Agnostic.com
2 4

Does science need "metaphysical naturalism" as a foundation?

The following assumptions form the basis of metaphysical or ontological naturalism,
(1) that there is no such thing as a "supernature" : the world/nature is causally closed and there is no interaction with supernatural realms
(2) that the world really exists, so it does not depend on the human mind.
(3) that all things must take place in a lawful, not chaotic, way

However, assumptions of this kind - unlike scientific statements - are basically "not empirically verifiable". Since they do not meet the falsifiability criterion for scientific statements, they are metaphysical assumptions. This means, however, that metaphysical naturalism is ultimately a belief system.

The German philosopher of science Martin Mahner claims "Ontological naturalism is a necessary prerequisite of the natural sciences". The examination of scientific theories is only possible in a naturalistic context.

Even just a glance at the history of science is sufficient to refute this thesis, because what we today call "science" was invented in the early modern period by theists, not by naturalists (!): Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Descartes, Newton... all believing Christians. If Mahner's thesis were correct, then it would be a miracle that these men could "invent" and advance the natural sciences.

Furthermore, it is impossible to determine a priori what NATURE is at all. If I define NATURE as follows: "The totality of all really existing things that do not owe their existence to the human mind" (i.e. everything that is not the product of human imagination or creativity), then it is not clear from the outset how far this area goes. So it is not the case that the natural sciences are based on an already known ontological concept of NATURE, but it is the other way round: the scientific method, i.e. the systematic back and forth between hypothesis and observation, successively determines what actually exists and what is due to our imagination. For this method, however, only two provisional basic assumptions are needed: that there is a world "out there", that is, beyond human mental activity, and that this world is essentially lawful.

Using this method, the area we call NATUR has gradually been discovered. If we assume 'for the sake of argument' that there are such things as the "astral bodies" popular with esotericists, and one could have evidence for their existence, as we do with viruses, neutrinos or gamma rays, then these astral bodies would be part of NATURE.

Or to take another example: A few decades ago, the biologist Rupert Sheldrake postulated the existence of "morphic fields". Were these natural or supernatural? Since there is no evidence for their existence so far, Sheldrake's books are now on the shelf for esotericism, not under natural science. But if in the future such evidence could be presented, then these "morphic fields" would be part of nature, and Sheldrake would be a candidate for the Nobel Prize.

In other words, it was only the application (!) of the scientific method that separated NATURE from FICTION. To put it in a nutshell: first you have to look very closely, then you know what NATURE is at all. And everything that does not belong to nature is by definition fiction. A "super-nature" cannot exist at all, but within nature there can be areas and things that are completely unknown to us (as gamma rays were for the people of the Middle Ages) - and perhaps will remain unknown for all time.

Conclusion: It doesn't matter whether a scientist derives his or her motivation from faith in a god, from belief in an ontological naturalism or solely from the success of science (the latter is called pragmaticism, and I have great sympathy for this philsophy). The core of science is its methodology, and it does not need justification to function. On the contrary, the belief that scientific activity requires something like a metaphysical final justification, a fundamentum inconcussum (as the scholastics or rationalists like Descartes called it), has more to do with religion than with science itself. There can be no ultimate justification for anything - but there is no need for it either.

Matias 8 Nov 18
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

We could stop using the word supernatural because of its religious and magical overtone. Super or extra-physical might do but is that not the same as metaphysical? Kant claimed we are born with the sense of time and space hardwired in our brain. From space we use our senses to perceive appearances of external stimuli. He thought we never get to know the reality of any objects – just the appearance. It sure is handy that when we engage with objects whose reality we cannot know, those objects conform to the expectations we have of them. But if Kant is right, we experience reality at a remove.

Do things get more complicated then, when we go on to consider the intangibles? Maybe they get easier if everything is understood as being at a remove and the word metaphysical might be understood in this way? The ancients thought of wind and spirit as the same thing, and this might be an expression of two things looked on as being at a remove. I’m going to read a book by Owen Barfield to try and get a handle on this ancient way of thinking. Curiously, it’s called Saving The Appearances.

brentan Level 8 Nov 18, 2019
2

The truth is the Universe has always been here, and always will be. Right now the majority of the Scientific community believes in the ridiculous Big Bang Theory. The BBT ONLY explains the age and positions of observable galaxies, but its completely false when it comes to time and space.
There was no beginning of time and there is no end of space - but the todays scientist ignores, doesn't understand, can't comprehend, these facts.

gater Level 7 Nov 18, 2019

Recent Visitors 26

Photos

Posted by JettyPerspective

Posted by PontifexMarximusWhy Evolution Is True … I never realised that there was still so much opposition to science. [livescience.com]

Posted by NR92What is the reason to live? What are we living for?

Posted by NR92Is it correct that Nietzsche was Hitler's inspiration?

Posted by mzeeWhat is fear?

Posted by DonaldHRobertsThe Most Complicated question ever asked. WHY?

Posted by TheMiddleWayRussel, the greatest salesman the world has ever known!

  • Top tags#philosophy #world #god #truth #video #religion #book #laws #reason #humans #religious #moral #atheism #money #belief #death #Atheist #beliefs #evidence #friends #Christian #Bible #humanity #faith #DonaldTrump #TheTruth #scientific #USA #fear #hope #culture #books #morality #earth #freedom #Wisdom #media #imagination #tradition #existence #university #hello #society #rape #government #ethics #politics #children #created #wife ...

    Members 437Top

    Moderators