How Successful Is Naturalism? Talking about Achievements beyond Theism and Scientism

o state it up front: I am a naturalist.I do not think that this statement is more than a confession at the moment.Confessions are legitimate, but of course they should not supersede reasons.I therefore should have good arguments in which respects naturalism is successful or at least might be successful.My task is threefold: I have to explain what I mean by using the slippery word "naturalism".I will also argue that we disagree not only because of fruitless logomachy.I will define naturalism as the-hopefully fruitful-middle between a narrow-minded and self-destructing scientism on the one hand and a tradition in philosophy that is primarily occupied with its own history on the other (1).I deny the thesis that we should not spend much time on explications.Some of my opponents like Nancey Murphy or Michael Rea (both in this volume) define naturalism in such ways that are not acceptable.I will return to this point.To put it metaphorically: Naturalism is neither an impasse, nor a one-way street or a highway.By arguing against Quine I will try to attack a position that results in inconsistencies or is even self-refuting.This section leads to challenging problems naturalism should deal with, e. g. normativity or the limits of scientific explanations (2).The third and final chapter sketches answers to the question of this volume: "How successful is naturalism?"I will give examples for success as well as for serious problems that indicate where naturalism is not successful (3).This tour-de-force-ride is inevitably abridging. 1