Love and Other Constructs of the Mind

If love is just chemical then if i reproduce the same chemical in someones brain can I literally make them fall in love with anybody?

A: That is the "deterministic" (or worse, the "fatalistic") explanation of emotions. Emotions, consciousness, soul, free will, conscience, etc are not "just" chemicals or snynapses or whatever science declares it to be.

Science is not wrong, except in its metaphysical classification of these events as being "just" chemical, or "merely" bio-physiology at work.

Metaphysics is the art of constructing explanations for everything that exists. For example, the description of a "table" is metaphysical, while the table itself is physical. Every word except personal pro-nouns, in every language, represents a metaphysical concept. Deterministic science dismisses the metaphysical description of conscious and bio-physiological events as anything more than the stark scientific (physics) description.

However, "love" and all the rest of that is obviously much more than the sum of its total bio-physiological activity. It has metaphysical meaning for all of us that encompasses not only the recognition that love is a reaction to something, but that since we don't all love the same things, there must be a relation between the bio-physiology and the metaphysics we each, individually, hold.

Your metaphysics may be somewhat or extremely different than mine, and different from someone else. Sometimes we do not even recognize the metaphysics of another person; in other words, he and we seem to be talking about two different things when in fact we are talking about two different things--his metaphysical evaluation describes "love" as bio-physiology, while yours and mine describes it as "a pleasurable emotion that gives us confirmation that something is important enough to value beyond "like."

Since love is an individual response by one person to the value system he/she subscribes to, it would be impossible to make someone love what you want them to love through the introduction of a "love chemical"--at least not without inciting within them a neurosis having to do with the conflict between what you have forced them to love, and what they actually value enough to love

What is this moment call "now?"?

Epistemologically, it is the only moment in existence. The old play on words is correct: "Yesterday is gone, and tomorrow will never come."

Time is a construct of the mind that allows it to string together all the moments of "now" into something cohesive and having the charcteristic of endlessness, yet because of the construct we can remember prior moments of now.

"Time is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe, when you define a standard—such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: 'This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old.' But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time." Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), question period, Lecture 2

"The idea of an infinitely small amount of length or temporal duration has validity only as a mathematical device useful for making certain calculations, not as a description of components of reality. Reality does not contain either points or instants (in the mathematical sense)." Harry Binswanger “Q & A Department: Identity and Motion,” The Objectivist Forum, Dec. 1981, 13.

The brain has a "clock speed", which works virtually the same way as a computer. It has been estimated that our minds can absorb approximately 10 "moments" each second, and it is these moments we string together for the illusion that time is continuous (whereas it is actually motion that is continuous.) Time, as stated above, is a relationship to motion. But we do not comprehend each of those 10 moments each second; sometimes we don't even comprehend "seconds" because when something extraordinary or at least eventful and consciousness-filling happens, we say "time flies." An hour can go by in what feels like minutes.So the moment we call now is only the moment you are in and only when you realize you are in it. It can be as short as your mind can comprehend, or as long as your mind is consumed in an interest.

What constitutes beauty in your eyes?

When we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we are talking about metaphysical values. Generally, our species appreciates that beautiful sunset, a great play or movie, a job well done, heros, birth, and the "eternal" over the "transient" because of metaphysical value judgments we make.

Metaphysics, "in the formation of a sense of life, [which has since come to be called a "world view"] is the term important. It is a concept that belongs to the realm of values, since it implies an answer to the question: Important—to whom? Yet its meaning is different from that of moral values. Important does not necessarily mean 'good.' It means 'a quality, character or standing such as to entitle to attention or consideration' (The American College Dictionary).

“Important—in its essential meaning, as distinguished from its more limited and superficial uses—is a metaphysical term. It pertains to that aspect of metaphysics which serves as a bridge between metaphysics and ethics: to a fundamental view of man’s nature."

Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?" Ayn Rand, various sources http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaph...

