The ‘traditional’ objections to a wholly naturalistic metaphysics, within the modern Western philosophical tradition, involve the vexed notions of freedom and consciousness. But there is, I think, a much deeper and more interesting line of criticism to naturalism, and that involves the notion of intentionality and its closely correlated notion of normativity.
What is involved in my belief that I’m drinking a beer as I type this? Well, my belief is about something — namely, the beer that I’m drinking. But what does this “aboutness” consist of? It requires, among other things, a commitment that I have undertaken — that I am prepared to respond to the appropriate sorts of challenges and criticisms of my belief. I’m willing to play the game of giving and asking for reasons, and my willingness to be so treated is central to how others regard me as their epistemic peer. But there doesn’t seem to be any way that the reason-giving game can be explained entirely in terms of the neurophysiological story of what’s going on inside my cranium. That neurophysiological story is a story of is the case, and the reason-giving story is essentially a normative story — of what ought to be the case.
And if Hume is right — as he certainly seems to be! — in saying that one cannot derive an ought-statement from an is-statement,and if naturalism is an entirely descriptive/explanatory story that has no room for norms, then in light of the central role that norms play in human life (including their role in belief, desire, perception, and action), it is reasonable to conclude that naturalism cannot be right.
(Of course, it does not follow from this that any version of theism or ‘supernaturalism’ must be right, either.)
Alan,
From the technical details, perhaps, but not from the interpersonal drama. As a highly social species, we’re drawn to that sort of thing, in venues ranging from blogs to reality TV.
Onlookers have no doubt noticed that I’ve called walto’s bluff and that my challenge has remained unanswered.
walto,
The ‘Edit’ option will disappear if the site logs you out automatically. That happens occasionally, in which case logging back in will fix the problem.
I hope they’ve also noticed that you’ve changed the subject, asking me to criticize stuff I’ve never objected to and pretending that that’s what we were arguing about.
Sad.
keiths,
I actually had three posts going within the hour window–two here, one at “moderation issues”. Two of the three were editable–including the later one here–the other one wasn’t.
This meditation works for me: http://yourfriendinspirit.blogspot.com/2007/11/quantum-light-breath.html
It’s guided, so even if you have no meditation experience you can follow it.
Remember, meditate for an hour a day. If you really don’t have the time, meditate for two hours.
walto,
Okay. In that case I have no explanation.
Patrick,
Good ol’ mindfulness meditation (aka Vipassana) also teaches you to notice emotions before they sweep you away.
I bought the Quantum Light Breath CD on your recommendation, though I haven’t tried it yet. As you’ve pointed out, the woo associated with the technique is a bit offputting, even if the technique itself is sound.
It’s a real shame that meditation is so inextricably associated with woo in the public consciousness. That unfortunate fact kept me from trying meditation for a long time, and it was actually science (in the form of Richard Davidson’s experiments) that finally motivated me to take the plunge.
I’m hoping that Sam Harris’s upcoming book will make more people realize that the techniques are separable from the accompanying woo.
This thread is well under 15% on-topic. Sandbox sending by Moderators? Not yet. There’s a rather obvious strategy of diversion, in this thread, not to actually address the “naturalism cannot be true” claim by the author. TSZ has already undeniably become a hive for agnostics/atheists, unlike what Lizzie wanted.
Gregory,
So, what’s Taylor’s definition?
Gregory,
How about answering walto’s question? If you’ll tell us what you (and Taylor) mean by naturalism, we can tell you whether we agree with it.
Alas, unworthy 🙁
“knowing apparently nothing about ‘naturalism’ that you would even understand”
🙁
“I do hope you eventually elevate.”
Thanks!
“but doubt you would (cf. will) ever take a step to do so.’
🙁
BTW, since people are talking about it here, I wrote a book on meditation some time back. http://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Solution-Center-Walter-Horn/dp/1591095697
I’m not too happy with it though. I wish I’d heard of “the tetris effect” at that time. I think it might have been a bit better.
Gregory: This thread is off topic! You atheists are all afraid to address the criticisms of naturalism.
walto and keiths: Tell us what you mean by naturalism.
Gregory: I’m afraid to.
We call your bluff and you panic, realizing that you might actually be called upon to defend your view.
Gregory might be afraid, but Google isn’t. I found this description of Taylor’s views on naturalism:
keiths,
Well, you can’t really blame him for not telling me.
I’m not worthy.
