Naturalism Struggles with Defining 'Natural'

To assess the claim that "everything is natural," we must first clarify what we mean by "natural." While it is often stated that nature encompasses all that exists, the term lacks a precise definition. Attempts to define it often lead to the conclusion that naturalism is either false or trivial.

This dilemma was notably articulated by philosopher Carl Hempel, known as Hempel’s dilemma.

People tend to accept naturalism due to the achievements of the natural sciences, which leads to a broad interpretation of "natural" as "the phenomena explored by the natural sciences."

If we adopt this definition, proving metaphysical naturalism true requires reducing all phenomena to physical laws. This presents a challenge for naturalists.

If they base their definition of 'natural' on current physics, naturalism collapses, as it is widely recognized that current physics is not exhaustive and mental phenomena exist outside its scope.

Conversely, if they rely on unknown future physical laws, they find naturalism becomes vacuous, as no one can predict what those laws may encompass—perhaps including concepts like souls or deities, rendering the definition meaningless.

When naturalists assert that everything is natural, they themselves may not fully grasp what that entails.

This issue of incoherence becomes even more apparent when naturalism is presented as an absolute truth rather than a tentative hypothesis. Its proponents often assert it with such certainty that dissenters are labeled as irrational or science-denying.

We are confronted with a sweeping assertion about the nature of reality that fails to define its core concept.

The inconsistency is predictable when we recognize that naturalism does not derive its principles from observing the world and logically constructing a metaphysical framework. Instead, it begins with a specific methodology and attempts to fit reality into its constraints.

Naturalism struggles to define its central term because "nature" is not an observable category in the world but rather a construct designed for investigation. When we attempt to conform the world to our preferred methodology, the inherent contradictions become apparent.

Naturalism Cannot Explain the Existence of the Universe

Many believe that science will ultimately clarify why the universe exists, with popular scientific discourse often misleadingly suggesting that cosmology addresses this question.

However, science is limited to explaining phenomena that already exist; it cannot account for the existence of nature itself. Science can only describe how existing elements interact over time, not why they exist, why they take their specific forms, or why there is anything at all.

Similarly, naturalism cannot transcend nature to address the origins of nature. It cannot acknowledge the need to look beyond the natural realm to explain its existence, as doing so would undermine the validity of naturalism itself.

Questions regarding cosmic origins cannot be answered by merely referencing physical properties, as anything with physical attributes, by definition, already exists. All physical events and causes reside within the history of nature, while the query pertains to the very foundation of that history.

The only recourse for the naturalist is to assert that the universe exists without reason; it is simply a brute fact. This perspective does not imply an unknown reason for existence but rather claims that no reason exists at all.

If anything warrants skepticism, it is the notion of an uncaused universe. This idea is not only implausible but also contradictory. A thing that exists without a reason for its existence lacks distinguishing features from non-existence. There can be no rationale intrinsic to its nature, nor can there be one external to it.

Yet, there is an evident difference between an existing universe and one that does not exist, leading to a logical inconsistency. Therefore, the idea that the universe exists without reason or explanation is untenable.

Naturalism Lacks Explanation for the Orderly Laws of Nature

Just as naturalism cannot clarify why nature exists, it also fails to explain why our universe operates under specific, orderly laws. The existence of uniform laws governing the universe is often taken for granted.

The only explanation permissible within naturalism is chance—simply put, it just happened this way. However, chance serves as a euphemism for the unknown and unanswerable.

In both cases—explaining the existence of nature and the nature of its properties—naturalism resorts to euphemisms (like brute fact and chance) to mask the fact that these inquiries remain unresolved within its logical confines.

These explanatory shortcomings arise because naturalism begins with a predetermined conclusion. This inability to define its central term, explain the existence of nature, or account for its orderly and intelligible nature demonstrates the limitations of naturalism.

Naturalism cannot validate its own claims since doing so would necessitate exceeding its self-imposed restrictions. It presents a "super" natural conclusion about all of reality that logic cannot substantiate as true.

Naturalism Cannot Account for Conscious Experience

Naturalism also struggles to explain personal phenomena, particularly the hard problem of consciousness. The intricacies of mental properties such as consciousness, intention, meaning, and values cannot be reduced to purely natural attributes, which undermines the validity of naturalism.

Naturalism fails to elucidate how these intangible properties could emerge from the interactions of non-sentient matter. Such properties create discomfort within the naturalistic framework and are often dismissed as mere illusions. Our experiences are relegated to mere appearances, not reflective of the "real" world, which must be understood physically.

Consequently, many naturalists reject fundamental truths about our self-perception and our understanding of the world. We frequently hear assertions that free will is an illusion and that morality is merely a set of societal rules. Some even claim that consciousness itself is a fabrication.

Naturalism must reject our collective experiences to align with its explanatory model. A robust explanation should instead conform to the observed realities of the world.

The perception that naturalism is a credible explanation stems from the misunderstanding that science validates the philosophy. In reality, naturalism extends far beyond scientific findings, making sweeping claims about the entirety of existence that lack justification from either logic or experience.