Introduction.
Metaphysical naturalism is a WORLDVIEW that excludes the existence of paranormal phenomena, like telepathy, precognition and remote viewing (this is the explanation why professional "skeptics" like Shermer, Randi, Hyman, Wiseman, members of infidels.org, etc. are all of them metaphysical naturalists and precisely by this reason, they're "skeptics" of psi).
Therefore, if any of you accept the existence of such phenomena, you have (as a matter of logical necessity) to reject metaphysical naturalism as a worldview.
This ridiculously obvious point is, for rhetorical and debating purposes, obfuscated and denied by some believers in metaphysical naturalism, who try to present metaphysical naturalism as simply an "hypothesis" or a "definition" without any ontological implication regarding specific aspects of reality (like morality, consciousness, etc.). The definition or hypothesis in question would be that naturalism is simply the view that "there is not God nor immaterial souls", and more widely that "The supernatural doesn't exist or is not causally efficacious on the natural world"
This re-definition strategy could be useful to fool people ignorant of the naturalist literature, but will make laugh aloud any person who has objectively and critically studied the leading literature on naturalism. And specially, this strategy will cast doubt on the intellectual honesty of any naturalist defending it (see below).
The motivation for this strategy rests on the realization that the implications of naturalism are at worst self-refuting or, at best, argueably inconsistent (as has been realized by first rate naturalist philosophers themselves like Alex Rosenberg; and by the naturalist authors of the excellent book Naturalism in Question).
In fact, this strategy is a very good evidence of the extreme weakness of naturalism, and how the believers in such worldview have to make use of desperate methods (even denying their own papers and words) to keep naturalism alive (even if it includes a straightforward distortion of the naturalist position). It's clearly a faith based position.
Fully realizing the flaws and incoherences of naturalism, clever apologists for naturalists attempt to redefine naturalism as simply a "definition", without any implication beyond atheism (or the denial of inmaterial souls). It would be simply a definition or an hypothesis, not a worldview at all. In other words, naturalism would be simply a word or name for anti-supernaturalism.
Therefore (so they argue) the existence of objective moral values, of abstract mathematical objects (which are non-physical!), of intentionality, of consciousness, or even of a psi phenomena like telepathy or remote viewing wouldn't affect at all the naturalist position, because no such phenomena proves that existence of God or inmaterial spirits (which are, supposedly, the only entities excluded by naturalism).
This ad hoc effort of saving naturalism from criticisms are specially COMICAL when the people using such strategy belong to a naturalist/secularist organization, like Internet Infidels, which explicitly mention naturalism as a WORLDVIEW and define their purpose and goals in terms of a defense of such worldview, as you can read in the Infidels official website: "The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels Inc... a nonprofit educational organization nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. Naturalism is the "hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." As such, "naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities," such as gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or other spirits, "or at least none that actually exercises its power to affect the natural world. And without miraculous interventions into nature from a spiritual realm, neither prayer nor magick are more effective than a placebo" (emphasis in blue added)
Note that naturalism excludes the efficacy of "praying" (as something more than a placebo) and, therefore, of healing at distance by the influence of spiritual forces. Therefore, the following scientific evidence for healing at distance and the efficacy of praying would refute naturalism according to the Secular Web:
In the section entitled "Why Internet Infidels", you can read: "As the only truly equal opportunity information medium, the Internet represents our best hope for promoting a naturalistic worldview to the wider public" (emphasis in blue added)
In his article "Defending Naturalism as a Worldview", naturalist Richard Carrier wrote: "Real naturalists call naturalism (in the broadest sense, typically qualified as metaphysical naturalism) a worldview, not a research program. Naturalism is a total belief system regarding what exists, typically and appropriately contrasted with Traditional Theism, Philosophical Taoism, and the like. And we certainly can argue that everyone ought to be a naturalist in that sense: all we have to do is (3.) show that everyone ought to adopt the same research program (as I have just done for basic empiricism) and (4.) show how the available facts, in light of that research program, imply naturalism more than any other worldview." (Emphasis in blue added)
Note that "real naturalists" call naturalism a worldview. Therefore, if Carrier is right, self-proclaimed "naturalists" who deny that naturalism is a worldview ARE NOT real naturalists. They're fake naturalists or simply charlatans (and I'd add, they're self-deluded or intentionally dishonest, since they belong to, defend and support organizations whose explicit goal and purpose is EXPLICITLY defined in terms of a defense of the naturalistic WORLDVIEW)
You could be thinking: Why is Jime stressing such ridiculously obvious point? Does anybody doubt that naturalism is a worldview? Well, very few people actually doubts that naturalism is a worldview (and, as naturalist Carrier says, no "real naturalist" would doubt it), but believe me, I know some self-proclaimed naturalists who, defeated by evidence and philosophical arguments against naturalism, have cleverly redefined their position to make it inmune to sound objections.