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

The Loss of Secularism in Naturalism Part 5; Defeator Arguments

The case has been made that many naturalists are, in the words of Dr. Quentin Smith, http://www.wmich.edu/philosophy/index.php?content=smith_faculty_profile "uninformed," having an "unjustified true belief" in the ancient science. "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism"; PHILO [see link in left column of this blog] http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

The ancient science is nothing less than calling a spade a spade, which in the words of Leonard Peikoff http://www.peikoff.com/ concerning existence is "a self-sufficient primary [that is] not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else," with nothing being previous to existence, "its nature [ ] irreducible and unalterable." Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology ; by Ayn Rand. Piekoff defines it in its atheistic countenance, but even in its theistic trappings it is irreducible, unalterable, and "natural" in its working, in a form of molecules-to-man evolution in its epistemology.

"As Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy (1946) points out, philosophy and practical science were not originally separate. They were born together in the beginning of the 6th century BC and they both involved a transition from a theistic toward a natural way of thinking about the world." http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/section1(210).htm

"The controversy [between the theists and the naturalists] erupted early in the 19th Century when geological discoveries implied that the earth is much older than was suggested by the contents of the Judeo-Christian Bible [ ] The profound impact of this early debate upon the popular mind was directly responsible for the 1857-1860 revival in protestant religious enthusiasm."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Theistic-realism

In "the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961, Dr. [Henry] Morris saw clearly that good science—the proper handling and interpretation of scientific evidence—would demonstrate the veracity of the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood." [italics added]

"Today, thousands of creation scientists [can] be found in literally every discipline of science [ ] Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is 'science' and creation science is 'religion.' Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies—not his or her awareness of scientific facts." [italics added] http://www.icr.org/research/ The Institute for Creation Research, from which this quote comes, maintains laboratory facilities on its campus in Dallas, Texas. Its researchers and faculty http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/ are well-recognized in their fields.
In the "National Review," author Barry Freundel reviews the ideas of one of the latest and most controversial of these creationists, Phillip Johnson, and his book "Reason in the Balance." Johnson himself is also Program Advisor to Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, UC Berkeley, where he is a law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, and holder of a named chair at Berkeley. (See below for "Discovery Institute.")

But before we get to any discussion of Johnson's book, we need a definition of Naturalism. "Carl Sagan summed up the philosophy in these words: 'The Cosmos is all there is, all there has been and all there ever will be.' A naturalist believes that nature is the whole show. There is no 'super-nature' (God). For sure a naturalist could talk about a pantheistic 'God' who is Life Force or Energy or even the Ground of Being, but not Creator. There is no place in a naturalist scheme for a God existing independent of nature, who created it and on whom it depends." http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/reason.html

But this is not the view of many naturalists, though they may keep it out of their work. Most have some logical or emotional basis for a continuing belief in a deity, and they are not to be maligned for this.

"[R]eligion is an early form of philosophy, [ ] the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, [ ] before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith."
“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964 http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html

And "faith" is the very nature of the disagreement between theists of any sort and naturalists of any sort.

"Explaining in great detail [ ] Naturalism and its deep flaws," [quoting Johnson,] Freundel claims Johnson makes a case that Naturalism is as much a religion as any other, if it means "a system based on unchallengeable orthodoxies. Indeed Naturalism may be more 'fundamentalist' than [ ]conventionally defined fundamentalism." The disagreements between naturalism and religion "is leading us toward a culture war [ ] when rational discourse breaks down and one side resorts to denigrating the other -- in this case, as "phobic," "authoritarian," and otherwise dangerous. Only by restoring the search for objective truth, and allowing all viewpoints a fair hearing, can we avoid such a frightening prospect." [italics added] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v47/ai_17955372

Johnson, in his chapter "Theistic Naturalism and Theistic Realism", wants us to believe that "the much-hyped physical theory of everything may never be more than a myth (and in any case would explain disappointingly little)"; and that "scientists pursuing the grand project [ ] have refused to consider that there may be limits to what can be learned about reality through their methodology. [ ] Perhaps their dogmatic metaphysical naturalism has even led scientists to disregard some aspect of reality that is virtually staring them in the face. Could it be, for example, that living organisms (in Richard Dawkin's wording) 'give the appearance of having designed for a purpose' because in fact they are designed?"

