15

From Wikipedia:

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1]

Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning.

— Dubray 1911

Is naturalism falsifiable, that is, is there any empirical test that could possibly show naturalism to be false?


Related: Is watching an amputated limb regrow proof of the supernatural?

12
  • 2
    Well, suppose ghosts and souls were empirically found to be real and to be incompatible with all we know of physics. Then one of two things might happen: we might expand the definition of "natural" to also include ghosts, or we might continue to label ghosts as supernatural and say that naturalism is falsified. I think we would collectively go with the second one, because we would need some kind of label for these unexplained phenomena, and "supernatural" already fits.
    – causative
    Sep 25, 2022 at 2:34
  • 1
    There is no empirical test that could possibly show even empirical theory to be false, let alone a philosophical doctrine. The idea of "crucial experiments" is long abandoned, testability is understood in a much more diffused sense now even in science. If naturalist methodology is fruitful in directing scientific research it is a plus, but not dispositive, and it would take a very long stretch of perceived failure for a tangible risk of its abandonment to materialize.
    – Conifold
    Sep 25, 2022 at 3:53
  • 12
    There is a vast number of unexplained phenomena in science, otherwise researchers would all be unemployed. None of those phenomena are qualified of "supernatural", so no, if ghost were empirically found to be real we would not label them as supernatural. A bit like when it was found out that speed of light was the same in all directions, it would trigger people to find new paradigms for physics.what is more empirically prove the existence of ghosts would imply there are experiments to reliably observe them, measure them, etc, which would make them a natural phenomenon.
    – armand
    Sep 25, 2022 at 4:58
  • 2
    Lewis had a famous argument from reason against naturalism which Plantinga extended to his own version: Lewis's argument at best refutes only strict forms of naturalism that seek to explain everything in terms ultimately reducible to physics or purely mechanistic causes. So-called "broad" naturalists that see consciousness as an "emergent" non-physical property of complex brains would agree with Lewis that different levels or types of causation exist in nature, and that rational inferences are not fully explainable by nonrational causes. Sep 26, 2022 at 3:14
  • Plantinga's argument: if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value, not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves...the actual conflict lies between naturalism and science. And your own source: Steiner...the applicability of mathematics constitutes a challenge to naturalism... Sep 26, 2022 at 3:25

9 Answers 9

1

The naysayers aren't trying hard enough to imagine a scenario where people would agree that naturalism is falsified. What you have to do is paint a picture where the evidence of a spiritual, supernatural reality unbound by any laws of nature is completely overwhelming.

Naturally this picture will be very far from any current evidence of supernatural phenomena. "Some guy said he saw a ghost" is not anywhere in the ballpark of the standard of evidence you have to imagine. We should not confuse the fact that naturalism has not been falsified, with the possibility that some hypothetical set of evidence could falsify it.

Imagine if:

  • ghosts suddenly start appearing in great numbers to everyone, as common as rats
  • they emit no EM radiation whatsoever, perceivable only by human eyes
  • all our other scientific instruments also fail to detect anything about them
  • they tell us things only the deceased could possibly know
  • God himself comes down as a holy ghost everyone can see
  • God tells us the afterlife is real and offers to take anyone there and back
  • God explains how he made the laws of nature, such as QM and GR, which did not exist previously, and demonstrates his ability to make any QM or GR experiment come out any way he wants
  • God allows us to run every empirical test we wish, gives us every piece of scientific equipment we ask for, to analyze himself or the ghosts and try to show they are made of simpler parts or follow some equation. Nothing works. They just do not operate according to any identifiable laws.

I think we can agree that at this point, virtually no one is going to still persist in claiming naturalism is correct. This hypothetical set of empirical observations would almost completely falsify naturalism. There might be a determined contrarian or two who still thinks these spirits and God could be explained by some natural laws, despite all evidence that they can't be, but the vast majority of former believers in naturalism would be converted.

So yes, such an extreme amount of evidence would falsify naturalism.

The fact that no evidence of that sort has ever arisen may simply be because naturalism is actually correct. That is, it may be falsifiable, but no evidence to falsify it will be found in this universe, because it isn't false.

