Scientific Assessment of Ontological Naturalism Based on Brian Ellis's Essentialism

Document Type : Scientific & Research

Author

• Taebe Khosravi

Ph.D. Department of Philosophy and Theology, University of Qom

10.22067/epk.2024.86425.1307

Abstract

According to ontological naturalism, the existence of an incorporeal cause for the world is in conflict with science, and basically the world does not need such a cause. According to methodological naturalism, too, scientific method is the most successful method for understanding the structure of the world and the causal relationships governing it. Looking at the issue from the perspective of theoretical philosophy, which does not belong to anything other than the outer world, we find that science has a limited share in the explanation of nature in terms of its method, and if the empirical findings arising from it are not in interaction with the metaphysical foundations of science, then it cannot have decisive theories in the explanation of the world and has nothing to say in the ontological issues. It seems that by considering the link between science and metaphysics, one can use philosophical theology in order to defend the belief in God as a complementary element in the explanation of the world of existence, and the use of science in the realm of ontology is considered unscientific and fallacious. Regarding essentialism in science, Ellis believes realistically that instead of lacking properties, creatures have powers and capacities that make up their essence and inherent properties and make their nature active and full of properties. It can be concluded that naturalism is valuable as a way of understanding material nature, without being in conflict with the transcendental and incorporeal cause. Methodological naturalism does not necessarily correlate with ontological naturalism, and what brings these two closer together is the metaphysical foundations of science, which alone is efficient in theology and the ontological explanation of nature. In sum, new essentialism establishes a connection between the inherent properties and the existence of things, and builds an objective and real foundation on the proof of the metaphysical foundations of science, from which theology can open a way to prove the belief in God.

Keywords

• ontological naturalism
• methodological naturalism
• essentialism
• metaphysics
• theism

Main Subjects

• Islamic Philosophy and Kalam

---

©2024 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

References

Arisṭū. Mā Baʻda al-Ṭabīʾiah. Translated by Ḥasan Luṭfī. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Naū, 2021/1399.
Arisṭū.Mantiq Arasṭū: Organon. Translated by Mīr Shams al-Dīn Adīb Sulṭānī. Tehran: Nigāh, 2000/1378.
Arisṭū. Ṭabīʾiyāt. Translated by Mahdī Farshād. Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1985/1363.
Crombie, Alistair Cameron. az Augustine to Galileo. Translated by Aḥmad Ārām. Tehran: Samt, 1993/1371.

Bylica، Piotr D. S. (2008)، “God، Design، And Naturalism: Implications of Methodological Naturalism in Science for Science-Religion Relation”، In: PENSAMIENTO، 64(242)
Dādjū, Ibrāhīm. “Zātgirāyī Jadīd va Ḥudūd Ta ʾthīr Dīn bar ʻUlūm bā Ta ʾkīd bar Rūykark Āyat Allāh Miṣbāḥ Yazdī”. Majalih-yi Zihn. Durih-yi 24, no. 95 (2023/1402): 83-109.

Dawkins، R (2006)، The God Delusion، London: BANTAM PRESS.

Ellis، Brian (2001)، Scientific Essentialism، Cambridge University press.

Ellis، B. D. and Lierse، C. E. (1994)، “Dispositional Essentialism”، in: Autralasian Journal of Philosophy، 72، pp. 27-45.
Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. “Aghrāḍ Mā Baʻda al-Ṭabī ʾiah”. Dar Rasāʾil Falsafī Fārābī, Taṣḥīḥ va Translated by Saʿīd Raḥīmīyān. Tehran:ʿIlmī va Farhangī, 2009/1387.

Fishman & Boudry، (2013)، “Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)؟ ”، In: Science and Education، pp. 921- 949.

Griffin، David (2000)، Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts، State University of New York.
Ibn Sīnā, Ḥusayn ibn ʻAbd Allāh. Burhān Shifā. Qum: Maktaba Āyat Allāh al-Marʻashī al-Najafī,
1985/1405.
Ibn Sīnā, Ḥusayn ibn ʻAbd Allāh. Ilāhīyāt al-Shifāʾ. Qum: Marʻashī Najafī, 1984/1404.
Ibn Sīnā, Ḥusayn ibn ʻAbd Allāh. Najāt. Tehran: University of Tehran, s.d.
Khuramshāhī, Bahā ʾ al-Dīn. Positivism Manṭiqī. Tehran: ʿIlmī va Farhangī, 1983/1361.

Locke، J. (1924)، An Essay Concerning Human Understanding، Abriged and edited by A. S. ، Oxford:
Pringle-Pattison.

Psillos، Stathis (2009)، Knowing the Structure of Nature: Essays on Realism and Explantion، Palgrave: MacMillan.
Qavām Ṣafarī, Maḥdī. Naẓarīyih-yi Ṣūrat dar Falsafah-yi Arisṭū. Tehran: Ḥikmat, Chāp-i Duwum,
2009/1387.

Prinction،Two vols، edited by Jonathan Barnes؛ The Complete Work of Aristotle، 20. Aristotle(1995)
University Press.

Randall, John Herman. Siyr Takāmul ʻAql Nuvin. Translated by Abū al-Qāsim Pāyandih. s.l. Shirkat-i
Intishārāt-i ʿIlmī va Farhangī, Chāp-i Duwum, 1998/1376.
Ross, Villiam David. Arisṭū. Translated by Maḥdī Qavām Ṣafarī, Tehran: Fikr Rūz, 1999/1377.

Ruse، M. (2005)، “Methodological Naturalism Under Attack”، In: South African Journal of Philosophy،
24(1).
Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm. al-Ḥikma al-Mutaʻ ālīya fī al-Asfār al-ʻAqlīya al-Arbaʻ
a.Beirut: Dār Iḥyā ʾ al-Tūrāth al-ʻArabī, Chāp-i Sivum, 1981/1401.
Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm.al-Shawāhid al-Rubūbīya. Ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtīyānī,Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Dānishgāhī, 1967/1346.
Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm.Taʿlīqa ʿalā Ilāhīyāt al-Shifāʾ. Ed. Najaf Qulī Ḥabībī. Tehran:Bunyād Hikmat Islāmī Ṣadrā, 2004/1382.
Shākrīn, Ḥamīd Riḍā. Secularism. Tehran: Kānūn Andīshih-yi Javān, Chāp-i Chāhārum, 2006/1384.

Sankey، H. (2007)، Scientific Realism and Rationality of Sience، Publishing Company، England.

Sellars، Roy Wood (1921)، "The Requirements of an Adequate Naturalism"، In: The Monist، 31(2)، pp. 249-270.
Stroud، Barry (1996)، “The Charm of Naturalism”، Proceedings and Addresses of: The American
Philosophical Association، 70(2)، pp. 43-55.