What are the philosophic problems that naturalism has when it tries to explain reality, truth and knowledge?
So, then, let’s talk about naturalism for a bit, shall we? After all, it is a rather prevalent view in today’s world, even though it has some pretty big theological holes. But, that’s why you gave me this question, right? To shine my little sardonic flashlight through those holes and explain why they’re there.
Let’s start with a definition of naturalism, okay? Naturalism is like looking at nature as a box. You could go so far as to say that it, as a viewpoint, claims that the entire world and universe is one box of physical reality, and there is nothing outside of the box. Theologically, this denies any existence of miracles, God, or the existence of the supernatural, since it claims that the physical is all that there can be. So, with that in mind, how does naturalism respond to the origins of reality, truth, and knowledge? Believe me, not as well as you might expect.
First of all let’s examine reality. The naturalist would claim that reality is just the physical and nothing else, right? But how does that explain the basic concepts that cannot be measured, such as our idea of the soul (does that mean all humans don’t have souls? Do we not have deeper feelings than just chemicals in the brain? Isn’t that a depressing thought?) or logic? They can’t be measured and they surely aren’t physical, so that would mean naturalistically they don’t exist. Yet, we acknowledge that these non-“real” concepts definitely do exist. So, reality itself can’t be seen from a naturalistic viewpoint because there is obviously more than simply the physical involved in everyday life. Strike one, as it were.
For my next pitch, let me look at truth. According to the naturalist, truth would only result from physical actions, which we can definitely agree with—after all, actions speak louder than words, right? It’s pretty common knowledge. But, if that concept is extended to history, to our conversations, to daily interaction, how can we trust anything we read? That leads to extremist deconstruction and a breakdown of all truth and trust altogether, which would essentially dehinge our society. Not a good thing to try and start out with, especially since we have operated for so long under a concept of truth that hasn’t broken down yet. Aren’t there commonly-accepted truths that aren’t physically provable, like love, emotion in general, and thought? Those would become relative and unaccepted to a naturalistic world. How depressing, right? Strike two.
And, for my last trick of the night, let’s take a look at knowledge from a naturalistic viewpoint. I know I touched on this earlier and this is probably dragging on for a bit since I know the reader here would much rather be out running up the Seahurst hill right now, so I’ll make this quick. Knowledge, as it is not physical is relative to a naturalist thinker. Therefore, we have no absolute truth, and once again we look at a destabilized society and social destruction. Really, not appealing from my point of view. Besides, there are areas of knowledge in science (which is odd since this is where most of the naturalistic thinkers reside), medicine, and philosophy that are all accepted as common and true, even if it isn’t physical. I mean, half of psychology is based on reactions, which can be physical but our inferences as to what is behind those reactions, which are accepted as scientifically accurate, are definitely not so concrete or physically provable. So, what gives? Are they right or not? I mean, isn’t even a naturalistic thinker basing his claim on some knowledge, which to him is relative and therefore incorrect? I smell an eternal loop here, so I’ll just leave it spinning. Strike three, and the visiting is taking a hike. =3
No comments:
Post a Comment