Is every rational worldview a naturalistic worldview?

[Boojatta]

If I were to begin the thought process required to attempt to answer the question, then I would begin by focusing attention on the word "rational."

There are two possibilities that immediately occur to me, but there could be a lot of others.

1. We're talking merely about logic. Every other worldview is alleged to commit us to accepting a contradiction.
2. We're talking about something that goes beyond logic. We are restricting our attention to worldviews that commit us to accepting logic, but that also commit us to accepting some other foundational principles that seem to be at least conventional wisdom, and perhaps much more than merely conventional wisdom.

Now, what about the word "naturalistic"?
Chomsky wrote some interesting things about so-called "physicalism", which seems to be related to the concept of "naturalism." He pointed out that, when Newton introduced his theory of gravitation, the concept of "physical" was such that Newton either was attempting to expand the concept of the physical or was introducing a non-physical "occult force." Either way, the concept of physicalism that was available before Newton's theory didn't allow for gravity. In our era, with relativity and quantum mechanics no longer novelties, there is no longer any restriction on what kinds of entities can be introduced. Basically, the restriction imposed when we require that an explanation be "naturalistic" is that it seems plausible to us that at some future time it will fit within the framework of the science of that future time.

[Jim__]

1. It depends on your definition of "naturalistic".

Is it possible that someday we, humans, will be able to construct a virtual world in cyberspace that is populated by conscious beings? I think it is a rational possibility. Then, if the creatures in that world are not aware that they live in a "virtual" world, they might consider the actual nature of their world to be non-naturalistic. If we consider such a world possible, then we have to consider it possible that we live in a virtual, and so non-naturalistic, world.

A second concept that makes non-naturalistic - again depending upon your definition of naturalistic - views of the universe rational is consciousness. Intelligence, and even self-awareness can, I believe, be explained through structure, specifically, brain structure. Consciousness raises different issues that I have not seen explained anywhere - which is not to say they can't be, it's just to say it's difficult to reject as irrational any, as yet, serious - i.e. feasible - explanation.

An example of what I mean by the difficulty of explaining consciousness is the human experience of color. I believe that we can understand the ability of the brain to distinguish between different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; but I haven't seen anything that can explain how we experience color. As long as questions remain open, I don't see how we can reject as irrational any serious attempt to explain it.

[skepticscott]

3. Well, again, it depends on your definition of "naturalistic"

If a virtual world as you describe were created by humans (who are "natural&quot , why would it not be justified to call it natural as well? Can you not include anything created by something natural under the umbrella of "naturalistic"? Is a skyscraper any less "naturalistic" than a termite mound?

[cleanhippie]

2. If it relies on any type of supernatural explanation, then it is irrational.

[Odin2005]

4. No. Descartes was a Rationalist, but not a Naturalist.

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Reason without empirical evidence is mere navel-gazing.

[Boojatta]

5. What if somebody is designing an interesting, new kind of machine that operates using ...

very well-established principles of physics?

Suppose that, before the new kind of machine is actually built, people use their understanding of physics to make computer simulations to test a variety of alternative proposed designs for the machine. Are such computer simulations in your view an example of empirical evidence? Alternatively, are you saying that the construction of such computer simulations and use of them to test various alternative proposed designs for the machine is an example of navel-gazing?