ANTI-NATURALISM IN EXTREMIS
35
as "simply a highly developed animal" mean to deny the scien–
tific biological conclusion? Do they wish to hold that philosophical
naturalism and not scientific inquiry originated and upholds the
doctrine of development? Or, do they wish to take advantage of
the word "animal" to present naturalistic philosophers in a bad
light?
Since the latter accept without discount and qualification
facts that are authenticated by careful and thorough inquiry, they
recognize in their full force observed facts that disclose the
differences existing between man and other animals, as well as
the strands of continuity that are discovered in scientific investi–
gation. The idea that there is anything in naturalism that prevents
acknowledgment of differential traits in their full significance, or
that compels their "reduction'.' to traits characteristic of worms,
clams, cats, or monkeys has no foundation. Lack of foundation
is probably the reason why anti-naturalist critics find it advisable
to represent naturalism as simply a variety of materialism. For
the view attributed to naturalism is simply another instance of a
too common procedure in philosophical controversy: Namely,
representation of the position of an opponent in the terms it would
have
if
the critic held it; that is, the meaning it has not in its own
terms bt}.t after translation into the terms of an opposed theory.
Upon the whole, the non-supernatural -anti-naturalists are in such
a dilemma that we should extend sympathetic pity to them.
If
they presented the naturalistic position in its own terms, they would
have to take serious account of scientific method and its con–
clusions.
But if they should do that, they would inevitably be imbued
with some of the ideas of the very philosophy they are attacking.
Under these circumstances, the ambivalence of their own attitude
is readily understood.
Lack of respect for scientific method, which after all is but
systematic, extensive and carefully controlled use of alert and
unprejudiced observation and experimentation in collecting, ar–
ranging and testing facts to serve as evidence, is attended by a
tendency toward finalism and dogmatism. Non-theological anti–
naturalists would probably deny that their views are marked by
that quality of fanaticism which has marked the supernatural
brand. And they have not displayed it in anything like the same
intensity. But from the standpoint of logic, it must be said that
