The current debates between Naturalists and Non-Naturalists about epistemology are difficult to navigate because there are so many forms of naturalism and non-naturalism and many different issues debated over. This paper will first attempt to explain and define what I think are the basic naturalist and non-naturalist positions on epistemology. Then it will compare the epistemology of three naturalists Quine, Hilary Kornblith, Jeagwon Kim with a non-naturalist/theist, Alvin Plantinga, to see if my formulation of the debate stands. I am making two separate claims: First, that one’s methodology will affect or determine one’s ontology. Second, that the main issue between naturalist and non-naturalist epistemologists is that naturalists are committed to the natural sciences as the only methodology for discovering what exists. On the other hand, most non-naturalists do not restrict their methodology to only the natural sciences, but allow for various methodologies applied to various modes of inquiry to investigate and discover different aspects of reality.
"Epistemology for Naturalists and Non-Naturalists: What’s the Difference?,"
International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities: Vol. 4:
2, Article 2.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/ijurca/vol4/iss2/2