David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Sophia 48 (2):127-142 (2009)
There is overwhelming agreement amongst naturalists that a naturalistic ontology should not allow for the possibility of supernatural entities. I argue, against this prevailing consensus, that naturalists have no proper basis to oppose the existence of supernatural entities. Naturalism is characterized, following Leiter and Rea, as a position which involves a primary commitment to scientific methodology and it is argued that any naturalistic ontological commitments must be compatible with this primary commitment. It is further argued that properly applied scientific method has warranted the acceptance of the existence of supernatural entities in the past and that it is plausible to think that it will do so again in the future. So naturalists should allow for the possibility of supernatural entities.
|Keywords||Methodological naturalism Ontological naturalism Scientific method Supernatural Supernatural entities Inference to the best explanation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
D. M. Armstrong (1989). A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. Cambridge University Press.
David M. Armstrong (1968). The Nature of Mind and Other Essays. Humanities Press.
Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
Nancy Cartwright (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press.
Steve Clarke (2001). Defensible Territory for Entity Realism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):701-722.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman (2010). How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 15 (3):227-244.
Austin Dacey (2004). Why Should Anybody Be a Naturalist? Philo 7 (2):138-145.
Steve Clarke (2007). The Supernatural and the Miraculous. Sophia 46 (3):277 - 285.
A. D. Smith (2008). Schleiermacher and Otto on Religion: A Reappraisal. Religious Studies 44 (3):295-313.
David Reiter (2000). Plantinga on the Epistemic Implications of Naturalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:141-147.
George Santayana (1932/1977). The Genteel Tradition at Bay. Haskell House.
Brian R. Cornwell, Aron K. Barbey & W. Kyle Simmons (2004). The Embodied Bases of Supernatural Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):735-736.
Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
Added to index2009-04-27
Total downloads69 ( #30,754 of 1,696,615 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #38,059 of 1,696,615 )
How can I increase my downloads?