🙁
ETA–Would somebody please tell me whether I’m allowed to look at the stuff keith just posted?
walto,
That’s interesting. Are you an active meditator?
walto,
But of course you did criticize that exact formulation of my argument, writing of it:
And:
And:
Those certainly sound like “objections” to me. Perhaps you wish you hadn’t said those things, but there they are.
Regardless, your comment sounds like an oblique admission that I did catch Plantinga in a fundamental error regarding de re and de dicto.
That makes your statement from a couple of days ago sound all the more odd:
I thought you were being sarcastic. Perhaps I misread you, and you sincerely think that the Great Plantinga has something to learn about de re and de dicto from a lowly engineer. 🙂
Which is it? Do you agree that I caught Plantinga in a de re/de dicto error, or not?
keiths,
Not really: I’m kind of a duffer. I use it (like in “The Relaxation Response”) mostly to help me sleep.
keiths,
You were right: I was being sarcastic.
That’s not exactly how I’d diagnose his error, no. I indicated in the thread where I think his mistake lays. But as I also said toward the end, the main issues start to shade into each other if you investigate them comprehensively. A complete diagnosis probably requires discussions of concept learning, and language acquisition.
I must say that is matter of you being king of planet Plantinga is really weirdly important to you. What the hell is that all about, keith?
Waiting for 85% of the posts in this thread to be sent to ‘Sandbox’…
Moderators obviously not doing their jobs.
Gregory,
Instead of wasting all your energy on puerile insults, why not try presenting an actual argument? If you think naturalism is flawed, tell us why, and we’ll respond. You must have reasons for believing it, right? What are they? (And no, ‘you atheists are all idiots’ does not constitute an actual argument.)
It’s arguable that a thread abandoned by its author becomes open-topic.
Didn’t I say I would hesitate to act? I’m hesitatin’ here! Anyway, there are two other admins participating. The defence of “n******** cannot be true” hasn’t begun, so it’s hard to address.
That’s a serious point and, though Lizzie can and will speak for herself when she has time, I suspect she is disappointed that more honest dialogue between people of widely differing worldview and outlook has not taken place. However, I think things have, at least until recently, worked better than I originally thought.
Constructive dialogue is hard to achieve. A good result is when participants (and onlookers when they are real and not imaginary!) learn something new. This does not have to involve “winning”.
“there are two other admins participating.”
And both of them are of course (declared or demonstrated) naturalists, just like you, Alan. This isn’t rocket science and it shows a bias towards naturalism that KN was perhaps (in his fuzziness) trying to expose. The title of this thread is a clear SIGN that naturalists ignore.
Most of the posts in this thread, and specifically the spat between keiths and walto, should be moved. How could a legitimate Moderator dispute that given the rather obvious off-topic focus of most posts? There is no defense for this.
I’m not interested in ‘winning.’ Justice would be good enough. And so far, it has not been present here at TSZ.
Looking back up the comments, there’s a case to be made for moving most to either guano or sandbox. I’m sorry but the evening sun is insisting I repair to the terrace to join my wife in a “sundowner”. I propose drawing a line under here and let’s all strive to do better at communicating.
In that spirit, I’m following in the footsteps of Napoleon and adjusting Kantian Naturalist and Gregory’s status to author. It’s an olive branch.
Moved a couple of posts to guano. From now on please comment in an appropriate thread. For instance moderation issues can be discussed in the quaintly titled “Moderation Issues” thread.
You’ve got to laugh when Gregory, who wants to talk about Farmington State University, insurance salesmen, and the price of walto’s book, complains that the thread has gone off topic.
We’re still waiting for your on-topic argument against naturalism, Gregory.
Meanwhile, Alan is (wisely, I think) trying to use a light hand in his moderation. Threads go off-topic all the time. It’s the nature of internet discussions, and nothing to get worked up about.
If you want a discussion of naturalism, we’re all ears. Tell us why you think naturalism is untenable. Present an argument.
If you actually make an effort, you’ll get a response from me (and probably from others, too).
Then someone should take 5 minutes responsibility and do this. Hint: find any post without the terms ‘natural,’ ‘nature’ or ‘naturalism’ and move them. Done. Simple. Easy. No controversy
Gregory,
As the most habitual and flagrant violator of the rules here at TSZ, don’t you see the irony in your demands?
Alan gave you author privileges. You can start a thread on any topic you’d like, including naturalism, if for some reason you think this thread is too polluted to host your pristine thoughts.
Here’s a suggested thread title: Gregory’s critique of naturalism. How about it?
