5.1 Naturally speaking: The challenge of naturalism

Published by 1c15 on 14th December 201914th December 2019

Naturalism views the natural world as the sum of reality, usually holding that scientific investigation is the best, or even the only path to knowledge and that only material phenomena are real. Those holding this view deny the supernatural realm. God cannot be tested empirically (by observation or experiment). Some naturalists think that matters that cannot be solved scientifically have little value, they say ‘What is non science is nonsense’ many have said, science being the only way to truth. This view is not new. Cicero in 106–43 B.C., the Roman orator, politician, and philosopher, wrote, “naturalemque rationem omnium” (i.e., “all things have a natural explanation”). He also wrote that if something happens, it does so because there is a natural cause and that there are no departures from this rule. Cicero’s philosophical bias is easily recognized. How would he know this unless he knew the cause of all events? His position also requires him to expand the laws of nature to encompass all events. If Cicero had known of Jesus’ resurrection, would he have abandoned his naturalistic philosophy, expanded the laws of nature calling the resurrection a “natural event,” or perhaps even devised a naturalistic theory like those we have discussed?

Priori & Posteriori

A Naturalist views vary from the opposing theories discussed so far. The arguments included here are apart from any investigation of the historical facts that may argue in favour of miracles, or Jesus’ resurrection.

They are philosophical considerations that are made without viewing available evidences. These are known as Priori arguments. E.G. “No matter what evidence you are going to use in favour of miracles, such events never occur because they would contradict the laws of nature”. 

Opposing theories like the psychological arguments, alternative theories etc. attempt to provide alternative explanations. Philosophers call these Posteriori arguments. E.G. “I can explain all of your evidence for the resurrection without resorting to anything supernatural”.

So Posteriori – natural 

Priori – philosophical

These two argument types are quite different and we will learn why. I might challenge the person taking the priori argument above by saying “How do you know that miracles are impossible? The historical evidence I am providing may just be what we need to refute your theory.”

I might challenge why they hold such an anti-miracle position in the first place, what basis or grounds are there for such a belief?

We have already learned to respond to posteriori arguments by saying “your alternative approach does not explain the data I am presenting. In fact, it fails by a large margin.  What can science tell us about the possibilities of a person rising from the dead? Has science shown that resurrections are impossible? Of what relevance are the laws of nature? Are there philosophical reasons why Jesus’ resurrection was impossible, or that, even if it occurred, we can never know it was a miracle since science cannot verify it?

Sources

• (De div 2.28.61 and 2.22.49. See Harold Remus, Pagan-Christian Conflict Over Miracle in the Second Century [Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983]) 35