Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Shook describes the relationship of naturalism to the worldview based upon the sciences.

I enjoyed this podcast and found it refreshing. I am not a philosopher and perhaps it’s covering ground that’s really dull to those well-read in this area. D.J. and John Shook helped clarify in my mind where science stands relative to religion.  To paraphrase what I got out of it—some people have a ‘worldview’ which includes both science and the supernatural—that is, they are able to compartmentalize things and be scientific about some things and superstitious about other things. Maybe everyone is a little that way. Anyway, the point is that “science” implies a methodology, not a philosophy, and “science” is one tool in the toolbox for understanding the universe and making sense of it all. But not the only tool.

But naturalism is a philosophy which says that science is it—with experience, reason, and science we can understand what there is to understand, and that there really is no place for superstition.  Everything has a natural explanation.  I found this helpful to distinguish the practice of science from a philosophy that the only explanations that count are those based on science, reason, and experience.

Pragmatic Naturalist (!) wrote a good,clear comment connecting this podcast with an interminable “ask a Christian” thread elsewhere in the forum. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3827/P210/#37160
He is familiar with Shook and was also able transcribe some of the dialog.

I also enjoyed this discussion.  I particularly appreciated the point that since everyone except the splipsist agrees the natural world exists, while many debate the existence of the supernatural, and e ven those who believe it exists fight vehemently over their particular versions of it, the burden of proof is clearly on the supernaturalists to demonstrate their mythology describes something real. And the inability of science or reason to ever definitively disprove the existence of God, for example, is no evidence for its existence, especially since one can theroretically never definitively disprove the existence of anything, yet none of us really accept that all is possible and nothing is demonstrably false to any meaningful extent.

I did wonder if perhaps the relationship Shook describes between science and philosophical naturalism isn’t a bit circular. As I understood it, science is an epistemological methodology for investigating the natural world, and naturalism is the philosophical position that science, along with experience and reason, is all that is necessary to understand the natural world, with no recourse to the supernatural needed. Of course, I agree, but it seems a bit tautological, and this is a weakness supernaturalists could exploit. If both science and naturalism choose to confine their activities and interests to the natural world and ignore the supernatural, they how can they make and support claims about the supernatural? Am I missing something?

I did wonder if perhaps the relationship Shook describes between science and philosophical naturalism isn’t a bit circular. As I understood it, science is an epistemological methodology for investigating the natural world, and naturalism is the philosophical position that science, along with experience and reason, is all that is necessary to understand the natural world, with no recourse to the supernatural needed. Of course, I agree, but it seems a bit tautological, and this is a weakness supernaturalists could exploit. If both science and naturalism choose to confine their activities and interests to the natural world and ignore the supernatural, they how can they make and support claims about the supernatural? Am I missing something?

It’s a good question. I was wondering the same thing, and it depends what science investigates. I think if one begins by saying that science investigates “the natural world”, that is, as a definitional or a priori matter, then one gets into the sort of vicious circularity you suggest.

If, on the other hand, science investigates “reality” or “the world” (or all that can be investigated), this leaves open the possibility that science could also investigate the supernatural, were it to exist. And I think that this manner of speaking does more justice to what conventionally people mean to discuss when they discuss this thing called “the supernatural”. So, for example, people have proposed that ESP exists and can be tested; that telekinetic abilities exist and can be tested; that prayer can provably cure disease; etc. All of these things are proposed as potential proofs that there exist supernatural entities, powers or abilities. All of them have been tested and found wanting.

So, it is better to say that science investigates reality.

Interestingly, one can also say quite truthfully that science investigates the natural world (and only the natural world)—as an a posteriori claim. That is, that since all purported attempts to discover supernatural entities or powers have failed, therefore science only investigates natural entities. The corollary of this claim, of course, would be that we have no evidence of the supernatural.

Of course, there are also people who claim that the supernatural exists but cannot be tested, or cannot be tested scientifically. But that’s just a form of special pleading. As Victor Stenger says quite accurately, were scientific evidence suddenly to arise substantiating ESP or intercessionary prayer, these same people would not be discounting it as irrelevant. (Since purportedly the supernatural cannot be tested). Instead they would be accepting such evidence wholeheartedly. So the claim that the supernatural is not amenable to scientific scrutiny is simply a debating tactic and not, I think, an honest belief. At least not in the vast majority of cases.