They realize that naturalism as a worldview is easier to refute than naturalism as a mere "definition". And therefore, given their monumental faith in and wishful thinking for atheism, they realize that it's strategically useful for debating purposes to defend the latter version of naturalism (naturalism as a defintion alone) instead of the former (naturalism as a complete wordlview).
To be honest, I consider that one a predictable strategy in believers of any position whose position rest mostly on FAITH. For these people, reason and arguments are only valid provided they support their faith. Contrary evidence and arguments are undermined, relativized, misrepresented or ignored, because their acceptation would destroy their entire position.
They honestly see themselves as rational and truth seekers, but it's clearly (and maybe unconsciously) a self-delusion, psychologically created to protect an irrational faith in naturalism and rationalize the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance felt when contrary evidence is presented.
Again, the use of such rhetoric to redefine naturalism when confronted with psi evidence and philosophical arguments is strong evidence of the severe intellectual (and emotional) insecurity of these fake naturalists and above all of the extreme weakness of their belief system.
Evan Fales, metaphysical naturalist and paranormal phenomena.
Naturalist philosopher Evan Fales, a serious professional philosopher (some of whose articles have been published in infidels.org), has argued that paranormal phenomena is evidence AGAINST metaphysical naturalism. This is important, because professor Fales' point is correct even if, for the sake of the argument, we accept the fake naturalist's arbitrary redefinition of naturalism as a mere hypothesis or definition and not as a complete worldview.
In the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, professor Fales wrote: "A variety of paranormal effects, were they genuine, would provide evidence for supernatural beings, disembodied human minds, or nonnatural forces. They include alleged cases of reincarnation, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and out-of-body experiences, especially those associated with near-death episodes (NDEs). Because such phenomena suggest the possibility of extra-bodily existence, of nonphysical channels of communication between minds, and of minds influencing distant physical objects directly, they have attracted the attention not only of laypeople but of philosophers." (p.130. Emhpasis in blue added)
Note that professor Fales includes clairvoyance (and therefore remote viewing) and psychokinesis as phenomena that, if genuine, would provide evidence for the supernatural and, therefore, AGAINST metaphysical naturalism.
But remote viewing has been proved, as has been conceded even by materialist skeptic and professional debunker Richard Wiseman: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" (for further discussion of this concession and how Wiseman "wisely" tries to avoid accepting the evidence, see my post here)
If Wiseman is right, and given Fales' point that remote viewing would support the supernatural, and provided we're rational thinkers, we're intellectually forced to conclude that metaphysical naturalism IS FALSE.
In a sillogistic mode:
1-Remote viewing is evidence for the supernatural (and therefore against naturalism)
2-By the standards of any other area of science (i.e. scientific standards commonly used in science) remote viewing is PROVEN.
