Book contents
- The Cambridge History of Atheism
- The Cambridge History of Atheism
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Preliminaries
- Part II Atheisms in History
- Part III Reformation, Renaissance, Enlightenment
- Part IV Classical Modernity: Philosophical and Scientific Currents
- Part V Classical Modernity: Social and Political Currents
- Part VI Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries: Intellectual and Artistic Currents
- 32 Analytic Philosophy
- 33 Naturalism
- 34 Existentialism
- 35 Atheism and Postmodern Philosophies
- 36 Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- 37 Darwinism
- 38 Literature
- 39 Music
- 40 Visual Arts
- 41 Film and Television
- Part VII Lived Atheism in the Twentieth- and Twenty-First Centuries: Case-Studies
- Part VIII Emerging Atheisms in the Twenty-First Century
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
33 - Naturalism
from Part VI - Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries: Intellectual and Artistic Currents
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 September 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge History of Atheism
- The Cambridge History of Atheism
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Preliminaries
- Part II Atheisms in History
- Part III Reformation, Renaissance, Enlightenment
- Part IV Classical Modernity: Philosophical and Scientific Currents
- Part V Classical Modernity: Social and Political Currents
- Part VI Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries: Intellectual and Artistic Currents
- 32 Analytic Philosophy
- 33 Naturalism
- 34 Existentialism
- 35 Atheism and Postmodern Philosophies
- 36 Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- 37 Darwinism
- 38 Literature
- 39 Music
- 40 Visual Arts
- 41 Film and Television
- Part VII Lived Atheism in the Twentieth- and Twenty-First Centuries: Case-Studies
- Part VIII Emerging Atheisms in the Twenty-First Century
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
On the question of God, both religious and non-religious thinkers typically regard naturalism as the obvious and primary way to challenge supernaturalism. Naturalism is distinctive among philosophical worldviews for its reliance on the sciences. Other chapters recount how developments in specific scientific fields, such as biology, affected the intellectual climate around the question of God’s existence. Naturalism’s own role also deserves to be told. Naturalism as a comprehensive worldview only congealed during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and confronted God with the staunchest atheist philosophy to ever challenge supernaturalism. Modern naturalism elevated four main approaches to prominence for refuting supernaturalism: (1) scientific theorizing is genuinely explanatory, while religion is not; (2) nature’s energies are causally closed, forbidding divine interaction; (3) scientific skepticism is warranted toward alleged revelations and miracles; and (4) naturalistic theories explaining religion’s origin and function need no deities.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge History of Atheism , pp. 600 - 615Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Alston, W. P. 1991. Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Beilby, J. K. (ed.) 2002. Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. 2010. The Fracture of an Illusion: Science and the Dissolution of Religion. Göttingen: Vendenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. 2008. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. 2016. God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. and Copan, P. (eds.) 2009. Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing.Google Scholar
Crosby, D. A. and Stone, J. A. (eds.) 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Religious Naturalism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roover, J. 2014. “Incurably religious? Consensus gentium and the cultural universality of religion.” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 61(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolezal, J. E. 2011. God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.Google Scholar
Flew, A. 2006. “Miracles,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 6, 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan Reference, 265–74.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. 2003. A Defense of Hume on Miracles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1999. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballentine Books.Google Scholar
Larmer, R. A. 1988. Water into Wine: An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Masters, K., Spielmans, G., and Goodson, J. 2006. “Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 32(1), 21–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickell, J. 2013. The Science of Miracles: Investigating the Incredible. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2018. Naturalism and Religion: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Overall, C. 2006. “Miracles, evidence, evil, and god: a twenty-year debate.” Dialogue 45(2), 355–66.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 2009. “The causal closure of the physical and naturalism,” in Beckermann, A., McLaughlin, B. P., and Walter, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 53–65.Google Scholar
Shook, J. R. 2000. Dewey’s Empirical Theory of Knowledge and Reality. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Shook, J. R. 2011. “Varieties of twentieth century American naturalism.” The Pluralist 6(2), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, J. R. 2016. “What the hell is God up to? God’s evils and the theodicies holding god responsible,” in McGraw, B. and Arp, R. (eds.) The Problem of Evil: New Philosophical Directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 127–40.Google Scholar
Shook, J. R. 2017. “Are people born to be believers, or are gods born to be believed?” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 29(4–5), 353–73.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, P. and Shook, J. R. (eds.) 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar