Re: naturalism or materialism?

Craig Rusbult (rusbult@vms2.macc.wisc.edu)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:59:58 -0500

Maybe we can use the status of naturalism (and natural & nature) as
words overpopulated with meanings, in order to more effectively think,
communicate, and educate.
Earlier this week, in an off-the-list message, Terry reminded me that
"nature" and "creation" are often used as synonyms for the end-result of
God's work in creating the universe. An atheistic/deistic worldview sees
nature as all there is (or was, or will be), so "naturalism" accurately
describes their view. But if we explain that nature can also be seen as
the design-and-creation of God (that includes an amazingly precise
fine-tuning of physical laws), maybe a nonbeliever can see nature in a new
way, and will decide to say (along with us) that "Wow! This is God's
wonderful work."
Also, we can explain that theists see reality as containing "both nature
and supernature" with nature being a subset of supernature, dependent on it
rather than independent and capable of self-existing. With this unity (of
supernature coexisting with and producing nature), it should be easier (for
nonbelievers or believers) to conceptualize the possibility and
plausibility of theistic action (miraculous-appearing or normal-appearing)
acting in harmony with nature, so God does not have to "interfere" with
nature in order to accomplish his goals.

Would this satisfy the goals (for allowing an accurate description of an
old concept and also a new concept) described in my latest TD#1?

Maybe we could also use "matter in natural motion" (MINM) and
"natural-appearing theistic action" (NATA)? Well, maybe not; if we use
"natural" to mean "unguided" (to replace "random" as suggested by Allan) we
are putting our stamp of approval on the idea that "natural = without God",
thereby moving this concept from an implication to an explicit statement.
This is not a good idea.
But, logically, if we use "naturalism" to mean "natural phenomena
occurring without God", then aren't we doing the same thing.
{ Oh well; I thought we might be getting something useful (in the ideas
above) and now I'm confusing myself again, and it's time to go to school
and work, so this will remain in limbo for awhile, awaiting feedback from
you. Even before writing these 2 paragraphs, I was suspicious (as you'll
see in the 2 paragraphs below, which were written earlier). }

I'm still concerned about the use of "naturalism" if this implies (and
for most people it does, without careful thought) that "natural = without
God". Is there an easy way to quickly/accurately clarify the distinction
between atheistic/deistic and theistic views of "natural"? Here is where
developing several versions of an idea (one that can be explained in 15
seconds, another one that takes a minute, another for five minutes,...) can
be very useful for communication/education.
Converting "naturalism" from a negative (due to its implications without
careful thinking) into a positive requires that we consistently encourage
others (and ourselves) to do some careful thinking. If we don't call
attention to the distinctions between the multiple meanings of "natural",
the implicit connotations of "naturalism" will make its continued use (as a
term) detrimental for a theistic worldview.

By the way, I don't assume that my description above (for relations
between nature and supernature) is either new or optimal. I'm sure these
ideas have been expressed before, and better.

Craig R