Theism versus Naturalism in Terms of the Explanation of History

Yıl 2024, , 403 - 424, 16.12.2024

Süleyman Altın

https://doi.org/10.33460/beuifd.1542191

Öz

It is human nature to seek the ultimate explanation for existence. However, not all people have the same perspective on this issue. This study deals with naturalism and theism, which are the two opposite poles of humankind’s desire to reach the ultimate explanation. There are many contemporary philosophers who defend the superiority of the explanatory power of theism compared to alternative views. The views of these philosophers are in general a continuation of their predecessors. The extent to which these theistic defenses, which have only a few original aspects, are truly successful against non-theistic views requires philosophical analysis. Therefore, the philosophical analysis of the claim of being more successful will contribute to more qualified discussions in the philosophy of religion and thus to continue the current theism-naturalism discussions on a more rational basis.
Kenneth L. Pearce, who has been frequently mentioned recently in philosophy of religion and has been in discussions with the leading names of atheism, has produced many studies with the idea that he has made positive contributions to theism. Pearce defends this idea with a contemporary version of the argument from contingency, a member of the family of cosmological arguments. In this version, the basis of Pearce’s argument is the concept of “History”. “History” is the total sequence of causes and effects, past, present and future. The question of how theism is more successful than naturalism in explaining “History” is a subject worth examining. Therefore, this study analyzes philosophically the internal consistency, truth value, validity and persuasive power of the claim that theism explains the universe better than naturalism. The analysis shows that Pearce couldn’t defend theism strongly enough against naturalism with the argument from contingency as he claims.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Philosophy of Religion, Naturalism, Ultimate Explanation, Theism, Naturalism, The Argument from Contingency (AC), History, Ultimate Explanation

Etik Beyan

I declarete that scientific and ethical principles have been followed while carrying out and writing this study and that all the sources used have been properly cited. I acknowledge that I didn’t receive any external funding in support of this research. I also declare that there is no competing interests in this paper.

Tarih’i Açıklama Açısından Naturalizme Karşı Teizm

Öz

Varlığa dair nihai açıklamayı aramak, insanın tabiatından kaynaklanır. Fakat tüm insanlar bu nihai açıklamayı aynı bakış açısıyla aramamaktadır. Bu çalışmada insanoğlunun nihai açıklamaya ulaşma isteğinin iki kutbu olan natüralizm ve teizm konu edilmektedir. Alternatif görüşlere kıyasla teizmin açıklayıcı gücünün üstünlüğünü savunan birçok çağdaş filozof vardır. Bu filozofların görüşleri genel itibarıyla kendilerinden öncekilerin devamı niteliğindedir. Sadece birkaç özgün yönü bulunan bu savunuların teizm karşıtı görüşlere nazaran ne denli başarılı oldukları felsefi analize muhtaçtır. Çünkü teizmi gerçekten başarılı şekilde savunan çağdaş teistler kadar, teizme negatif etkileri olan teistler de vardır. Dolayısıyla daha başarılı olma iddialarının felsefi niteliğinin analizi, din felsefesinde daha nitelikli tartışmalar ortaya konmasına ve böylece güncel teizm-natüralizm tartışmalarının daha rasyonel bir zeminde yürütülmesine katkı sağlayacaktır.
Din felsefesi alanında son dönemde adından sıkça söz ettiren ve ateizmin önde gelen isimleriyle tartışmalarda bulunan Kenneth L. Pearce, teizm adına pozitif katkılar sağladığı kanaatiyle birçok çalışma ortaya koymuştur. Pearce, kozmolojik argümanlar ailesinin bir üyesi olan olumsallık argümanının güncel bir versiyonunu kullanır. Bu versiyonda Pearce, argümanının temeline “Tarih” kavramını yerleştirir. Onun tanımıyla “Tarih” geçmiş, şimdi ve gelecek olaylar bütününün ve bu olayların neden-sonuç ilişkisinin tümüdür. Bu kavramın sınırlarına giren neden-sonuç ilişkisi içerisindeki zaman mefhumuna tâbi tüm varlıklar toplamını açıklama konusunda natüralizme kıyasla teizmin nasıl daha başarılı olduğu sorusu incelenmeye değer bir konudur. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada teizmin evreni natüralizmden daha iyi açıkladığı iddiasının iç tutarlılığı, doğruluk değeri, geçerliliği, rasyonelliği ve ikna edici gücü felsefi açıdan analiz edilmektedir. Yapılan analizler neticesinde, Pearce’ın olumsallık argümanına getirdiği güncel yorumu ile natüralizme karşı teizmi, kendisinin iddia ettiği gibi yeterince güçlü şekilde savunamadığı sonucuna ulaştırmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Din Felsefesi, Teizm, Natüralizm, Olumsallık Argümanı, Nihai Açıklama, Tarih, Nihai Açıklama

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğunu, yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiğini, bu araştırmayı desteklemek için herhangi bir dış fon alınmadığını, ve çıkar çatışması olmadığını beyan ederim.

