Several arguments against the Philosophical Naturalist Causal view are often paired by Theist apologists such as the 'Brain in a Vat,' Objective Morality, and strict version of Causal Determinism. The view of strict Causal Determinism is that every cause and effect event is predetermined by antecedent causes and events and natural law. The following is a reasonable definition and description of this view. The section of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an interesting discussion of the problem.
The argument usually follows the line of thought that if Philosophical Naturalism is true then all possible events in the world would be mechanistically determined. Humans would be robotic in nature. The problem with this line of reasoning is the fact that the reality of the natural world, and human nature is not mechanistic and strict causal deterministic, nor are humans entirely robotic in nature.
Objectively natural determinism is clearly been demonstrated in Methodological Naturalism, but this reality is not rigidly deterministic. If nothing else the fractal nature (Chaos Theory) of our our existence creates an immense diversity from how our universe exists down to the nature of human will and behavior within the limits and constraints of natural law. The question of human will has not been resolved as whether Free Will exists and to what degree, but the reality is the nature of most decisions in human nature fall within the parameters of a deterministic nature. Nonetheless I believe this fails to adequately describe the nature of potential Free Will decisions in human nature.
The biggest elephant in the room for these arguments by some Theist apologists is that contrasting worlds cannot be compared, one where the Theist God exists versus one where God does not exist. The nature of our physical existence and the nature of what is human is what it is, and any argument either way must accept that and begin with this, and not propose hypothetical 'other' worlds that cannot be demonstrated to exist.
The argument usually follows the line of thought that if Philosophical Naturalism is true then all possible events in the world would be mechanistically determined. Humans would be robotic in nature. The problem with this line of reasoning is the fact that the reality of the natural world, and human nature is not mechanistic and strict causal deterministic, nor are humans entirely robotic in nature.
Objectively natural determinism is clearly been demonstrated in Methodological Naturalism, but this reality is not rigidly deterministic. If nothing else the fractal nature (Chaos Theory) of our our existence creates an immense diversity from how our universe exists down to the nature of human will and behavior within the limits and constraints of natural law. The question of human will has not been resolved as whether Free Will exists and to what degree, but the reality is the nature of most decisions in human nature fall within the parameters of a deterministic nature. Nonetheless I believe this fails to adequately describe the nature of potential Free Will decisions in human nature.
The biggest elephant in the room for these arguments by some Theist apologists is that contrasting worlds cannot be compared, one where the Theist God exists versus one where God does not exist. The nature of our physical existence and the nature of what is human is what it is, and any argument either way must accept that and begin with this, and not propose hypothetical 'other' worlds that cannot be demonstrated to exist.
Comment