The Coherence of Naturalism (Atheism)

[Haven]

One of the major criticisms of metaphysical naturalism (and by extension, atheism) is that it is logically inconsistent, with some even going as far as to say that it is self-undermining. This criticism, which comes primarily from Reformed Christian thinkers such as Cornelius Van Til, Alvin Plantinga, John Frame, and our own theopoesis, is due to the fact that (according to Reformed thinkers) naturalism cannot account for several features of human existence, such as (objective) morality, existential meaning, consciousness, free will, and aesthetic taste.

Plantinga goes further, saying that a combinstion of evolution and naturalism would lead us to develop cognitive faculties geared for survival rather than truth, meaning that, on naturalism, we would be unable to know whether or not any of our beliefs -- including naturalism itself -- are true, meaning naturalism defeats itself.

As an alternative to naturalism, Reformed thinkers believe Christian theism can account for true cognitive faculties, teleology, morality, beauty, etc., and that it should therefore be preferred over atheistic naturalism. They use a presuppositional approach to illustrate this, arguing that Christian presuppositions are required for a coherent worldview.

Atheists, in my experience, rarely respond to these criticisms. When they (we) do, they tend to defend a naturalistic account of cognitive reliability while writing off morality, aesthetics, knowledge, etc. as subjective or illusory. Naturalistic thinkers also tend to point toward philosophical problems with theism, such as Michael Tooley's (2008) update of the problem of natural evil. Additionally, one major naturalistic response to this comes from philosopher Feng Ye, who attempts to give a naturalistic account of cognitive reliability. The book "Naturalism Defeated?" (2001) was written in response to Plantinga's argument.

Debate question: Are the Reformed thinkers right? Is naturalism coherent? Can atheists account for morality, purpose, etc. on naturalism? Are Christian presuppositions necessary for a coherent worldview? Does Plantinga's argument succeed? Is theism coherent?

[scourge99]

Naturalism undermines and denies two quite large categories of human expereince: morality and personhood. Indeed, it would seem that personhood is the fundamental human experience. If naturalism does not explain these experiences so much as explain them away, and thereby invalidate much of human experience altogether, it leaves me with very little confidence in my other experiences, which are, after all, what I would build a naturalistic worldview from.

Maybe I missed something. I don't see how naturalism denies or undermines either morality or personhood.

It seems you missed the bulk of the conversation between Haven and I here and on a few other threads. At this point, if I read him correctly, he has essentially admitted what I here attribute to naturalism.

When you publicly assail naturalism by making egregiously wrong and offensive statements then do not expect them to go unchallenged. It doesn't matter what conversations or agreements you have had in the past. If you do not want your misconceptions and distortions about naturalism publicly challenged then use the PM function.

[Haven]

Theopoesis, I'm going to bow out of this debate, as I find myself moving away from both nihilism and atheism. I'm not becoming a theistic Christian or a theist of any kind, but I cannot continue to defend a worldview that denies two things that I find both properly basic and massively important (personhood and morality). I simply cannot admit to myself that human beings are not persons, or that there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" -- such things are properly basic beliefs for me, and I would need strong evidence to deny them. As of right now I'm leaning toward W.D. Ross' form of ethical intuitionism, as I feel it adequately accounts for moral truths without appealing to any specific ontology.

As a result of both this discussion and other deliberations I've had since my deconversion, and especially over the past month, I've decided to abandon atheism and embrace apatheism, or the lack of concern with the existence of God(s) or the truth of religion. Given the apparent falsity of fundamentalist / conservative forms of Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, the fact that there are both moral and immoral people in all religions and none, and the apparent hiddenness of God(s) (should it / one exist) I'm simply not convinced that the question of God(s) matters, either to my life or to humanity at large.

I'm going to focus on loving others, living a moral life, and being happy, and I'll leave the God question for God(s) (should one / they exist) to answer. In the meanwhile, I have decided that kindness, beauty, and truth will be my religion, and that I will respect the religious beliefs and views of all.

I might not visit DC&R as much for obvious reasons, but I still think there are interesting questions and interesting people here, so I'll still be around from time to time. Thanks to you guys for all that you've given me in my journey.

Peace and Joy,

Haven

[Goat]

As a result of both this discussion and other deliberations I've had since my deconversion, and especially over the past month, I've decided to abandon atheism and embrace apatheism, or the lack of concern with the existence of God(s) or the truth of religion. Given the apparent falsity of fundamentalist / conservative forms of Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, the fact that there are both moral and immoral people in all religions and none, and the apparent hiddenness of God(s) (should it / one exist) I'm simply not convinced that the question of God(s) matters, either to my life or to humanity at large.

Sorry to see you go, but before you leave, I will just point out one thing. Atheism does not deny personhood, or morality. It only deals with the lack of belief in a deity. While there might be people who deny 'person hood', or morality... it is not inherent in atheism in and of itself.