I did enjoy the show but i found shook’s manner grated on occasion. He was somewhat condesending at times.

Ski.

The statement that moral knowledge is testable caught my attention. Shook mentioned social sciences as an example. Certainly we have a large database of test cases (i.e., history texts), but each case had its own very unique universe in which it was played out. I’m not sure how we could take those cases and apply them generically to the world population. I sure would like to see it attempted, however. It would have to beat the hell out of today’s fickle politics!

This was a fascinating ep, but I think Shook began to lose traction as he tried to articulate how he proposed to derive moral laws from nature (though I may have
gotten him wrong there) then popped a 180 and proposed some sort of syncretic ethics based on trying out (“testing”) the many moral codes of conduct that
have existed in the world. It almost sounded like he was proposing that we cherry-pick the best from moral system A, some from moral system B, etc etc,
throw it all in a mix-master, make sure that we scrape off any hint of the supernatural thinking that was the basis for most moral codes throughout history,
pour it into a large glass, garnish it with mint and a lemon wedge, and Voila! You’ve manufactured a “moral code” of sorts without any recourse to
supernaturalism. If this is what he was getting at—and it’s very possible that his writings have a degree of subtlety not present in his interview with DJ—
then this is a very dubious basis for constructing ethics and morality. The nature of a moral code is that it must be capable of commanding assent from
any rational agent who accepts the premises upon which that moral code is built. A syncretic “Best Of ....“ construction, with no self-evident truth other than
“these bits of moral wisdom seem to have ‘worked’ at various times and in various societies”,  would be nothing more than a
disjointed collection of “suggestions”. Or was there something in there that I missed? It’s possible, I was grinding along on the dreadmill at the gym
when I was listening to the ep ...

I found the podcast to be refreshing too! It’s nice to be free of superstition and living in a naturalist state of mind. I was listening to the podcast on my iPod and reading “Sense and Goodness Without God”, simultaneously, which made for an invigorating bus ride.

steveg144,
Good points. The podcast certainly did suggest a “mix-master” approach, but I think that was because the discussion came toward the end of the podcast and there was no time to specify. I have fantasized about governments being replaced by a sort of “world university” where the results of policies are evaluated by the various colleges within the university. Of course there are myriad problems of implementation, feedback and support, but that was what I thought of when Shook mentioned testable moral knowledge. And it was my reason for thinking it better than today’s fickle politics.

Yes, I think Shook probably had a more general point he wasn’t able to make clear. Effective moral principles have undoubtedly been discerned and implemented in many different cultures and eras, and there is much commonality among cultures in basic moral rules, likely due both to underlying biological predispositions and to the fact that some ideas simply work better than others. There is no new thing under the sun, as they say. I don’t think he meant to suggest a secular syncretism, where useful elements were plucked from various religions and cobbled together but washed clean of supernatural associations, which I think would be ineffective as well as artificial. More likely, he was indicating that basic moral principles common to many religious systems may be sound regardless of the supernaturalist justifications for them, and we can look at such princples somewhat empirically and choose those that seem effective based on our goals, rather than having to try and deduce a secular moral framework from first principles. I have some reservations about this approach, but it makes a kind of sense within the naturalist paradigm.

A thing that leaves me uneasy about metaphysical naturalism is its forcefully conclusive nature.  It appears to permanently rule out any supernatural event.  Could it not better state: “We only see now what we see now, therefore what we may apprehend in the future could conceivably contradict the principle of naturalism, and give us reason to radically revise our world view.“

One could, perhaps with some difficulty, imagine some class of supernatural event being observed with a predictability akin to the predictability with which we see light or gravitational phenomena to occur.  Maybe then the dogmatic naturalist could always change the rules, and declare the previously regarded supernatural event as natural, by rewriting the theory of everything (in the future).  Is that in the rules I wonder.  Because if it is, naturalism would be under a severe attack.

Two possible examples would be
1)  a theoretical or observed variation in the natural laws of the universe whereby they are observed to be in certain cases, time and or position dependent.  This would have unforeseeable consequences for many scientific theories that are presently necessarily dependent on natural law invariance.
2)  irrefutable proof of say some particular paranormal phenomenon, say telekinesis.

