how could it be that most philosophers and academics are wrong"? and such illusion is a validation for naturalists who, confronted with contrary evidence (like skeptic Richard Wiseman's concession that remote viewing is "proven" by conventional scientific standards) and facts incompatible with or "strange" in the naturalist worldview (like consciousness, rationality, abstract objects, etc.) can always appeal to the "opinion of majority" (of academics) as a last argument.
The pressure of the majority and the herd-mentality exists too in intellectuals. In fact, when you debate with someone with this kind of herd-mentality, the "argument based on mainstream opinion" is almost always mentioned: If most scientists or philosophers think that X is true, then X is probably true... (when this argument is presented without proper qualification, or relevance for the specific case, you'll know for sure that you're dealing with an intellectual coward, a person unable to think by himself)
But truth-seekers are not interested in what the majority think, but in the TRUTH.
Of course, if the majority of specialists in a field agree that X is true, and you have no valid arguments for the falsehood of X, then the "authority argument" is reasonable and the presumption that the majority of scientists are probably right is valid. But if you have arguments and evidence against X, then rational discourse demands that your arguments be addressed with arguments and evidence, not with the claim that most scientists disagree with you.
This kind of dishonest use of authority is commonly employed for rhetorical purposes in debates about parapsychology. Given that most scientists don't accept the evidence for psi phenomena, then psi phenomena probably don't exist (or more exactly, that the evidence for psi is not good enough to convince most scientists of its existence; what implicitly implies that the phenomenon is not actually existent).
This kind of silly argument omits:
1-Most professional scientists have not studied the evidence for psi; therefore, they're not expert in this field, and thereby their opinion is not relevant or authoritative. Therefore, appealing to the authority of most (ignorant about psi) scientists is only a clever and fallacious misdirection, not a valid argument from authority.
2-Most of the actual specialists in psi research (parapsychologists, noetic scientists, etc.) agree that psi exists as an fact, even if they disagree regarding many theoretical and methodological aspects. So, the actual "authorities" of this field agree that psi exists, even if most scientists (who are not authorities in this field) disagree with such conclusion Therefore, the valid argument from authority favors the existence of psi.
3-Philosophically, most scientists and philosophers assume a metaphysical naturalist and materialist framework. And, contrary to the clever misdirection of pseudoskeptics, this is a highly relevant point, because psi phenomena are incompatible with the materialism and naturalism assumed by most scientists (and this is why materialists create "organized skeptical movements" to debunk psi research; and this is the reason why people who belongs to secular humanism and metaphysical naturalist organizations write articles against psi, afterlife, NDEs, etc. as parte of the "defense" of the naturalist worldview)
So, the mataphysical background of scientists hostile to psi research is relevant for this discussion, because such background entails the non-existence of the phenomena being discussed (creating, a priori, a psychological and philosophical bias against the topic at stake, bias which is independent of the existence or non-existence of the phenomena in question.).
This point is cleaverly hidden by metaphysical naturalists and seasoned professional pseudoskeptics.
But this is not the topic of this post, so excuse my long introduction.
My main point is that some metaphysical naturalists have recognized that naturalism has serious problems, some of them arguebly fatal. Briefly, some of these problems are:
1-The existence of abstract objects, like propositions, mathemathical truths and objective moral values. All of these things are non-physical. They're conceptual.
A core problem is explaining, in a naturalistically consistent fashion, how these NON-PHYSICAL objects could exert causal efficacy on our minds, and how a purely physical brain could interact and grasp such things.
2-The existence of subjective experience (consciousness) in a world composed (according to naturalism) of purely physical particles, entities or processes (all of them explainable in terms of physical laws); where consciousness seems to have no room in that framework (and where no physical law predicts or entails the existence of consciousness, making it a "strange", "weird", "unexpected" or "extraordinary" phenomenon).
3-The rise and origin of rationality on purely unguided and blind evolutionary process based on natural selection (where the latter favors only adaptative behaviour, not true beliefs; and where true beliefs, being conceptual and part of subjective experience and consciousness is argueably nonphysical and thereby non-efficacious according to the naturalist principle of causal of closure of the physical world. If it's the case, then true beliefs aren't and cannot be causally efficacious and thereby are invisibible and irrelevant to natural selection which only favor useful and thereby causally efficacious pro-survival behaviour)
Note that many naturalists like to think that neuroscience shows that our minds are illusions . But if it's true, then our mind (including our rationality) cannot be causally efficacious on the real world and, therefore, can't be efficacious or useful for our survival. As consequence, it destroys the objection that rationality was useful and thereby favored by natural selection.
