In his article Science/Religion, John Hick goes into detail to describe his views and assertions against scientific naturalism. Scientific naturalism is the belief that there is only physical existence, that there is no reality beyond our physical realm, that there is no metaphysical, transphysical, supraphysical or suprasensory to which religions lead us. Hick goes on to argue that this is by no means a scientific belief shared by all scientists, but rather a philosophical view held by a select few, similar to those with a religious belief system. Hick expresses his opinion clearly, very concisely and convincingly. It provides very clear flaws in the structure of the argument for scientific naturalism. I agree with his arguments that not everything can be proven by science and that some things, such as the human mind, cannot simply be explained scientifically because everything what happens to us happens when we are unconscious, when there is no information. electrochemical activity in the brain and neutral activity in our skull. In other words, we can say that there is no pain in the brain and what we see, hear and feel do not exist in our brain, but they exist when we are in the consciousness mode of which we don't know what really is. Scientific naturalism attempts to invalidate religion by claiming that all reality is purely material, but this is not necessarily true because they have found a place in the brain that they believe causes religious experiences in the brain, we can try to stimulate this area and create religious experiences, usually people feel a presence, for example when the patient sees Christ in the strobe... middle of paper ... or don't write this essay, but whoever wants to get a good grade will always do what will benefit them, we must cooperate to get where we want to get. This proves that we are not free and determined. My opinion on the Science/Religion article is that I agree with everything John Hick says and tells us that we are controlled and that we are totally determined. Comparison with Holbach and James's view I agree with Holbach, but I disagree with James, because we as humans are not free and we cannot do what we want. We are a complicated machine, in which we are subject to the physical laws of nature, being unconscious, seeing physical things that are not necessarily true. My opinion is that as humans we are determined and are not free, internal laws, which cannot be explained by science, control us..