It would require you to make an argument, though, which might be a bit of a deterrent.
Much in what Taylor says makes good sense to me, at least when it comes to the core questions about how to live one’s life.
Plus you somehow forgot to mention that he is Canadian!
I agree with Alan F’s post that it is a shame that there is no one from this point of view who is willing to take part in a principled discussion in this forum.
But then again, I don’t know of any public internet forum where there is such a mix of informed participants coming from a wide variety of viewpoints contributing to the discussion.
(ETA: to last sentence to clarify)
Although I think it’s fun (and worthwhile) to call Gregory’s bluff and put him on the spot, I’m also genuinely interested in hearing why he believes that naturalism is flawed.
Or from any other skeptics of naturalism, for that matter.
Excepting KN, it seems that most of us don’t see norms as a legitimate threat to naturalism — unless they’re objective, which hasn’t been demonstrated.
However, KN did at one point raise a separate criticism, based on the problem of disjunction:
This was my response:
What do others think? Is the uniqueness of propositional content necessary, and if so, is it a threat to naturalism? Gregory?
Gregory,
Thank you for this which I will definitely look through with interest.
A quick scan of front page is that it is based on invited contributions whereas I was thinking of an open forum. Of course, I do understand the advantage of limiting participation.
BruceS,
An American, in other words — from the 51st state. 🙂
Besides, we all pretend to be Canadian when we go abroad:
How to pretend you’re Canadian when you travel
ETA: From the article:
Or Charles Taylor. 🙂
You’re welcome, BruceS. Let us speak plainly then: you are not a ‘naturalist,’ are you? You are theist. Why not then clearly state this or at least declare yourself in favour of theism vs. naturalism? TSZ posters are almost entirely ‘sceptic’ (agnostic or atheist) and ‘naturalist’. I am not a ‘naturalist.’ Thus, it is obvious that the ‘management’ here are against my views and yours. KN in this thread made a (imo very weak) criticism of ‘naturalism.’ Yet something more was suggested against atheism. Why would anyone want to support him who is not a ‘naturalist’? If you’re USAmerican or Canadian, it doesn’t seem that you have any excuse.
After taking his other comments about justification into account, and reading all his points taken together, I took this reference to the problem of disjunction as an extension to KN’s point about norms. I understood him to saying that proposition content may depend on brain states and on the history of the organisms in the environment, but not ONLY on these things.
For them to qualify properly as beliefs, he says we need to be able to justify them. So they need to be the “right” kind of brain states/interactions. And the word “right” involves norms, eg the right kind of causal chain.
I don’t know whether norms can be expressed in words of science, although I am cheering for Millikan right now (who says yes, I believe), I think that we are a long way away from having an answer.
I am trying to discuss naturalism, Gregory.
What do you think? Is the uniqueness of propositional content necessary, and if so, is it a threat to naturalism?
But he is from Quebec which is as far away from US that a Canadian can get. Now, if it was Alberta, OK, that would work better.
I have stated elsewhere on the forum that I am an atheist.
But I respect and know I can learn from people of thoughtful religion.
For example, I’ve recently been auditing Singer’s Practical Ethics on Coursera, and it featured a debate between Singer and a Catholic philosopher on abortion which was a very informative and stimulating exchange of views.
If naturalism means that only science can generate knowledge, then I am not a naturalist. Horwich’s version of naturalism makes more sense to me. On the other hand, I am a physicalist, and I realize that there a tension between that version of naturalism and physicalism when one tries to answer what norms are if they are not expressible as scientific statements..
Luckily, I was an manager during my career, so I am happy to let someone else figure it out and explain it to me!
Bruce,
OK. Quebec is a US territory, like Puerto Rico. Newfoundland is Newfoundland. And the rest of Canada is the 51st state.
You’re not from Newfoundland, are you? 🙂
Bruce,
Yes, I think that’s what he was saying. Further, he was offering the uniqueness of the propositional content of thoughts as evidence that they could not be reduced to brain states, which I think is wrong for the reasons given above.
I thought he was merely saying that the ‘aboutness’ of a belief depends on our willingness to offer reasons for it, even if the belief and/or the reasons turn out to be false in the end, and that this willingness to offer reasons amounts to a normative stance that can’t be explained naturalistically.
I disagree with him, because I think that a) a belief can still be about something else, even if we are unwilling to offer reasons for it, and b) the desire to offer reasons can itself be explained in declarative language.
