3 ms·
> The phenomenon described in the article does not require any non-naturalistic explanations. That would depend on: - the true metaphysical nature of reality,
by mistermann 4y ago
> The phenomenon described in the article does not require any non-naturalistic explanations.
That would depend on:
- the true metaphysical nature of reality, which is not known (though it typically seems otherwise, human consciousness & culture, 2023, being what it is)
- whether you want your explanation to be consistent with the true nature of metaphysical reality
- pazimzadeh 4y agoWhy wouldn't the true nature of reality be included within a naturalistic explanation, if it was known?
- mistermann 4y agoIf it was known, it could be error, deceit, laziness, etc. But the true nature of reality isn't known it is only believed, but human belief tends to be considered (appears as) knowledge once an adequate amount of people in a society believe something to be true - 100 years ago religious beliefs were the dominant truths, now science is the top dog. Specific object level beliefs change over time, but human nature seems to be much more immutable.