Everything about Naturalism Philosophy totally explained
Naturalism is the view that the
scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Naturalism doesn't necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as
supernatural don't exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. Some naturalists also insist that a legitimate distinction between supernatural entities and natural entities can't be properly made (focusing on the conceptual distinction itself), and that when someone is talking or thinking about supernatural entities, they're actually referring to natural entities (though confusedly).
Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining
knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.
Naturalist
Many modern
philosophers of science use the terms
methodological naturalism or
scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention. This makes the
methodological assumption that
observable effects in
nature are best explainable only by natural causes. This is often contrasted with the approach known as
ontological naturalism or
metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the
metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the
universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing
supernatural exists.
This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and
evolution in the
creation–evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of
Creationism or
intelligent design to refer to
methodological naturalism as
scientific materialism or as
methodological materialism and conflate it with
metaphysical naturalism. These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is
atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived
natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports
theistic science.
History
The ideas and assumptions of philosophical naturalism were first seen in the work's of the
Ionian
pre-Socratic philosophers. Particularly
Thales, the man considered to be the father of science, as he was the first to give explanations of natural events without the use of supernatural causes.
Jonathan Barnes's introduction to Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin) describes these early philosophers as subscribing to principles of empirical investigation that strikingly anticipate naturalism.
But the modern emphasis in methodological naturalism can be traced back more directly to the ideas of medieval
scholastic thinkers during the
Renaissance of the 12th century:
» By the late Middle Ages the search for
natural causes had come to typify the work of
Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric
Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher’s search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk’s erroneous habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher
Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320-82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic
bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."
» Enthusiasm for the naturalistic study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as more and more Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called
secondary causes that God employed in operating the world. The Italian Catholic
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), one of the foremost promoters of the new philosophy, insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her."
Isaac Newton, when asked about the lack of mention of God in his works on physics, is said to have replied, "
Hypotheses non fingo." ("I don't make
hypotheses.") Similarly,
Pierre Simon de Laplace, when asked about the lack of mention of God in his work on
celestial mechanics, is said to have replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
During the
Enlightenment, a number of
philosophers including
Francis Bacon and
Voltaire outlined the philosophical justifications for removing appeal to supernatural forces from investigation of the natural world. Subsequent
scientific revolutions would offer modes of explanation not inherently theistic for
biology,
geology,
physics, and other natural sciences.
The term "methodological naturalism" for this approach is much more recent. According to
Ronald Numbers, it was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a
Wheaton College philosopher.
De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God." The term "methodological naturalism" had been used in 1937 by
Edgar Sheffield Brightman in an article in
The Philosophical Review as a contrast to "naturalism" in general, but there the idea wasn't really developed to its more recent distinctions.
In a series of articles and books from 1996 onwards,
Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term methodological naturalism to clarify that the
scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and isn't based on dogmatic
metaphysical naturalism as claimed by
creationists and proponents of
intelligent design, in particular
Phillip E. Johnson. Pennock's testimony as an expert witness at the
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his
Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today"
Naturalism as epistemology
W. V. Quine describes naturalism as the position that there's no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself. There is no better method than the scientific method for judging the claims of science, and there's neither any need or any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract)
metaphysics or
epistemology, that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.
Therefore, philosophy should feel free to make use of the findings of scientists in its own pursuit, while also feeling free to offer criticism when those claims are ungrounded, confused, or inconsistent. In this way philosophy becomes "continuous with" science. Naturalism isn't a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it simply holds the processes of the universe have a scientific explanation, and those processes are what modern science is striving to understand.
Philosophy
Karl Popper equated naturalism with
inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see
problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.
A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt. […] I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they've only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method. |
Popper instead proposed the criterion of
falsifiability for
demarcation.
Contemporary philosopher
Alvin Plantinga has
argued that evolutionary naturalism is incoherent. In
Science and Theology News'
This definition rules out recourse to the supernatural. Pennock contends that as supernatural agents and powers "are above and beyond the natural world and its agents and powers" and "are not constrained by natural laws", only logical impossibilities constrain what a supernatural agent couldn't do, and "If we could apply natural knowledge to understand supernatural powers, then, by definition, they wouldn't be supernatural". As the supernatural is necessarily a mystery to us, it can provide no grounds on which to judge scientific models. "Experimentation requires observation and control of the variables … But by definition we've no control over supernatural entities or forces." Allowing science to appeal to untestable supernatural powers would make the scientist's task meaningless, undermining the discipline that allows science to make progress, and "would be as profoundly unsatisfying as the ancient Greek playwright's reliance upon the deus ex machina to extract his hero from a difficult predicament."
Naturalism of this sort says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural which by this definition is beyond natural testing. Other philosophers of science hold that some supernatural explanations might be testable in principle, but are so unlikely, given past results, that resources shouldn't be wasted exploring them. Either way, their rejection is only a practical matter, so it's possible to be a methodological naturalist and an ontological supernaturalist at the same time. For example, while natural scientists follow methodological naturalism in their scientific work, they may also believe in God (ontological supernaturalism), or they may be metaphysical naturalists and therefore atheists. This position doesn't preclude knowledge that derives from the study of what is hitherto considered supernatural, but considers that if such a phenomenon can be scientifically examined and explained naturally, it then ceases to be supernatural.
Supporters of creationism claim that the possibility of supernatural action is unnecessarily excluded by the current practices and theories of science. Currently, proponents of intelligent design argue that the naturalist conception of reality isn't needed in order to do science. Their general criticism is that insisting that the natural world is a closed system of inviolable laws independent of theism or supernatural intervention will cause science to come to incorrect conclusions and inappropriately exclude research that claims to include such ideas.
The subject was given detailed attention during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005, and in his memorandum of findings United States federal court judge John E. Jones III concluded that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today". This ruling sets a federal district judicial precedent in the context of legal restrictions on the teaching of religion in U.S. schools, and more broadly the memorandum sets out an impartial assessment of the evidence and arguments relating to the use in science of methodological naturalism as against supernatural explanations.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Naturalism Philosophy'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://naturalism__philosophy.totallyexplained.com">Naturalism (philosophy) Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