19
  • 1
    if such things happened i would sooner conclude that we are all crazy rather than ghost actually existed or God appeared to everyone. Especially if they emit no EM but we somewhat "see them". In the same way that i firmly believe the "Fatima miracle", an event very close to your "god appears to everyone" was a collective hallucination. It's just more probable this way. Also the fact that we see no natural explanation to a phenomenon does not mean there is none to be found. Just like when we found out the speed of light does not add up with the speed of the earth, falsifying Newtonian physics.
    – armand
    Sep 28, 2022 at 6:48
  • 1
    @armand Oh, in the "Fatima Miracle" did God appear to everyone on Earth including you in person and hold a conversation and demonstrate his powers in a way everyone can verify? No? Then you can't equate the overwhelming level of hypothetical evidence I described with the very explainable things that have actually happened. You can't keep saying the aliens are marsh gas while you're in the midst of diplomatic talks with them over mining rights to Pluto. At some point a reasonable person would update their priors.
    – causative
    Sep 28, 2022 at 10:32
  • 1
    it's simply the closest real exemple to what you are describing. But now tell me, if a God like thing were to appear to me, what tells me it's really God? What if we are crazy? What if it's only me who is crazy and just imagine everybody saw it? What if it's aliens with a technology we don't comprehend yet? How did you rule out the possibility of a rational explanation? You haven't. Simply you think like a non naturalist, and as such you conclude that if you can find a scenario were we have no explanation, then it means there is no explanation.
    – armand
    Sep 28, 2022 at 10:41
  • 1
    first, don't assume how I would think in such a case, please. Then, you are just proving my point. The structure of your argument is "this incredible thing will happen, we will see no explanation therefore there will be no explanation" you are just making it bigger, but the structure is the same. And this is not a receivable argument in the naturalist mindset. So it can just be tossed away and disproves nothing. Just like there is always room for supernatural through the gap argument, there is always room for the hope of a naturalist solution. It's the problem with ontology.
    – armand
    Sep 28, 2022 at 11:02
  • 1
    @armand Rather than think about there being "room" to believe something, you should think about where you should place the balance of evidence. Degrees of belief lie on a continuum. Perhaps it would be reasonable to assign an 0.1% chance that naturalism remains true in the scenario I described. But it would not be reasonable to assert with confidence that naturalism remains true. It's not rational to believe something just because you have some loophole excuse to believe it. You should believe it only if there is enough evidence that it is fairly likely.
    – causative
    Sep 28, 2022 at 11:08
24

That's the problem with ontological frameworks: any challenge to the framework must come from outside of it, and can therefore be discarded as non existent.

Take the existence of ghosts, for exemple: when people who believe in them argue with naturalists, those will usually dismiss the evidence presented to them as being anecdotal and most probably mistake. For them, the believers only saw some light or heard a noise and wrongfully attributed it to be signs of a ghost (supposing they are in good faith).

Naturalists will ask for what, as naturalists, they consider to be valid evidence, it is to say empirical data, measurable, reproducible ways to observe and identify a ghost.

But, if we ever managed to produce such evidence, ghost would then have become a natural phenomenon, something we can reliably produce and control. They would have the same fate as lightnings, which used to be seen as the weapon of Zeus and can now be controlled with rods or safely exhibited in science museum.

So, either there is no natural evidence, and supernatural can be dismissed as nonexistent, or there is and its not supernatural anymore.

Note that non naturalists have the same problem. They regularly use the gap argument, which goes along the line of "ok, you have explained this phenomenon naturally, but there is still some others you can't explain and those must be supernatural". Since we will never be able to explain everything, non naturalists will never run out of things they can claim to be supernatural and their framework is just as unfalsifiable for the same reason.

That's why prudent people prefer to speak of "methodological naturalism", it is to say not a position on the actual state of things but more of an attitude facing the unexplained: instead of waving one's hand saying "this must be supernatural, we can't explain it", say "there is probably a natural explanation, let's investigate".

Considering that simply declaring something is unexplainable and not inquire is the best way to never find any explanation, methodological naturalism on the other hand has led to a continuous flow of scientific progress. It might not be true, or even provable to be true, but it's definitely useful.

