RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Ian
If you cannot agree about what constitutes 'natural' how can you agree on
what is 'supernatural'. This seems to be a very shaky line of reasoning.
Regards
Chris Angus
> > MW: It seems then that we need to identify what you wrap up into
> > naturalism. I suspect if you put 10 naturalists in a room for a week
> > they would not all agree about everything.
> IN: I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't agree about everything, but that
> doesn't matter. As long as they agree that there is, currently at least,
no
> good reason to posit supernatural entities, that would be enough, I think.
> By supernatural entities, I mean thinks like immaterial Cartesian souls,
> Platonic forms, Leibnitzian monads, Berkeleyan ideas, and all the rest of
> the stuff which was assumed to exist outside of space/time purely on the
> basis of a priori theorizing.
>