This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics, C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
About that theon
The point about the theon is simply this. You are trying to define naturalism. I maintain that I really have nothing at stake in calling what I believe in natural or supernatural. I know Lewis likes to uses the term "supernaturalism" for his position, and I have no problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is the failure on the part of some to provide some criteria for what is natural. With no principled criteria, I can simply baptize my ontology as naturalistic. If you are trying so say, "You can't being that into science, you IDiot, you can't believe in that, it's supernatural, it's a bunch of woo, etc., then we need some criteria for doing that kind of exclusion. I don't need the criteria, you do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I repeat that the "nature" can be comprehended within a formal scheme, while the supernatural can not. This demarcates the natural and supernatural. That is, for a naturalist, nature is whatever he can compute with.
I repeat that the "nature" can be comprehended within a formal scheme, while the supernatural can not.
Brute facts.
Post a Comment