Any strong challenges to Naturalistic Sufficiency?

From: Chris Cogan (
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 16:14:24 EST

  • Next message: John E. Rylander: "RE: Any strong challenges to Naturalistic Sufficiency?"

    Before I start creating naturalistic theories out of SJ's non-naturalistic
    theories, I'm wondering whether there is any strong arguments or attempts at
    arguments against the Principle of Naturalistic Sufficiency. This is the
    principle that there is, for any fact or facts capable of explanation, at
    least one prospective naturalistic explanation that is better, in scientific
    and Occam's Razor terms, than any equivalent *non*-naturalistic theory for
    the same facts. I've argued for this principle briefly in an earlier post,
    though I have by no means given my entire argument for it (i.e., one that
    covers prospective objections, etc.).

    The principle applies not only to the development of life on Earth, but also
    to the *claims* of people that Jesus rose from the dead (I mention this
    because I see from a glance at another Jones post that he is claiming the
    rising of Jesus from the dead as an established fact, whereas I have serious
    doubts that he existed *at all* -- I would *love* to see the epistemology
    that can make the claim of his existence truly acceptable *and* that can
    also *strongly* support the claim that he rose from the dead, because there
    a number of fantasies that *I'd* like to prove).

    --Chris C

    Now is the time for all good people to come to.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 18 2000 - 16:17:24 EST