[theopoesis]

When you publicly assail naturalism by making egregiously wrong and offensive statements then do not expect them to go unchallenged. It doesn't matter what conversations or agreements you have had in the past. If you do not want your misconceptions and distortions about naturalism publicly challenged then use the PM function.

Well, I certainly didn't mean to offend. And my point was simply that I had already made many arguments and did not feel the need to reconstruct them again. But since you are so offended by my failure to do so, I'll note only one:

David Hume's objection is that we cannot move from "is" to "ought." Even if naturalism can explain how there is some real moral standard, I must ask how it can move from the existence of this standard to the fact that we ought to obey it. I have considered this philosophical problem at some length, and think I do have a Trinitarian response to overcome Hume. Do you have a naturalist response to overcome his objections?

[McCulloch]

Theopoesis, I'm going to bow out of this debate, as I find myself moving away from both nihilism and atheism. I'm not becoming a theistic Christian or a theist of any kind, but I cannot continue to defend a worldview that denies two things that I find both properly basic and massively important (personhood and morality). I simply cannot admit to myself that human beings are not persons, or that there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" -- such things are properly basic beliefs for me, and I would need strong evidence to deny them. As of right now I'm leaning toward W.D. Ross' form of ethical intuitionism, as I feel it adequately accounts for moral truths without appealing to any specific ontology.

As a result of both this discussion and other deliberations I've had since my deconversion, and especially over the past month, I've decided to abandon atheism and embrace apatheism, or the lack of concern with the existence of God(s) or the truth of religion. Given the apparent falsity of fundamentalist / conservative forms of Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, the fact that there are both moral and immoral people in all religions and none, and the apparent hiddenness of God(s) (should it / one exist) I'm simply not convinced that the question of God(s) matters, either to my life or to humanity at large.

I'm going to focus on loving others, living a moral life, and being happy, and I'll leave the God question for God(s) (should one / they exist) to answer. In the meanwhile, I have decided that kindness, beauty, and truth will be my religion, and that I will respect the religious beliefs and views of all.

I might not visit DC&R as much for obvious reasons, but I still think there are interesting questions and interesting people here, so I'll still be around from time to time. Thanks to you guys for all that you've given me in my journey.

Peace and Joy,

Haven

I do wish that I could join you, but since there are way too many people who believe in various gods and who try to influence our societies in accordance with those beliefs I cannot be apathetic. When all of the religions were modern and liberal, I will join you.

[Haven]

I do wish that I could join you, but since there are way too many people who believe in various gods and who try to influence our societies in accordance with those beliefs I cannot be apathetic. When all of the religions were modern and liberal, I will join you.

I'm still an anti-fundamentalist, just not an anti-theist or anti-religionist. I agree fundamentalism is a problem, but the way to deal with that is, in my opinion, not to argue for atheism, but to show that non-believers can be good people, too. That's what first encouraged me to rethink issues like gay rights and religious government policies when I was an evangelical.

[Goat]

I do wish that I could join you, but since there are way too many people who believe in various gods and who try to influence our societies in accordance with those beliefs I cannot be apathetic. When all of the religions were modern and liberal, I will join you.

I'm still an anti-fundamentalist, just not an anti-theist or anti-religionist. I agree fundamentalism is a problem, but the way to deal with that is, in my opinion, not to argue for atheism, but to show that non-believers can be good people, too. That's what first encouraged me to rethink issues like gay rights and religious government policies when I was an evangelical.

I still think you are wrong about linking up the concepts of denial of the concept of 'personhood' and morality with atheism though. I do see them as ethical and philosophical questions that are not related to atheism.

[theopoesis]

Theopoesis, I'm going to bow out of this debate, as I find myself moving away from both nihilism and atheism. I'm not becoming a theistic Christian or a theist of any kind, but I cannot continue to defend a worldview that denies two things that I find both properly basic and massively important (personhood and morality).

Though I am sorry to see the discussion cut short after only a few posts, I can certainly understand why you would not defend my critiques against a view that you do not hold.

And at least we are in agreement about the importance of morality and personhood.

As of right now I'm leaning toward W.D. Ross' form of ethical intuitionism, as I feel it adequately accounts for moral truths without appealing to any specific ontology.

