Ontological naturalism does indeed hold that nothing is real except atoms.

And the things formed out of patterns of atoms — things like the love, wisdom and grace that you refer to — are also real in the naturalistic worldview.

Imagination is real. That doesn’t mean that the things you imagine are necessarily real.

@Heather: I believe your reply makes my point. Ontological naturalism does indeed hold that nothing is real except atoms. But as your reply acknowledges, we all know that is not really the case.

Naturalism doesn’t say those things aren’t real at all!

Atheists fall in love too mate, we appreciate and are wowed by things like the beauty of nature. Personally, the more I understand about evolution, for example, the more amazing I find the world around me. It’s even meant I can find beauty in things I never did before.

There is though a mathematical explanation why we find some art, music, plants, animals etc more beautiful than others. I don’t think that takes anything away from enjoying them.

>Have you really never observed those things in the world around you?

Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? Naturalism says those things aren’t real, but we know they are, and we know it rationally, not empirically.

>science can give far better answers

And in what sense is that statement itself anything but an opinion or a preference?

Now I’m going to have to go back and read everything you’ve both written again closely, and I’m not sure I have the time now. I’ll get back to you if/when I do.

Nothing that matters (love, wisdom, grace) is observable or measurable.

Have you really never observed those things in the world around you?

And science is quite flummoxed by questions that matter (Who am I? So what? Now what?).

Not at all, science can give far better answers to those than the pretend answers that religion gives. It’s just that you prefer the pretend answers.

Hi Heather,

There is no evidence that from time to time a supernatural being disrupts that pattern.

Agreed. And that’s the point. Science could in-principle search for such evidence. It could conceivably be that there was indeed a supernatural god intervening in the world, and if so science could detect those interventions and study them. It is then the absence of any evidence for such that leads us to reject theism.

That is not what Luke is saying. Luke is going further and saying that science could not cope with such evidence. He says that “Such a universe isn’t knowable”. He says that such interventions would mean that “the scientific worldview was contradicted” (and thus that the scientific worldview must a priori exclude such possibilities).

That is a very different stance than saying that science *could* detect and study gods, and rejects gods because there is no evidence for them. In the same way, science could detect and study unicorns, and rejects the existence of such because there is no evidence for them.

The purview of science is nature, not being. Science describes and explains what is observed, but has nothing to say about what is real. Nothing that matters (love, wisdom, grace) is observable or measurable. And science is quite flummoxed by questions that matter (Who am I? So what? Now what?).

On the great playground of truth, science occupies a little sandbox with its own toys and rules. It’s marvelous fun to play in the sandbox, but we ought never mistake it for the whole playground.

I don’t think that’s what he’s doing at all. I feel like you’re making Luke’s essay make claims it actually doesn’t. The point is that physical laws are standard. Yes, we change them when we discover new stuff, but they always follow a pattern. There is no evidence that from time to time a supernatural being disrupts that pattern.

You bring up prayer, but I’m sure you know there have been plenty of studies on whether it works and they’ve all come up negative. And you know perfectly well that if there was any scientific evidence of God, the religious would be singing it from every roof top. Organisations like the Templeton Foundation spend millions every year trying to find that evidence and they’ve never succeeded. I guess it could be that God doesn’t want to be found, but the best explanation is that he doesn’t exist.