Naturalism Research Paper

English 4
5 April 2013
Naturalism
The rise of the violent and radical Montagnards signaled an important moment in British, American, and French social thought. The late eighteenth century had been characterized by optimism, progressivism, rationalism, and secularism. The violent over-throw of the French Revolution and the increasing disorder and poverty of urban life in England, led to a retreat from these values. The result was a revival of religion and deep questioning of the notion of progress. There had been advances in technology and for many the standard of living had improved. However, the French Revolution and turbulence among the British lower classes suggested that optimism for humanity's future might not be justified. Clearly,
if progress was being made, its course was not smooth. How were people to reconcile ideas of progress and rationalism with an increasingly disordered society? The goal in this paper is to address the different paradigms surrounding the theory of naturalism and to use different opinions found in various journals from sources provided to me by the high school library. To achieve this goal, this paper has been organized into 2 main sections. The first section provides an account of three important paradigms concerning naturalism: metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism, and religious naturalism. The second section provides eight scholarly opinions in connection with the events in the first section. Before beginning the examination historical context in which the paradigms were initially suggested historical context is provided.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT The European expansion that began in the fifteenth century had a profound effect on the natural sciences as well as philosophy.
Explorers' accounts of the flora and fauna of new lands challenged the biblical view of life, which had been based largely on the book of Genesis and the story of the flood. Long before Darwin, naturalists were confronted with different plants and animals that could not be explained in biblical terms. Scholars also struggled to explain evidence of human antiquity that did not correspond to biblical chronologies. This evidence became more widely available in the early nineteenth century as large-scale, engineering projects, such as the construction of canal and railroad systems, exposed fossils, and human artifacts to the study of naturalists and geologists. Scientists were confronted with questions such as why objects made by humans were found in association with extinct
mammals.
Metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, or just naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to nature.
One argument against metaphysical naturalism is made by Yvonne Raley. She suggests metaphysical naturalism is not feasible and suggests that it is neither as simple, nor as straightforward a matter as ontological naturalism would have it seem (285).
Another argument is the evolutionary argument against metaphysical naturalism.
The publication by the English biological naturalist Charles Darwin of the Origin of Species in 1859 provided biology with its fundamental theory of natural selection: that all species have been derived from a common, single-cell ancestor by a process of random mutation and differential reproductive success (Darwin). In conjunction with the development of modern genetics, Darwin’s theory unified the life sciences with the rest of the natural sciences and ended the need to use supernatural causes in order to explain the order and diversity of nature. Then, as now, Darwin’s theory of evolution was viewed by the popular culture as a threat to certain religiously inspired beliefs, most centrally the belief that the fact and nature of human existence is explained by the purposes of a
creator. Though Darwin’s scientific theories caused political and cultural turmoil, they also helped give birth to the school of American philosophy, known as naturalism. Darwin construed human cognition and evaluative thought as the culmination of natural capacities developed through evolutionary processes of adaptation (Edwards).
Methodological Naturalism. Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed. This sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge (Boudry et al. 1). Scott Tanona suggests, "That the distinguishing characteristics of the natural are not metaphysical at all but broadly epistemological, concerning goals of inter-subjectivity and predictability" (1).
In a Decision of the Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) rendered by Judge John E. Jones, III stated:
Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of “science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify (24). Contemporary Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga attacks the conclusions of the Kitzmiller trial and suggests that the term "science" denotes any activity that is:
1. a systematic and disciplined enterprise aimed at finding out truth about our world, and
2. has significant empirical involvement.
Any activity that meets these conditions counts as science. He concludes "if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused–as most of the world's people believe–you won't be able to reach that truth scientifically" (3).
Plantinga has argued that anyone who holds to the truth of both metaphysical naturalism and evolution is inherently irrational in doing so. His argument relies on establishing that the probability that unguided evolution would have produced reliable cognitive faculties is either low or inscrutable. For example, imagine a hunter who very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. If this argument holds, one who holds both naturalism and evolution acquires a “defeater” for every belief he holds, including the beliefs associated with naturalism and evolution (4).
