SJ:
>But neither do I accept uncritically evolutionary "just-so" stories
>which assume evolution in order to prove evolution. If naturalistic
>evolution is simply assumed apriori to be a fact, then by definition
>the *only* theories that may be proposed to explain endosymbiosis
>*must* be naturalistic evolutionary ones. Therefore they will all,
>to a greater or lesser extent, "prove" naturalistic evolution.
TI:
>I'm more of a methodological naturalist than a philosophical one.
>Then again, I'm a bit set in my ways and would need a pretty good
>set of examples to drop naturalism as a working hypothesis of first
>choice.
The interesting question for me is this: What sort of "examples" would a
methodological naturalist accept? Or is the very foundation of his
epistemology forever set against any such contraries?
I'm reading a wonderful book by a philosophy prof, Arlie Hoover (Pepperdine).
He has a section in his book, Dear Agnos (letters to an agnostic) entitled
"Naturalism, the Philosophical Smuggler." Some excerpts:
****
Naturalistic smuggling is evident, first of all, in the realm of epistemology,
the study of knowledge. The naturalistic view of mind is so deficient that you
wonder how a scholar in any field can keep on searching for truth with such a
humble instrument as the human brain. The naturalist smuggles in a high regard
for the operation of the mind, a regard that fits more comfortably with the
synthetic-metaphysical approach of Plato and Augustine than with the
analytical-empirical approach of Hume and Russell. A ntauralist starts out
thining and then ends up by undermining all thought. He must use his mind to
prove his philosophy, but then his philosophy affirms that all reasoning is
mere cerebration by a physical brain. If reasoning is just an electro-chemical
operation in the material brain, then why should a naturalist ask anyone to
accept his thoughts as "true"?...
The naturalist compounds the difficulty just discussed if he believes in
determinism--and logically he should. If all things, including our thoughts,
are mechanically determined, then objective science is impossible, for the
scientist automatically selects the data he evaluates....No scientist should
be congratulated for his brilliant thinking, for he just secreted what was
inevitable--his work just oozed out of the brain, so to speak. For all we know
these complex systems of thought may have been caused by something like red
beans or ulcers of the duodenum....Freedom, objectivity, transcendence--none
of these ingredients crucial to a viable epistemology is inherent in
naturalism. Someone must have smuggled them in.
Naturalistic smuggling is even more evident in axiology, the realm of values,
not only in aesthetics, but especially in ethics....Naturalists claim they use
only the scientific method; they exclude other kinds of truth. Yet when you
come to ethics you can't establish OUGHT from IS.
****