Atheism Is Not Naturalism

Sometimes certain words get misused, getting falsely equated to other words that actually refer to different concepts.  Apologetics, theology, and philosophy mandate the use of proper definitions of and distinctions between various terms, as the opposite can generate confusion and halt intellectual and conversational progress.  As such, anyone who seeks clear understanding of ideas and how to communicate them must learn to correctly distinguish between different ideas and the words that describe them.

Two words that some confuse are atheism and naturalism.  Although some use them interchangeably, they do not at all refer to the same philosophy.  Atheism is the belief that no gods or goddesses exist; naturalism is the belief that nothing exists other than nature (the material world).  While all naturalists are atheists by necessity, not all atheists are naturalists.  Adherents of both ideologies will sometimes appeal to the same types of "evidence" for their worldviews and may even seem very similar, but the core of their philosophies differ sharply.

In terms of strict metaphysical claims, atheism does not go beyond the
rejection of belief in any deity.  On the other hand, naturalism holds
 that nothing other than the natural, physical world exists, excluding the
possibility of anything supernatural that does not reduce down to a
purely physical substance or reaction.

Let's hypothesize about a fictional scenario.  A powerful sorceress has revealed herself to others by direct demonstrations of her magical abilities, startling witnesses and leading all of them to believe that an actual source of her power exists.  At this point an atheist and a naturalist both investigate the phenomena in an effort to reconcile them to their worldviews.  Both do not deny what their eyes have seen, curious about the ramifications for their respective ideologies of atheism and naturalism.  After months of investigation, the atheist concludes that the sorceress has done exactly what it seems: tapped into a mystical, immaterial power and learned to manipulate it.  She does not think that this discovery directly challenges her atheism.  But the naturalist, holding a different worldview than the atheist, concludes that the sorceress' magic simply represents a manifestation of some unidentified exploitation of natural forces.  In other words, he does not think that the magic is supernatural in any way, only that it appears so to non-naturalists.

The atheist in this scenario conceded the possibility and actuality of supernatural forces, while the naturalist believed that an undiscovered natural force produced the "magic".  Yet both arrived at conclusions entirely consistent with their worldviews.  This distinction highlights the difference at the core of the two beliefs.  One certainly makes a far more sweeping claim than the other.  In fact, the two encompass drastically different models of reality.

In and of itself atheism denies the existence of deities and nothing more.  An atheist can believe in things like sorceresses, paranormal activity, morality [1], and meaning [1], whereas a naturalist denies that anything exists outside of pure nature and matter--by nature of its claims naturalism inherently excludes things like morality, beauty, meaning, and even logic from existing.  Nothing immaterial can exist according to this worldview, and this means, ironically, that logic itself cannot exist, though it serves as the only tool a naturalist could even use to argue for naturalism in the first place.  Since both the existence and veracity of logic are self-evident and self-verifying [2], any worldview that denies or cannot account for the existence and innate reliability of logic is automatically refuted.  Because of this, ontological naturalism is impossible.  Of course, the impossibility of naturalism alone does not refute atheism, because, as I have specified, they are two separate worldviews.

The consequences of naturalism become far more severe than those of pure atheism.  Atheism can still account for things like logic and mathematics--they simply exist by pure necessity whether or not God does.  But a naturalist cannot consistently say that inviolable, immaterial laws of logic exist because to do so would contradict the fundamental tenet of naturalism.  In the same way, naturalism is entirely incompatible with moral judgments about how the world should be or how people should behave; on this view, there is a way the world is and no way it should be.  Now, moral truths are not self-evident [3] and thus, alone, things like the existence of conscience and the tendency of people to make moral judgments do not undermine naturalism.  But moral realism (the belief that moral truths exist) and naturalism cannot both be true at once, as they mutually exclude each other.  Atheism also excludes moral realism, but in a far more indirect manner.  Nothing but theism can provide an ontological anchor for moral truths, yet atheism as a worldview does not intrinsically oppose belief in moral truths, only belief in deities.  However, naturalism immediately denies anything immaterial and thus it becomes obvious far more quickly that morality cannot exist in a naturalistic universe.

Debates need to carefully distinguish between
different positions to minimize confusion and
maximize clarity.

In intelligent debates, Christians need to carefully distinguish between the two so as to avoid both the straw man fallacy and general confusion.  To equate atheism with naturalism is like equating postmodernism with relativism [4]--the two simply do not hold to the same claims.  I have noticed that Christians sometimes misrepresent or misunderstand contrary positions other than atheism and naturalism.  Relativism is the belief that no objective truths exist and postmodernism is the belief that subjectivity prevents most knowledge of objective reality--these two philosophies do not teach identical claims, yet I have seen Christians straw man postmodernism for relativism and thus fail to either understand postmodernism or address it properly.  In the same way, it may be easy for some people to misunderstand that these two ideas do not offer synonymous claims about reality, even though anything beyond a superficial examination will show that they do not share similar conclusions beyond denying the existence of a supernatural deity.

Terms and ideas need the utmost clarity in dialogues and contemplation, and unambiguous and explicitly distinct definitions for different concepts can help alleviate or avert much frustration, wasted energy, and vagueness in conversations.  To correctly and soundly verify or falsify an idea one must first understand what the idea does and does not encapsulate, and this definitely applies to atheism and naturalism.  The two also at times demand different refutations.  All it takes to prove naturalism false is examination of the immaterial nature of logic, whereas it requires a lengthier argument to prove that an uncaused cause (what I and other people call God) exists [5].  The differences in position mandate differences in approach in handling them.  Debate requires clear language and definitions and thus Christians need to distinguish atheism from naturalism, just like they need to clearly identify other terms, for this enables them to grasp and dismantle individual ideas.


[1].  Atheism itself is merely disbelief in God, not in moral truths, yet if there is no God there is no morality, and thus while atheism technically does not oppose belief in moral realism, no atheist has legitimate philosophical grounds upon which to believe that morality exists in any form because if atheism is true then morality does not exist.  Same with meaning.

[2].  See the following:
A.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html
B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-problem-of-criterion-reflection-on.html

[3].  ". . . I do not mean by this, as some Christian apologists state or imply, that we can have any certain moral knowledge from our conscience or that we can "just know" that a moral claim is true.  A written example of people claiming that certain moral truths are self-evident would be the Declaration of Independence, which declares that the following content of the document is held to be "self-evident" by its authors and contributors, including the moral judgments made against the king of England at that time and the moral rights credited to all humans.  But something is not self-evident because it strikes someone as seemingly obvious or because most or all people agree upon it; something is self-evident if its denial brings the denier into contradiction.  For instance, someone who denies that truth exists, that some knowledge is possible, or that logic is reliable contradicts himself or herself as soon as he or she articulates or thinks such a thing, because such truths as the ones being denied are unavoidable, necessary, and self-verifying.  Moral claims do not have this property and thus are not self-evident."
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html

[4].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/postmodernism-clarifying-straw-man.html

[5].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html