Naturalism (philosophy)

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If philosophical naturalism were true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for reason for the human brain would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces. [1] See: Atheism and reason

Naturalism as a philosophical stance rejects the possibility of supernatural phenomena, describing such phenomena as misunderstood natural phenomena or falsehood. This notion, in sense, competes with the notion of the existence of God, but some resort to Deism and can contemplate the duality. See also: Philosophical naturalism

In addition, scientific naturalism proposes that only explanations which can be scientifically tested are valid, yet this proposition cannot be scientifically tested. Therefore, scientific naturalism is self-refuting.[2] See also: Atheism and naturalism and Atheism and incoherency

Science typically affects methodological naturalism, the idea that only those influences that can be measured and quantified, can be considered as part of an experiment. This philosophy is essentially agnostic, but is adapted by scientists of all religions for the purpose of their work. Creation scientists reject methodological naturalism, holding that its inherent materialism rejects God's existence and thus any possibility of a relationship with Him.

Philosophical naturalism is the concept that human beings have no soul or spiritual body, that there is no afterlife or heaven or hell, and that all supernatural phenomena, causes or beings are merely figments of human imagination.

If philosophical naturalism we true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for reason for the human brain would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces. [3] Therefore, believing in naturalism is self-defeating (see: Atheism and reason).

Moral naturalism rejects divine revelation as the source of ethics, holding that morals emerged from the emergence of the best course for survival as a society, much as instincts emerge as the best course for survival among animals in the wild.

Although all atheists indicate that they do not believe in the existence of God, a significant portion of atheists do not strictly subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism (see: Atheism and the supernatural).

J.P. Moreland on naturalism

Below is a video series by the Christian apologist J.P. Moreland.

4 part series by Dr. J.P. Moreland on the philosophy of scientific naturalism


In 2001, the atheist and philosopher Quentin Smith declared:

Naturalists [atheists] passively watched as realist versions of theism … began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians…. God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."[4]

John Morris, PhD., wrote:

Naturalism (i.e., naturalistic evolution) is often desirable, for it seemingly frees us from the authority of a Creator God. Without a God to whom we are accountable, we are free to live as we choose. College students, often surrounded by hedonism are particularly ripe for wrong thinking, and many never recover.[5]

See also

External links


  1. William Lane Craig on Scientific Naturalism by Dr. William Lane Craig
  2. Craig, William Lane (2012)."Theistic critiques of atheism". Reasonable Faith. Retrieved on July 26, 2014. Unabridged version of article published 2007. See William Lane Craig.
  3. Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.