Naturalism vs. non-naturalism

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Success in any of life aspects presupposes responsiveness to the surrounding environment. Humans extend this relation further with understanding - a worldview (albeit a limited one).
It is clear that people look at the world very differently. Those differences are categorized.

One of the result is the naturalistic category. Naturalism is mostly derived from materialism (the philosophical position that everything that exist is reducible to smaller and smaller components and nothing else exists). Methodical naturalism believes that everything in nature can be studied by the same methods (scientific method), and that which cannot be studied this way is either unintelligible or subjective, but for the sake of inquiry we shouldn't rule it out beforehand.
On the other hand ontological naturalism (= metaphysical naturalism) rejects all superstitions because nothing confirmed by science legitimize any such believes.

Opposed to naturalism there is non-naturalism, which is any philosophical system denying the existence of aspects of reality which are not conditioned by or contained in space and time.

Clearly there's a conflict between these two diametrically opposed positions.
Non-naturalism sees naturalism as too narrow-minded and rational - closed to potentially important spiritual dimensions of life not immediately accessible by the senses.
Naturalism regards the non-naturalism as irrational, counterproductive and so open-minded that the brain is likely to fall out.
The divergence can be boiled down to the question of how broadly nature is defined.

One manifestation of this conflict today, I think, is the ongoing debate of the theory of evolution vs. intelligent design (ID). Pro ID people are non-naturalists and find evolution incompatible with their faith, while pro evolution people are naturalists, who sees ID as an attempt to subvert science.

Personally, I'm a naturalist and I despise intelligent design and the creationism that spawned it. The way I see it, there's an ongoing struggle between two conflicting worldviews, which can be traced back through history, where I see a tendency indicating naturalism replacing non-naturalism as a direct consequence of accumulating human knowledge; myths replaced by facts. A major turning point being the age of enlightenment, when the roles changed: science becoming dominant (because of its explainatory power) at the expense of the church.

Continuing the path from the age of the enlightenment, I hope, will lead us closer to a full understanding of the underlying reality of the sensory inputs we experience, and as we learn and understand more, I hope that we'll also better be able to accept the reality we're confronted with and not fear it, leaving little need to hide behind old myths.
There'll be no intelligent design, no astrology, no New Age holistic medicine mumbojumbo etc.

What is left is fighting the remaining losing non-naturlist opposition.

Or perhaps not? Perhaps you see it differently?


Thank you for reading all this - I welcome any replies (and I hope I've been sufficiently provocative to incite such). And don't forget the poll!

[mistergreen77]

Personally, I'm a naturalist and I despise intelligent design and the creationism that spawned it. The way I see it, there's an ongoing struggle between two conflicting worldviews,

An interesting interpretation of history. I would rather say that the religious and superstitious patterns of thought are pre-scientific. The ability of the mind to produce signs and symbols was one step along the road to the development of the scientific spirit and naturalism. Metaphysical speculation about the universe transcends but presupposes religious thought. The sophists recognised the futility of trying to find any truth that could justify morality. Socrates and Plato overturn the sophists with their metaphysics which was then used by Christianity to maintain its veto or prohibition against the scientific spirit. The rennaisance should have seen the end of it, but for Luther's reformation. The counter-attack of metaphysics and christianity against.

I would say I am a naturalist - but I don't despise religion or creationism. I am sympathetic with the needs of their adherents. I am against them for sure, but my attitude toward them is complex due to my religious upbringing. Religious systems are like works of art - full of symbolism and meaning even if we no longer believe in their reality. Astrology and religion will have their place in history, people may study them as curiosities. But in the end no-one will believe in them or credit them. I don't think we need to fight non-naturalist opposition. All that is needed is for us naturalists to advance science. Eventually it will destroy the myths of soul atomism and spiritual worlds on its own. How will people maintain their faith in religious cause and effects when neuroscience unravels the mysteries of consciousness, thought and emotion? Rather than fighting the non-naturalists we should just keep on being scientific. Also, fighting against only creates opposition and hardens the attitudes of people against us. Our virtues are in modesty and honesty - we can afford to be understanding and sympathetic to people who remain superstitious or religious.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

You can't afford to play Chamberlain on this. There are positive aspects in religion, but creationism and intelligent design are imperialistic extentions of some of its most negative.

Religion in the modern world must redefine its role if it is to survive, but it cannot be allowed to do this in an attempt to rewind time. I have little doubt that it would lose such a struggle, but the damage it would cause before that is not pleasant to contemplate. Already the depressing statistics are available: a frightening percentage of US citizens actually believe that the Earth is less than 10.000 years old!
That's why we can't simply close our eyes and hope it'll go away, because intelligent design is actively eroding the science education in our schools. I'm not sure it'll go away if ignored, because while modern science is hard to understand and occasionally unsettling - intelligent design is easy to comprehend and its simple message soothing.

The sophists recognised the futility of trying to find any truth that could justify morality.

I may attempt to challenge this at a later time.