Upon reflection:
M.G. would like to add that there are
some naturalists (M.G.) who are agnostic about the existence of supernatural
entities. We think of naturalism more humbly, as the idea that we don't
need to posit the existence of supernatural entities in order to make sense of
our experience, or to figure out what we ought to believe, value or do.
Putting it that way also doesn't reduce all explanation or value commitments to
science. However, in my own thinking, I like to reserve the term
'agnostic,' for those who are still perturbed by the question about whether or
not reality includes a supernatural realm, and who still seek the answer to
that question. So in that sense, my kind of naturalism is really a kind
of atheism, since for all intents and purposes we act as if there is no
supernatural realm. In fact, as Julian Baggini explains in his excellent
"A Very Short Introduction to Atheism," this is the only kind of
atheism that is intellectually honest. Most atheists, if pressed, will
admit that there is no good way to prove the non-existence of
anything, including gods and demons, so really our position comes down to all
the ways in which life can be reasonable and valuable without participating in
supernaturalism.
For me, there is considerable overlap
between that kind of naturalism and pragmatism, because of the pragmatists'
narrative of the intelligent organism going through periods of suffering and
enjoyment, and learning how to adapt its habits and its environment in order to
suffer less and enjoy more. (This is not an ad for vulgar consumerism;
Thoreau and the Buddha were right to point out that satisfying a craving only
makes it grow stronger, which is a kind of suffering.) It is only with
that organic scenario in mind that the Philosophy 101 definition of pragmatism,
as a theory of truth, makes sense: an idea is true if it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment