In his article "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to Survive the Culture Wars" Thomas W. Clark suggested that the ultimate goal of many worldviews is "to establish the one true view of reality in the minds and hearts of all, and have it rule their lives." Why do humans want uniformity so badly? According to Clark, it’s because of our “innate predilections for cognitive security, tribalism, and egoism.” There are extremists (we know many of them as religious terrorists/martyrs) who believe that when it comes to worldviews, it’s their way or die. Plurality, a concept that is the easiest approach to cultural peace suggests that we agree to disagree. Empiricism, the idea that all knowledge stems from what we can physically experience and scientifically prove, is often mistaken for undermining religion and supernatural beliefs/worldviews. Naturalism, however, is the view that goes against such beliefs. Naturalism is not simply empiricism, “it requires the additional, philosophical assumption that we should place our cognitive bets with science in deciding what ultimately exists.” Naturalists will see empiricism as a means of explaining and understanding the cosmos but supernaturalists can still believe in higher powers while accepting then nature of the world (just not agreeing on what caused or created it).

One might assume that a supernaturalist or religious believer might reject the idea of empiricism because of the common misconception that it attempts to rule out a higher power, but it doesn’t. Unlike naturalism, empiricism does not suggest that science decides what ultimately exists, it only suggests that to fairly judge and address public policies (such as abortion, civil, rights, dignity, and dying), we must refer to only the tangible and factual evidence of this world. It does not out rule the possibility of supernatural worlds, entities, or concepts (we still have our right to free speech and belief); it does, however, express that the pragmatic world is the only thing we can be sure of and, therefore, arguments over ideas or beliefs that can’t be proven are a waste of time.

I can’t speak for all Christians, but as someone who might be assumed to reject empiricism and naturalism, I can say that this is not the case. I agree with Clarks views completely. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all just agree to disagree on issues that can’t be proven? Such peaceful existence is ideal, yet inconceivable and almost impossible, and I find that somewhat disheartening.