A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
For anyone interested, I just came across an interesting site on the other side of the aisle: naturalism.org- lots of discussion on key issues.
The main thrust, of course, is that reality is intelligible without appealing to transcendence.
From what I understand, naturalists of all stripes seem to think that it is perfectly logical that they can escape the inherent contradictions of materialism by enthroning the absolute reality of change.
I call this brilliant imbecility. Its like "curing" a hangover with a beer. It's like the ultimate ponzi scheme. It's like fixing broke-ness with borrowing.
Perhaps Nietzsche saw most clearly on the implications of naturalism and reason. If transcendence is rejected, reason can only turn back on itself. Reason must, in effect, digest itself.
If I'm wrong on this matter, I humbly admit that there is something fundamental that I simply do not grasp. To my lights, all the proponents of naturalistic philosophies who do not arrive at anti-rationalism and nihilism are being undisciplined in their logic.
I spend a lot of time familiarizing myself with the arguments for theism. I'm currently working my way through the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, and I'm just finishing Ed Feser's book The Last Superstition. When I'm done with this I'm going to be an expert on all the best arguments for the existence of God.
But what I'm missing is arguments for naturalism. For theism, I can rattle off cosmological (in Leibniz, Aquinas, and kalam varieties), ontological (including new modal ones), telelogical (fine tuning), morality, and intentionality.
But I can't even think of a single argument for naturalism. And a google search is no help.
I really want to see syllogisms, so I can examine the reasoning and how likely the premises are to be true or not. Something that ends with "Therefore, the natural world is all that exists" or "Therefore, empiricism is the best way to truth" or something like that. I seem to be coming up short on actual arguments.
8 comments:
For anyone interested, I just came across an interesting site on the other side of the aisle: naturalism.org- lots of discussion on key issues.
The main thrust, of course, is that reality is intelligible without appealing to transcendence.
From what I understand, naturalists of all stripes seem to think that it is perfectly logical that they can escape the inherent contradictions of materialism by enthroning the absolute reality of change.
I call this brilliant imbecility. Its like "curing" a hangover with a beer. It's like the ultimate ponzi scheme. It's like fixing broke-ness with borrowing.
Perhaps Nietzsche saw most clearly on the implications of naturalism and reason. If transcendence is rejected, reason can only turn back on itself. Reason must, in effect, digest itself.
If I'm wrong on this matter, I humbly admit that there is something fundamental that I simply do not grasp. To my lights, all the proponents of naturalistic philosophies who do not arrive at anti-rationalism and nihilism are being undisciplined in their logic.
I spend a lot of time familiarizing myself with the arguments for theism. I'm currently working my way through the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, and I'm just finishing Ed Feser's book The Last Superstition. When I'm done with this I'm going to be an expert on all the best arguments for the existence of God.
But what I'm missing is arguments for naturalism. For theism, I can rattle off cosmological (in Leibniz, Aquinas, and kalam varieties), ontological (including new modal ones), telelogical (fine tuning), morality, and intentionality.
But I can't even think of a single argument for naturalism. And a google search is no help.
What exactly are they? Anybody?
Take a look at this essay from the above website.
naturalism.org/platinga.htm
It appears to me, that, to the naturalist, knowledge is power. Isn't Truth what matters?
There is a website:
centerfornaturalism.org
Thomas W. Clark of that site has a book:
"Encountering Naturalism; A Worldview and Its Uses."
I reviewed it here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/12/free-will-naturalism-and-social-justice.html
There are several articles under the label "naturalism", in the right hand column.
Thanks for the references.
I really want to see syllogisms, so I can examine the reasoning and how likely the premises are to be true or not. Something that ends with "Therefore, the natural world is all that exists" or "Therefore, empiricism is the best way to truth" or something like that. I seem to be coming up short on actual arguments.
Here's your chance to turn sentential arguments into syllogystic arguments for logical refutation.
Didn't notice that naturalism.org is right on the homepage.
Stan, yes, I am master of the obvious. Hope your friend is hangin in there.
Chris,
Thanks,
Stan
Post a Comment