So naturalism hangs together on the consistency of the physical world, whereas supernaturalism allows for the possibility of the universe’s physical laws to be bent or broken under some circumstance.

Is it not an act of faith to suppose that things will always be as before? is naturalism merely a way of stating that we do not observe discontinuity of the natural laws? and is supernaturalism at a minimum just an openness to the opposite possibility?  And if so does this not relegate naturalism to the level of belief system/religion?  Is the time frame of mankind’s powers of observation sufficiently reliable to rule out the paranormal/supernatural?

I guess that categorises me as a firm agnostic or gutless atheist depending on your point of view.  One thing I do know, is that I don’t know very much about anything, and like the vast majority of people, from the great to the small, will probably die in honest ignorance.
I’m worried that metaphysical naturalists are at base equally dogmatic as their opponents.

off to bed,
B9K9

Is it not an act of faith to suppose that things will always be as before?
B9K9

For that matter, “faith in reason” as the sole path to truth is itself, as the phrase implies, a form of faith. Nietzsche had
a lot to say about the idea that “faith in reason” (and “faith in truth”)  as valuable in itself has the potential to be problematic.
Mind you, I personally do have faith in reason and in truth, but I recognize that it’s not “given” that my faith is unproblematic.

Is it not an act of faith to suppose that things will always be as before?
B9K9

For that matter, “faith in reason” as the sole path to truth is itself, as the phrase implies, a form of faith. Nietzsche had
a lot to say about the idea that “faith in reason” (and “faith in truth”)  as valuable in itself has the potential to be problematic.
Mind you, I personally do have faith in reason and in truth, but I recognize that it’s not “given” that my faith is unproblematic.

Well, ya’ll have hit on the problem of induction here (first officially formulated by David Hume).  That is, our inductive inferences depend upon the assumption that there is a uniformity of nature, i.e. that the future will resemble the past.  What is our justification for that assumption?  Well, that in the past the future has always resembled the past.  Of course this is reasoning in a circle, thus casting a skeptical cloud over all of our inductive reasonings.

But say you take that skepticism seriously, then what?  We can’t be justified that the next time we put our hand in fire it will burn us?  We can’t be justified that the sun will rise tomorrow?  We can’t be justified that when you drop a stone it will fall down rather than up, or that it will disappear or explode?  This is confusing justification with certainty.  It is wanting for induction what is only possible with deduction.  And it results in a skepticism run amok—or, to employ a Shook-ism, a “skepticism over the edge.”  The world is indeed constantly changing and at times unpredictable, but science—which, in part, employs inductive reasoning—is our best method for successfully navigating our way in a changing world.

The point is that one doesn’t need to have “faith” in that which has proven effective over and over and over—that is unless you confuse justification with certainty.  But then everything is a matter of faith, and “faith” becomes an empty term, equivalent to “going about your daily business”.  I prefer to use “faith” to refer to beliefs that are totally unjustified, rather than to refer to all beliefs not known with absolute deductive certainty.

A thing that leaves me uneasy about metaphysical naturalism is its forcefully conclusive nature.  It appears to permanently rule out any supernatural event.  ....

Two possible examples would be
1)  a theoretical or observed variation in the natural laws of the universe whereby they are observed to be in certain cases, time and or position dependent.  This would have unforeseeable consequences for many scientific theories that are presently necessarily dependent on natural law invariance.
2)  irrefutable proof of say some particular paranormal phenomenon, say telekinesis.

I think we get into a problem of semantics.  IF (2) were shown to be real,  this doesn’t refute naturalism, anymore than certain things we know today were not known in the 19th century—but they are still real.  And in fact people have tried to test for paranormal phenomena scientifically.

The question of whether we are superstitious or whether there are actually supernatural phenonmena—it sure seems like the evidence lines up for superstitious

The point is that one doesn’t need to have “faith” in that which has proven effective over and over and over—that is unless you confuse justification with certainty.  But then everything is a matter of faith, and “faith” becomes an empty term, equivalent to “going about your daily business”.  I prefer to use “faith” to refer to beliefs that are totally unjustified, rather than to refer to all beliefs not known with absolute deductive certainty.