To a creationist, this fallacious logic is all that is needed to write off naturalism as the denial of creationism, when no such thing is intended. Peikoff's definition of existence may belong to that of the atheists, but it is astoundingly true that "thousands of creation scientists [can] be found in literally every discipline of science," and that does not disclude the field of naturalism. One does not need to be atheist to believe that God created the universe with laws that allow for our understanding of a molecules-to-man epistemology.

"Scientific naturalists meet this shocking suggestion with one of two inconsistent responses," says the Discovery Institute. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=358 "One is to make a few superficial debater's points against design and then declare the subject closed." This is precisely what Smith contends too many of us do with a wave of the hand. It is precisely the reason that in some quarters, creationism is winning, all too easily, and the very reason we naturalists must learn arguments that defeat the "defeator arguments" of the creationists. It is easy for us to see that the creationists often use fallacious, emotion-laced or based logic. But it is not as easy to overcome these fallacious objections in the real world when we ourselves have no understanding of how to defeat the creationistic logic that would have us becoming the skeptical position against theism, rather than what ought to be happening, which is reverting back to the pre-1967, pre-Plantinga era when theism was the skeptical position against naturalism.

The Discovery Institute quotes Johnson: "[T]he very atheistic physicist Steven Weinberg [says] '[T]he only way that any sort of science can proceed is to assume that there is no divine intervention and to see how far one can get with that assumption.'"

To "assume there is no divine intervention" may be the atheist platform of naturalism, but does not even attempt to overcome Johnson's defeators. This abdication of any dismissal of creationism denies the epistemic principle of existence as a self-sufficient primary, ignores logic that is assumed in the argument for Creation, and ignores (or affirms) that there must be the possibility that before Creation there was "nothingness" as the only existent.

But the sound conclusion is that "nothingness" cannot be reified into an existent. Thus, according to this hypothesis by Weinberg, there is the tacit admission that "nothingness" was once a reified existent, and that we need to "see how far we can get" with that illogical assumption.

For any committed creationist, Johnson's argument is this: "On the contrary, the very notion of 'natural law' grew out of the concept of a lawmaker."

I must, myself, assume from ignorance that this is where Augustine and Plotinus had such an effect in reversing the roles of naturalistic world view to being the skeptical position of theism, as Smith alludes to in PHILO.

This "very notion," of the concept of a lawmaker, Johnson says of biology as he uses one example, "will not only survive but prosper if it turns out that genetic information really is the product of preexisting intelligence. Biologists will have to give up their dogmatic materialism and discard unproductive hypotheses like the prebiotic soup...Freed of the metaphysical chains that tie it to nineteenth-century materialism, biology can turn to the fascinating task of discovering how the intelligence embodied in the genetic information works through matter to make the organism function." [italics added] How many naturalists can argue that while it is our job to discover such nature embodied in genetic information, that this natural intelligence is not divinely created but is an act naturalistic molecules-to-man, even if he/she must maintain a belief in the supernatural creation of the molecules themselves, as many naturalists do?

Yet, for all his subjectivity, Johnson makes the astonishing declaration that, "If there really is a materialist explanation for the origin of life, or the human mind, it surely will be found by a scientist who resolutely ignores the objections of people like me and persists in looking for it."

His theme in this book may come when he writes, about the current state of naturalist knowledge, that "the managers of the enterprise may be confident that a smashing success is just around the corner," then undercutting that by saying the epistemic problem "is deciding when to stop believing [the] promises of eventual success, particularly when the managers have been successful in the past.

"How can we tell who is correct? ...the solution is not to grant the insiders the exclusive privilege of auditing themselves. I do not urge scientists to give up on any theory or research agenda until they themselves are convinced that further efforts would be fruitless."

This is why the Discovery Institute calls it "shocking [ ] to make a few superficial debater's points against design and then declare the subject closed." Johnson wants the debate. He knows as well as Quentin Smith does that most committed naturalists are "uninformed" with "unjustified true beliefs." He thinks his creationistic arguments will hold up in this increasingly de-secularized, evangelical atmosphere in which our society now exists. He's probably right.

