Naturalism
Naturalism is the metaphysical (an idea which attempts to give an all-inclusive explanation) exposition that everything in existence is physical. An analogy would be: Nature and the universe fits into a box called the physical world - everything inside the box can be measured, quantified, and felt by one of the five senses. Nature is all that exists. There is nothing out side of this box - in contrast to God or some sort of spiritual or supernatural existence or unquantifiable being outside the parameters of “nature”. Atoms are the bottom line. Matter makes up everything - mind, emotions, feelings, etc. can all be simplified to chemical reactions and physical conundrums. This train of thought in philosophy is usually tied back to Greek “Atomism” or what would later become “Epicureanism”. Atoms are the quintessential subject which makes up all things. Matter is never destroyed, just rearranged. Atoms have always existed, they predate infinity.
Naturalism can also come as a form of epistemology (how we know what we know). If it cannot be determined by the five senses then it does not exist (in the least you cannot be assured of anything outside the senses). In naturalism, traditionally, everything is determined. If all there is is atoms and chemical processes which form objects and trajectories, etc. and if emotions, feelings, thoughts, and consequent actions are all a part of this system, then free choice is eliminated. Hunger, pain, love, hope, joy, peace, despair, all of these are purely physical things. Purpose ceases to exist in a purely naturalistic world because when you die, you cease to exist. Non-existence by definition is nothingness. Purpose cannot co-exist with nothingness, thus without a soul, without some sort of existence after death, purpose is illusory. These are just some consequences of naturalism. Many people believe and have come to terms with such ideas.
An argument I would like to proffer is this. If, in consequence, everything is mechanical, predestined to happen to no choice of ours and even to say “ours” is deceptive because that is possessive - we have no soul (for that would be non-physical), then not only does naturalism undermine free will but it undermines logic as well. There is no moral right or wrong in a machine - it just operates. Then if everything is defined and bred as a cascade of mindless physical energy, how could such an uncontrolled mindless mechanism produce thoughts, knowledge, morality, and logic (sound reasoning). I would say it can’t.
Take the argument: If man is mortal and I am a man, then I am mortal. This is, beyond argument, sound reasoning. If the first two statements are true, then it must follow that I am mortal. It is a necessary connection. But what part of this reasoning is physical? Is the necessary connection a chemical reaction? Logic is not a physical consequent. So if we accept naturalism, any argument used to prove or defend naturalism is declared void because naturalism has no grounds for logic. As C.S. Lewis put it,
“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there are no such things as proofs - which is nonsense.”
In short, Naturalists may use logical arguments to prove naturalism, but this is illogical
To clarify why these arguments are a death knell to naturalism, if a priori knowledge (ie. knowledge that is not learned but is inherently known) exists, naturalism fails. A priori knowledge, in a metaphor, is like a computer. Most knowledge we usually think of is downloaded, or learned, but if some knowledge is not learned, but was part of the hardware, born with the innate knowledge of it, then it is a priori. Naturalism must by definition reject a priori knowledge because naturalism assumes a purposeless, completely random chance existence.
A priori knowledge exists, in it's simplest form, if only that we have knowledge or the ability to learn. We inherently know how to learn. This is something no naturalist could ever deny, for that would be self-defeating. Without the ability to learn, we would not be able to learn. It must by necessity be a priori knowledge. You cannot learn how to learn, you must know how to learn to be able to learn.
Naturalism cannot even defensibly explain numbers, for where in the physical world is a number? It is a concept, and while brain activity might be connected to chemical reactions and the like, somehow, concepts are not reliant nor are they dependent upon the physical.
These are just a few of the dilemmas all naturalists need to face and decide upon. Can this a priori knowledge be assuaged to fit a purely naturalistic worldview? Can you truly live out the consequences of such a worldview? Can you even use logic to defend this position? Nature is only half of the equation. We know this cause logic is here to stay.
Jared Williams
Naturalism can also come as a form of epistemology (how we know what we know). If it cannot be determined by the five senses then it does not exist (in the least you cannot be assured of anything outside the senses). In naturalism, traditionally, everything is determined. If all there is is atoms and chemical processes which form objects and trajectories, etc. and if emotions, feelings, thoughts, and consequent actions are all a part of this system, then free choice is eliminated. Hunger, pain, love, hope, joy, peace, despair, all of these are purely physical things. Purpose ceases to exist in a purely naturalistic world because when you die, you cease to exist. Non-existence by definition is nothingness. Purpose cannot co-exist with nothingness, thus without a soul, without some sort of existence after death, purpose is illusory. These are just some consequences of naturalism. Many people believe and have come to terms with such ideas.
An argument I would like to proffer is this. If, in consequence, everything is mechanical, predestined to happen to no choice of ours and even to say “ours” is deceptive because that is possessive - we have no soul (for that would be non-physical), then not only does naturalism undermine free will but it undermines logic as well. There is no moral right or wrong in a machine - it just operates. Then if everything is defined and bred as a cascade of mindless physical energy, how could such an uncontrolled mindless mechanism produce thoughts, knowledge, morality, and logic (sound reasoning). I would say it can’t.
Take the argument: If man is mortal and I am a man, then I am mortal. This is, beyond argument, sound reasoning. If the first two statements are true, then it must follow that I am mortal. It is a necessary connection. But what part of this reasoning is physical? Is the necessary connection a chemical reaction? Logic is not a physical consequent. So if we accept naturalism, any argument used to prove or defend naturalism is declared void because naturalism has no grounds for logic. As C.S. Lewis put it,
“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there are no such things as proofs - which is nonsense.”
In short, Naturalists may use logical arguments to prove naturalism, but this is illogical
To clarify why these arguments are a death knell to naturalism, if a priori knowledge (ie. knowledge that is not learned but is inherently known) exists, naturalism fails. A priori knowledge, in a metaphor, is like a computer. Most knowledge we usually think of is downloaded, or learned, but if some knowledge is not learned, but was part of the hardware, born with the innate knowledge of it, then it is a priori. Naturalism must by definition reject a priori knowledge because naturalism assumes a purposeless, completely random chance existence.
A priori knowledge exists, in it's simplest form, if only that we have knowledge or the ability to learn. We inherently know how to learn. This is something no naturalist could ever deny, for that would be self-defeating. Without the ability to learn, we would not be able to learn. It must by necessity be a priori knowledge. You cannot learn how to learn, you must know how to learn to be able to learn.
Naturalism cannot even defensibly explain numbers, for where in the physical world is a number? It is a concept, and while brain activity might be connected to chemical reactions and the like, somehow, concepts are not reliant nor are they dependent upon the physical.
These are just a few of the dilemmas all naturalists need to face and decide upon. Can this a priori knowledge be assuaged to fit a purely naturalistic worldview? Can you truly live out the consequences of such a worldview? Can you even use logic to defend this position? Nature is only half of the equation. We know this cause logic is here to stay.
Jared Williams
