I’ll acknowledge that your post doesn’t necessarily assume naturalism to be true.
But if a person wants to take naturalism seriously, just remember it requires the denial of things like thought, intentionality and self. None of these can exist if naturalism is true.
But if a person wants to take naturalism seriously, just remember it requires the denial of things like thought, intentionality and self. None of these can exist if naturalism is true.
No, all naturalism says is that you first look at natural causes when trying to explain an observation. That is not a new idea. St. Augustine saw Genesis as being an allegory as did John Calvin and St. Francis. They all acknowledged natural causes for observations. A volcano erupted in Japan yesterday, are you going to look for supernatural causes? Did the Japanese hikers somehow bring on the wrath of the volcano spirit because of their lack of reverence?
No, the word "naturalism" simply defines the realm of today's "natural sciences".
All it means is: natural explanations for natural processes.
In other words: if we can find a natural explanation for a natural process, then that explanation can be considered as "scientific".
But if an explanation is not "natural" (i.e.: God did it) or if a processes itself is not natural (i.e.: a miracle) then such explanations are not, by definition, "scientific".
That doesn't mean science is right or religion wrong, only that science itself cannot deal with religious questions and is therefore in no-way, shape or form a type of religion.
Science is the opposite of religion, not because scientists are necessarily atheists -- many are not atheists -- but rather because science itself only deals in the natural, not the spiritual, realm.