Naturalism Vs Supernaturalism

When natural comes to mind, what do people think about? What is natural in the grocery stores? What behaviors do we do naturally? Does natural mean a good or bad? In “Why Doesn’t Natural Mean Anything Anymore” by Michael Pollan, he analyzes the word “natural”.

In chapter 6, Richard opens up with ultimate origins. He suggests that the theistic view should be considered in the work of scientists to probe the origin of life in the distant past. Richard speaks of Pasteur’s demolition of the spontaneous generation theory, which created a problem for those who saw the world from a naturalistic perspective. Pasteur stood on God being the creator as the only alternative. There seemed to be a battle between scientific reasoning and the theistic view. Yet, scientific reasoning involves faith as well. Some of the major problems with scientific views are: questions of oxygen being present in the atmosphere; the lack of geological evidence for the primordial soup of organic compounds or protocells; the high degree of investigator interference in prebiotic simulation experiments; and difficulties in imagining the jump from biopolymers and protocells to the first living and reproducing cell. Scientists Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen states a distinction

The definition of natural is a controversial argument that seems to never have a specific view. Many people use Nature to identify social identifies or use social identities to attempt to figure out the true meaning of Nature. History has made a hole in the perception of what is natural to people, for this same reason, there exist many people who believe white individuals have the ideology that they are supreme. Through this ideology laws were made and for the most part, white males had a slight higher advantage from women of both white and color. Through readings that reference Nature, the definition of Nature or how the authors believe is to be will become more understanding.

1. Atheistic Naturalism is founded on the premise that it was an accident that human life was created, or just dumb luck.

Moreover, today’s criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms such as creationism, Li 2 neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini).

In the "nature vs nurture" debate, nature refers to an individual's innate qualities (nativism). Nature is your genes. The physical and personality traits determined by your genes stay the same irrespective of where you were born and raised. Nature factors that trigger an individual to commit crime are influences by biological and family factors. The nature method suggests that individuals are born with qualities, abilities and characteristics that determine the kind of person that individual will become.

Naturalism is a prominent worldview that is held and praised widely in today’s modern world. However, when examined closely and held up to certain criteria that would establish it as a legitimate worldview, one can see that it comes up short in several areas such as the source of morality, internal logical consistency, and human nature. In these areas that Naturalism fails, Christianity succeeds by offering a valid alternative. Christianity then can further establish itself as a superior worldview by offering convincing arguments such as ontological, cosmological, argument for design, argument that

Consider, now, the agnostic position, such as Draper holds. What would it take for Draper to believe in God? As he addresses arguments from apologetics and finds them inconclusive, perhaps he would be convinced if the arguments for theism were stronger and the arguments for naturalism weaker. The arguments are strong and weak enough to

God’s existence cannot be proved nor disproved, but this is an attempt to refute the existence of this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being through an analysis of arguments and theories that try to prove or insinuate His reality.

At the very core of naturalist beliefs however, matter is all that there was, is, and ever will be. The implications of this take on reality is that humans are merely complex machines, a result of evolution. How then, can one be sure that what one thinks to be logic and reason is really significant at all? Ironically, naturalism began as an Age of Enlightenment based on the affirmation of human intelligence, but a truly consistent naturalist leads to what is called a nihilist. Nihilists realize that they can place no confidence in knowing anything at all. In an attempt to escape the hopeless vacuum of nihilism, existentialism emerged, accepting all the propositions of naturalism except those regarding human nature and humans’

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

another flaw in the belief of naturalism is that there is no real thought or soul. Because of this there would be no need for ethics or morals because if we have no control over our own thought because they are not real than we cant be responsible for our own actions. If this is true than we should not be sending criminals to prisons because they did not truly commit the crimes themselves.

This refers to all those characteristics and abilities that are determined by your genes. This is not the same as the characteristics you are born with, because these may have been determined by prenatal environment. In addition some genetic characteristic only appear later in development as a result of the process of maturation. Supporters of nature have been called natavist.

In this essay I will argue that science and pseudoscience cannot be clearly demarcated: rather that there’s great difficulty and complication on the fringes when asserting strict criteria that distinguishes the two. I will give a brief overview and draw on the arguments made by philosophers of science throughout history and explain why perhaps their criteria are problematic. I will look in depth into ‘creation science’ and why we strongly consider this as pseudoscientific and analyse the more ambiguous peripheries of science such as Freudian psychoanalysis or even economics.

The following part will be the discussion of the pros and cons of the three positions. For the pros of Naturalism, as this position is supported by scientific research and theory, this leads this position convincing. However, as the things that happened before the Big Bang is still a mystery in science, naturalism cannot provide us a thorough explanation of the origin of life. Moreover, as naturalism suggested that life is only an accident which leads life meaningless, this can be argued by the fact that most people living on the Earth say they are living in a meaningful life and also by the Frankenstein example.