An ontological naturalist is someone who believes that nature is all that there is. They may (but often don't) believe in God, ghosts, gods, etc., but if they do believe in these entities then they consider them a part of nature. They aren't truly supernatural (super=above, beyond; natural=nature, the cause and effect universe). Many scientists and most atheists would qualify as ontological naturalists.
The following is a logical syllogism that illustrates why being an ontological naturalist is an illogical stance.
IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE logical thinking (and, by extension, this syllogism) has no more value than any other random occurrence.
It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.
15 comments:
I don't believe in "random." Everything has a cause so nothing is really random. That's an illusion. It's a helpful shortcut we use to talk about events whose causes are invisible or to complex to take into account. Flipping a coin for example isn't random. The outcome is determined by how hard you flip it, the weight of the coin, interaction with the atmosphere, and so forth.
Point taken. For the sake of argument--bear with me--imagine that we could have one truly random event, say, for example, a domino falls. This sets off a cause and effect chain of other dominoes falling. If the first event was random, wouldn't that make the last event in the chain random by extension. It isn't *immediately* random, but it is *ultimately* random.
cody, thank you for your thoughts and comments on my blog. i agree completely and was wondering if i could have your permission to post part of it. i'm new to the blogging thing, so i don't know if it is proper etiquette to leave this request in your comments or not. if not, i apologize.
"IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE logical thinking (and, by extension, this syllogism) has no more value than any other random occurrence."
This statement sounds alot like Ayer's logical positivism, so I don't think it has any credence.
Secondly, it also reeks of materialism and determinism [i.e. only nature is real - only physical properties are real - physical properties are random - thoughts are physical properties - thoughts are random]
My objection to this is that if all things [even logical thought] are random then we cannot control or be held responsible for our actions. I don't believe that.
Ultimately my criticism stands on the use of IF in the statement... so we'll just call it a semantic one... :)
Don't quite follow, Frank. The syllogism above is meant to show how ILLogical ontological naturalism is. Are you agreeing with me? If not, what is your criticism on the use of the IF statement. Is that not, in your view, what an ontological naturalist would say?
Okay. I follow...you're going to say that, even though the proximal event wasn't random, if the first event (the Big Bang) had no cause, and so is random, than everything else is random, again, by extension.
But not knowing what the cuase of the Big Bang was is not the same as it not having a cause.
I was being a critic to the syllogism; we are in agreement. HAHA! :)
I am also in agreement. It seems to me that curiosity initiates our unattainable pursuits, while passion fuels it. I have personally dropped out of the race-for I fear my work will be in vain. A product of my own foolish ambition. To leap forward towards the unknown-in hopes of reaching an illusionary nirvana. While in consequance, I've lost all that I poses around me-the simple enjoyment of life itself.
I am also in agreement. It seems to me that curiosity initiates our unattainable pursuits, while passion fuels it. I have personally dropped out of the race-for I fear my work will be in vain. A product of my own foolish ambition. To leap forward towards the unknown-in hopes of reaching an illusionary nirvana. While in consequance, I've lost all that I poses around me-the simple enjoyment of life itself.
"Value" is arbitrary. Logical thinking may accomplish more than illogical thinking and therefore could be said to have more "value."
Also, perhaps these "ultimately random forces" are not so random. The visible universe seems to be composed primarily of just a few substances and it behaves consistently enough that we are able to come up with such things as laws of science. This is not to say that there is anything "beyond nature," It is just to say that nature itself has order.
We are beings created from random physical forces, and so you could say that our thoughts are the result of these random physical forces, but logical thinking surpasses randomness. We reason that there is order in this randomness by means of logic.
cblair.blogspot.com; You saved my day again.
Nice dispatch and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
Bonjour,
je suis nouveau ici j'aime vous lire ;)
je voulais vous remercier pour votre super site internet !
Bonne continuation
----
Nicolaseo, Rien de mieux que le referencement naturel.
Many thanks.
Possible, probable, random, god, spirit, soul, immaterial, mind, these are all words we plug in gaps of knowledge.
I would argue that even if random (uncaused) existed we would never know and would continue searching for a cause and yet never find one. It's not falsifiable. I am a physical (natural being) and I am un aware of anything other than the physical. When it comes to supernatural and immaterial claims, I am ignostic and agnostic -a non believer. I am a ''realist'' and as far as I know existence (ontology) and the natural, the material, or physical are -synonymous.
I would also argue that the universe is deterministic and that if it weren't our thoughts would be random and incoherent.
If you want to know more go to http://ekklesiaofrealism.blogspot.com/ You are also welcome to check out my YouTube Channel ''openairatheist''. Thanks for taking the time to read this : )
Post a Comment