3-Therefore, by the commonly used and accept scientific standards, the supernatural has been proven (which entails that metaphysical naturalism is false)
Fales, who's not an expert in psi research, reject premise 2 (and for this reason, he reject the conclusion of the argument), but Richard Wiseman, who's a long time professional debunker of psi research, agrees with premise 2 (but, by philosophical reasons discussed in this post, he believes that even if remote viewing is proven by science, it's still unacceptable!)
But note that the above argument will be convincing for an agnostic or neutral reader with not axe to grind against the premises of the argument. After he studies the evidence objectively, and how the force of evidence has forced professional skeptics like Wiseman to make that kind of concessions, he'll agree with the conclusion of the argument.
Real naturalists will accept premise 1 (fake naturalists will reject premise 1 to avoid refutation of naturalism on the basis of psi evidence)
Real naturalists will fight violently to reject premise 2 (because they know that if they accept it, their worldview is demolished). Like real naturalists, fake naturalists will fight violently to reject premise 2 (because they know, intuitively and implicitly, that accepting it destroys naturalism, even if they deny that for debating purposes or as a way of self-delusion to avoid cognitive dissonance)
Conclusions:
-Naturalism is a worldview
-Real naturalists agree with point 1 and openly defend it. Only fake naturalists disagree with it (mostly, as a way to protect their faith from falsification)
-Naturalism excludes psi phenomena, like remote viewing or precognition.
-There are good evidence for remote viewing and precognition.
-Even professional skeptics, like Richard Wiseman, agree that the evidence is good enough to consider some of these phenomena as "proven". (Wiseman's disagreement is philosophical, not based on technical or scientific flaws of the evidence for the phenomena in question)
-It follows that naturalism is false.
-The falsehood of naturalism explains their unability to explain consciousness, intentional and the objectivity of abstract objects (like propositions and moral values).
-From all the points above, it follows that it's IRRATIONAL to believe in naturalism, given the whole of the evidence (including psi evidence).
-Therefore, believers in naturalism are either ignorant of psi evidence or irrational, or both things simultaneously (the latter is very common in online naturalists, atheists and pseudo-skeptics, specially the strident ones).
Metaphysical naturalism is a WORLDVIEW that excludes the existence of paranormal phenomena, like telepathy, precognition and remote viewing (this is the explanation why professional "skeptics" like Shermer, Randi, Hyman, Wiseman, members of infidels.org, etc. are all of them metaphysical naturalists and precisely by this reason, they're "skeptics" of psi).
Therefore, if any of you accept the existence of such phenomena, you have (as a matter of logical necessity) to reject metaphysical naturalism as a worldview.
This ridiculously obvious point is, for rhetorical and debating purposes, obfuscated and denied by some believers in metaphysical naturalism, who try to present metaphysical naturalism as simply an "hypothesis" or a "definition" without any ontological implication regarding specific aspects of reality (like morality, consciousness, etc.). The definition or hypothesis in question would be that naturalism is simply the view that "there is not God nor immaterial souls", and more widely that "The supernatural doesn't exist or is not causally efficacious on the natural world"
This re-definition strategy could be useful to fool people ignorant of the naturalist literature, but will make laugh aloud any person who has objectively and critically studied the leading literature on naturalism. And specially, this strategy will cast doubt on the intellectual honesty of any naturalist defending it (see below).
The motivation for this strategy rests on the realization that the implications of naturalism are at worst self-refuting or, at best, argueably inconsistent (as has been realized by first rate naturalist philosophers themselves like Alex Rosenberg; and by the naturalist authors of the excellent book Naturalism in Question).
In fact, this strategy is a very good evidence of the extreme weakness of naturalism, and how the believers in such worldview have to make use of desperate methods (even denying their own papers and words) to keep naturalism alive (even if it includes a straightforward distortion of the naturalist position). It's clearly a faith based position.
Fully realizing the flaws and incoherences of naturalism, clever apologists for naturalists attempt to redefine naturalism as simply a "definition", without any implication beyond atheism (or the denial of inmaterial souls). It would be simply a definition or an hypothesis, not a worldview at all. In other words, naturalism would be simply a word or name for anti-supernaturalism.
