Naturalism Vs Religion

1888 Words8 Pages
The basic principles of metaphysical naturalism are very different than that of naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism has a more meaningful religious interpretation in that human beings may not be able to entirely comprehend the ultimate purpose of the universe and its parts. This brings us to the scientific thought that the laws of physics and chemistry are of hierarchical organizational patterns and exceed the limits of religious concepts and theory. Scientific naturalist sees science as the only sensible way of understanding nature. In this regard if there is something more than naturalism in this world, science alone may be considered an inaccurate means of recognizing and comprehending these concepts. One concept of naturalism, pantheism does equate nature with God. Religious naturalist or “soft” naturalist, express their belief that nature by itself is deserving of a reverential surrender of the mind and is religious in itself. Scientific materialist are those who accept that all life…show more content…
Religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise, encouraging an even greater understanding of humanity and universal logic. Science and religion work to contribute a more comprehensive understanding of the world around us. Cornel du Toit views religion as a natural occurrence, a universal manifestation of human expressions, meaning, and understanding. When faith and religion is see as a natural aspect of humanity and the evolution of life on earth. Religion can be regarded as natural and a natural occurring phenomenon on earth. Religion is constantly changing, evolving over time, is regarded as hope for the future, and the development of mankind. In this context religion is very similar to science and worldly understanding, rather than biblical doctrine and belief. Plantinga points out, that nowhere in science does it state that evolution cannot be considered a natural process guided by a Divine Entity or
Open Document