Naturalist philosophers are very astute in hidding (or not specifying exactly) the empirical conditions under which metaphysical naturalism would be refuted. This trick allows them to dismiss any evidence which is presented against naturalism.
For example, naturalist philosopher J.J.C. Smart accepts that his own naturalism is empirically unfalsifiable (and hence unscientific): "Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added)
Not even such a straighforward, empirically public and verificable miracle like the one mentioned by Smart would count as evidence against his naturalism. Such degree of faith in naturalism is, in my opinion, very common among naturalists, but not all of them have the intellectual honesty of Smart in conceding that their position is based on such a strong, fixed and unfalsifiable faith.
Another example is naturalist philosopher John Shook, who says that from the existence of nature plus the (supposed) lack of evidence for the supernatural, it follows that naturalism is true (clearly an obviously fallacious non-sequitur conclusion and faith-based position unworthy of a serious trained philosopher. Note that the people who applaud to Shook's logical fallacies are so irrational as him, they are incapable of rational thinking and unable to see the most obvious fallacies slaping their faces):
Not happy himself with a non-sequitur, Shook adds another fallacy at the end of the video: the fallacy of self-contradiction (when he says that beyond nature, perhaps there is "more nature", which is massively stupid and retarded, since in such case you have not gone beyond nature at all... all what you have done is just moved from a part of nature to another part of nature, not beyond nature simpliciter). And Shook asserts such self-contradiction with a craying baby face when he says "I don't need the supernatural" (which suggests a kind of emotional, childish connection with naturalism and the rejection of God). Jime Iron Law in dramatic functioning!.
An additional fallacy by Shook consists in saying "I don't need the supernatural", as whether you settle complex philosophical problems based on your personal "needs" (a similar mistake as the one committed by many American anti-Christians, who decide spiritual matters apparently based on what is subjectively appealing or not to them). If Shook needs or not the supernatural is irrelevant: What is relevant is what kind evidence would count against his naturalism, and he has made clear (like Smart) that NO evidence would be ever relevant. His position is unfalsifiable and strongly based on sheer FAITH.
Many atheistic naturalists are deluded by the idea that they're "scientific", champions of "reason" and "logic", but the way they hold their basic philosophical commitments is the most unscientific, unfalsifiable, irrational, fallacious and dogmatic position that one could imagine ever.
Another example is naturalist philosopher John Shook, who says that from the existence of nature plus the (supposed) lack of evidence for the supernatural, it follows that naturalism is true (clearly an obviously fallacious non-sequitur conclusion and faith-based position unworthy of a serious trained philosopher. Note that the people who applaud to Shook's logical fallacies are so irrational as him, they are incapable of rational thinking and unable to see the most obvious fallacies slaping their faces):
Not happy himself with a non-sequitur, Shook adds another fallacy at the end of the video: the fallacy of self-contradiction (when he says that beyond nature, perhaps there is "more nature", which is massively stupid and retarded, since in such case you have not gone beyond nature at all... all what you have done is just moved from a part of nature to another part of nature, not beyond nature simpliciter). And Shook asserts such self-contradiction with a craying baby face when he says "I don't need the supernatural" (which suggests a kind of emotional, childish connection with naturalism and the rejection of God). Jime Iron Law in dramatic functioning!.
An additional fallacy by Shook consists in saying "I don't need the supernatural", as whether you settle complex philosophical problems based on your personal "needs" (a similar mistake as the one committed by many American anti-Christians, who decide spiritual matters apparently based on what is subjectively appealing or not to them). If Shook needs or not the supernatural is irrelevant: What is relevant is what kind evidence would count against his naturalism, and he has made clear (like Smart) that NO evidence would be ever relevant. His position is unfalsifiable and strongly based on sheer FAITH.
Many atheistic naturalists are deluded by the idea that they're "scientific", champions of "reason" and "logic", but the way they hold their basic philosophical commitments is the most unscientific, unfalsifiable, irrational, fallacious and dogmatic position that one could imagine ever.
However, some naturalists are less dogmatic and unscientific. Naturalist philosopher Evan Fales seems to be one of them. 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. Emphasis in blue added).
Some comments:
1)Fales accepts that genuine psychic phenomena, if they exist, would provide evidence for the supernatural. And the supernatural is incompatible with metaphysical naturalism. Therefore, whatever is evidence for the supernatural is evidence against naturalism.
Since Fales explicitly mentions putative psychic phenomena as evidence for the supernatural and the existence of nonnatural forces or beings, it follows that if such phenomena are genuine, naturalism is false.
Since Fales explicitly mentions putative psychic phenomena as evidence for the supernatural and the existence of nonnatural forces or beings, it follows that if such phenomena are genuine, naturalism is false.
At least, we find there a naturalistic philosopher who is willing to consider the naturalistic position not as a dogma, but as a scientific (and hence falsifiable) hypothesis.
2)Since Fales includes "clairvoyance" among the phenomena with the potential of refuting naturalism, I'd like to know what Fales think of the vedic astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, who passed positively the skeptic Michael Shermer's test:
If such a result is not product of Shermer's scientific incompetence in designing the test, then such a result seems to count as evidence for the paranormal, specially of paranormal access to specific personal information (and hence to a kind of clairvoyance or at least of telepathy, which is also included in Fales' view when he refers to "nonphysical channels of communication between minds").
Therefore, such test seem to count as empirical evidence against naturalism.
3)Wholly apart of the Armstrong-kicking-Shermer-butt-case, it is well known that skeptic Richard Wiseman has admitted that the evidence for psi is so good that “by the standards of any other area of science" ESP has been proven.
In the case of remote viewing, Ray Hyman wrote in a technical paper: "The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present."
It seems that at least a prima facie case for the existence of some psi effects can be made based on the work of professional skeptics alone. And if Fales is right, them such evidence counts empirically against naturalism.
I'm sure that Fales will try, as hard as he can, to explain away this evidence in order to save naturalism. It is his prerrogative.
But people who accepts the above (and other) evidence for psi will have, on Fales' own principles, to consider that metaphysically naturalism has been empirically refuted, and this without including independent philosophical arguments for the falsehood of naturalism:
0 comments:
Post a Comment