Yeah, I agree that, to a large extent, we really are looking at a matter of defining one’s terms.  One valid definition of “faith” is the one you offer. Another might be the stronger definition that says that faith is anything that is not strong enough to command agreement by its self-evident validity and truth. This definition—and it can be a good one, if properly used—is the one that many religious people misuse in (usually fruitless) attempts to hoist secularists on our own petard. “Oh, your belief in science/evolution/etc is just as much a matter of ‘faith’ as our belief in God.“  Ironically enough, I blame a subset of the academic community for giving the fundies this wedge. With their insistence on absolute relativism, with their insistence that science is nothing more than “just another discourse of power,“ they handed this(occasionally effective) argument to the fundies on a silver platter. These academics should have known better,

b9k9 (cool moniker, btw),

I don’t see naturalism as forcefully conclusive - because that would bother me too! My interpretation is this: what some call “supernatural” events, naturalists call unknowns. So, naturalists do indeed say, “we see now what we see now.“ Naturalists do not conclude that the unknowns are evidence of things supernatural. That inconclusive nature of naturalism appeals to me.

You mention “some class of supernatural event being observed with a predictability…“ You then ask if it is “in the rules” to rewrite theories. Yes, the rules of nature are always open to revision.
Q: How does rewriting theory put naturalism “under a severe attack?“ Correctly rewriting theories is one of a scientists favorite things.

You provide 2 examples. The first example has already taken place. Newtonian physics were modified by Einstein (and others). And you’re correct, it did/will have “unforeseeable consequences…“ Your second example has been under examination by naturalists for quite some time. Every claim thus far has been proven to be a scam.

Finally, you worry that naturalists are equally dogmatic as their opponents. Dogma is the antichrist for naturalists. No k9ma allowed!

Doug, thanks for this excellent commentary! Yes, indeed, Stenger makes a key point! He shows theism as blind faith.
  Now theists use the fallacy of equivocation in stating that we naturalists also use faith as theirs is blind and ours is trust. Faith is the I just say so of gullibility! And it is so silly to state that we are dogmatic when we demand evidence!Haughty John Haught excoriates us for not acceeding to his faith claim that there are not other venues of knowledge than the natural when he can provide no evidence for such! So much for enlightened theists! Such a scam!

I blame a subset of the academic community for giving the fundies this wedge. With their insistence on absolute relativism, with their insistence that science is nothing more than “just another discourse of power,“ they handed this(occasionally effective) argument to the fundies on a silver platter. These academics should have known better,

Having studied and worked in academics since 1986, I can only agree. The so-called “culture critics” have theorized themselves into a dark corner from which there is no emerging. At CFI Los Angeles earlier this year, Ibn Warraq demonstrated this point clearly in his presentation “Apologists for Islam.“ The apologists include well-known heroes of post-modernism/deconstructionism, such as Michel Foucault, Germaine Greer, and Edward Said, all of whom say that it is perfectly alright for muslims to behead political dissenters, issue fatwahs against authors they do not like, abuse and mutilate women, and indoctrinate children into creeds of hate, because after all we are all western hegemons guilty of colonialism who have no right to question the beliefs of others. The rampant anti-intellectualism and counter-factual “analyses” of the academic humanities is a shame for the free university system. Basically, the “argument” is that all ideas except the Enlightenment ones are equal (either equally valid or equally meaningless, depending upon topic), while Enlightenment ideas are universally “evil.“ Since there is no logic to these contentions, the culture critics rely on great clouds of obfuscatory language (try reading Foucault or Derrida or Said some time and find a single sentence that makes any sense or does not try to puff up a truly mundane idea) and large amounts of invective (anyone who disagrees is “complicit” or a “racist/sexist” or has some “agenda” or is a victim of “ideology” or some such nonsense), certainly signs that no true thought is really going on. I am hoping that some day within my lifetime, the iron grip (or grope) of “theory” on the humanities will slip and some real scholarship will emerge. Until then, academic humanities continues to be a major threat to the values of free thought and free expression from within the only cultural system to promote them: Western culture.

PZ Myers @ Pharyngula notes that we do not have to fathom theology as even simple denials of faith show that there is no god such that theology is itself nonsense. It would be as if great people of wisdom should state that the child is wrong to state that the emperor is naked when erudite people have written long treatises on his attire. So, those who fault Dawkins for not showing an undertanding of more intricate details of natural theology and theology just bray! [ Now, I find that Graham Oppy, my friend, does have a point that Dawkins does not go into much detail.]

