Naturalism Explained

When it comes to Naturalism there are plenty of ideas about what it actually is. I think it is a good time to look into it and decide, if we can, what Naturalism amounts to. For starters, let’s consider whether Naturalism and empiricism are or are not the same thing. The issue seems purposely obscured by the use of the term, “methodological”, but we can get past that.

S.D. Schafersman offers a detailed definition and rationale for the battle between Naturalism, and Creationism / Intelligent Design. He also refers to areas of considerable disagreement within the Naturalist community, and ends with a peculiar admission of the inability of Naturalism to deal with actual singularities (of which he previously denies the existence, as we will see momentarily) such as the Big Bang, and presumably the origin of life, biogenesis / abiogenesis.

The ending two paragraphs of Schaferman’s paper comprise a good summary of Naturalism, but it is advisable to read the entire paper in order to properly understand his view of Naturalism, as well as the viewpoint of Eugenie Scott. Scott denies that Naturalism and Materialism are philosophical factors; rather for science they are “methodological” necessities. This is agreed upon; however, the behavior of many if not most scientists, including Scott, and definitely the apparently revered non-scientist, Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett, not to mention Richard Dawkins, would belie the assertion that scientists only consider Naturalism to be methodological. The behavior of these folk is decidedly philosophically Naturalistic, which overshadows the methodological Naturalism that Scott claims. It is not uncommon to observe contradiction and denial within the statements of Naturalists, either methodological or philosophical.

Schafersman’s final statement is a magnificent example of denial as a principle of Naturalism.

“Needless to say, this two-faced science [the attempt to separate ‘origins” singularity science from “operations” repeatable science] is a false dichotomy: there is no split in science between singular and repeatable phenomena . There are a number of reasons for this, but basically it boils down to the following: all phenomena in nature are singular, and all are repeatable. The component parts or steps of a repeating or regular phenomenon can be examined as if each was a singular event (such as the movements of electrons between shells of different energies), and every singular event is merely an example of a class of singular events that are essentially identical (such as a speciation or origin of life event). The only exception to this refutation is, of course, the singular origin of the universe. We believe we understand how the universe formed--by the explosion of a singularity (black hole) and subsequent expansion--but we have no idea what the singularity was doing there in the first place, and we may never know. Why is there something rather than nothing? We don't know. The Big Bang created time and space as well as matter and energy, so there was no "before" before the explosion of the singularity, and this timeless state (there is no intelligible or real "there" or "first place" for the singularity to be "there in the first place"!) is certainly a great mystery. But we need not indulge in supernaturalism to solve it. It is manifestly possible to live with some uncertainty or ambiguity about existence, and not grasp at ineffable solutions that only really increase our uncertainty and ambiguity, not reduce it.

“Scientific hypotheses must contain a cause and effect relationship within their predictive explanations. Testing the explanatory predictive hypothesis requires understanding the hypothesis and understanding (or controlling) the steps between the cause and the effect. Invoking a supernatural intelligent designer destroys the cause and effect relationship of any deductive scientific hypothesis, preventing us from understanding the hypothesis, and thus disallowing it as really explanatory. So, I would accept the hypothesis of a purely natural creator/intelligent designer--such as the Dogon--if one was necessary, but as Laplace would say, I have no need for that hypothesis. As for the hypothesis of a supernatural creator/intelligent designer, I have no need for that hypothesis either.”

Steven D. Schafersman; NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY; http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html

It is clear even to Schafersman that the Big Bang is a singularity, beyond which science will never see; while he seems to admit to the transcendental nature of the Big Bang, he is satisfied with denying that such an existence would require transcendental comprehension, because he denies that such comprehension exists. This places his Naturalistic ideas outside the mainstream of Rational Thought which includes the fundamental, yet transcendental, First Principles. The First Principles are required for rational thought, yet cannot be proven using empirical methods. They are of course, transcendent. Requiring transcendental comprehension.

Now, Schafersman claims that the function of philosophy is to explain the methods of science (an arrogated statement from the viewpoint of Naturalism if there ever was one…). If this were the case, then science clearly is philosophically based on the philosophical First Principles and one of them is even identified in the text: The Principle of Causality: Cause and Effect. Again, the First Principles are both essential to rational thought and unprovable using science in any form (again, they are transcendent). And so this necessity for granting a truth value to transcendence folds back around on Naturalism, which is seen to be false, at least philosophically. And probably, but not necessarily, also false methodologically.