Rudy Garns's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
-
epistemology is closely connected to natural science
-
replacing traditional epistemology with the psychological study of how we reason
- 11 more annotation(s)...
-
replacing traditional epistemology with the psychological study of how we reason
-
make use of results from sciences studying cognition
-
Naturalism is the philosophical theory that treats science as our most reliable source of knowledge and scientific method as the most effective route to knowledge.
-
the way its philosophers have employed Darwin’s theory of natural selection to tame purpose.
Thus naturalism becomes the belief that there is only whatever the scientific method eventually discovers, and (not surprisingly) the best way to find out about it is by the scientific method. That is no tautology. Why can’t there be things only discoverable by non-scientific means, or not discoverable at all?
-
slick packaging
-
If they are too inclusive in what they count as science, naturalism loses its bite
- 5 more annotation(s)...
This is a précis of an argument that naturalism forces upon us a very disillusioned “take” on reality. It is one that most naturalists have sought to avoid, or at least qualify, reinterpret, or recast to avoid its harshest conclusions about the meaning of life, the nature of morality, the significance of our consciousness self-awareness, and the limits of human self-understanding. This is a vast agenda and it’s presumptuous to address it even in a format 30 times longer than this one. My excuse is that I stand on the shoulders of giants: the many heroic naturalists who have tried vainly, I think, to find a more hopeful version of naturalism than this one.
-
Our demand for plotted narratives is the greatest obstacle to getting a grip on reality.
-
Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Home > Books & Culture > Jul/Aug
Sign up for our free newsletter:
Evolution vs. Naturalism
Why they are like oil and water.
by Alvin Plantinga | posted 7/01/2008
[no previous page] 1 of 5 [next page]
As everyone knows, there has been a recent spate of books attacking Christian belief and religion in general. Some of these books are little more than screeds, long on vituperation but short on reasoning, long on name-calling but short on competence, long on righteous indignation but short on good sense; for the most part they are driven by hatred rather than logic. Of course there are others that are intellectually more respectable—for example Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's contribution to God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist[1] and Michael Tooley's contribution to Knowledge of God.[2] Nearly all of these books have been written by philosophical naturalists. I believe it's extremely important to see that naturalism itself, despite the smug and arrogant tone of the so-called New Atheists, is in very serious philosophical hot water: one can't sensibly believe it.
Doris and Stich introduction and Kitcher chapter on Philosophy of Biology
"In the domain of bodies, most of us accept that common sense is wrong. We concede that apparently solid objects are actually mostly empty space, consisting of tiny particles and fields of energy. Perhaps the same sort of reconciliation will happen in the domain of souls, and it will come to be broadly recognized that our dualist belief system, though intuitively appealing, is factually mistaken. Perhaps we will all come to agree with Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and join the side of the "brights": those who reject the supernatural and endorse the world-view established by science.
But I am skeptical. The notion that our souls are flesh is profoundly troubling to many, as it clashes with religion. Dualism and religion are not the same: You can be dualist without holding any other religious beliefs, and you can hold religious beliefs without being dualist. But they almost always go together. And some very popular religious views rest on a dualist foundation, such as the belief that people survive the destruction of their bodies. If you give up on dualism, this is what you lose. "
"A conference is being held in Sydney soon about whether God is necessary for morality. I find that an almost incomprehensible question. Of course humans are moral without gods to back up their moral systems. They can't help it. It's what humans do. We are social apes that follow rules. Sometimes the sanctions for following rules (which turn out to be sanctions for potential defectors rather than the majority, who will tend to follow rules with or without promises of reward or punishment) rely on a god. Mostly, they don't." (Evolving Thoughts)
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in naturalism
-
American Lit paper - The Open Boat
Items: 1 | Visits: 2
Created by: nolanprice
-
Freeman and Jewett
This trail introduces studen...
Items: 8 | Visits: 337
Created by: professor gill
-
Naturalism & philosophy of science
towards the goal of being a ...
Items: 8 | Visits: 2
Created by: wweyer
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo
