Posted: May 13, 2010 4:29 pm
by Moridin
Let us assume that jerome takes the position that ghosts and apparitions exists. What sort of arguments could the philosophical naturalist (let us assume that the opponent would have this worldview) use?

Perhaps the argument from the necessity of naturalism, Carrier's BAN/BANBE, the argument from physical minds, an argument from incoherence and the fallibility of anecdotal evidence could provide useful for a negative case.

Perhaps the majority of jeromes arguments would be

1) arguments from ignorance (X occurred. Science cannot yet explain X in every detail. Therefore, X or the cause of X was supernatural)
2) arguments from anecdotal evidence (counter with millions of people are sure that aliens exists or that their religion are true, but this is false given jeromes form of theism, point out that this is special pleading and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
3) arguments that contradict mind/brain identity (any talk of "immaterial consciousness or being")
4) arguments that presuppose that the ghost concept is logically coherent (demand to have a logically coherent definition of ghosts, reject every definition that are contradictory like "immaterial consciousness" etc. If no logically coherent definition of ghosts can be provided, reject the ghost-concept via noncognitivism; if the ghost-concept is contradictory, it cannot exist in reality).

which are, from the view of philosophical naturalism, all demonstrably invalid.

I think this could be an interesting stance to debate from.