The Challenge of Defining Naturalness

Consider the issue from a different perspective: scientific advancement is characterized by the ability to elucidate aspects of nature using other natural components, thus expanding our grasp of the universe's enormity. Scientists have explored both outer space and the minutiae of the microscopic world, even tracing the universe's origins back billions of years.

Throughout their investigations, scientists have identified numerous patterns, many being causal—indicating they are consistent and reliable rather than random. For instance, rain occurs due to gravity and the water cycle, the Sun’s heat is a result of nuclear fusion, and organisms consume food to combat entropy.

These patterns may either continue infinitely, leading to an unresolvable question about the existence of such an endless system, or they may trace back to a fundamental source of nature that cannot be scientifically explained. This source could encompass the Big Bang's singularity or the foundations of quantum mechanics, leading to the conclusion that science struggles to articulate the essence of naturalness.

In the context of life, if Earth were the universe’s sole habitat for living organisms, one might expect a shared, metaphysical characteristic among various life forms. Evolutionary theory posits that all life on Earth shares a genetic lineage from a common ancestor, suggesting that understanding the origin of this ancestor could explain all subsequent life.

Conversely, if life exists on many different planets, including those unlike ours, there would be a broader characteristic of life that extends beyond the understanding of terrestrial organisms. This raises questions about the underlying unity of nature and why miracles do not occur.

One potential scientific explanation for naturalness posits a continuum of universes within a multiverse, akin to the variety of life forms across planets. Each universe may adapt to its environment, while our universe appears natural due to the governing laws it adheres to.

However, this perspective merely shifts the problem, as it assumes an evolutionary framework without addressing the nature of the overarching multiverse. This reflects a reliance on methodological naturalism rather than providing clarity on naturalness itself.

Is Science Evolving into a Form of Theology?

Two additional considerations are important. Firstly, the definition of naturalness is contingent upon the objectives of scientific methodologies, which evolve alongside scientific understanding. Fundamental sciences like theoretical physics differ from applied sciences by often sidelining causality in favor of mathematical structures. Bertrand Russell highlighted this distinction, noting that fundamental physics tends to favor abstract mathematics over causal explanations, which may be remnants of religious thinking.

The challenge arises when attempting to test cosmological hypotheses, as definitive experiments often exceed current capabilities. Theoretical physicists may thus lean towards mathematical elegance rather than empirical validation, resembling a modern form of Neoplatonism by proposing abstract structures that can appear almost supernatural.

This raises the question of whether there is a substantive difference between theologians and theoretical physicists. Both groups accept unfalsifiable claims about realms beyond direct observation, albeit with differing approaches—while theologians often personify the supernatural, scientists seek to quantify it.

Thus, it could be argued that science might account for naturalness only by evolving into a discipline that obscures its reliance on the supernatural, presenting it through complex mathematics rather than traditional religious language.

The Sociological Perspective on Naturalness

Secondly, the enigma surrounding naturalness can be mitigated by recognizing that it is, in part, a subjective concept. What is deemed "natural" often aligns with the goals and methods of science. Fundamentally, nature is physical, characterized by its energy and usefulness, but devoid of rights or personhood.

Consequently, understanding naturalness may require a sociological lens, examining the ambitions behind scientific exploration. Our quest to define naturalness might reflect human aspirations rather than an objective reality. The pursuit of knowledge may be driven by an imperialistic agenda, as humanity seeks to dominate not only nature but also other species and resources.

Even if nature originates from a supernatural source, as proposed by theists, naturalists may resist acknowledging this due to their relentless ambition. "Nature" could thus be redefined to encompass abstract concepts that border on the supernatural.

Imagining a miracle that would invalidate methodological naturalism poses a challenge. For instance, if humanity were suddenly transported to a cloud realm, would this be a divine act or an extraterrestrial experiment?

Ultimately, naturalism is founded not only on empirical evidence but also on a modern secular confidence that may lead to self-destructive consequences, as evidenced by the current environmental crisis. Perhaps we cannot explain naturalness by attributing it to something else, as doing so undermines the belief in our entitlement to govern the planet and all that exists within it.