Well, if this guy hasn’t been popped off yet, maybe it’s safe to think about … ?
|March 19, 2011||Posted by O'Leary under Philosophy|
Steve Clark writes in “Naturalism, Science and the Supernatural” (Sophia, 24 April 2009).
There is overwhelming agreement amongst naturalists that a naturalistic ontology should not allow for the possibility of supernatural entities. I argue, against this prevailing consensus, that naturalists have no proper basis to oppose the existence of supernatural entities. Naturalism is characterized, following Leiter and Rea, as a position which involves a primary commitment to scientific methodology and it is argued that any naturalistic ontological commitments must be compatible with this primary commitment. It is further argued that properly applied scientific method has warranted the acceptance of the existence of supernatural entities in the past and that it is plausible to think that it will do so again in the future. So naturalists should allow for the possibility of supernatural entities.
Methodological naturalism . Ontological naturalism . Scientific method . Supernatural . Supernatural entities . Inference to the best explanation
Not clear, in the context, what naturalism then means. However, as Philip Kitcher makes clear, naturalism renders philosophy irrelevant noise from buzzing neurons. The philosopher will have to let God look after Himself, because he himself is out of a job. Oh wait. He? Himself? Must stop using that kind of language. Or else must give p naturalism, due to it’s a priori implausibility.