How could an illusion be causally efficacious for survival? How could natural selection detect and favor such illusion?
If naturalism is true, natural selection only could select the neurophysiological structure and function that causes the illusion of our mind, but the mind as such is illusory, and therefore non-existent (and by implication, non-efficacious). Therefore, it cannot be useful and causally active on the real world and for this reason it cannot favor survival - which is a phenomenon existing in the real world of biological organisms).
(And just by the way: given that neurophysiological processes are physical-chemical processes, they will be selected by natural selection only if they favor adaptative pro-survival behaviour, not true beliefs (because beliefs are conceptual, but neurophysiological processes are material); therefore, natural selection selected neurophysiological processes by their adaptative pro-survival value, not by their epistemic properties since natural selection doesn't discern between epistemic or non-epistemic properties).
In short: arguing that rationality favors survival implies conceding that consciousness (and reason) is causally efficacious (for survival), and therefore, real. And this is inconsistent with consistent materialism and the deterministic interpretations of neuroscience and the idea that consciousness and their contents are "illusory".
Many of these arguments have been developed by non-materialistic philosophers (like Christian philosophers), but recently, a group of naturalist philosophers have made explicit the problems of naturalism in the book "Naturalism in Question":
Another example is atheist and naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg who has written an article entitled The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality, where he honestly concedes that naturalism entails denying the existence of objective moral values, of beliefs, of the self, of linguistic meaning, of purpose. As consequence, metaphysical naturalism, when consistently assumed and followed, leads to a radical and extreme eliminativism. (And I'd add, if it's true, then naturalism is intellectually self-defeating and morally dangerous, because if beliefs don't exist, then the belief that "naturalism is true" doesn't exist either and thereby cannot be true, and the belief in naturalism would be irrational)
Also, atheistic and naturalistic philosophers have been sympathetic to the intelligent design theory (a theory long fought against by naturalists). For example, first-rate atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a sympathetic commentary on ID theorist Steven Meyer's lastest book "The Signature on the Cell": "Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem."
Atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton has defended the idea that ID is a scientific theory in his book "Seeking God in Science: Atheist defends Intelligent Design"
Note that all of these criticisms against naturalism and ontological materialism are not based on psi or survival evidence. They stand in themselves as separate and independent arguments against naturalism (but if you add psi or survival evidence to the equation, the naturalist worldview would be totally destroyed and crushed. This is why desperate but smart naturalists have to suppress, misrepresent and debunk that kind of research with all they got)
When confronted with all of these criticisms, many naturalists tend to get defensive and desperate; then cognitive dissonance sets in and elaborate and ad hoc attempts to rationalize their intellectually self-defeating, irrational and inconsistent worldview gives us even more arguments against them.
My prediction: metaphysical naturalism will be a minoritary position in academy in the future. And it won't occur due to the criticisms of Christian philosophers or other supernaturalists, but by the criticism of conscious, rational, reflective and honest naturalists themselves.
When it occurs (and perhaps we have to wait 50 or more years to see that), we'll live in a new enlightening era, where the materialism-based oscurantism (which denies consciousness, objective values, ultimate purposes and everything that is essentially important to human beings) will be widely recognized as an intellectual fraud, and the spiritual aspects of human beings will be studied with an open mind, and without ideological prejudices sold as "science".
The full potential of human beings, their spiritual nature and its meaning or place in this universe will be a matter subject to rigorous scientific exploration by mainstream academy.
It's only a matter of time.
And when that occurs, many naturalists will realize that, after all, the Naturalistic Emperor was naked...
Links of interest:
-Naturalist David Macarthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's paper "The Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality"
-My post on Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.
-Materialist philosopher William Lycan's paper on dualism.
-Christian Philosopher Peter Williams' paper "Atheists against Darwinism"
-Alvin Plantinga's paper "Against Materialism"
-My post on Secular Humanism.
