Files
memex/0_inbox/books/TWOW/html/02.01 Naturalism.html

373 lines
40 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Naturalism</title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="author" content="Amr Gharbeia">
<meta name="created" content="20010831;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150721;235754506372323">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 1.2cm; margin-top: 1.2cm; margin-bottom: 1.25cm }
p { text-indent: 1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; direction: rtl; color: #99ccff; line-height: 120%; text-align: right; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
p.western { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US }
p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt }
p.ctl { font-family: "Simplified Arabic"; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-EG }
a:link { color: #0000ff }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-GB" text="#99ccff" link="#0000ff" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#ff0000"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><b>N<img src="" name="OdcNNat_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="129" height="39" border="0">aturalism.</b></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">
Naturalism is the first assumption of ontological philosophy. It is
the belief that the world is </span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i>just
</i></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">the
natural world. By the &quot;natural world,&quot; I mean the world
disclosed to us by perception, the world where we find ourselves,
each having a body alongside others as parts of a world of objects in
space that move and interact over time. That is the world of our
daily lives. </span></font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">It
is the world to which we are all referring when we speak to one
another, as language-using animals, about ordinary matters. We refer
to objects in space, attribute properties and relations to them, and
explain what happens to them. But some of the objects in space are
also subjects, like ourselves, and we describe them in a special way.
To them we attribute intentions, desires, thoughts, beliefs,
perceptions and other subjective (or psychological) states. They are
known by reflection, rather than perception (though knowing about the
subjective states of others usually depends on perception as well).
But that does not mean that subjective states are not parts of the
natural world. They are parts of the natural world because they are
states of beings like us, who exist as animals in the natural world.
The natural world includes, therefore, not only what is known by
perception, but also what is known by reflection. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font color="#800000"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>W<img src="" name="OdcNWe_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="120" height="49" border="0">hat
exists.</b></font></font><font color="#ff0000"> </font>The role of
naturalism in ontological philosophy is to identify what needs to be
explained, and for that purpose, it is appropriate to understand it
in terms of its implications about what exists and what does not
exist. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>P<img src="" name="OdcNPos_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="73" height="50" border="0">ositively.</b></font>
Positively, naturalism is the belief nothing exists but what is
located in space and time. All the objects we perceive are located in
space. Indeed, they are all related to one another as parts of a
single world, since all the locations in space are connected to one
another continuously in three independent dimensions. But objects can
also move and interact with one another, and the events involving
them are also parts of the same world, because all moments in time
are connected continuously in a single dimension. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">Though
naturalism assumes that whatever exists is located in space and time,
that does not mean that whatever has a location in space and time
exists. Though events in the past and future have locations in space
and time, they may not exist. Whether they do or not depends on how
we resolve a profound ontological issue about the relationship
between existence and time. We must decide whether to believe that
existence itself is in time, so that only the present moment exists
(or &quot;presentism&quot;), or to believe that time is just another
kind of relation, like space, which holds among the things that
exist. (See </span></font></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/Lo/L/LoOtdOTemp.htm" target="Lo"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><u>Ontology:
Temporality</u></span></font></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">
and </span></font></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/Lo/L/LoOtfSTime.htm" target="Lo"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><u>Spatiomaterialism:
Time</u></span></font></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">.)</span></font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>N<img src="" name="OdcNNeg_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="74" height="50" border="0">egatively.</b></font>
Space and time are so inclusive that naturalism may seem to be
obviously true, but the significance of this assumption comes into
better focus when we consider it negatively. For naturalism is also
the denial that anything exists outside space or time. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>G<img src="" name="OdcNGod_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="61" height="39" border="0">od.</b></i>
God, for example, is supposed to exist outside both space and time.
