All I’m trying to say to you is that scientific naturalism presumes to explain all things in terms of natural science.
But the most clear headed and honest of scholars will admit there is no natural explanation for consciousness or self.
Reasonisfaith: “All I’m trying to say to you is that scientific naturalism presumes to explain all things in terms of natural science.”
First, let’s note again that the following terms all equate to each other: metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, ontological naturalism and scientific naturalism. They each equate to the others, all are a form of atheism and all are distinct from methodological naturalism, which is not necessarily atheistic.
But second, and more importantly, the intended role of naturalism in science is simply to define the limits and boundaries of scientific inquiry — science is limited to those subjects which can yield natural explanations of natural processes.
Naturalism is not intended to deny the **existence** of supernatural processes (I.e., miracles) or explanations, only to rule those as outside the realm of science.
Is that really so hard to “get”?