Therefore (so they argue) the existence of objective moral values, of abstract mathematical objects (which are non-physical!), of intentionality, of consciousness, or even of a psi phenomena like telepathy or remote viewing wouldn't affect at all the naturalist position, because no such phenomena proves that existence of God or inmaterial spirits (which are, supposedly, the only entities excluded by naturalism).
This ad hoc effort of saving naturalism from criticisms are specially COMICAL when the people using such strategy belong to a naturalist/secularist organization, like Internet Infidels, which explicitly mention naturalism as a WORLDVIEW and define their purpose and goals in terms of a defense of such worldview, as you can read in the Infidels official website: "The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels Inc... a nonprofit educational organization nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. Naturalism is the "hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." As such, "naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities," such as gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or other spirits, "or at least none that actually exercises its power to affect the natural world. And without miraculous interventions into nature from a spiritual realm, neither prayer nor magick are more effective than a placebo" (emphasis in blue added)
Note that naturalism excludes the efficacy of "praying" (as something more than a placebo) and, therefore, of healing at distance by the influence of spiritual forces. Therefore, the following scientific evidence for healing at distance and the efficacy of praying would refute naturalism according to the Secular Web:
In the section entitled "Why Internet Infidels", you can read: "As the only truly equal opportunity information medium, the Internet represents our best hope for promoting a naturalistic worldview to the wider public" (emphasis in blue added)
In his article "Defending Naturalism as a Worldview", naturalist Richard Carrier wrote: "Real naturalists call naturalism (in the broadest sense, typically qualified as metaphysical naturalism) a worldview, not a research program. Naturalism is a total belief system regarding what exists, typically and appropriately contrasted with Traditional Theism, Philosophical Taoism, and the like. And we certainly can argue that everyone ought to be a naturalist in that sense: all we have to do is (3.) show that everyone ought to adopt the same research program (as I have just done for basic empiricism) and (4.) show how the available facts, in light of that research program, imply naturalism more than any other worldview." (Emphasis in blue added)
Note that "real naturalists" call naturalism a worldview. Therefore, if Carrier is right, self-proclaimed "naturalists" who deny that naturalism is a worldview ARE NOT real naturalists. They're fake naturalists or simply charlatans (and I'd add, they're self-deluded or intentionally dishonest, since they belong to, defend and support organizations whose explicit goal and purpose is EXPLICITLY defined in terms of a defense of the naturalistic WORLDVIEW)
You could be thinking: Why is Jime stressing such ridiculously obvious point? Does anybody doubt that naturalism is a worldview? Well, very few people actually doubts that naturalism is a worldview (and, as naturalist Carrier says, no "real naturalist" would doubt it), but believe me, I know some self-proclaimed naturalists who, defeated by evidence and philosophical arguments against naturalism, have cleverly redefined their position to make it inmune to sound objections.
They realize that naturalism as a worldview is easier to refute than naturalism as a mere "definition". And therefore, given their monumental faith in and wishful thinking for atheism, they realize that it's strategically useful for debating purposes to defend the latter version of naturalism (naturalism as a defintion alone) instead of the former (naturalism as a complete wordlview).
To be honest, I consider that one a predictable strategy in believers of any position whose position rest mostly on FAITH. For these people, reason and arguments are only valid provided they support their faith. Contrary evidence and arguments are undermined, relativized, misrepresented or ignored, because their acceptation would destroy their entire position.
They honestly see themselves as rational and truth seekers, but it's clearly (and maybe unconsciously) a self-delusion, psychologically created to protect an irrational faith in naturalism and rationalize the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance felt when contrary evidence is presented.
Again, the use of such rhetoric to redefine naturalism when confronted with psi evidence and philosophical arguments is strong evidence of the severe intellectual (and emotional) insecurity of these fake naturalists and above all of the extreme weakness of their belief system.
