Nepedia
Back to Discover
Advanced Reader
📖

Metaphysical naturalism

philosophy religion Maturity 13-18 Next article →

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview regarding the nature of reality. It is also known as ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or antisupernaturalism. This perspective holds that only natural elements, principles, and relations exist. These are the same types of things studied by the natural sciences. Consequently, this view rejects supernatural concepts and explanations found in many religions. Some thinkers, like Carl Sagan, suggest that the Cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be.

Philosopher Arthur C. Danto describes naturalism as a species of philosophical monism. Monism is the idea that everything can be explained by one single system. In this case, everything that happens is natural and susceptible to explanation. These explanations are continuous across different domains of objects and events. While science is the primary example, naturalism suggests these methods apply everywhere. It is often defined by what it rejects. It repudiates the idea that any entities exist beyond the scope of scientific explanation.

Naturalism is closely linked to the foundation of scientific inquiry. While methodological naturalism is a strategy used within science, metaphysical naturalism provides an ontological foundation. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that science must investigate nature as if nature is all there is. This is done as a working hypothesis to ensure scientific success. It does not require a scientist to believe in the ultimate truth of metaphysics. However, science relies on certain assumptions. These include the belief that reality is objective and consistent. It also assumes humans can perceive reality accurately and that rational explanations exist.

Historically, the term "naturalism" gained specific usage in the early 20th century. American philosophers such as John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook, and Roy Wood Sellars helped trace its current usage. Today, many philosophers accept naturalism in a broad sense. They may reject supernatural entities while still using science to study the human spirit. However, some thinkers like John McDowell, David Chalmers, and Jennifer Hornsby have different views. They might prefer to set a higher bar for what counts as naturalism. Meanwhile, theologians like Alvin Plantinga offer critiques of the worldview.

Within this worldview, many naturalists adopt materialism or physicalism. Materialism is the belief that everything consists of matter and physical processes. This leads to specific views on the origins of the universe. Naturalists believe the Big Bang and the formation of the Solar System were natural phenomena. They also view abiogenesis, the origin of life, and evolution as processes without supernatural influence. Regarding the human mind, naturalists generally reject the idea of a soul or spirit. They do not believe in ghosts or substance dualism. Instead, they view the mind as a product of natural processes.

One major argument for naturalism involves the relationship between the brain and the mind. Paul Churchland argues against mind-body dualism by pointing to brain damage. He notes that mental properties are significantly changed when the brain is injured. If the mind were a separate, immaterial substance, it should not be so easily damaged by physical injury. Neuroscientists have shown that manipulating specific brain areas produces reliable mental changes. This suggests a causal relationship between the brain and mental states. Critics like Edward Feser and Tyler Burge call these arguments "neurobabble." They believe these findings might still be compatible with other metaphysical ideas.

There are also significant arguments against metaphysical naturalism. The "argument from reason," associated with C.S. Lewis, suggests a logical problem. It postulates that if all thoughts are just physical causes, we cannot assume they are reasonable. If thoughts are merely the result of physical effects, we have no grounds to trust our reasoning. Alvin Plantinga also proposed the "evolutionary argument against naturalism." He argues that the probability of evolution producing humans with reliable true beliefs is low. He suggests that without guidance, our cognitive faculties might not be reliable. These debates continue to shape modern philosophy and science.

643 words

Where will your curiosity go next?

Keep exploring at your chosen reading level.

More to explore

What is Nepedia?

A free, ad-free encyclopedia for children. Every article is written at five reading levels, so the same page works for a five-year-old and a fifteen-year-old — use the level switcher above to see this one change. No account needed to read.