In his Science/Religion article, John Hick goes into detail to describe his views and claims against scientific naturalism. Scientific naturalism is the belief that there is only one physical existence, that there is no such reality beyond our physical realm, there is no such thing as the metaphysical, transphysical, supraphysical, or suprasensory reality that religions lead us to believe in. Hick goes on to argue that this is in no way a scientific belief held by all scientists, but is rather a philosophical view held by a select few, similar to those who have a religious belief system. Hick expresses his opinion clearly and is very concise and convincing. It provides very clear loopholes in the structure of the argument for scientific naturalism. I agree with what he claims, that is, that not everything can be demonstrated by science and that some things, such as the human mind, cannot be explained simply in a scientific way, because whatever happens to us happens when we are unconscious when there is no 'it is 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 does not exist in our brain, but exists when we are in consciousness mode where we do not know what it really is. in progress. 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 that area and create typically religious experiences people who feel a presence, example would be when the patient saw Christ in the strobe light... in the middle of the paper... or don't write this essay, but anyone who wants to get a good grade will always do the thing that will benefit of himself, we must cooperate to get where we want to go. This shows that we are not free and determined. My whole take on the Science/Religion article is that I agree with everything that John Hick states and tells us that we are controlled and we are totally determined. Comparison with the views of Holbach and James I agree with Holbach, but I disagree with James, because we as human beings have no free will and cannot do what we want. We are a complicated machine, where we are subject to the physical laws of nature, such as the unconscious being that sees physical things that are not necessarily true. My opinion is that as human beings we are determined and we are not free, internal laws, which cannot be explained by science, control us.