Is the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism an illusion?

Both Naturalism and Supernaturalism are metaphysical beliefs, with Naturalism being the belief that we have a materialistic universe where everything physical in the world is just an evolutionary by-product and Supernaturalism being the belief that there is more to reality than just the material. This essay will look at whether the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism makes any ontological, epistemological, and semantic sense given that both are metaphysical frameworks, the reasons why we can't escape metaphysics, and the reasons why we can't escape ontology and epistemology even if we can't make the distinction between metaphysical beliefs. I. What is Naturalism? *Why Science Does Not Disprove God* by Amir Aczel makes the strongest argument that science is no longer on the disproof side of the God debate. In Aczel’s book, he uses discoveries from cosmology to make his argument that science is no longer on the disproof side of the God debate. This is very significant as **most people** who subscribe to Naturalism do so because they believe that science has disproven Supernatural claims. It is the religion of science to use a very popular **Richard Dawkins quote**. This is also something that is shown to be false with discoveries in fields like cosmology as Aczel’s book shows. Nevertheless however most Naturalists would agree with the Naturalist definition as stated by Michael Martin which is: “Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world, as disclosed by sense experience and confirmed by the natural and social sciences, embodies all that exists. Supposedly nonnatural occurrences and entities, such as motions of inanimate objects not resulting from prior motions, or|%he divine, are illusory. Naturalism is opposed to **Supernaturalism** (and Parapsychology).” In *The Cambridge Companion to Naturalism,* the Naturalist Sheldon has some words to say about Naturalism. “Naturalism is a combination of metaphysical and epistemological theses.” He then contrasts Naturalism to Supernaturalism. “Supernaturalism, on the other hand, is an ontological, epistemological, and methodological theses. Supernaturalism holds that nature is not all there is, that the physical world of nature is part of a larger more inclusive theistic or nontheistic reality that also includes mental, non-physical, and perhaps spiritual entities and dimensions that interact causally with the physical world that they inhabit. Supernaturalism is committed to an ontological claim that the natural world is not all that exists.” Sheldon then contrasts Supernaturalism with Naturalism. “Naturalism is ontologically committed to the view that the natural world is all that exists. Epistemologically, Naturalism holds that the sciences are the very best way of obtaining knowledge, and perhaps the only way, while Supernaturalism holds that the sciences are merely one way of obtaining knowledge, while there are other ways of knowing as well ). Methodologically, the Naturalist holds that the best procedure for acquiring knowledge is the scientific method while the Supernaturalist holds that non-scientific procedures are also to be employed.)” In the book *Naturalism: A Critical Analysis,* William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland give us five principles of how Naturalism per its definition works. “Naturalism is on the ascent. There are good reasons for thinking that one out of five people in the world today is a naturalist—a number that shows signs of increasing, not decreasing. Naturalism’s influence, long dominant in society’s power structures, has now spread to the masses, and is on the verge of becoming the world’s dominant religion. Christians should, I think, be concerned. Despite naturalism’s many problems, it remains a highly seductive, even powerful world view. Indeed, it is difficult to see how one could get something for nothing. Given naturalism, it is tempting to suppose that perhaps, just perhaps, we can make the grand claims of theism unnecessary. The intellectual and spiritual attraction of naturalism are very real. In what follows, I shall outline, and then argue against, naturalism. Along the way, I shall make clear what naturalism is.” Craig and Moreland then define what Naturalism is via five principles: “ ). The **Heart of Naturalism** is **metaphysical** naturalism which says that **only the physical exists, and that’s all there is to reality**. ). Naturalism is **empiricist** in that it holds that **science is the sole source of knowledge**. ). **Naturalism has a materialistic ontology**. This is to say that only physical things exist. Finely tuned universes, brains, neurons, and the like are some of the examples. There is **no such thing as mental entities**. ). **Naturalism has a functional and efficient causation**. ). **Naturalism is a closed system**. Naturalism is a closed system to efficient causation. **This means that ifNaturalism is true, then no amount of theistic arguments can suffice to make belief in God rational** because positing God as an explanation of anything is ruled out a priori as supernatural causation cannot occur in a naturalistic worldview. Craig and Moreland then summarise Naturalism as being a metaphysical hypothesis where all that exists is the physical world. “Thus naturalism is first and foremost a claim about what exists. The naturalist has a view about what exists in the world: the physical world is all that exists, and that’s it. Naturalism is an metaphysical hypothesis. Sheldon then begins to attack Naturalism. “... naturalism is as much of a metaphysical and epistemological faith as Supernaturalism. It is not the view that takes fewer leaps of faith but the view that takes no leaps of faith. The naturalist takes a leap of faith in science, the Supernaturalist takes a leap of faith in religion.” The conclusion to be drawn from this is that both Naturalism and Supernaturalism are **metaphysically loaded**. There is no difference between them when it comes to their metaphysical assumptions.” II. Is the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism an illusion? In the book *The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology* edited by Russel Re Manning, the *Philosophy Talk* article titled *Naturalism:naturing vs. Supernaturalism* has some words to say about the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. “While science remains neutral on the subject of God, it remains opposed to supernaturalism.” This is an important **revelation** because the reason most folks subscribe to Naturalism is that they believe it is the worldview of science. However, this is false. **Science remains neutral on the subject of God,** and only *remains opposed to Supernaturalism.* In the book *Debating Christian Theism* edited by J.P. Moreland, Chad V. Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis, the article *Debate: Is There Epistemic Space for Christian Theism in an Apparently Post-Christian World? Affirmative: Garrett DeWeese* has some words to say about the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. *“Whether Naturalism or Supernaturalism is true has no immediate solution. The distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism has no immediate resolution because there is no criterion to determine when an explanation is scientific or non-scientific, naturalistic or supernaturalistic.”* This is an important **revelation** as it shows that **there is no criterion to determine when an explanation is scientific (naturalistic) or non-scientific (supernaturalistic).** Humans are wired to believe in the Supernatural In the book *The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology* edited by Russel Re Manning, the article *The Argument from the History of Science* has some words to say about the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. “Humans are wired to believe in the Supernatural. Humans are wired to believe in God. Humans are wired to believe that there is more to reality than just the physical.” This is an important revelation as it shows that **Naturalism is an unnatural worldview**. *For and Against Methodology* which is a collection of papers that ).P. Moreland edited has some words to say about the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. “...Naturalism lacks the conceptual resources to distinguish natural from supernatural explanations. There is no clear criteria to distinguish a naturalistic explanation from a non-naturalistic explanation. No such criteria exists. Under this view, observation and experimentation are insufficient to differentiate between the naturalistic and non-naturalistic hypotheses. This is called the Naturalism/Supernaturalism inference problem.” In *The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology* edited by Thomas P. Flint and Michael Rea, the article *The Epistemology of Theism* has some words to say about why there is no real distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. “The naturalistic/supernatural dichotomy is far from being precise. There is no generally accepted account of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural. Under naturalism, there is no clear

Is the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism an illusion?

Comments (22) 43510 👁️