9
  • 5
    Useful beats True any day.
    – Scott Rowe
    Sep 25, 2022 at 21:00
  • 2
    To me, your ghosts example demonstrates naturalism working as intended: if ghosts meet our standards of evidence, they become part of the natural world. If they don't meet our standards of evidence, naturalism continues to hold that they don't exist. So I don't really see the "problem".
    – NotThatGuy
    Sep 25, 2022 at 22:29
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy - There could be a false negative problem if your epistemology is not optimal in the sense of maximizing the number of true beliefs and minimizing the number of false beliefs.
    – user48437
    Sep 25, 2022 at 22:35
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy I am quoting a methodological naturalist point of view, so of course the explanation has to be natural. Concerning the "problem": it's exactly what you describe, though. A naturalist won't change their view, whatever is presented to them, because either it fits the naturalist standard and it's not a challenge, or it does not and it can be dismissed. Which is exactly the definition of not falsifiable. I also explain why it's not a problem.
    – armand
    Sep 25, 2022 at 23:05
  • 1
    I don't think you're trying hard enough to imagine a scenario that would be judged to falsify naturalism. Imagine if ghosts are proved real by irrefutable empirical evidence, and furthermore they emit no EM radiation whatsoever, perceivable only by human eyes. And all our other scientific instruments also fail to detect anything about them. & they tell us things only the deceased could possibly know. & God himself comes down as a holy ghost everyone can see and tells us how he made physics to trick us. At this point, only a very determined minority would still be saying naturalism is correct.
    – causative
    Sep 28, 2022 at 3:59
2

Yes, naturalism is falsifiable. As an example, the historian Josephus described a series of supernatural omens surrounding the Temple in Jerusalem, shortly before the Roman-Jewish War. One of these was that large numbers of people supposedly saw armies of chariots battling in the sky over the city. If this had actually been observed, then it would have falsified naturalism.

Over the course of history, what has happened has been that naturalistic explanations have gradually succeeded in more and more areas. Newton showed that the same law of gravity that applied on the surface of the earth also applied to the moon. The Frankenstein story deals with the extension of naturalism to include life and consciousness. Modern cosmology has extended naturalism back in time to a fraction of a second after the big bang.

One can easily imagine a human historical experience in which this process of expansion failed. I don't know any modern person who believes that Josephus's omens were real, but many modern people do think that naturalism fails to be all-encompassing. For instance, many people believe in an afterlife, miracles from the Bible, or the need for some non-natural explanation of the origin of the world. These beliefs can tested empirically in some cases. For example, if the ghost of my dead grandmother shows up and says things to me that I know are true, but that no living person could know, then I would conclude that naturalism was falsified in the case of what happens after you die.

It is not necessary to have a perfect definition of naturalism in order to envision observations that would falsify naturalism. This is similar to many other problems in philosophy. For example, Dennett makes a convincing argument that we know whether our free will has been thwarted in various examples (e.g., a lobotomy), regardless of our difficulties in formulating exactly what free will is or resolving various paradoxes, such as reconciling free will with the determinism of classical physics.

1
  • 1
    As a methodological naturalist myself, if people reported to me that they saw chariots in the sky (or, closer to us, the miracle of Fatima), I would just consider they are delusional. The same if I saw my grand father's ghost, I would first consider myself to be crazy (at the very least, it would have to tell me something I really couldn't possibly know, and still I would doubt my memory). One off events are just anecdotes reported by fallible people (including ourselves).
    – armand
    Sep 26, 2022 at 6:59
2

It has been said that bumblebees should not be able to fly, based on their body mass and their wings. This is, of course, untrue: bumblebees follow natural laws and their flight makes sense from a naturalistic perspective.

However, let us say that we studied bees up and down, backwards and forwards, in wind tunnels, with high motion cameras, in every possible way and determined that in fact, they can't fly. No naturalistic explanation is available, no naturalistic explanation is possible. In fact, we discover that if you clip a bumblebees wings, as long as you leave enough wing to move any air whatsoever, the bumblebee flies as if the wing weren't damaged at all.

Such a finding, if sufficiently rigorous, would definitely put a serious dent in naturalism... especially if bumblebees were the only insect about which this were true.

The reason these would be tough is because in the case of the bumblebee, we have close anatomical relatives (like the carpenter bee) that have flight that makes sense. Everything else, everywhere, would be seen to observe the fundamental laws of physics but for some unknown, and possibly unknowable reason, Bumblebees would not. Not because we don't understand flight, but because even when we do things that absolutely should affect their flight it just doesn't. They would be an exception, and far from proving the rule, exceptions to your rules mean your rules are incomplete.