Evan Fales, metaphysical naturalist and paranormal phenomena.
Naturalist philosopher Evan Fales, a serious professional philosopher (some of whose articles have been published in infidels.org), has argued that paranormal phenomena is evidence AGAINST metaphysical naturalism. This is important, because professor Fales' point is correct even if, for the sake of the argument, we accept the fake naturalist's arbitrary redefinition of naturalism as a mere hypothesis or definition and not as a complete worldview.
In the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, professor Fales wrote: "A variety of paranormal effects, were they genuine, would provide evidence for supernatural beings, disembodied human minds, or nonnatural forces. They include alleged cases of reincarnation, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and out-of-body experiences, especially those associated with near-death episodes (NDEs). Because such phenomena suggest the possibility of extra-bodily existence, of nonphysical channels of communication between minds, and of minds influencing distant physical objects directly, they have attracted the attention not only of laypeople but of philosophers." (p.130. Emhpasis in blue added)
Note that professor Fales includes clairvoyance (and therefore remote viewing) and psychokinesis as phenomena that, if genuine, would provide evidence for the supernatural and, therefore, AGAINST metaphysical naturalism.
But remote viewing has been proved, as has been conceded even by materialist skeptic and professional debunker Richard Wiseman: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" (for further discussion of this concession and how Wiseman "wisely" tries to avoid accepting the evidence, see my post here)
If Wiseman is right, and given Fales' point that remote viewing would support the supernatural, and provided we're rational thinkers, we're intellectually forced to conclude that metaphysical naturalism IS FALSE.
In a sillogistic mode:
1-Remote viewing is evidence for the supernatural (and therefore against naturalism)
2-By the standards of any other area of science (i.e. scientific standards commonly used in science) remote viewing is PROVEN.
3-Therefore, by the commonly used and accept scientific standards, the supernatural has been proven (which entails that metaphysical naturalism is false)
Fales, who's not an expert in psi research, reject premise 2 (and for this reason, he reject the conclusion of the argument), but Richard Wiseman, who's a long time professional debunker of psi research, agrees with premise 2 (but, by philosophical reasons discussed in this post, he believes that even if remote viewing is proven by science, it's still unacceptable!)
But note that the above argument will be convincing for an agnostic or neutral reader with not axe to grind against the premises of the argument. After he studies the evidence objectively, and how the force of evidence has forced professional skeptics like Wiseman to make that kind of concessions, he'll agree with the conclusion of the argument.
Real naturalists will accept premise 1 (fake naturalists will reject premise 1 to avoid refutation of naturalism on the basis of psi evidence)
Real naturalists will fight violently to reject premise 2 (because they know that if they accept it, their worldview is demolished). Like real naturalists, fake naturalists will fight violently to reject premise 2 (because they know, intuitively and implicitly, that accepting it destroys naturalism, even if they deny that for debating purposes or as a way of self-delusion to avoid cognitive dissonance)
Conclusions:
-Naturalism is a worldview
-Real naturalists agree with point 1 and openly defend it. Only fake naturalists disagree with it (mostly, as a way to protect their faith from falsification)
-Naturalism excludes psi phenomena, like remote viewing or precognition.
-There are good evidence for remote viewing and precognition.
-Even professional skeptics, like Richard Wiseman, agree that the evidence is good enough to consider some of these phenomena as "proven". (Wiseman's disagreement is philosophical, not based on technical or scientific flaws of the evidence for the phenomena in question)
-It follows that naturalism is false.
-The falsehood of naturalism explains their unability to explain consciousness, intentional and the objectivity of abstract objects (like propositions and moral values).
-From all the points above, it follows that it's IRRATIONAL to believe in naturalism, given the whole of the evidence (including psi evidence).
-Therefore, believers in naturalism are either ignorant of psi evidence or irrational, or both things simultaneously (the latter is very common in online naturalists, atheists and pseudo-skeptics, specially the strident ones).
0 comments:
Post a Comment