-My post on skeptic and naturalist Richard Wiseman's concession that remote viewing is proven
-Mathematician Russell W. Howell's paper Does Mathematical Beauty Pose Problems for Naturalism?
The pressure of the majority and the herd-mentality exists too in intellectuals. In fact, when you debate with someone with this kind of herd-mentality, the "argument based on mainstream opinion" is almost always mentioned: If most scientists or philosophers think that X is true, then X is probably true... (when this argument is presented without proper qualification, or relevance for the specific case, you'll know for sure that you're dealing with an intellectual coward, a person unable to think by himself)
But truth-seekers are not interested in what the majority think, but in the TRUTH.
Of course, if the majority of specialists in a field agree that X is true, and you have no valid arguments for the falsehood of X, then the "authority argument" is reasonable and the presumption that the majority of scientists are probably right is valid. But if you have arguments and evidence against X, then rational discourse demands that your arguments be addressed with arguments and evidence, not with the claim that most scientists disagree with you.
This kind of dishonest use of authority is commonly employed for rhetorical purposes in debates about parapsychology. Given that most scientists don't accept the evidence for psi phenomena, then psi phenomena probably don't exist (or more exactly, that the evidence for psi is not good enough to convince most scientists of its existence; what implicitly implies that the phenomenon is not actually existent).
This kind of silly argument omits:
1-Most professional scientists have not studied the evidence for psi; therefore, they're not expert in this field, and thereby their opinion is not relevant or authoritative. Therefore, appealing to the authority of most (ignorant about psi) scientists is only a clever and fallacious misdirection, not a valid argument from authority.
2-Most of the actual specialists in psi research (parapsychologists, noetic scientists, etc.) agree that psi exists as an fact, even if they disagree regarding many theoretical and methodological aspects. So, the actual "authorities" of this field agree that psi exists, even if most scientists (who are not authorities in this field) disagree with such conclusion Therefore, the valid argument from authority favors the existence of psi.
3-Philosophically, most scientists and philosophers assume a metaphysical naturalist and materialist framework. And, contrary to the clever misdirection of pseudoskeptics, this is a highly relevant point, because psi phenomena are incompatible with the materialism and naturalism assumed by most scientists (and this is why materialists create "organized skeptical movements" to debunk psi research; and this is the reason why people who belongs to secular humanism and metaphysical naturalist organizations write articles against psi, afterlife, NDEs, etc. as parte of the "defense" of the naturalist worldview)
So, the mataphysical background of scientists hostile to psi research is relevant for this discussion, because such background entails the non-existence of the phenomena being discussed (creating, a priori, a psychological and philosophical bias against the topic at stake, bias which is independent of the existence or non-existence of the phenomena in question.).
This point is cleaverly hidden by metaphysical naturalists and seasoned professional pseudoskeptics.
But this is not the topic of this post, so excuse my long introduction.
My main point is that some metaphysical naturalists have recognized that naturalism has serious problems, some of them arguebly fatal. Briefly, some of these problems are:
1-The existence of abstract objects, like propositions, mathemathical truths and objective moral values. All of these things are non-physical. They're conceptual.
A core problem is explaining, in a naturalistically consistent fashion, how these NON-PHYSICAL objects could exert causal efficacy on our minds, and how a purely physical brain could interact and grasp such things.
2-The existence of subjective experience (consciousness) in a world composed (according to naturalism) of purely physical particles, entities or processes (all of them explainable in terms of physical laws); where consciousness seems to have no room in that framework (and where no physical law predicts or entails the existence of consciousness, making it a "strange", "weird", "unexpected" or "extraordinary" phenomenon).
3-The rise and origin of rationality on purely unguided and blind evolutionary process based on natural selection (where the latter favors only adaptative behaviour, not true beliefs; and where true beliefs, being conceptual and part of subjective experience and consciousness is argueably nonphysical and thereby non-efficacious according to the naturalist principle of causal of closure of the physical world. If it's the case, then true beliefs aren't and cannot be causally efficacious and thereby are invisibible and irrelevant to natural selection which only favor useful and thereby causally efficacious pro-survival behaviour)
Note that many naturalists like to think that neuroscience shows that our minds are illusions . But if it's true, then our mind (including our rationality) cannot be causally efficacious on the real world and, therefore, can't be efficacious or useful for our survival. As consequence, it destroys the objection that rationality was useful and thereby favored by natural selection.