Religious Naturalism. P. Roger Gillette of Meadville Lombard Theology School says that religious naturalism is a religion "in that it is a system of belief and practice that demands and facilitates one's intellectual and emotional reconnection with one's self, one's family, one's local and global community and ecosystem, the universe of which the global ecosystem is a part, and [perhaps] the creative source of this universe. It is also a theology, an ethics, and a “full service" belief that requires a "radical spiritual transformation" (3).
Religious naturalism is religious in its approach to morality which is seen as coming from humans' biological and social evolution rather than divine revelations. Human evolution has produced a brain complex enough both for symbolic contemplation and for participating in unique human forms of social life. Since humans are hardwired for flexibility, morality varies from culture to culture. However, most world cultures adhere to the same basic virtues.
Due to the rationality and feelings provided by science and a naturalistic spirituality, some religious naturalists have a strong sense of stewardship for the Earth. In his book Religion Is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture Our Biological Nature and What to Expect when They Fail Loyal Rue maintains that we need a new, scientifically based naturalized religion, one that attributes subjectively based values to nature instead of a transcendent reality (329). He presented an evolutionarily based explanation of religion as a means to further the personal and social fulfillment of human beings when he wrote:
Religious naturalists will be known for their reverence and awe before Nature, their love for Nature and natural forms, their sympathy for all living things, their guilt for enlarging the ecological footprints, their pride in reducing them, their sense of gratitude directed towards the matrix of life, their contempt for those who abstract themselves from natural values, and their solidarity with those who link their self-esteem to sustainable living. (367)
Science is the primary interpretive tool for religious naturalism, because, scientific methods are thought to provide the most reliable understanding of nature and the world, including human nature. Science relies on mainstream science to reinforce religious and spiritual perspectives. We find our sources of meaning within the natural world, where humans are understood to be coming into existence from nature. Our religious quest is informed and guided by the deepening and evolving understandings fostered by scientific inquiry. It is also informed and guided by the mindful understandings inherent in our human traditions, including art, literature, philosophy, and the religions of the world (Braxton 339). The scientist is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of misinformation.
CONCLUSION
Naturalism is a system of belief grounded in and justified by the progress in the natural sciences. It goes beyond science in holding that the vision of ourselves as fully natural creatures has important implications for our place in the world and the kind of life that we are capable and deserving of living. In rough form naturalism holds that everything eventually boils down to fundamental physics; about what depends on what: all events and causal relations depend on what happens at the fundamental physical level. The success of science is nothing other than the fact that it unifies our understanding of nature by supplying predictive, economical explanations that achieve broad consensus, and philosophers contribute mainly by clarifying our concepts and by keeping our assumptions, methods, and logic transparent.

Works Cited
Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, and Braeckman, Johan. How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism. Ghent University. 2010. Web. 9 June 2010.
Braxton, Donald J. 2007. “Religion is Not About God”-Responding to Loyal Rue: Religious Naturalism and the Future of Christianity. Zygon, 42: 2
Darwin, Charles. 1858. On the Origin of Species. New York: New York University Press.
Edwards, Paul, ed. 1967. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Gillette, P. Roger. (2006). "Theology Of, By, & For Religious Naturalism." Journal of Liberal Religion 6(1). 2006. Web.
Jones, Judge John. E. Re Kitzmiller, Tammy et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dover Area School District, et al., Defendants. No. 04cv2688. Dec. 20, 2005. 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 205 Ed. Law Rep. 250.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2010. An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. BIOLA University Lecture.
Raley, Yvonne. "Ontological Naturalism." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86.2 (2005): 284-294. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
Rue, Loyal. 2005. Religion Is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture Our Biological Nature and What to Expect when They Fail. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Tanona, Scott. The Pursuit of the Natural. Kansas State University. 28 January 2010.