- Deontology is true.
- A finite being could not have the kind of dignity that deontology ascribes to human beings.
- So, human beings are infinite. (1-2)
- If human beings are infinite, they are infinite synchronically or diachronically.
- If naturalism is true, human beings are finite synchronically.
- If there is no infinite afterlife, human beings are finite diachronically.
- So, either naturalism is not true or there is an infinite afterlife. (3-6)
- So, if naturalism is true, there is an infinite afterlife. (this is a material conditional following from 7)
Of course, there are also arguments that if naturalism is true, there is no afterlife, and if these are sound, then together we get an argument that naturalism is not true.
"Deontology is true."
ReplyDeleteA consistent naturalist would disagree here, while acknowledging the apparent truth of deontology but denying its veridicality by appealing to a wholly naturalistic evolutionary account of human origins. At that point, though, perhaps it could be argued that this is actually a shortcoming of naturalism, because it continuously proves to be a convoluted worldview that rejects the initiatives of human experience with appeals to a process that should perhaps make one skeptical of what will go next. Thomas Nagel affectionately calls this the "disenchantment" naturalism brings us in review of Dennets recent publication--but I wonder if a criticism could be made against a double standard in the general naturalistic worldview (i.e. if we must reject moral experience for the sake of that understanding of evolution, what protects the rest of the obvious? For example, sensory experience!)