Hi, Metaphysical Naturalists.

[Milan]

If human evolution and metaphysical naturalism are true, then how do you account for reliable metaphysical knowledge?Metaphysical naturalism is, of course, a metaphysical position. But, if we are just products of some mere evolutionary processes with no supernatural guidance, then why think that we have reliable metaphysical knowledge? What allows for it on the naturalist scheme?

[Seasanctuary]

We don't automatically have reliable metaphysical knowledge. We're also quite limited and often wrong when we intentionally inquire about it. Naturalism doesn't have a "problem of unbelief" because on the naturalist hypothesis, there is no being with the power and motivation to let us know how things really are.

[Milan]

Hi,

I'm unsure what it means to say that we don't have automatically reliable metaphysical knowledge. I'm just wondering this: If metaphysical naturalism is a metaphysical position, as it most certainly is, and if evolution and metaphysical naturalism are true, then what reason do we have to think that we have reliable metaphysical knowledge? If we do not have reliable metaphysical knowledge, then any epistemic basis for a reliable knowledge that metaphysical naturalism is true is extinguished.

[Seasanctuary]

I'm fine with saying we don't have reliable metaphysical knowledge and that metaphysical naturalism is merely a respectable guess on the basis that everything we do have reliable knowledge about is natural.

Or put another way: metaphysical naturalism is based on inductive reasoning which is not as reliable as we'd like.

[Milan]

I'm puzzled. By 'knowledge' I don't mean to distinguish anything more than belief. I'm wondering what basis is there, for the metaphysical naturalist, to think he has reliable metaphysical beliefs. If you say there is none, then metaphysical naturalism is not reliably believed.

[Seasanctuary]

Maybe we're not saying enough to understand what the other fellow is saying. Maybe this will help...

When you brought up reliable knowledge about naturalist metaphysics, I thought of how folks like Craig and Plantinga characterize reliable knowledge about theistic metaphysics. Craig might say something like, "My knowledge of metaphysics is reliable because the Holy Spirit is giving me such assurance." Plantinga might say something like, "My knowledge of metaphysics is reliable because God designed me to apprehend certain metaphysical facts in the proper circumstances and I have been in those circumstances."

Both of these answers tell a story about a being with privileged metaphysical knowledge acting to ensure some of this knowledge is reliably held by select human beings (suspiciously, the same ones telling the stories). A naturalist isn't going to have such a story. We're not claiming a special faculty to detect the naturalness of the world. Our belief that naturalism is true is not "assured" even if it is correct.

P.S. - This particular forum is for discussion among people who are declared naturalists of some stripe. If you are a Theist, you should ask a moderator to move this thread over to Apologetics. (We wouldn't want the Naturalism forum to see actual activity. The horror!)

[Milan]

Maybe we're not saying enough to understand what the other fellow is saying. Maybe this will help...

When you brought up reliable knowledge about naturalist metaphysics, I thought of how folks like Craig and Plantinga characterize reliable knowledge about theistic metaphysics. Craig might say something like, "My knowledge of metaphysics is reliable because the Holy Spirit is giving me such assurance." Plantinga might say something like, "My knowledge of metaphysics is reliable because God designed me to apprehend certain metaphysical facts in the proper circumstances and I have been in those circumstances."

Both of these answers tell a story about a being with privileged metaphysical knowledge acting to ensure some of this knowledge is reliably held by select human beings (suspiciously, the same ones telling the stories). A naturalist isn't going to have such a story. We're not claiming a special faculty to detect the naturalness of the world. Our belief that naturalism is true is not "assured" even if it is correct.

P.S. - This particular forum is for discussion among people who are declared naturalists of some stripe. If you are a Theist, you should ask a moderator to move this thread over to Apologetics. (We wouldn't want the Naturalism forum to see actual activity. The horror!)
That's interesting. If it is not assured, then would you say that it's reliable?

I'm not a theist. I defend a view which I call 'Austere Buddhism'. I'm a Buddhist of some sort, I guess. I don't belong to any particular school, however.

[Eudaimonist]

I'm puzzled. By 'knowledge' I don't mean to distinguish anything more than belief. I'm wondering what basis is there, for the metaphysical naturalist, to think he has reliable metaphysical beliefs. If you say there is none, then metaphysical naturalism is not reliably believed.

I don't think that we should focus on what is "reliable", but rather on what is the most rational and sensible conclusion given our life experiences.

For instance, I believe that I'm a human being living a human life. I will admit that it is at least imaginable that I'm in actuality some non-human alien in a Matrix-like virtual reality generator running an Earth simulation. However, my life experiences point overwhelmingly towards the conclusion that I'm a human being, since I have little-to-no evidence that I'm being deceived by a virtual reality.

As I see it, this is not a serious philosophical problem. Until the evidence of the deception is forthcoming, any skepticism about such matters is empty and of little philosophical gravity. We have no reason to take such airy speculation seriously.

As for metaphysical naturalism, I see the issue in the same way. Metaphysical naturalism is, in my judgment, just as firm a conclusion as my existence as a human being. It doesn't provide a suprahumanly certain metaphysical foundation, but for a human philosophical foundation, it is as firm as it needs to be for human knowledge.


eudaimonia,
Mark