Along with Michael Shermer's brilliant essay that Oliver showed us a few days ago, Thomas W. Clark's view on naturalism optimisticly viewed the world through science's yearning eyes, noneother. As Clark stated in his closing sentence, "For the naturalist, nature is all there is, and therefore it's enough."
Clark's essay really struck a chord in me- one that's always made me shake, dumbfounded in my boots. He refers to God as the "unexplained explainer", and, to me I couldn't find a better way of describing it. He states that because naturalists are driven by the quest for reliable knowledge, we are not in the business of defending a particular picture of a particular ontology. Being pretty well-rounded in the knowledge of the Christian bible from earlier years (drastically different years, I might add), I couldn't help but point out these few verses that I'd like whoever's interested to consider questioning:
John 16:7: "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you."
I don't know if scientists involved in the God Particle experiment would have any helper to thank, besides the goodness of previous scientists' theories to help ground their own.
And one more that I found involving the forever "secret" that we as humans (or, in this situation, little children who aren't supposed to reach for the cookie jar) can never discover:
Deut. 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."
I just can't help but object to this statement. Our secrets here on earth are ever-changing, new discoveries in science prove that we do in fact hold the key to many discoveries to come, especially in this time with discoveries are only in their infancy! So, who to thank? I really don't believe that there is anyone, besides that "goodness" we were all talking about! We unlocked these secrets of the natural earth. It can be explained, though with a mind very open to changes.
To me, the weeding out of subjective hopes when picturing reality is the most exciting. It is what it is, and so far it's done a damn good job of being completely and utterly jaw-dropping and magnificent. Why need the unpromised hopes of a "secret"? Why need more?
Lastly: A factual question for those of you still hanging in there.
What, according to Clark, defines the worldview of"naturalism"?
A: disbelief in a creator, a corollary of the rationally defensible claim that nature is all there is