It is disturbing, I think, that last class it took an hour, despite that I asked for this at the beginning, to begin to define the terms, an activity we did not complete (Yes I looked at the clock). So, in an effort to perhaps save time next class, I am going to posit here definitions of the two realms of thought. I mean these to be neither accurate nor final, merely the impressions I got listening to Johnson and reading the paper he assigned.
Naturalism: The worldview that relies only on natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual, to explain the mechanisms of reality. (Though linked strongly, not synonymous with empiricism)
Supernaturalism: The worldview that uses non verifiable explanations in augmentation of, though not necessarily in lieu of, natural elements and forces. Though it is much more common, supernaturalism requires no more faith than does naturalism. (It could be as simple as believing a person relaying a supernatural explanation to you)
They do not seem as contradictory as most people were making them out to be. Deism strikes a hard example given that it is a belief that there are natural laws and no supernatural forces are currently at work. Deism is as much a proponent of empiricism as atheism tends to be.
Are my definitions sufficient or are they missing something important?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, we might have offered a stipulative definition to start the conversation -- but that's just one approach. Another, and one I frequently prefer, is to have an adequate account of these contentious terms emerge after a bit of open discussion. After all, part of the complexity and appeal of this topic is the elusive nature of its basic terms.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, your definitions are as good a place to start as any. I'm not sure I understand the equal levels of faith claim, though.
The claim was meant to demonstrate that a supernaturalist may believe the supernatural simply because he or she has been told so. Equally, a naturalist may exclude the supernatural for the same reason. Therfore the point of my statement was to show that though it is much more common to find faith in supernaturalism, it is not necessary.
ReplyDeleteI do think my wording in the original post was inadequate though.
I see. Thanks.
ReplyDelete