Johnson gives us our due on the one hand, then undercuts it with the other. "In view of the cultural importance of the naturalistic worldview, however, and its status as virtually the official philosophy of government and education, there is a need for informed outsiders to point out that claims are often made in the name of science that go far beyond the available evidence." [italics added]

So Johnson also uses the word "informed" to designate himself and others like him who can defeat our arguments. But what do they use as defeators? The fall-back position of saying, "Naturalists have not proved this or that, we are going beyond our own proofs into supposition, and therefore the creationists must maintain their own belief that a blind watchmaker is not the cause of what we propose.

But he labels such attempts such as the scientist who resolutely ignores the objections of people like him and persists in looking for naturalistic proof--and finding it--attempts at working with "heuristic assumptions," or assumptions that provide help in the solution but that are not independently justifiable or provable. And yet, if they are not provable, how can the scientist who ignores critics like Johnson find that there "really is a materialist explanation for the origin of life?"

"How can we tell who is correct?" Johnson asks. "[T]he solution is not to grant the insiders the exclusive privilege of auditing themselves."

But it never has been the exclusive privilege of any science to audit itself, because every science has an impact in one way or another on the other sciences and on the arts and humanities in general, not to mention that more generalized philosophers of epistemology must set the standards. (Smith, himself, is a professor of, among other things, epistemology.)

"Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next to go," wrote Ayn Rand. "It is not the special sciences that teach man to think; it is philosophy that lays down the epistemological criteria of all special sciences." http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/science.html It makes one wonder what the epistemological criteria must be for Johnson's odd defence of creationism. He seems to find it in his desire for the naturalists to go on toiling, maintaining "the fiction that evolution is 'science' and creation science is 'religion;'" or that "creation science" which assumes the supernatural ought to go about attempting to prove supernaturalism; in the desire that naturalists go on "pursuing the grand project;" or that we refuse "to consider that there may be limits to what can be learned about reality through [naturalistic] methodology."

I know of no naturalist who would claim there are no limits. The state of science changes all the time, and the methodology of the twenty-first century is not the methodology of the Atomists.

No, the epistemology seems to be in the attitude that a little bit of evolutionism is not so worrysome.

To "Johnson and his ilk [a] new adaptation here, a lost adaptation there--who cares?" writes Michael Ruse in "Naturalistic Fallacy" Reason Magazine http://www.reason.com/news/show/30010.html " Rather, it is the very moral fiber of the nation that counts. Let in evolution, and pornography, abortion, and sodomy are next. Or rather, because we let in evolution, pornography, abortion, and sodomy are now. Johnson starts with an introduction to the enemy [as those] 'who assume that God exists only as an idea in the minds of religious believers [,that] humankind created God--not the other way around. In that case, rationality requires that we recognize the Creator as the imaginary being he always has been, and that we rely only on things that are real, such as ourselves and the material world of nature."

That is exactly Smith's point when he writes, "The four goals of the informed naturalist are i) retrieve naturalism from its de facto reclassification by medieval philosophers; ii) reclassify the philosophy of religion as a subfield of naturalism, viz. skepticism about naturalism, so that the position in the various fields of philosophy formerly occupied by 'the philosophy of religion' is replaced by the field 'the philosophy of naturalism;' iii) to understand in outline an actually extant version of original naturalism (Greco-Roman naturalism) that these original naturalists justifiably believed to be an informed naturalism and which contemporary informed naturalists justifiably believe is approximately the best that could be done by naturalists in the epistemic situation of Greco-Roman philosophers; and iii) A third goal is to understand in outline an actually extant version of original naturalism (Greco-Roman naturalism) that these original naturalists justifiably believed to be an informed naturalism and which contemporary informed naturalists justifiably believe is approximately the best that could be done by naturalists in the epistemic situation of Greco-Roman philosophers; [and] iv) to justifiably reformulate, and answer, the two basic ontological why-questions that medieval philosophers took over from the Greco-Roman naturalists, and which have (for the most part) remained ever since 'questions asked in the field of the philosophy of religion.' The successful accomplishments of these four tasks will restore academia to the mainstream secularization it possessed before the post-1967 breakdown in the field of philosophy."