I’m more sanguine. I think that adherence to a norm is just a predisposition to act in certain ways for certain reasons, and that this is perfectly explicable in causal terms, though we obviously don’t know all the details yet.
Ontario. Could be another northern New York, I suppose, but not many of the others states. Too many socialists in Ontario for American statehood.
I need to stop now before we get a scolding on topicality.
I think this must surely be true for any actionable definition of “expressible”.
On the other hand, the topic of the overlaps of neuroscience, psychology, and epistemology (and other relevant philosophy) is a much more interesting and open question. And KN often talked about adding to that mix the first-person, phenomenological position of some philosophers which would make it even more interesting. Unfortunately, he never posted here about it in detail as far as I know.
Thanks for this tidbit. I find him to be a particularly clear and persuasive writer. It is fun to know that he has human foibles.
I went looking for a recent picture of him to see if he still wears turtle necks. Not on his Facebook page, as it turns out. But that page is full of what look to be pithy and helpful mini-comments on recent phil of mind books, so that was a serendipitous outcome of your post for me.
Taylor’s remark seems pretty reasonable to me too. (I sneaked a peak in spite of my unworthiness–mea culpa.) I honestly didn’t know Taylor was still writing: he’s been around a long time.
One thing about the brief critique of naturalism in the second paragraph keith quoted, though. I think I’d push the boundaries of what is non-natural in his sense farther than he seems to. That is, I think I might include the intentional acts of my cat. So I guess might be more anti-naturalism than either Taylor or Gregory. But that’s the kind of huge forces we anti-naturalists have to deal with on this site. It’s like a huge army against us, with keith on one flank and Gregory on the other–all pushing their various kinds of naturalism at me.
I never would have tried it if it weren’t for my wife dragging me kicking and screaming to a workshop, promising that if I wasn’t into it by lunch on Saturday we would leave. I had an intense experience with the QLB Saturday morning, so stayed to learn more.
The woo is strong in the community, but I’ve learned to treat chakras and kundalini energy as metaphors. We are Pan narrans, after all, so stories work well on us. The physiological effects of the breathing techniques work no matter what words you use to describe them.
PS: I owe you a response on another thread, but it will take me more time than I have today to compose it.
Patrick:
Yes indeed.
Is it too late to start a movement to get our species’ binomial changed from sapiens to narrans?
Seems a pointless request, but oh what a world of difference between attempting to sell ourselves as “wise” and accepting ourselves as “tale-telling”.
May be important to point out that I mean “tale” with no connotation of “tall tale” or “fairy tale” but rather the near-neutral recounting of/narrating of the events from some specific narrators’ POV. Not expecting strict neutrality (sorry, purity not possible for actual humans).
Story tellers are so sexy!
Common argument sequence:
Bob: Materialism cannot be correct because X.
Joe: Nobody here adheres to that version of materialism. We’re more correctly described as physicalists.
Bob: Physicalism cannot be true because X1.
Joe. Nobody here adheres to that version of physicalism. We’re ,more corrctly referred to as naturalists.
Bob: Naturalism cannot be true because X2.
Joe: Your definition of naturalism is a straw man. Nobody here adheres to that concept of naturalism.
Bob: Okay then, tell me what “naturalism” means.
Joe: Essentially, it means whatever causes your argument against it to fail. You keep making arguments, we’ll keep calling them straw men and changing the goal posts.
Without a clear conceptualization/definition of what position materialists/physicalists/naturalists are taking, it’s just an amorphous view that cannot be falsified. IMO, it’s just a big foggy arena serving as a proxy for “anything but god”.
So, the question is: how can naturalism be falsified? What kind would it take to falsify that worldview?
I agree that point was harder to follow.
First, I think he later qualified the aboutness to beliefs that require language to express. I think he then would say that there is no private language but rather language requires a community of speakers. That in turn means there must be norms about how we participate effectively in such a community and hence be able to think thoughts in that language. But I don’t really understand that position well enough to defend it.
I agree n the sense that I think we can explain behavior in adherence to a norm completely physically and through science.
But I see the issue of whether we OUGHT to have acted that way to be a different question and not explainable in the same way.
As I understand it, the concept of physicalism is part of philosophy, not science.
I know nothing about meditation, but I can lower my heart rate and blood pressure.
Last year after being preped gor surgery I had to wait several hours for the OR to become available. The techs kept checking the equipment because my heart rare droped below 60, and my BP also dropped. If I can see it, I can make it drop. I don’t know how.