The presumption of naturalism that Antony Garrard Newton Flew helped developed way before his dotage is that natural cause and explanations are not only effieicent but also necessary,primary and sufficient. Contrary to Gottfried   Wilhelm Leibniz, they are the sufficient reason, This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but is merely the demand for evidence for the supernatural and the paranormal as Einstein overcame Newton. This eschews dogmatiism.
Fellow skeptic, John L. Schellenberg in
“ Wisdom to Doubt,“ faults us naturalists for relyiing on ever changing science, but it is our glory! We have to rely on science’s provisionality, the best-evidenced knowledge in science and moralty. That underlines the difference between it and those two transcendent temptations [Paul Kurtz’s"The Ttranscendent Temptation is a must read!.]
Now some declare that religion can change in that it can accept evolution and such, but ultimately it relies on faith, the we just say so of credulity.Faith begs the   question of its subject as it ignores providing evidence therefor. Science is acquired knowledge, as Sydney Hook observes, while faith begs the question of being knowledge.
And contrary to Alvin Platinga and before him, Clive Staples Lewis and Fr. Ewing   in     their argument from reason, naturalism does not self-destruct. We can rely on our senses by trial and error. Theists want a certitude for that trust. The argument   from reason, like the other teleological   arguments- probability, fine-tuning and design- assume what     they should first show that some mind wanted us to arrive. As one notes in the current issue of     Skeptic, had it not been for the random chance of that meteor causing the demise of the dinosaurs, no other big brain would have arrived!
  Blessings and good fortune to all!

I think the term “supernatural” is incoherent. It has no real meaning.
First let’s look at common citations of the purported “supernatural”. As a random example, consider ghosts. Let’s say it is conclusively proven that apparitions with the visual and behavioral likeness of departed humans in fact lurk about the earth. Does this prove the supernatural exists? No. It proves the natural world is more bizarre than we thought. Our eyes (or brains) that we see stuff with.. are natural, made of stuff. Atoms. Ghost-stuff (whatever it is) perceived by humans and most probably machines, cameras etc.., is therefore something which interacts with atoms in our retinas or perhaps prefrontal cortex. That makes it quite natural, made of either energy or matter which can interact with other matter or energy.
Next up God. God has the same sort of problem. If he interacts with regular ol’ matter and energy.. he’s just an unusual form of matter and energy him/her/itself. Supernatural would mean separate from the natural.. but any creator god would have to be basically intrinsically linked to all matter and energy. Not very distinct or separate.. decidedly “unsuper”.

Now the philosopher replies with less pedestrian magical-thinking: Well, a second universe a “supernatural” one exists parallel to our own, and never do the two intersect. The first question is, who would care? but snarkyness aside, the idea is still incoherent. What does it mean to be “parallel” to something which does not have physical properties? Parallel/alternate/flipside are all terms that describe physical dimensions and relative locations. You can not be near something that lacks the basic physical properties of the universe you inhabit because “near” would be a nonsense phrase.

re: tautology- In philosophy or science you have to take whatever your most fundamental ideas are as axiomatic. Even if we proved conclusively the naturalistic approach is necessarily correct the new question would simply be “what’s the proof of the proof..“ and so on and so on. We arn’t just philosophers, we’re pragmatic critters who need to solve real problems. We have picked the approach that is best at solving real mysteries and problems and advancing our understanding. Will someone come and ask now, do computers really exist? After all the invention is based on the absurd tautology that electrons will keep flowing for the stupid reason they’ve been doing it for billions of years? Should we stop using electonics.. ya know, just in case? After all.. we could be wrong!
Is this really significant or useful discourse? is this what philosophy is about? What a freakin’ waste of time. Get a job, hippy! /rant

Haughty John Haught berates us naturalists for not allowing for other venues of knowledge than science but he thereby begs the question of those venues. That bane! He should try to overcome the presumption of naturalism and that of rationalism to portray those venues.
    Fr Griggs doesn’t believe in theologians! Unlike Dawkins who maintains rightly that theology is moonshine and thus one does not have to study it, Fr. Griggs takes on theologians: he has a good sense of humor!
    A videre.