You said: Neither does good philosophy or natural theology.
I agree, so long as one's supposed, 'natural theology,' has not allowed some mystic concepts to slip in. If you have read "Miracles," by C.S. Lewis, that would be an example of a good attempt at natural theology. The problem is the term "theology." It begins with the assumption, "there is a God," but of course that is the thing that must be established, isn't it?
But strict scientism or materialism is self-refuting because it is internally contradictory. It claims truths but undercuts the logical possibility of acquiring any kind of certain knowledge.
Moreover, any argument for strict empiricism must be a philosophical argument, not an empirical "argument." In fact, an empirical argument for empiricism is logically impossible
Since I have discovered the definition of "empiricism" is somewhat slippery, especially when used by those attempting to refute it, and since I am not particularly fond of the word myself, if what you mean by "empiricism" is the view that all knowledge can only be derived by a process of reason about that which we can be conscious of, and nothing else, that would be my veiw.
How can the view that all we can know about is what we are conscius of and nothing else be "internally contradictory?" What does it contradict? And what do you call "certain" knowledge." The tiniest child has certain knowledge derived empirically, as I have described it, the moment it is able to identify the pains or pleasures it experiences. The knowledge that it is experiencing those could not be more certain.
All argument is logical (rational) and all reason is about what we are conscious of. What in heavens name would an "empirical" agument be? You lost me on that one.
Hank
I agree, so long as one's supposed, 'natural theology,' has not allowed some mystic concepts to slip in. If you have read "Miracles," by C.S. Lewis, that would be an example of a good attempt at natural theology.
Yes, or "Mere Christianity." I was thinking of Aristotle's philosophy in particular.
The problem is the term "theology." It begins with the assumption, "there is a God," but of course that is the thing that must be established, isn't it?
Yes, but it has been established, so there's nothing wrong with giving it a name.
if what you mean by "empiricism" is the view that all knowledge can only be derived by a process of reason about that which we can be conscious of, and nothing else, that would be my veiw.
By "empiricism" I mean sense-derived knowledge.
How can the view that all we can know about is what we are conscius of and nothing else be "internally contradictory?" What does it contradict? And what do you call "certain" knowledge." The tiniest child has certain knowledge derived empirically, as I have described it, the moment it is able to identify the pains or pleasures it experiences. The knowledge that it is experiencing those could not be more certain.
That's a description of "naive realism." The knowledge is certain, but the knower doesn't know how he knows. What I was getting at is that under a materialist rubric the mind must be reduced to matter in motion. Logically, under this system, there would be no way to know with certainty whether the representation of reality in my mind corresponds with the external world, or if an external world exists at all. Yet this contradicts our experience. Therefore, materialism/scientism is incoherent and self-refuting.