Two definitions of naturalism There are two basic ways to approach the definition of naturalism. The first way is that which identifies naturalism with some specific thesis about the way the world is. We can call this the “fixed definition” approach. The problem is that fixed definitions tend to be embarassingly vulnerable to refutation. Sometimes […]
naturalism
How does the failure to define naturalism affect Lowder’s argument for naturalism from the history of science?
In retrospect, it may have been good to put this at the end of my previous article. But better late than never. How does Lowder’s failure to define naturalism adequately affect his argument for naturalism from the history of science? To put it mildly, it doesn’t do it any favors. First, let’s recount the argument […]
Not even wrong: The many problems with Naturalism
The phrase “not even wrong” is commonly used as a quip directed at an allegedly scientific claim which is not falsifiable. More generally, it is used as a description of any statement or question which is so off-base, which assumes so much baggage, that one cannot begin to engage it on its own terms. An […]
Prejudice against supernatural persons?
Over the last few days I’ve been having an exchange with Jeffrey Jay Lowder on his argument that the history of science provides prima facie support for naturalism over-against theism. I engaged in the discussion by bracketing the question of what naturalism is. I did so as a division of labor with the intent to […]
A second and more critical look at Jeff Lowder’s Evidential Argument from the History of Science
I provided a response to Jeffrey Jay Lowder’s argument for naturalism from the history of science here. Lowder provided a reply to my critique here. Theologians in perpetual retreat? Lowder’s response is limited to one part of my rebuttal, viz. my observation that theologians have defended what I call transcendent agent (henceforth TA) models of divine […]
The Naturalism Narrative
This morning I was reading the blog of Paul Krugman, one of the few economists that I read as much as I can (which, alas, is not as much as I should). In the article, titled “No Bain, No Gain,” Krugman offers a response to those who say Barack Obama should focus on criticizing Mitt […]
I have no need of that hypothesis
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard somebody quip with respect to God: “I have no need of that hypothesis.” (The most recent occasion was about an hour ago, courtesy of Ray Ingles.) The thing about this statement is that people seem to think it has some sort of gravitas about it, some sort […]
A critical look at Jeff Lowder’s Evidential Argument from the History of Science
In “What would count as evidence for naturalism?” I explained why the advance of scientific explanation does not count against a theistic (or Christian) understanding of the world and for naturalism. Given that the definition of naturalism is disputed, I focused on what I called the minimal claim of naturalism: (MCN): God does not exist, […]
What would count as evidence for naturalism?
One of the problems with those who describe themselves as naturalists (by which I mean as adherents to naturalism, not to be confused with outdoorsy types) is found in a persistent confusion as to what constitutes evidence for naturalism. In “See No Supernaturalism…” I made the following comment on the issue: When people stop explaining direct divine action […]
Two anecdotes suggestive of telepathy
In the last week Jonathan and NW have had a rather involved discussion on the so-called paranormal. With that conversation as a backdrop I’d like to share two anecdotes suggestive of telepathy from the last couple days, one which occurred to me and the other to a friend of my wife (let’s call her Jane). […]
Beavers, Beaver-like Creatures, and Ad hoc hypotheses
Ray Ingles asks: “Part of the point of the multiverse hypothesis is that explains the same things as a God’s supposed to, in an entirely different way. How do you pick between a God and a multiverse, anyway?” Ray, I’m really glad you asked. Let’s say that there are two boy scouts in the woods […]
Forget God. The Multiverse can explain everything!
Atheists like Adam Hazzard argue that God isn’t a good explanation for anything because God can’t be falsified. (Allegedly. Though of course you can demonstrate that God-under-a-particular-description is false, e.g. by demonstrating that the description is incoherent or self-defeating.) But here is the problem. Whatever happens, you can just say Goddidit! And that provides no […]
Why God can’t intervene in natural law
In the article “Invisible Gardener, 100 percent natural” I pointed out that a person could be more or less warranted that God orchestrated a particular event like a purported answer to prayer. To the extent that the event evinces a specification of circumstances (e.g. suggestive temporal proximity, highly structured form specified to the circumstances), a […]
Invisible Gardener, 100 percent natural: Responses to Ray and Adam
Due to the ongoing work here at the blog, I am presently unable to comment under my own name. (It’s a long story.) So instead I’m going to offer a response here to comments by Ray Ingles and Adam Hazzard in response to my article “See no Supernaturalism…” Consciousness and Naturalism Ray starts off by observing: […]