That is, at least, what traditional theists (and deists) must hold,
for they believe that God is the creator of the natural world. (Nor
is God part of the natural world by virtue of being ubiquitous, for
that means existing everywhere in space at once, and if that were how
God exists, He would be space.) Belief in a creator-God is a kind of
supernaturalism. In fact, that is what was being scorned by those who
first called themselves &quot;naturalists&quot; in the eighteenth
century. They expected to be able to explain everything in the world
without appeal to anything outside nature, and that negative sense of
&quot;naturalism&quot; is what is intended here. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>F<img src="" name="OdcNForms_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="60" height="39" border="0">orms.</b></i>
It is not just God, however, that naturalism denies. Neither are
there any Platonic Forms. Plato held that there are objects knowable
only by reason, such as mathematical objects, justice, and the nature
of human beings, and even The Good Itself, which exist independently
of the natural world. By that he meant that they existed not only
outside space, but also outside time, for he he described it as a
Realm of Being, opposite in nature from the Realm of Becoming, or
nature. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Plato's
main reason for postulating the Forms was to explain the nature of
goodness objectively. He held that all the other forms follow from
The Good itself, making them, and what participates in them, good.
But this motive for believing that something exists outside space and
time now generally takes the form of the belief in a supernatural
God. Platonism is still defended, however, in the philosophy of
mathematics. For example, numbers are supposed to be abstract
objects. But since what makes them abstract is that their existence
is not supposed to depend on anything located in space and time,
naturalism must deny their existence. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>M<img src="" name="OdcNMinds_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="60" height="40" border="0">inds.</b></i>
Minds are also denied by naturalism, if they exist outside space, as
the tradition of modern philosophy would have it. Though Descartes
assumed that minds are in time, he denied that they are in space. (He
argued that mind has a unity that precludes its being extended, which
he took to be the essential property of objects in the natural world.
Thus, he believed that mind is an opposite kind of substance from
body, with mind and body existing independently of one another.)
Insofar as minds are supposed to exist outside space, naturalism must
deny their existence. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font color="#800000"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>P<img src="" name="OdcNProb_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="115" height="51" border="0">roblems.</b></font></font>
Naturalism holds, therefore, that there is nothing to be explained
but the natural world. However, that does not mean that it can simply
deny the existence of Cartesian minds, Platonic Forms, a transcendent
God, and whatever else is supposed to exist outside either space or
time. Naturalism must explain everything in space and time, and in
each case, certain natural phenomena have led people to believe in
the existence of these supernatural entities. Though those phenomena
may depend on reflection, not just perception, they are clearly part
of the natural world, for they occur to subjects like us in space and
time. Thus, like everything else in space and time, they need to be
explained. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>C<img src="" name="OdcNCon_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="109" height="50" border="0">onsciousness.</b></font>
What makes the mind seem immaterial is consciousness, that is, the
way in which whatever we experience has an appearance to us. When we
perceive a green leaf, for example, the color of the leaf has a
certain intrinsic quality, and even though that quality seems to be
located in the leaf, it has an appearance to us which we could not
explain to someone who was blind from birth. The same holds not only
for other colors, but also for sounds, odors, tastes, and bodily
sensations of all kinds. These peculiar objects of reflection are
called &quot;phenomenal properties,&quot; &quot;qualia,&quot; &quot;raw
feels,&quot; or the like, and they abound in normal perception. In
perceiving the leaf, for example, we see many green qualia as
covering its surface along with color qualia of other kinds on its
stem and other nearby objects. Other kinds of sensory qualia seem to
make us aware of its odor, its coolness, its taste, and the like.