"This retrieval [i] is also a reversal. The aim is that theism be justifiably reclassified as a subfield of naturalism, namely, as a skepticism about the basic principles of naturalism whose refutation serves to stimulate and further develop the naturalist program. 'Philosophy of religion' disappears, to be replaced by a new subfield of naturalism, namely, 'skepticism about naturalism,' with skeptical arguments being put forth and argued against, with the aim in mind of further developing the argumentative foundations of the naturalist world-view."

"[T]he most basic answers to the ontological why-questions in a certain naturalist theory permit the two most basic why-questions, formulated in the following way, to be positively answered, [and] then that theory is explanatorily complete.

"Q1. Why do these things exist and why do these laws of nature obtain rather than some other possible things and other possible laws of nature?

"Q2. Why is it the case that there is not only nothing? (The reason for formulating the question this way will become apparent when I discuss the atomists.)" [For that discussion, please read Smith's paper in the link at the top of this blog.]

Clearly, we "uninformed" naturalists have a long way to go. Not being in academia, I have long believed that my naturalism was "justified true belief." But then, I do find myself in a different class from most naturalists who are either agnostic or have some form of belief in a creator.

My argument for naturalism runs this way, as I said above and have said on many past occasions: existence is self-sufficient, primary, the given, and is "self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric, but purposeless, deterministic (except for possible tychistic events), and only incidentally productive of man [Greek Atomism]; that human life, physical, mental, moral and spiritual, is an ordinary natural event attributable in all respects to the ordinary operations of nature; and that man's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified on natural grounds, without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny," http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html because anything less that this denotation would require that "nothingness" be the original state of existence and it is an epistemic contradiction to insist that "nothingness" was at one time an existent, the thing that existed before existence existed. There can be no "thing" in existence before existence allowed for the conditions necessary for a "thing."

"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents . . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." Ayn Rand: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

The deductive syllogisms by which we uninformed naturalists must come to discover are the "defeators" of our beliefs, defeators which prevent our beliefs from being "justified and true" beliefs, Smith lays out in his paper:

Where "N (a thesis). Naturalism, i.e., the thesis that there exist inanimate or animate bodies, with animate bodies being either intelligent organisms or non-intelligent organisms, but there exists nothing supernatural; then

"A (a defeated justifier). A is the argument that contemporary science and naturalist philosophy are known to be probably or certainly true, even though A includes no counterarguments against contemporary arguments for theism: or

"DA (a defeater for the justifier A). DA is a sound argument that argument A is unsound; or

"B (a defeated justifier). B is an argument that, contemporary science and naturalist philosophy, when conjoined with an evaluation of contemporary theist arguments for not-
N, (where “not-N” implies naturalism is not true) justify not-N; or

"C (an undefeated justifier for N). C is the argument that, contemporary science and naturalist philosophy, when conjoined with an evaluation of contemporary theist arguments for not-N, justify N.

"According to the informed naturalist, the predicament of at least ninety-nine percent of contemporary naturalists is represented in the following columns. We can state very briefly the arguments different philosophers believe in terms of our symbols. The mentioned belief states are arguments believed to be sound by the relevant parties.

"Belief State of Most Contemporary Naturalists
1.A.

2.A justifies N.

3.Therefore, N is justified.

Defeater Recognized by Informed Naturalists
4.DA.

5.DA defeats A.

6.Therefore, A does not justify N.

Belief State of Most Contemporary Theists
7.B.

8.B justifies not-N.

9.Therefore, not-N is justified.

Defeater Recognized by Informed Naturalists
10.DB.

11.DB defeats B.

12.Therefore, B does not justify not-N.

"Since both A and B are defeated, most contemporary naturalists, as well as most contemporary theists, hold defeated beliefs about the truth-value of naturalism. The informed naturalist knows the complex argument C that constitutes the defeater of B and the justification of N, as well as meets other conditions explained later in this paper.

"Belief State of Informed Naturalists
13.C.

14.C justifies N.

