Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism: in Concept and Critique
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2004 Contemporary philosophical naturalism: In concept and critique James Carlin Watson The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Watson, James Carlin, "Contemporary philosophical naturalism: In concept and critique" (2004). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5022. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5022 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of Montana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes” or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature: Date: Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. 8/98 Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism: In Concept and Critique by James Carlin Watson B. S. Lee University, Cleveland, TN, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts' The University of Montana December 2004 Approved by: Chairperson Dean, Graduate School l** I'OS Date UMI Number. EP40486 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI* "^Oteagrtation: UMI EP40486 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Watson, James Carlin, M.A., December 2004 / Philosophy Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism/m Concept and Critique Chairperson: Burke Townsend The task of this thesis is to identify the central ideas associated with naturalism as it is employed in the contemporary philosophical context for the purposes of providing a clear, identifiable, realistic, and plausible formulation in order to enrich current understanding of its role in contemporary philosophy and to subject it to a relevant critique. It is my contention that naturalism cannot be held consistently as an analytic philosophical position. Attempts to formulate naturalism in this way result in positions that are either unwarranted or not identifiably naturalistic, that is, they are compatible with anti-naturalistic positions. However, it is easy to understand how a philosopher could be warranted, in a broad inductive sense, in personally holding naturalism. I will use the term “worldview” to denote this type of broad inductive position. I will argue that the naturalistic worldview is best characterized as the beliefs that the natural sciences are the sole authority for producing knowledge of any kind and that science possesses autonomy from any philosophical argument. I will show that, though the naturalist is unable to show a connection between naturalism and a contemporary conception of science, she remains rational in believing naturalism at the personal level. However, this belief is subject, as all worldviews, to questions of consistency and completeness. I will argue that naturalism as a worldview faces four possible defeaters, one undercutting and three rebutting, that are cause for concern if the naturalist cannot adequately surmount them. Table of Contents PART I: IDENTIFYING CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM C hapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1: Preliminaries 1.2: Clarification and Pitfalls to Avoid 1.3: Defining Ineffable Science 1.4: Defining Justification and Knowledge 1.5: Before Defining Naturalism—various uses, various fields. Chapter 2: Respect and Care: A Definition of Contemporary Naturalism 29 2.1: Respect and Care for Conceptual Terms: A Definition 2.2: Then what’s anti-naturalism? 2.3: Implications of naturalism 2.4: Empiricism 2.4.1: Introduction to Empiricism 2.4.2: Naturalism’s Irreducibility to Empiricism 2.4.3: Problems With empiricism 2.5: Pragmatism 2.5.1: Introduction to Pragmatism 2.5.2: Naturalism’s Irreducibility to Pragmatism 2.5.3: Problems With Pragmatism 2.6: Physicalism 2.6.1: Introduction to Physicalism 2.6.2: Naturalism’s Relationship to Physicalism 2.6.3: Four Propositions in the Causal Argument for Physicalism 2.7: Scientific Realism 2.7.1: Introduction to Scientific Realism 2.7.2: Justifying Realism 2.7.3: Problems With Realism 2.8: Naturalism and Theism 2.8.1: 2.8.2: 2.8.3: Conclusion to Chapter 2 PART n: CONCEPTIONS OF NATURALISM Chapter 3: Naturalism as a Strict Philosophical Thesis 116 3.1: Varieties of Naturalism 3.2: Evolutionary Naturalism 3.3: Religious Naturalism 3.4: Ethical Naturalism 3.5: Ontological Naturalism 3.6: Epistemological Naturalism 3.7: Methodological Naturalism C hapter 4: A Critique of Naturalism 177 4.1: Critique of Naturalism as an Analytic Thesis 4.2: An Exposition of Naturalism as a Worldview 4.3: Defeaters for Naturalism as a Worldview 4.3.1: An Undercutting Defeater for Naturalism as a Worldview 4.3.2: Three Rebutting Defeaters for Naturalism as a Worldview 4.4: Conclusion Bibliography 230 ...[W]e find many philosophers engaged in such projects as naturalizing epistemology, naturalizing rationality, naturalizing jurisprudence, naturalizing the mind, naturalizing the a priori, naturalizing morality, and so on. But what is naturalism? (Michael Rea, World Without Design, 2002) Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1: Preliminaries What do philosophers mean by the term ‘naturalism’? The concept enjoys what Michael Rea calls, “the lofty status of academic orthodoxy,” yet when someone labels their position ‘naturalistic,’ we tend to have only a vague idea of what they are trying to communicate. We might think something along the lines of empiricism, materialism, or scientism, even pragmatism. Depending upon the philosophical area in which it is employed, naturalism may seem to imply other qualifiers, such as nominalism,1 atheism,2 or scientific realism.3 But these complex ‘ism’s accept a multiplicity of uses and incite various controversies in the current literature. Most versions of naturalism actually resist reduction to any of the aforementioned terms. On close inspection, naturalism has an identity of its own, independent of other philosophical theses. Making ‘naturalism’ precise will involve a meticulous analysis of contemporary philosophical tendencies in general, specifically the contemporary posture toward science, and an analysis of how naturalism is used in the contemporary literature. The ubiquity of the term makes an understanding of this philosophical position requisite for understanding much of 1 Wilfrid Sellars writes that, “A naturalist ontology is necessarily a nominalist ontology,”Naturalism and Ontology (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co., 1979) p. 109, cited in J. P. Moreland, “Naturalism and the Ontological Status of Properties,Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, ed. by Moreland and Craig (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 68. 2 Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 3 Philip Kitcher, Advancement of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) and Larry Laudan, Science and Rlativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 1 contemporary philosophy, whether or not the philosophers who label their positions naturalistic make their use of the concept explicit or attempt to defend it. Progress is being made toward clarifying the central issues involved in naturalism. Many contemporary philosophers who label their theories ‘naturalistic’ try to narrow the scope of their concept by identifying it within more familiar categories, i.e. methodological naturalism, ontological naturalism, etc. But again, the attachment of ‘ism’s does not solve the practical problem of identifying a sustainable concept. Not surprisingly, the projects that are the most motivated to define naturalism are those that fall outside the naturalist camp.4 These projects seek to undermine naturalism and therefore need something substantive in order to analyze and subvert. We must be careful to avoid straw men when defining naturalism via the critics, but their critiques, when accurate, lend valuable insight. I will make use of insights from proponents as well as critics of naturalism in order to make the concept as explicit as possible. The task of this thesis is to identify the central ideas associated with naturalism as it is employed in the contemporary philosophical context for the purposes of providing a clear, identifiable, realistic, and plausible formulation in order to enrich current understanding of its role in contemporary philosophy and to subject it to a relevant critique. It is my contention