I was not familiar with W.D. Ross, but from what I've read on the website you directed me to, I don't see how Ross really helps you escape nihilism. Ross essentially presupposes his moral position: "the existence of an obligation arising from the making of a promise is so axiomatic that no moral universe can be imagined in which it would not exist." "That we have a responsibility to keep our promises is self-evident." Therefore, we must have a duty to fulfill an obligation, he says. In regard to the good, Ross claims that four attributes have good as a "quality intrinsic to them." But how can this be intrinsic to them if it depends upon our intuition to recognize them? What would it even mean to say that "good" was intrinsic in this way? As a whole, Ross' system doesn't (from the summary) seem to have any philosophical justification. He ultimately asks us to follow his understanding of the good simply through presupposition, or intuition. But I do not see where his theory, accepted on presupposition or intuition, is superior to Christian Trinitarianism, as it still runs afoul of the problems regarding epistemology and subjectivity which we have discussed before.

Furthermore, if these duties and moral responsibilities are intuitively derived, we must ask why we should adhere to our intuition, and furthermore, what happens when an individual who does not share this intuition (i.e. a sociopath) fails to comply to the moral standard? It seems our intuition is coincidental, rooted in many ways on the contingencies of history. Under this system, the good is not actually good per se, it is just what we are naturally inclined to do. But are we naturally good? Or are we naturally sinful? (And does Ross' system even allow us to sensibly ask this question?) If it seems intuitive to a majority throughout history to kill the foreigner when he enters your territory, does that make violence moral by intuition?

I'm also curious as to how Ross can overcome Hume's objection that we cannot move from the "is" to the "ought." So, you've made a promise. Supposing that even creates an objective duty or obligation, why ought you fulfill that obligation? Why does the obligation of a promise trump the freedom you have before you to make a conflicting promise to another?

It also seems that Ross is mostly presenting his ideas in relation to utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, but I see no dialogue between Ross and virtue ethicists or theological ethicists. That makes it difficult to deduce in what areas he may be superior.

When Ross claims "there is a system of moral truth, as objective as all truth must be, which, and whose implications, we are interested in discovering" but he claims that the discovery is by intuition and not by empiricism. If we are, based on intuition, allowed to accept moral truths, why can we not, on intuition, and along with a majority of humanity across history, accept spiritual truths on intuition as well?

As a result of both this discussion and other deliberations I've had since my deconversion, and especially over the past month, I've decided to abandon atheism and embrace apatheism, or the lack of concern with the existence of God(s) or the truth of religion.

That would preclude you being involved as much here. As I see you have another thread on the topic, I'll weigh in on apatheism there instead of here, if I choose to do so.

Given the apparent falsity of fundamentalist / conservative forms of Christianity

If this relates to the non-existence of David and the Exodus and so forth, I do encourage you to study the evidence more thoroughly, from both perspectives.

Peace and Joy,

Haven

I wish you the best, Haven.

[McCulloch]

the way to deal with that is, in my opinion, not to argue for atheism, but to show that non-believers can be good people, too.

Does that mean that I have to give up raping and pillaging, torturing small animals and unbridled hedonism?

[scourge99]

When you publicly assail naturalism by making egregiously wrong and offensive statements then do not expect them to go unchallenged. It doesn't matter what conversations or agreements you have had in the past. If you do not want your misconceptions and distortions about naturalism publicly challenged then use the PM function.

Well, I certainly didn't mean to offend. And my point was simply that I had already made many arguments and did not feel the need to reconstruct them again. But since you are so offended by my failure to do so, I'll note only one:

David Hume's objection is that we cannot move from "is" to "ought." Even if naturalism can explain how there is some real moral standard, I must ask how it can move from the existence of this standard to the fact that we ought to obey it. I have considered this philosophical problem at some length, and think I do have a Trinitarian response to overcome Hume. Do you have a naturalist response to overcome his objections?

The is/ought problem is readily explained and has been by naturalists for many years. Our morals are largely explained by evolution. And there is no evidence to indicate that there is some particular moral standard that needs adhering to.

I don't understand what a "real moral standard" is. What is a non-real moral standard? In my experience i notice theists often use such ambiguous wording to create an emotional argument by accusing non-theists of lacking a "real moral standard". It often takes the form, "atheists don't have any basis for morality". But once we unravel the web of language games, all it really boils down to is something both theists and non-theists agree on: if you don't believe in my god then you can't claim your morals magically come from my god.

So the question is: where do morals come from? To answer this we look to something both theists and non-theists can access, biology and evolution. What we know is that study of the real world (as opposed to arm chair philosophizing or presupposing gods or holy book hermeneutics) reveals the necessity of certain rules and behaviors for a society of organisms to function. This is supported by observations and studies of non-human social organisms who show similar patterns of behavior to our own and exhibit ethics systems. So some of our morals and inclinations arose naturally because they fit patterns of behavior we see in other social organisms. We observe these in chimps, dolphins, whales, lions, ants, bees, wasps, elephants, deer, penguins, etc, etc, etc and HUMANS. And no serious biologist supposes that some god magically bestows these animals with such behaviors. They are innate to their biology or learned.

Other morals may be learned by much more complex things such as introspection.