15.Therefore, N is justified.

"Some naturalists believe they are informed naturalists. But whether they are in fact informed naturalists is not an issue I am addressing in this paper. This paper is a metaphilosophy of naturalism, not a philosophical argument that naturalism is true. Such philosophical arguments can be found in other papers and books. In this paper, I am (in part) characterizing the contemporary epistemic situation about naturalism from the point of view of a real or hypothetical informed naturalist."

We real and hypothetical informed naturalists have a great deal of work ahead of us.

Please send all comments to mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm (service mark) of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, which is the educational arm of the Assemblage.

This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

The Loss of Secularism in Naturalism Part 4; We Populists

The subject of this series is rooted in Dr. Quentin Smith's contentions about "informed" vs. "uninformed" naturalists. "A [ ] person who knows the nature, goals and consequences of naturalist philosophy may be called an “informed naturalist," Smith wrote, in "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism." http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm " [T]he great majority of naturalist philosophers have an unjustified belief that naturalism is true and an unjustified belief that theism (or supernaturalism) is false."

This unjustified state of affairs in our beliefs--if you are, like myself, a novice on the subject--is because we do not know the arguments against naturalism that contain the logic to "defeat" our own beliefs, whether or not we can argue those beliefs. An "informed" naturalist is one who can defeat the defeator logic. In the last part of this series, Part 5, tomorrow, we will examine these "defeator" arguments, and attempt to briefly examine the logic and some of the actual arguments.


But as I may assume most of my readers have come here through the magic portal of a link on a Yahoo Answers (YA) answer, I may also assume that most of you are in the same novitic, uninformed, unjustifed state of true belief as I am, and which I hope to be able to get myself out of.


Today in part 4 we are going to look at some of the "popular" arguments we regularly either run into or use against these popular "defeators." We naively debate and argue with our populist theist adversaries and we are in turn populists naturalists. Being populist does not make either side wrong, not in theory or in practice. But it makes we naturalists wrong in the sense that if naturalism is the natural epistemic state of mind at birth, as we say atheism is present at birth, then we have a moral obligation to know more than we allow ourselves when we learn only our own theories, our own arguments, our own internal "defeator" arguments and the means by which to overcome them.


We need to learn the strong arguments of the theists, those over which we seem to have no responses that are stronger in logic that can defeat the theist defeators of naturalism. Smith's paper is not "a philosophical argument that naturalism is true." It is, in fact, about the lack of epistemic integrity in the uninformed naturalist. He offers the syllogism of the defeating arguments, and the one syllogism which can be the defeator of theistic arguments. But for the actual theistic arguments themselves we must look else where.


But as most of us have been populist (uninformed) naturalists all our lives, in other words, since we do not write papers and books containing indefeasable arguments for the supposition that naturalism is indeed true, we turn instead to the only position we know, that of the populist. A populist is someone who is not necessarily trying to reach other uninformed naturalists as a matter of course or of policy or of a specifically plotted device for being "popular."


A populist naturalist is quite simply one who is "uninformed" and has, therefore, an unjustifed true belief in the philosophy of naturalism. I count myself as one, but my attention in the future will be specifically to learn those defeators which counter my true belief and which, by not comprehending them, makes my own true beliefs unjustified.


Today, we look at some of the defeators--and some of the populist arguments on both sides--to see, by example, just what this "uninformed" state consists of. All of the defeator arguments have what Smith labels "undefeated justifiers" for naturalism, meaning that as "undefeated justifications" they give us the epistemic integrity to have "justified true beliefs"--if only we can come to learn how to achieve them.


These are only a minute amount of the academic and mostly populist arguments we encounter and use in our own silly and amusing debates on YA and other places, perhaps in face to face debates with friends or family members. If we can learn to defeat with justification the arguments of the theists, whether "populist" or not, we can help turn the tide against the justifications for theism, and do it from the non-academic "real" world we live in, where once the Ancient Greeks ruled supreme with the "undefeated justifiers" of the naturalism which they discovered and which came to be defeated by Augustine and Plotinus (see previous posts).


