If naturalism is true, then scientific explanation is impossible

I begin by retracing an argument from Aristotle for final causes in science. Then, I advance this ancient thought, and defend an argument for a stronger conclusion: that no scientific explanation can succeed, if Naturalism is true. The argument goes like this: (1) Any scientific explanation can be s...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bogardus, Tomas (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press 2023
In: Religious studies
Year: 2023, Volume: 59, Issue: 1, Pages: 115-138
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Naturalism (Philosophy) / Science / Explanation
IxTheo Classification:VA Philosophy
Further subjects:B Theism
B Atheism
B philosophy of science
B Supernaturalism
B Philosophy of religion
B Scientific Explanation
B Naturalism
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:I begin by retracing an argument from Aristotle for final causes in science. Then, I advance this ancient thought, and defend an argument for a stronger conclusion: that no scientific explanation can succeed, if Naturalism is true. The argument goes like this: (1) Any scientific explanation can be successful only if it crucially involves a natural regularity. Next, I argue that (2) any explanation can be successful only if it crucially involves no element that calls out for explanation but lacks one. From (1) and (2) it follows that (3) a scientific explanation can be successful only if it crucially involves a natural regularity, and this regularity does not call out for explanation while lacking one. I then argue that (4) if Naturalism is true, then all every natural regularity calls out for explanation but lacks one. From (3) and (4) it follows that (5) if Naturalism is true, then no scientific explanation can be successful. If you believe that scientific explanation can be (indeed, often has been) successful, as I do, then this is a reason to reject Naturalism.
ISSN:1469-901X
Contains:Enthalten in: Religious studies
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1017/S0034412522000099