Kaynakça

• Al-Ghāzalī, Abu Hamid Muhammad. The Incoherence of the Philosophers. trans. Michael E. Marmura. Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2000.
• Alston, William P. Perceiving God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.
• Anselm. St. Anselm’s Proslogion. trans. Matthew J. Charlesworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.
• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. trans. James F. Anderson. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.
• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.
• Aristotle. “Metaphysica”. The works of Aristotle. ed. William David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908.
• Aristotle. “Physica”. The works of Aristotle. ed. William David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908.
• Bonaventure, Saint. Commentary on the Sentences: Philosophy of God. ed. Rollen Edward Houser - Timothy B. Noone. New York: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2013.
• Copan, Paul. “Naturalism is a Simpler Explanation than Theism?” How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong? 47-56. Michigan: Baker Books, 2005.
• Correia, Fabrice. “Ontological Dependence”. Philosophy Compass 3/5 (2008), 1013-1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008. 00170.x
• Craig, William Lane. God, Time and Eternity. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001a.
• Craig, William Lane. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan Press, 1979.
• Craig, William Lane. Time and Eterity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time. Illinois: Crossway Book, 2001b.
• Cruz, Helen De (ed.). Is there a God?: A Debate. New York & London: Routledge, 2022.
• Danto, Arthur C. “Naturalism”. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Paul Edwards. 5/448-450. New York: The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, 1967.
• Evans, C. Stephen - Manis, R. Zachary. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, Second Edition., 2009.
• Everitt, Nicholas. The Non-Existence of God. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Fahrbach, Ludwig. “Understanding Brute Facts”. Synthese 145/3 (2005), 449-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6200-7
• Gale, Richard M. On the Nature and Existence of God. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Gale, Richard M. - Pruss, Alexander R. “A New Cosmological Argument”. Religious Studies 35/4 (1999), 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412599005004
• Grünbaum, Adolf. “The Poverty of Theistic Cosmology”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55/4 (2004), 561-614.
• Harris, James F. Analytic Philosophy of Religion. ed. Eugene Thomas Long. Virginia, U.S.A.: Springer-Science+Business Media, 2002.
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. trans. Johannes Hoffmeister. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
• Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. ed. Ernest C. Mossner. London: Penguin Book, 1985.
• Hume, David. Dialagues Concerning Natural Religion and Other Writings. ed. Richard Popkin. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 1998.
• Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. New York: Prometheus Books, 1989.
• Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. trans. Norman Kemp Smith. London: Macmillan, 1929.
• Koons, Robert Charles. “A New Look at the Cosmological Argument”. American Philosophical Quarterly 34/2 (1997), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/20009892
• Leibniz, Gottfired Wilhelm. Discourse on Metaphysics. trans. R. Montgomery George. Illinois: The Open Court Publishing, 1979.
• Leibniz, Gottfired Wilhelm. “On the Ultimate Origination of Things”. trans. Roger Ariew - Daniel Garber. Philosophical Essays. 149-155. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 1697.
• Leibniz, Gottfired Wilhelm. “Principles of Nature and Grace, Based Upon Reason”. trans. Roger Ariew - Daniel Garber. Philosophical Essays. 206-213. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 1714.
• Mackie, John Leslie. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
• O’Connor, Timothy. Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
• Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Oppy, Graham. Atheism and Agnosticism. ed. Yujin Nagasawa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018a.
• Oppy, Graham. “Cosmological Arguments”. Noûs 43/1 (2009), 46-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2008.01694.x
• Oppy, Graham. “Koons’ Cosmological Argument”. Faith and Philosophy 16/3 (1999), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil199916335
• Oppy, Graham. Naturalism and Religion: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation. London & New York: Routledge, 2018b.
• Oppy, Graham. The Best Argument against God. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013a.
• Oppy, Graham. “Ultimate Naturalistic Causal Explanations”. The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? ed. Tyron Goldschmidt. 46-63. London & New York: Routledge, 2013b.
• Owen, Huw Parri. “Theism”. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Paul Edwards. 8/97-98. New York: The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, 1967.
• Papineau, David. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta - Uri Nodelman, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/naturalism/>
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Are We Free to Break the Laws of Providence?” Faith and Philosophy 37/2 (2020), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.2.2
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Classical Theism An Exposition and Defense”. Is There a God? A Debate. ed. Helen De Cruz. 11-91. New York & London: Routledge, 2022a.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Counterpossible Dependence and the Efficacy of the Divine Will”. Faith and Philosophy 34/1 (2017a), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20171573
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Foundational Grounding and Creaturely Freedom”. Mind 131 (2022b), 1108-1130. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzab024
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Foundational Grounding and the Argument from Contingency”. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. ed. Jonathan L. Kvanvig. 245-268. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017b.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “God’s Impossible Options”. Faith and Philosophy 38/2 (2021), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.37977/faithphil.2021.38.2.2
• Pearce, Kenneth L. God’s Perfect Will: Remarks on Johnston and O’Connor. ed. Lara Buchak - Dean Zimmerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022c.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Infinite Power and Finite Powers”. The Infinity of God: New Perspectives in Theology and Philosophy. ed. Benedikt Paul Göcke - Christian Tapp. 233-257. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2019.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. - Pruss, Alexander R. “Understanding Omnipotence”. Religious Studies 48/3 (2012), 403-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412512000030
• Plato. Laws. trans. Susan Sauvé Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
• Pruss, Alexander R. “A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument”. Religious Studies 40/2 (2004), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003441250300684X
• Pruss, Alexander R. The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Rasmussen, Joshua. “Cosmological Arguments from Contingency”. Philosophy Compass 5/9 (2010), 806-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00321.x
• Rasmussen, Joshua L. “A New Argument for a Necessary Being”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89/2 (2011), 351-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2010.523706
• Rowe, William L. The Cosmological Argument. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975.
• Russell, Bertrand. Mysticism and Logic. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917.
• Russell, Bertrand. Why I am not a Christian. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Rutten, Emanuel. A Critical Assessment of Contemporary Cosmological Arguments: Towards a Renewed Case for Theism. Amsterdam: Wöhrmann Print Service, 2012.
• Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books, 1985.
• Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
• Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
• Wainwright, William J. Mysticism: A Study of Its Nature, Cognitive Value, and Moral Implications. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.