If we can come to learn the academically epistemic justifications used by theists, and learn to counter them with undefeated justifiers of our own, then we will have served our selves and our philosophy by helping to not only preserve it, but to revive it. We will also have served to preserve the world from the darkness where a “'Dark Age' means an age when the vast majority of philosophers (and scientists) do not know the true world-view..." says Smith. "A hand waving dismissal of theism" is not enough to stop the rising tide of the populist door-knockers, the Bible-thumpers, and the other evangelicals who ride the wave begun and maintained by smarter theists who know the way to defeat naturalisism.


Let's look at some of the populist defeators we must work against, and tomorrow we will attempt to discover the more erudite, better educated, and strong defeators of our own necessary holistic world view.

J. Gresham Machen, "Christianity and Culture," Princeton Theological Review 11 (1913): 7.
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root."
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~echong/talks/06/Atheism06quotes.pdf

Bertrand Russell, "Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell," Random House, 1927, p. 3.
"That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins---all these things, are so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built."

Russell begins with a defense of naturalism as defined by the Pre-Socratics: Man's origins are the outcome of accidental "collocations" of atoms. But then he falls into the near-nihilism of the maudalin fallacy of thinking philosophy must accept that the species called Man is doomed to extinction--if his soul is to be saved from the same extinction.

"'God' as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo- Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a 'super-existence.'" Leonard Peikoff; "The Philosophy of Objectivism."

Peikoff's argument would be irrefutable, and is in fact justifiably true, but is left unjustified. Piekoff offers in this particular quote no "undefeatable justification." It is justifiably true, and many naturalists may use it to back up their own justifications and logic; but as it stands it goes unjustified.

To the uninformed naturalist, Piekoff's argument is justified. To the informed theist, it will become fodder for arguments which naturalists and Objectivists ought to be able to counter with justified defeators.

"[T]heistic realism holds that the design and works of God are manifestly evident in nature, particularly Creation, so that evidence and reason lead inevitably to belief in God." http://creationwiki.org/Theistic_Realism

"Theistic realism is a philosophical justification for intelligent design proposed by Phillip E. Johnson in his book, 'Reason in the Balance.' According to Johnson, true knowledge must begin with the acknowledgment of God as creator because he believes that the unifying characteristic of the universe is that it was created by God. Theistic realism, therefore, relies on a God that is real, personal, and acting in the world, through mechanistic creationism.

"Theistic realism was developed by Johnson to be a counter to methodological naturalism. To Johnson, any attempt to understand nature without acknowledging the creator is doomed to fail. As he and his supporters describe it, theistic realism holds that the universe and life cannot be explained completely naturalistically. Methodological naturalism (MN) refers to any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations. ..." http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Theistic-realism

Interview with Phil Johnson http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/reason.html

"I must confess that on reading [Johnson's book,] my jaw did sag somewhat. I have myself recently published a book with the title Evolutionary Naturalism . I had no idea that that which Johnson describes was the topic on which I was supposed to be writing! I am fascinated (and troubled) by the God question, but that I was denying God's existence was news to me. Naively, I thought that naturalism was about a particular attitude that one takes to understanding, refusing to appeal to the supernatural (miracles) in the physical world, but saying nothing definitive about whether there is a world beyond this. Perhaps God exists. Perhaps not. But, wonderful book though 'Evolutionary Naturalism' may be, on these issues it says nothing."
from "Reason Magazine"; "Naturalistic Fallacy" Michael Ruse October 1996 Print Edition
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30010.html

If a respected, published scientist and author on the subjects of evolution and of naturalism can be defeated without knowing it, it makes Quentin Smith's contention even more important. We, as "true believers" in the naturalistic, objective philosophy that the world is self-sufficient and uncaused, existing because existence exists, not because "ex nihilo" God created the world in six days (or created it at all,) then we must become informed naturalists with logical justifications that theists cannot defeat, at least not without sounding like the contradictory and uninformed skeptics of naturalism which they will become--when we learn to intellectually defend our own position from being redefined as Michael Ruse found his own book redefined by Johnson.

Please send all comments to mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm (service mark) of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, which is the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®