Naturalism (Interventions (INT))

Having never really studied naturalism specifically, I picked up this book and have not been disappointed. There are many quotes from atheists that do seem to make a person take extra care in reading. Generally I have to read philosophical stuff over about three times to really understand all they are saying, and this is no exception. What I really like about "Naturalism" is how fairly the views are presented. Many times I have quoted from this book while debating with atheists and have found they will not argue with the views presented by Goetz and Taliaferro, since the authors accurately represent the positions and beliefs of the naturalists. If you want to understand naturalism, and are willing to take the time to work through it, you will have a competent grasp of the subject after this book.

Important philosophy, clearly written without being dumbed down.

I have just ordered this book but not read it yet. My friend Victor Stenger, author of "The New Atheism, Taking a Stand for Science and Reason," has just written four paragraphs about this book that readers may find interesting. Here they are: ---- In their short book "Naturalism," philosophers Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro attempt to show that naturalism is intellectually incoherent. The authors are theists [thus, non-naturalists] who teach at Notre Dame University and St. Olaf College, respectively. They claim that a duality of the physical and the mental is necessary to explain mental causation, that is, how mental events cause physical events. This strikes me as rather backward. If, as naturalism asserts, mental events arise from physical events in the brain, then there surely is no problem since we then have physical events causing physical events, just as when a cue ball hits an eight ball and causes it to go into a pocket. On the other hand, if mental events have their own non-physical nature, then we have the problem of explaining how something nonphysical can cause physical events. Goetz and Taliaferro do not provide us with even a speculative model for how that can happen. Of course, mind-body dualism is a widespread "commonsense" belief among laypeople. Goetz and Taliaferro seem to think common sense is sufficient to adopt the dualist view. Goetz and Taliaferro also claim to show the philosophical coherence of divine agency. So what if it is philosophically coherent? That says nothing about its reality. A fantasy computer game in which heroes come back to life after being killed is philosophically coherent; it wouldn't run on a computer if it wasn't logical. But the world is still not that way. ---- In my view the case for naturalism is very simple. Naturalism says nature is all that exists. If supernaturalism or some other extra-naturalism does not exist, then naturalism is true. Supernaturalists now have the obligation to demonstrate that the supernatural exists in addition to nature if they are to reject naturalism. They have never been able to do this. Naturalism is therefore true because it has never been logically or empirically refuted, i.e., naturalism is true by default because supernaturalism or any other extra-naturalism has never been proved to exist. Simply claiming that the existence of the human mind is evidence for supernaturalism is hardly an adequate demonstration. Other animals have minds that exist; these minds differ in degree with ours but not in kind. Claiming that duality is true (the brain and the mind are different kinds of things and the latter is not dependent on the former for its existence; indeed, most supernaturalists believe the human mind is a manifestation of the human soul or spirit and is independent of the body; indeed, they believe it is immortal) as evidence for non-naturalism requires evidence or reasonable proof for the independent existence of the mind. Again, this has never been forthcoming. Even if duality WERE true, this would only require rejection of naturalism in favor of some extra-naturalist philosophy, not evidence specifically for the existence of supernaturalism and its theistic and miraculous by-products. "Naturalism's" authors apparently conclude their book by affirming the existence of both supernaturalism and theism from simple denial of monism (the claim that mind is a consequence of brain only). This is simply presumptuous, illogical speculation. Simple denial of monism to affirm supernaturalism and theism is insufficient. Instead, positive evidence for the existence of dualism is necessary to first demonstrate extra-naturalism; then, the subsequent demonstration of both supernaturalism and theism require much, much more. Naturalism, however, because it is simplest alternative, is true by default because there is no reasonable, empirical, or logical alternative.

Naturalism (Interventions) is a critical look at the philosophical position of Naturalism. It is dense and academic in parts, yet still a very brief book. The authors are careful to remain fair minded by extensively quoting authors who espouse the naturalist viewpoint. They proceed to distinguish between two different types of naturalism, showing the problems with each variety. The 1 star reviews on this site give a misguided picture of the book and are being unfair when they claim that the authors don't do enough to justify theism, and that the authors weigh up theism versus naturalism. They are mistaken because Goetz and Taliaferro make it clear that their objective is NOT to espouse theism in this book, instead it is to examine naturalism. Yes they are theists, of course, but when discussing theism, Goetz and Taliferro are mainly responding to naturalist objections against the coherency of theism that naturalism authors make in the process of justifying naturalism. They do make a couple of brief statements to the effect of "Since this worldview is coherent it's a more intellectually satisfying proposition than naturalism" but they also make clear that the aim of the book is mostly to refute naturalism, and that they do not intend to provide a full scale defense of theism. Rather their defense of theism is kept well and truly within the context of their responses to the naturalist claims of incoherence and other problems. If you want a critical examination of naturalism, read this book, but if you're looking for a comprehensive case for theism you will need to look elsewhere.

Very informative with sound arguments refuting a Naturalism world view.

It's an awesome experience reading this book