7
  • 1
    I'm not sure I'd agree that this would put a serious dent in naturalism. It would just mean that the laws of nature don't work exactly the way we thought, and we'd need to update the laws of nature in some way to account for this (whether now, or in future, when we understand what causes this). We've been tweaking our understanding of the laws of nature for as long as the idea of the laws of nature has been a concept in human consciousness, and there are still plenty of things we don't understand. It doesn't directly support any supernatural claims (but may make some more plausible).
    – NotThatGuy
    Sep 26, 2022 at 3:03
  • @NotThatGuy I don't know, man. If every single flying creature on earth required some mechanism that we could grasp for flight, and only this one species of insect defied the most basic laws of physics that even closely related and anatomically similar species appeared to follow... I think that would really put a dent in our assumption that the universe makes any damn sense at all.
    – philosodad
    Sep 26, 2022 at 4:42
  • 1
    I think most scientists would speculate that bumblebees had some kind of previously unknown laws of science working for them, giving them anti-gravity properties, or something like that. Bats seemed to have unique inexplicable abilities (until their sonar senses were understood), but science didn't just give up and assume that bats were magical beasts. On the other hand, I'm sure there's some level of supernatural phenomena that would defy any attempt at explanation. If you could turn people into frogs by saying Abracadabra, perhaps? Sep 26, 2022 at 5:46
  • @user3153372 I'm sorry, but the idea that bumblebees would be the single entity in the entire universe who had developed any kind of anti-gravity technology, and that it, for some reason, required them to have wings that were structurally identical to all other insect wings... seriously. Sure, if some other species just casually defied physics all of the time, naturalism wouldn't take a hit. But just the one species? Seriously?
    – philosodad
    Sep 26, 2022 at 22:47
  • I disagree, as there is no such thing as something that cannot be explained. Explanations are just descriptions of patterns in experiences. Good explanations are explanations that offer predictions. Useful explanations are explanations whose predictions have been experienced. So no matter what things you describe, by describing them, you implicitly defined a pattern. A pattern is an explanation. Even randomness can be one. As true randomness is reliable too. And non-true randomness is always separatable into a predictable part and maybe a true randomness part.
    – anon
    Sep 27, 2022 at 16:14
2

Naturalism is essentially a belief in a bottom up organization to reality. E.g. at the base we have simple components and processes, and as those interact we get more complex levels higher up that 'emerge' purely from these simpler lower level systems.

As such, naturalism is refuted whenever we encounter phenomena that must be explained in a top down manner, which is quite possible. Top down means that higher level phenomena cannot be explained as emerging from lower level phenomena.

An example from computer science: say the bottom level process is a simple finite automata, and the number of states is small. Say, just for example, the laws of physics can be represented by a small finite automata. Now we observe a phenomena that cannot be explained by such a simple finite automata, but instead can easily be explained by a Turing machine, such as your computer. Since Turing machines cannot be produced by finite automata we've falsified this CS form of naturalism.

7
  • I can't really follow the logic of this answer. What do you mean by "top down manner"? Can you please formalize this concept a bit more? And what do you mean by explaining a phenomenon with a finite automata / Turning machine? What is a "phenomenon" in this context? Moreover, automata are abstract computer science models, so how do they apply to the real world? Can you present a concrete real world example instead?
    – user48437
    Sep 26, 2022 at 14:38
  • I'm just establishing that naturalism can be falsified in theory. Actually going the full distance and falsifying empirically is beyond my abilities :)
    – yters
    Sep 26, 2022 at 14:42
  • Your FA &TM analogy sounds like Newtonian Physics (NP) & General Relativity (GR). Are you suggesting GR falsified NP? If that's the case, I fail to see how that falsifies naturalism per se. Both GR and NP are naturalistic theories. Even if a new more complex naturalistic theory is required to explain a given phenomenon, that's still a naturalistic theory. Naturalism per se is not falsified.
    – user48437
    Sep 26, 2022 at 14:49
  • Well if our observations keep implying the intervention of a more powerful process on the lower level laws, that sounds pretty falsified to me. Sure, a naturalist can just keep calling the new thing another natural law, but naturalism is really the claim that all the complexity we see can emerge from simple things. If we always need even more complex things to explain the complex things, no one is going to believe the theory. Alternatively, naturalism is indistinguishable from supernaturalism, because we can just call God, ghosts, and the soul 'natural'.
    – yters
    Sep 26, 2022 at 14:59
  • 1
    You are making an analogy between naturalism and finite automata via “bottom up”, that I do not follow. Not only can I not see how finite automata represent a bottom-up explanation, but you define naturalism as bottom-up (a definition which I didn’t encounter yet) without actually justifying that with arguments/observation. Not saying it isn’t true. Just not useful. // Additionally, your argument too is based on hypotheticals that don’t exist in reality: Phenomena that must be explained in a top down manner. … As you example cannot show the existence of such phenomena,, given its invalidity.
    – anon
    Sep 27, 2022 at 16:28
2

