Does Science Need Naturalism?

Many philosophers along with scientists would concede so. That any alternatives to naturalism must be avoided. That would include idealism along with dualism. It is true in nature all we see is natural phenomena, even though naturalism has succeeded in many frontiers. It runs a road block when it comes to consciousness itself and the nature of reality. The fact is dualism can explain all of the successes that naturalism can because dualism implies both natural phenomena and paranormal phenomena. Of course, if you concede that consciousness is just an illusion generated by the brain along with free will, and that no paranormal phenomena exist, then just monism[naturalism] is correct. One of the big reasons why most scientists are naturalists is because of the fear of god or religion is one of the best reasons for believing naturalism is right.


Of course, that reasoning is an appeal to fear than it is of following the evidence wherever that may leads us. When i say a fear of religion i don't mean a fear of going to church. What i mean is a fear of being associated with anything that sounds religious such as ghosts, poltergeists, mental mediumship etc. Of course, while mainstream scientists who the majority are naturalists feel no need to be associated with anything that sounds religious. Some mainstream scientists such as William James along with other scientists gathered an enormous amount repeatable scientific evidence that support the survival hypothesis. This is of course not what these psychical researchers ever imagine would happen. They wanted to show that all psychics were frauds, cold readers etc. I will say however there are some naturalist's are are openfully honest about their position [Searle, Lycan, Nagel along with a few others].