How could an illusion be causally efficacious for survival? How could natural selection detect and favor such illusion?
If naturalism is true, natural selection only could select the neurophysiological structure and function that causes the illusion of our mind, but the mind as such is illusory, and therefore non-existent (and by implication, non-efficacious). Therefore, it cannot be useful and causally active on the real world and for this reason it cannot favor survival - which is a phenomenon existing in the real world of biological organisms).
(And just by the way: given that neurophysiological processes are physical-chemical processes, they will be selected by natural selection only if they favor adaptative pro-survival behaviour, not true beliefs (because beliefs are conceptual, but neurophysiological processes are material); therefore, natural selection selected neurophysiological processes by their adaptative pro-survival value, not by their epistemic properties since natural selection doesn't discern between epistemic or non-epistemic properties).
In short: arguing that rationality favors survival implies conceding that consciousness (and reason) is causally efficacious (for survival), and therefore, real. And this is inconsistent with consistent materialism and the deterministic interpretations of neuroscience and the idea that consciousness and their contents are "illusory".
Many of these arguments have been developed by non-materialistic philosophers (like Christian philosophers), but recently, a group of naturalist philosophers have made explicit the problems of naturalism in the book "Naturalism in Question":
Another example is atheist and naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg who has written an article entitled The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality, where he honestly concedes that naturalism entails denying the existence of objective moral values, of beliefs, of the self, of linguistic meaning, of purpose. As consequence, metaphysical naturalism, when consistently assumed and followed, leads to a radical and extreme eliminativism. (And I'd add, if it's true, then naturalism is intellectually self-defeating and morally dangerous, because if beliefs don't exist, then the belief that "naturalism is true" doesn't exist either and thereby cannot be true, and the belief in naturalism would be irrational)
Also, atheistic and naturalistic philosophers have been sympathetic to the intelligent design theory (a theory long fought against by naturalists). For example, first-rate atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a sympathetic commentary on ID theorist Steven Meyer's lastest book "The Signature on the Cell": "Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem."
Atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton has defended the idea that ID is a scientific theory in his book "Seeking God in Science: Atheist defends Intelligent Design"
Note that all of these criticisms against naturalism and ontological materialism are not based on psi or survival evidence. They stand in themselves as separate and independent arguments against naturalism (but if you add psi or survival evidence to the equation, the naturalist worldview would be totally destroyed and crushed. This is why desperate but smart naturalists have to suppress, misrepresent and debunk that kind of research with all they got)
When confronted with all of these criticisms, many naturalists tend to get defensive and desperate; then cognitive dissonance sets in and elaborate and ad hoc attempts to rationalize their intellectually self-defeating, irrational and inconsistent worldview gives us even more arguments against them.
My prediction: metaphysical naturalism will be a minoritary position in academy in the future. And it won't occur due to the criticisms of Christian philosophers or other supernaturalists, but by the criticism of conscious, rational, reflective and honest naturalists themselves.
When it occurs (and perhaps we have to wait 50 or more years to see that), we'll live in a new enlightening era, where the materialism-based oscurantism (which denies consciousness, objective values, ultimate purposes and everything that is essentially important to human beings) will be widely recognized as an intellectual fraud, and the spiritual aspects of human beings will be studied with an open mind, and without ideological prejudices sold as "science".
The full potential of human beings, their spiritual nature and its meaning or place in this universe will be a matter subject to rigorous scientific exploration by mainstream academy.
It's only a matter of time.
And when that occurs, many naturalists will realize that, after all, the Naturalistic Emperor was naked...
Links of interest:
-Naturalist David Macarthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's paper "The Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality"
-My post on Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.
-Materialist philosopher William Lycan's paper on dualism.
-Christian Philosopher Peter Williams' paper "Atheists against Darwinism"
-Alvin Plantinga's paper "Against Materialism"
-My post on Secular Humanism.
-My post on skeptic and naturalist Richard Wiseman's concession that remote viewing is proven
-Mathematician Russell W. Howell's paper Does Mathematical Beauty Pose Problems for Naturalism?
0 comments:
Post a Comment