posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:16 PM
Well, my answers to THAT definitely reflected my deep-seated ambivalence about the issue of positivism or "real science" as I've seen it called a
few times. While I don't hold with creationism--I see no particular reason to believe that everything was created all at once a few thousand years
ago--I can't really hold with total naturalism anymore.
That's not to say that it does not seem completely plausible. There are just a few issues. First of all, all perception is a synthesis of mind and
matter--we cannot know the "thing in itself," only the phenomenal representation in our minds. Based on that, this "real science" and positivism
and whatnot does not completely hold up to logically rigorous analysis. Additionally, recent findings in quantum physics suggest an underlying oneness
to things that again makes it impossible to completely separate the observer from the observed, again invalidating the scientific method.
Additionally, a purely naturalistic worldview must be based on the belief that the universe acts according to logical and immutable laws. The
key word there, as indicated, is *belief.* Just like mathematics is based on axioms that seem self-apparent but cannot actually be demonstrated by
None of this really provides evidence against a purely naturalistic worldview. It just...well, it just means that the foundations of naturalism are
based in belief, just like any religious system. Wholeheartedly embracing it requires a leap of faith that I'm not entirely prepared to make.