Each simple phenomenal property seems of have a certain location in
space relative to the others at the time, and in the case of bodily
sensations, such as itches and pains, they seem to have a locations
in some part of the body which, in turn, is located in some part of
the same phenomenal space as other objects of perception. Much the
same kinds of appearances occur to us in remembering, imagining, and
any kind of thinking about objects in space, though they are fainter,
less distinct, and not always as spatially coherent. Indeed, even
emotions, abstract thoughts, and other mental events have appearances
for the subject to whom they occur.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">This
fact about experience is what will be meant here by &quot;consciousness.&quot;
Consciousness can make it seem that the conscious subject is not just
an object in space, not merely a body alongside other objects in
space, because each subjective state involves the appearance of many
different kinds of qualia (or simple phenomenal properties) to the
subject at the same time. This is the unity of mind to which
Descartes pointed in order to show that mind is a basically different
kind of substance from body. It means that mind cannot be cut up or
divided into parts like extended objects in space. In other words,
consciousness is not located in space, like a material object, but
rather seems to contain a space of its own, because each sensory
qualia appears to have a spatial location relative to all the others,
as in the colors that appear to be on the surface of the leaf or its
stem. Descartes called these appearances &quot;ideas&quot; and the
subjects to whom they appear &quot;minds,&quot; but the natural
phenomenon to which he was pointing is the fact that there are such
appearances to beings like us: qualia of many kinds all have
locations in a phenomenal space, which is distinct from the space in
which material objects exist. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
essential difference between mind and body led Descartes to believe
that mind is a substance that is not located in space at all. Being
indivisible, mind could not be part of extension, and thus, it was
supposed to be an immaterial substance. Naturalism must deny that
there are any minds in that sense. But to be credible, naturalism
must somehow explain consciousness as a natural phenomenon. For we
are certainly parts of the natural world, and it is hardly plausible
to deny that we are conscious.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<br><br>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><b>G<img src="" name="OdcNGood_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="109" height="50" border="0">oodness.
</b></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">If
naturalism could explain consciousness in beings like us, it might
seem that there would be nothing left to explain about Platonic
Forms, because the abstract objects that appear to the experiencing
subject in reasoning could be explained in the same way as ideas in
the mind. (An explanation of abstract entities is, in any case,
rightly demanded of naturalists, and brief statement of the one given
here can be found in </span></font></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/Lo/L/LoOtjR14.htm" target="Lo"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><u>Relations:
Ontological theory of mathematical knowledge</u></span></font></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">.)
There is, however, another aspect of the phenomena that led Plato to
believe in Forms that would remain unexplained. Plato believed in the
existence of Forms not merely because they are objects of rational
intuition, but also because he believed that they are ideal and that
things in nature are striving to be like them. That was his theory
about the nature of goodness. Just as we try to be virtuous human
beings, natural objects strive to be like their Forms, because the
Forms are good. </span></font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Not
only Platonists believe that there is a real difference between good
and bad. It seems obvious to many people that goodness is something
about the object, state, or event that makes it so that it ought to
exist, whatever we may believe about it. For example, what makes an
action morally right or wrong for beings like us is something about
the action itself that makes it worth choosing, not just something we
may believe or feel about it. Thus, goodness is also an aspect of the
world that naturalism must explain. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The first
attempt to explain goodness naturalistically was made by Aristotle.
He thought that every natural object (as opposed to artifact) changes
on its own for the sake of attaining an end, or final state, which is
the fullest actualization of its essential form, and he explained
this phenomenon by holding that there are &quot;final causes&quot; at
work in the natural world along with efficient causes. For example,
the acorn grows into an oak tree because the final cause of its
natural kind is to be a mature oak tree. Growth and development are
due to what is called &quot;final causation.&quot; Aristotelian
teleology, as it is called, explains how goodness is something
objective by postulating a special kind of &quot;force&quot; in
nature. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The belief
in final causation was decisively rejected by most naturalists with
the rise of modern science in the Renaissance. Modern science began
with the discovery of laws of nature by which events in nature can be
predicted, and explanation by such efficient causes was so obviously
explanatory that, by contrast, explanations by final causes had to be
rejected as merely descriptions of phenomena which call for
explanation by efficient causes. Thus, teleology was rejected by
naturalists. Nor could they reconcile the belief in final causes with
their new found mechanism by holding that natural objects are
designed to work mechanically toward certain ends, because that way
of explaining the objectivity of goodness required them to believe in
a God who created the natural world.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Many
naturalists believe such that a naturalistic explanation of the
difference between good and bad has been given by Darwin's theory of
evolution. Darwin showed how organisms acquire traits that seem to be
directed toward ends as a result of the natural selection of random
variations on their heritable traits as the organisms succeed in
reproducing. That explains why organisms seem to be changing in the
direction of ends which are good for them. Thus, the difference
between good and bad does not depend on how we feel about it. And
Darwin's explanation involves only efficient causes. Thus, it is
sometimes seen as the reduction of teleology to efficient causes. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">However,
most of those who believe that there is a real difference between
good and bad and between right and wrong are not satisfied with the
Darwinian explanation because of its accidentalism. As contemporary
Darwinists understand it, natural selection is caused by external
changes in the environment, which are inherently unpredictable, and
that makes what evolves far too accidental to explain the difference
between good and bad that is objective in the sense that they mean.
