Changes

1,003 bytes added ,  08:03, September 2, 2019
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  +
[[File:Cerebellum.jpg|right|thumb|240px|If [[Naturalism (philosophy)|philosophical naturalism]] were true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for reason for the human brain would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces.
 +
<ref>
 +
*[http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/cs-lewis-argument-from-reason.html C.S. Lewis' argument from reason]
 +
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/cs_lewis_and_th079541.html C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason] by Jay W. Richards, November 25, 2013
 +
*[http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-6/cs-lewis-and-materialism C.S. Lewis and Materialism] by John G. West
 +
*[http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8669 C.S. Lewis On The Validity of Reasoning]
 +
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2012/04/cs-lewis-on-rationality-and-materialism.html C.S. Lewis on Rationality and Materialism ]
 +
*[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/naturalisms-hot.html Naturalism's Hot Water]
 +
</ref> See: [[Atheism and reason]] and [[Atheism and the brain]] ]]
 +
 
'''Philosophical naturalism''' asserts that the [[Nature|natural world]], as perceived by the five senses of mankind, is all there is (see also: [[Atheism and naturalism]]).  It is also called metaphysical naturalism and ontological naturalism. It is a [[logic]]al result (but not a necessary result<ref>"necessary": absolutely needed; essential; indispensable; inevitable; requisite</ref><ref name=dictionary>Definitions in footnote used in this article, unless otherwise attributed, are drawn from ''The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, including Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary'', 1966, The Readers's Digest Association, Pleasantville, New York. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 66-21606.</ref>) of [[methodological naturalism]], the doctrine which assumes ''[[a priori]]''<ref>"a priori": "'''1'''. ''Logic'' Proceeding, as an argument, from cause to effect, or from an assumption to its logical conclusion: opposed to ''a posteriori''. '''2'''. Prior to, and thus independent of, experience; innate. '''3'''. Previous to examination, or with insufficient examination. [< L, from what is before]" The Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (1966) p. 72b | a priori</ref> ("from the first" or "from the beginning") that there is no way to contact, detect, or otherwise [[Empiricism|empirically]] observe the [[supernatural]]. While most [[Philosophy of science|philosophers of science]] adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or [[Miracle|miraculous]] effects or forces are possible, a small minority of them also believe that the [[reality]] of [[existence]] includes ''invisible, supernatural and immaterial reality or realities'' and that there are other ways of knowing the supernatural besides empirical observation.
 
'''Philosophical naturalism''' asserts that the [[Nature|natural world]], as perceived by the five senses of mankind, is all there is (see also: [[Atheism and naturalism]]).  It is also called metaphysical naturalism and ontological naturalism. It is a [[logic]]al result (but not a necessary result<ref>"necessary": absolutely needed; essential; indispensable; inevitable; requisite</ref><ref name=dictionary>Definitions in footnote used in this article, unless otherwise attributed, are drawn from ''The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, including Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary'', 1966, The Readers's Digest Association, Pleasantville, New York. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 66-21606.</ref>) of [[methodological naturalism]], the doctrine which assumes ''[[a priori]]''<ref>"a priori": "'''1'''. ''Logic'' Proceeding, as an argument, from cause to effect, or from an assumption to its logical conclusion: opposed to ''a posteriori''. '''2'''. Prior to, and thus independent of, experience; innate. '''3'''. Previous to examination, or with insufficient examination. [< L, from what is before]" The Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (1966) p. 72b | a priori</ref> ("from the first" or "from the beginning") that there is no way to contact, detect, or otherwise [[Empiricism|empirically]] observe the [[supernatural]]. While most [[Philosophy of science|philosophers of science]] adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or [[Miracle|miraculous]] effects or forces are possible, a small minority of them also believe that the [[reality]] of [[existence]] includes ''invisible, supernatural and immaterial reality or realities'' and that there are other ways of knowing the supernatural besides empirical observation.
  
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,872

edits