Clark’s description of naturalism and supernaturalisms coexistence seems to favor naturalism. He finds that both naturalism and supernaturalism should be up for discussion on neutral ground but all policies, laws and such should be founded on empiricism. This means that all decisions people have to act upon will be based upon a method that assumes that the naturalist view is right. Faith is not involved in an empiricist method of making decisions. Although I agree that laws should not be based upon faith because this leads to discounting others views and potential intolerance, if naturalism and supernaturalism are to co-exist comfortably one cannot overwhelm the other to such a degree. We teach a naturalistic view in school, base our laws on it and tell supernaturalists that their views are equal because they are free to talk about them. Naturalists are free to talk about them and use them to impact society. Empiricism cannot encourage a supernaturalist view because it cannot be explained materially and this is all empiricism allows us to test for, materially based phenomena. Empiricism then clearly favors the naturalist. On the other hand, supernaturalist views are never able to be proved wrong and as such they encourage authoritarian figures to try to force people into their viewpoint. In order to prevent people from being able to force a worldview onto other people methods of making laws and decisions have to changeable and adapt to information as it comes. This makes empiricism the better method for society, but it is not a comfortable coexistence. Supernaturalists may rightly feel that their views are being glossed over when it comes to education and law making. This results in the religious messages becoming disguised as naturalist views and people feel misled. When people say marriage is between a man and a women they often mean that it is against their religion, but they cannot be taken seriously when making a law if they come right out and say this. Then they have to say it differently and people may resent them or dislike them for hiding their messages.
Is it possible for religious and non-religious views to be represented equally and fairly in a society?
No comments:
Post a Comment