(For a discussion of its accidentalism, see </span></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/Lo/L/LoOtkCbGeRAccidentalism.htm" target="Lo"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US"><u>Change:
Accidentalism.</u></span></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">)
They will insist that there is more for naturalism to explain about
this phenomenon before they will be convinced that the world is just
the natural world. Teleology is, therefore, still a problem for
naturalism.</span></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>H<img src="" name="OdcNHol_up" align="right" hspace="5" width="110" height="51" border="0">oliness.</b></font>
Again, however, it might seem that if naturalism could give an
adequate explanation of the objective difference between good and
bad, it would not be necessary to explain the belief in God. God has
been the traditional foundation for explaining why good is different
from bad, for it is supposed to come down to his inscrutable purpose
in creating the natural world. But even if there were a naturalistic
explanation of the difference between good and bad, many who believe
in God would not be satisfied, because what they believe in is not
just that there is an objective difference between good and bad. They
also believe that there is something worthy of worship, something so
inherently good that we ought to accept it as the highest good,
submit our wills to it, and treat it in a uniquely reverential way,
that is, as something sacred or holy. The faithful believe that they
have experiences of a kind that reveal the actual existence of such a
thing to them, and the universality of religion among the cultures of
the world makes this a phenomenon that must also be explained by
naturalism, even though it denies there is any God existing outside
space or time. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000">&nbsp;<font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">One
way for naturalists to explain consciousness, the belief in a real
difference between good and bad, and the sense that there is
something in the world worthy of worship is to deny the reality of
these phenomena. Naturalists can hold, in other words, that their
critics are simply mistaken in how they describe these phenomena --
that what is being referred to is something quite different from what
they believe. </span></font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Consciousness
might be dismissed as a belief that results from a linguistic
confusion (such as the belief in a &quot;private language&quot; or
the acceptance of &quot;folk psychology&quot;). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The belief
in a real difference between good and bad might be explained away as
a mere projection of our subjective feelings onto the world (in much
the same way as objects in nature seem to have the colors and other
phenomenal properties that are just ideas in the mind). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">And the
belief in something worthy of worship might be explained as simply
what is feels like to submit to a higher authority. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" dir="rtl" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Naturalists
have given such explanations in the past. But they have not convinced
those who take these phenomena to be real, and thus, naturalism has
rightly been treated as just one possible view of the world among
others. Though naturalism may be plausible to many people without an
adequate explanation of these phenomena, there is good reason to
doubt its truth as long as these explanations are not accepted as
adequate by those who appeal to these phenomena. Theists, mind-body
dualists, and those who believe in objective goodness are rational
beings too, and if naturalism is a reasonable view, it should be
reasonable to them. Thus, the burden that naturalism must bear is
rather large. It must be able to explain <i>everything </i>in the
world, including these problematic phenomena, to the satisfaction of
every rational being, including those who have been led to believe in
entities existing outside space or time — that is, as long as they
are willing to give reasons and not just be arbitrary and dogmatic in
their assertions about what exists. </font></font></font>
</p>
</body>
</html>