Naturalism is the philosophical position that sense can be made out of the world and reality, without reference to supernatural entities such as God. It is now the defining essence of science, and where a few hundred years ago scientists were unafraid of invoking God as a final explanation. Now even the origin of matter and energy are thought to be naturalistically explicable, and there is no need for the God hypothesis. Look how smart humans are!
However, that all assumes that the science is correct, and I have my doubts, as do others about all aspects of this, something I cover in my iconoclastic posts here. For example, how can science claim to the explanation of all reality, within the language of mathematics, when at the foundations of logic, there are unsolved, maybe unsolvable logic-semantical paradoxes, reducing everything to inconsistency, such as Curry’s paradox, where everything can be proven:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/curry-paradox/
“Suppose that your friend tells you: “If what I’m saying using this very sentence is true, then time is infinite”. It turns out that there is a short and seemingly compelling argument for the following conclusion:
- (P)The mere existence of your friend’s assertion entails (or has as a consequence) that time is infinite.
Many hold that (P) is beyond belief (and, in that sense, paradoxical), even if time is indeed infinite. Or, if that isn’t bad enough, consider another version, this time involving a claim known to be false. Let your friend say instead: “If what I’m saying using this very sentence is true, then all numbers are prime”. Now, mutatis mutandis, the same short and seemingly compelling argument yields (Q):
- (Q)The mere existence of your friend’s assertion entails (or has as a consequence) that all numbers are prime.
Here is the argument for (P). Let kk be the self-referential sentence your friend uttered, simplified somewhat so that it reads “If kk is true then time is infinite”. In view of what kk says, we know this much:
- (1)Under the supposition that kk is true, it is the case that if k is true then time is infinite.
But, of course, we also have
- (2)Under the supposition that kk is true, it is the case that k is true.
Under the supposition that kk is true, we have thus derived a conditional together with its antecedent. Using modus ponens within the scope of the supposition, we now derive the conditional’s consequent under that same supposition:
- (3)Under the supposition that kk is true, it is the case that time is infinite.
The rule of conditional proof now entitles us to affirm a conditional with our supposition as antecedent:
- (4)If kk is true then time is infinite.
But, since (4) just is kk itself, we thus have
- (5)kk is true.
Finally, putting (4) and (5) together by modus ponens, we get
- (6)Time is infinite.
We seem to have established that time is infinite using no assumptions beyond the existence of the self-referential sentence kk, along with the seemingly obvious principles about truth that took us to (1) and also from (4) to (5). And the same goes for (Q), since we could have used the same form of argument to reach the false conclusion that all numbers are prime.”
However, as argued by Jon Haught, “Is Nature Enough? No.” Zygon, vol. 38, 2003, pp. 769-782, naturalism is philosophically wanting in three areas: in terms of satisfying human spiritual needs, in supplying deep explanation of the universe, and in satisfying the pursuit of truth.
Naturalism, holding to the metaphysical thesis that the physical world is all that exists, denies that there is an intelligent agency beyond the world, and that there is some cosmic purpose to existence, which a Creator, being intelligent would give. It is argued that naturalism is thus bad news for humanity, as few us can fulfil our potential before death cuts us down, which is a shallow life compared to what traditional Christianity with a promise of eternal life, offered. But, here the naturalist would possibly agree and say that this is what reality is, so get used to it. It is what it is.
This is where everything hangs on the next two issues, both intertwined, naturalism supplying a deep explanation of the universe, that satisfies the pursuit of truth. Without following through all aspects of the argument, Haught, proposes that the very intelligibility of the world itself remains without naturalistic explanation. All that can be said is that if the world was unintelligible, we would not be here debating, which seems swift and inadequate. It is the Darwinian framework of random variations, natural selection and vast time periods, that the naturalist uses to explain most things. While Haught does go far enough, others have argued against the adequacy of this framework, such as Thomas Nagel:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755
Ultimately, there is as much room for belief in the existence of God, as ever before. Naturalists have fired their best shots.