Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ellis14 · 10-15-2007, 03:22 PM

Are metaphysical naturalism and physicalism self-consistent?

I think so, but I think I need the feedback of those better versed in philosophy than me. I've recently written about this here:

http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/10...d-physicalism/

The major objections to physicalism seem to be in demonstrating that there are non-physical or immaterial phenomena that obviously physicalism cannot account for (consciousness, quales etc). Or, as Plantinga has recently tried, so show an internal inconsistency with the metaphysical worldview of naturalism and the possibility of evolution to account for knowledge. (An argument that I believe has been recently debunked over in EoG).

What are the other major objections to MN and MP? Would you agree that none of them succeed?

How important is neuroscience in winning the debate over consciousness?

How many of you find credibility in the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of god?, that is, would you go as far as to say that naturalism and physicalism are the only worldviews that can make knowledge possible; or should we grant that theism can also do the job, albeit with a few more superfluous and explanatory-useless entities?

Simen · 10-15-2007, 03:26 PM

I don't think any transcendental arguments, for or against, should be lent any credibility.

Ellis14 · 10-15-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simen

I don't think any transcendental arguments, for or against, should be lent any credibility.

I'd happily agree with this! But what are your reasons for saying so?

Simen · 10-15-2007, 03:34 PM

God is irrelevant to knowledge. He cannot break logical laws, and cannot create them. He cannot give our beliefs an epistemological grounding, because that assumes we already know that God guarantees this knowledge. Neither can the absence of any gods give us any more firm ground to believe or disbelieve anything. How do I know that there is no God? Certainly, before saying that the fact that there is no god can allow me to have true beliefs, I must know this, which also begs the question.

So both views are circular.

10-15-2007, 03:22 PM	#1
Ellis14 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: England Posts: 3,934	Are metaphysical naturalism and physicalism self-consistent? Are metaphysical naturalism and physicalism self-consistent? I think so, but I think I need the feedback of those better versed in philosophy than me. I've recently written about this here: http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/10...d-physicalism/ The major objections to physicalism seem to be in demonstrating that there are non-physical or immaterial phenomena that obviously physicalism cannot account for (consciousness, quales etc). Or, as Plantinga has recently tried, so show an internal inconsistency with the metaphysical worldview of naturalism and the possibility of evolution to account for knowledge. (An argument that I believe has been recently debunked over in EoG). What are the other major objections to MN and MP? Would you agree that none of them succeed? How important is neuroscience in winning the debate over consciousness? How many of you find credibility in the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of god?, that is, would you go as far as to say that naturalism and physicalism are the only worldviews that can make knowledge possible; or should we grant that theism can also do the job, albeit with a few more superfluous and explanatory-useless entities?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2007, 03:26 PM	#2
Simen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 2,382	I don't think any transcendental arguments, for or against, should be lent any credibility.

10-15-2007, 03:34 PM	#4
Simen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 2,382	God is irrelevant to knowledge. He cannot break logical laws, and cannot create them. He cannot give our beliefs an epistemological grounding, because that assumes we already know that God guarantees this knowledge. Neither can the absence of any gods give us any more firm ground to believe or disbelieve anything. How do I know that there is no God? Certainly, before saying that the fact that there is no god can allow me to have true beliefs, I must know this, which also begs the question. So both views are circular.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.