Whether (philosophical) naturalism is falsifiable depends on one's definition of the supernatural, and whether we can find a way to test, demonstrate, reproduce, etc. supernatural claims.

In theory, if we can demonstrate supernatural claims (and they'd still fall within our definition of supernatural), then that would falsify naturalism.

If we cannot demonstrate supernatural claims (perhaps because our definition of supernatural is very closely tied to not being demonstrable), then naturalism cannot be falsified, but also shouldn't be falsified, because it's rejecting claims that cannot be demonstrated.

But how would we demonstrate supernatural claims? The problem is that our observations are bound to the natural world. One could certainly conceive of a device that would allow us to clearly observe ghosts or other supernatural entities. One could also conceive of natural explanations for this, e.g. what we're observing may just be sufficiently advanced technology or natural phenomena we don't yet understand, but many people may nonetheless deem this to meet the burden of falsification, be sufficiently convinced of the supernatural and abandon philosophical naturalism. But the bigger question is: if we can clearly observe ghosts, would they still classify as supernatural? Opinions would probably be divided on this, and it's a crucial part of whether philosophical naturalism is and should be falsifiable.


Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, isn't a claim, it's a methodological foundation. As such, it wouldn't be subject to falsification. If supernatural claims are demonstrated, however, then we may reject methodological naturalism and extend our methodology to include those demonstrated supernatural claims.


Naturalism can mean one of 2 things:

  • Philosophical naturalism, which is a "worldview that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations".

  • Methodological naturalism, is a methodology/framework for acquiring knowledge, where you proceed as if no supernatural forces are interfering with the results, regardless of whether or not you believe in supernatural forces.

Both are based on the epistemology that claims should be e.g. testable, reproducible, verifiable and/or falsifiable, which supernatural claims have not shown to be (and arguably might not be by definition). Philosophical naturalism concludes that therefore we shouldn't believe them, whereas methodological naturalism concludes that we should exclude them from consideration when analysing natural phenomena.

A quote from armand's answer demonstrates why this makes sense:

if we ever managed to produce [measurable, reproducible evidence of ghosts], ghost would then have become a natural phenomenon, something we can reliably produce and control

That is to say: naturalists don't reject the existence of ghosts simply because they're supernatural, but rather because they don't meet our standards of evidence. Once they meet our standards of evidence, they would arguably (but perhaps not necessarily) be considered a natural phenomenon. Being a natural phenomenon isn't explicitly a criterion of our standards of evidence, but meeting our standards of evidence and being a natural phenomenon do go hand-in-hand.


All of scientific discovery (at least in mainstream science) is based on methodological naturalism. That is, conducting science as if no supernatural forces are interfering with the results, regardless of whether or not you believe in supernatural forces. When we see a domino being knocked over, we don't say "well, it must've been God" as the explanation, we look around for a natural explanation for what could've knocked it over.

If science weren't based on this, we'd still believe that supernatural forces cause lightning and make us sick, and therefore the fields of climatology and microbiology (and most other scientific fields) wouldn't exist.

1
0

Naturalism is based on a definition of ”existence” as something, whose effects one can actually tell. So falsifiability is not even relevant yet, as falsifiability itself is based on the notion of existence.

Existence is defined that way, because if you cannot tell the effects of something, then even though by other definitions it may very well still ”exist”, ultimately it is verifiably useless. (A special case would be if you cannot tell yet. But even then, acting on it would be irrational, as any other thing could also exist, but you have nothing to base your decision on, which one of those possibilities to act on. As we just established one cannot tell.)

