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. 

2 comments:

Gyan said...

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.

Crude said...

I repeat that the "nature" can be comprehended within a formal scheme, while the supernatural can not.

Brute facts.