Clark

I disagree with the claim in the Q&A that Clark believes that naturalism and supernaturalism can exist peacefully together. In the first several pages I could see where he was going and I agreed with what he was saying. However, as the later stages of the essay progressed, I sensed a very strong bias against supernaturalism. I will have to pay attention this week to see if I am just making hasty  misunderstandings about the article, but I think that Clark contradicts himself several times. My biggest source of irritation came right at the end of the essay. In his second paragraph of REASSURING SUPERNATURALISTS, Clark states that "We can reassure the forces of faith non-empiricism that naturalism as a worldview isn't assumed in public policy or discourse" (7). Really? Earlier he stated that "whatever our worldview, we have to act as this-world empiricists when arguing for policy" (3), so which one is it? He first says that we need to think empirically when making policies, and I agree with this. But to then go on later to say that supernaturalists don't have to worry about being governed by naturalist policies is ridiculous. The entire essay has a sort of pity emanating towards supernaturalists. I feel that Clark is a naturalist and does not hold a high opinion of supernaturalists. His speech belittles them and he then throws in this contradictory remark in the REASSURING SUPERNATURALISTS section. The word choice of "reassuring" seems to me to be like a parent talking to a child, "O don't worry, you can still think what you want". Maybe I'm just ignorant to Clark's message because of the bias I supposedly found, we'll see.