Ultimately, the error here lies in the popular notion of “it being about truth”. This is what ultimately lead to the invalid extension of naturalism into a -ism, aka a belief, with the declaration of absolutes and platitudes that are “not even wrong”, and hence don’t even qualify for being considered for falsifiabilty.

It is about usefulness. The above definition of existence is simply a useful one! And by extension, naturalism without the -ism, is useful.

Or in simple terms:

Why waste time and energy on dealing with things that might be possible, as long as you can never tell? Especially as long as you can never tell which one of all of them will actually be real.

If you enjoy imagining such things, then of course feel free to do so. As enjoyment itself can be useful. Provided it isn’t at the detriment of your actual life. Because otherwise pushing a button that gives you the feeling of happiness while your body wastes away in negligence, would make sense. ^^ (Again, we made the useful experience that neglecting your actual life and body results in ”paying the price” later. What price in terms of wasted life you consider worth it, and what you consider “wasted”, is of course your choice, as it is based or the current state of your mind. E.g. what experiences trigger what in you, due to what experiences you had in the past.)

1
  • Meta: Of course in a formal context, it being about usefulness itself has to be established first. I’m sure this has been done in the theory behind the scientific method. So let me just quickly say, that our brains exist as pattern matching and prediction machines, to get us towards a goal. So usefulness is kinda the whole point. // The point or arbitrariness of our goals themselves is of course a topic for another day. ;)
    – anon
    Sep 27, 2022 at 16:34
0

Let me put it this way -- naturalism is the belief that nature is all that is. By saying this, naturalism is unverifiable. One would have to know every single detail about the natural world in order to make this claim. Science does not study the supernatural realm, but just because I cannot study it in a natural manner doesn't mean that the supernatural world does not exist. Atheists prematurely claim that "since I can't study it [the supernatural realm], it must not exist."

0

IS THERE ANY EMPIRICAL TEST THAT COULD POSSIBLY SHOW NATURALISM TO BE FALSE? The following syllogism has much to reveal about this query:

  1. If Naturalism is scientific, then it is falsifiable;
  2. But Naturalism is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific, but opinion.

Explanation: Science progresses by the Scientific Method which requires (1) observability, (2) repeatability, and (3) falsifiability. So for the Naturalistic philosophy to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.

However, to be falsifiable it must be open to the consideration of spiritual (Divine) intervention (interface, interruption), and the acceptance of creative miracles as evidence of a Spirit realm. But this, Naturalism advocates refuse to do, dismissing any miracle observable in the Earth as something to be put on the "physical science" ledger. (See previous Answers on this posting.) A sort of Catch 22.

Hence, Naturalism is unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific. It falls under the category of OPINION, limited to dialogues in a university faculty room...or to small talk around around a wood stove in the back room of a country store.

If however, glimpses into the historicity of verifiable--and falsifiable--miracles were ventured, then the possible veracity or falseness of the philosophy of Naturalism could be addressed. If not, then the research into Naturalism's truthfulness is an exercise in Begging the Question.

Eventually an honest inquirer would come across the creative miracle demonstrated by The Empty Tomb of a radical rabbi in the Mideast who claimed to be from the spirit realm. If His declaration is true--as many eye-witnesses avowed--then indeed, Naturalism is definitely falsified! No matter how upsetting, and mind-boggling that may be to our progressive minds.

The questioner asked concerning the existence of an empirical proof, but empirical proofs only deal with the physical and this query ventures into the spiritual realm where empirical proofs are useless. Unless...the intrusion of the Almighty Spirit being is recognized, with accompanying creative miracles performed in the physical sphere of reality: deeds that have characteristics that can only be attributed to a God. Then Naturalism can be falsified.

The problem arises when Creative deeds are done, which can only be attributed to a supranatural Being, and they are dismissed out of hand by the prejudiced mind or biased community of philosophers. There is no miracle they would accept, even if a person were raised from the dead right in front of them. [Ask Jesus how He knows that to be true!] This being the case, Naturalism is not falsifiable...and therefore, not a scientific philosophy.

Naturalism is not falsifiable only because of the attitude of the modernist atheistic hardened mind-set.

1
  • As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Mar 4, 2023 at 7:24

You must log in to answer this question.