Can naturalism and supernaturalism "coexist peacefully"?

Many people may hope to achieve such peaceful coexistence, but it is impossible to fully achieve. There will always be at least a few individuals who are intolerant of other sides of the debate who will pursue coercive and violent means to defend their views and crush their opponents. As humans, we have the innate ability to accept and agree with certain views and, also, the ability to disagree with others. It is natural for humans to attempt to spread (both consciously and unconsciously) their views to others.

Thomas Clark, the author of "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to survive the culture wars," is arguing for the existence of a public space in which naturalists and supernaturalists can debate peacefully. Additionally, he encourages science and critical thinking to be taught in the classroom. He also offers some advice on reassuring the supernaturalists that by teaching science in the classroom we will not be disregarding religion. I understand and agree with Clark's recommendation, but I also find it interesting that he is the director of the Center for Naturalism. He might be subconsciously encouraging the acceptance of his own views.

I support the creation of an ideologically-neutral public space where individuals are free to encourage others to accept their beliefs and to promote awareness of such beliefs. In creating this space, we are also allowing for debate. So long as the debate remains peaceful, it should continue. And if an individual, or group of individuals, pursue(s) violent measures, legal consequences must be implemented. The legal system acts as a protective system that encourages debate.


If you had known that Thomas Clark was the director of the Center for Naturalism before reading this article, would you have approached it more critically? Or if he was the director of the Center for Supernaturalism might that have affected your approach to the material? If so, doesn't that already introduce bias into your comprehension/analysis of the text?

If such bias is so easy to introduce in just reading this essay, do you think that we bring our beliefs to every conversation we have? Regardless of whether or not we are advocating our views? Might this spark debate? Does peaceful debate occasion learning?