Theism versus Naturalism in Terms of the Explanation of History

Süleyman Altın

Makale detayları

Theism versus Naturalism in Terms of the Explanation of History

Yazarlar:

Süleyman Altın

Yayıncı:

Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Din Felsefesi

Dergi:

BEÜ İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.403-424

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001333965

pISSN:

2148-3728

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 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 humankinds 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 Pearces 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 couldnt defend theism strongly enough against naturalism with the argument from contingency as he claims.

 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 humankinds 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 Pearces 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 couldnt defend theism strongly enough against naturalism with the argument from contingency as he claims.

 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 humankinds 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 Pearces 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 couldnt defend theism strongly enough against naturalism with the argument from contingency as he claims.

 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, Pearceın olumsallık argümanına getirdiği güncel yorumu ile natüralizme karşı teizmi, kendisinin iddia ettiği gibi yeterince güçlü şekilde savunamadığı sonucuna ulaştırmıştır.

Makale detayları

Theism versus Naturalism in Terms of the Explanation of History

Yazarlar:

Süleyman Altın

Yayıncı:

Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Din Felsefesi

Dergi:

BEÜ İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.403-424

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001333965

pISSN:

2148-3728

Philosophy of Religion

Naturalism

Ultimate Explanation

Theism

Naturalism

The Argument from Contingency (AC)

History

Ultimate ExplanationDin Felsefesi

Teizm

Natüralizm

Olumsallık Argümanı

Nihai Açıklama

Tarih

Nihai Açıklama

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Süleyman Altın

Yayıncı: Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University

Ana Başlıklar: Din Felsefesi

Dergi: BEÜ İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.403-424

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001333965

pISSN: 2148-3728

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Süleyman Altın

Yayıncı:

Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Din Felsefesi

Dergi:

BEÜ İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.403-424

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001333965

pISSN:

2148-3728