Nature trust does not exclude faith in God. A certain god is not contraindicated to him. The most complex system called nature could give rise to an enormous cosmic consciousness arising from the natural, just as (in their opinion) human thought flows from it. This god will not interfere with nature's faith, because he is inside, not outside of nature, not "by himself". Nature was and remains "everything in the world". But the naturalist will not accept God, who stands outside of nature and created it.

Now we can more accurately determine the difference between a naturalist and his opponent. It is not just a matter of different interpretations of words; "nature". Naturer believes that a certain process exists by itself, by itself in space and time, and that there is nothing else, and that what we call separate things and events are only the parts into which we divide it, or the forms that it takes at a particular moment or place. It is this single, all-encompassing reality that he calls nature. His opponent believes that only God exists by himself; He created a frame of time and space and the sequence of interrelated events inscribed in it. These frameworks and what is in them he calls nature. Note that he does not claim that the First Principle did not create anything else. Perhaps there are other natures besides ours.

In this sense of the word, there can be several or many natures. This should not be confused with the so-called "multiplicity of worlds," i.e., with the idea that there are many universes in space and time, like islands. However remote they may be, they enter into the same nature as our sun; they are in spatial, temporal, and causal relations with it. It is this reciprocal connection within the system that creates what we call nature. Other natures may not know space and time at all, or their space and time have nothing to do with ours. It is this lack of connection that allows us to call them different natures. They have a connection, but it is quite different: they originated from one extra-natural Principle. They can be likened to different books by the same writer. The connection between Pickwick and Miss Gamp is only in Dickens's mind; so it is here, usually one nature is connected with another only through the Creator. I say "usually" because we do not know whether different natures do not sometimes come into contact. Perhaps God allows some events of one to affect another. Then they will partially intersect, but they will not become one nature, for in any case there will be no complete connection, and this incomplete one did not arise from this or that system, but from the Divine act that confronted them. If this happens, each nature is unnatural, supernatural for the other; But the very fact of their interpenetration is extranatural in another, more precise sense. And miracles are then possible of two kinds: the invasion of another nature and the invasion of the Creator.

All this is pure speculation. The presence of extra-natural does not yet say anything about the possibility of miracles. God, the Beginning of the Beginning, may not invade His creation: and if there are several of them, He may not confront them.

We will talk about this later. For now, I will say one thing: if we decide that nature is not everything, we cannot know whether it is immune to miracles. There is something outside of it; but we do not yet know whether it penetrates it or not. If the naturalists are right, we can immediately say that there are no miracles – nothing will penetrate into nature, because there is nothing to penetrate. Then everything that we ignorantly accept as a miracle is simply events that inevitably follow from the character of the whole system.

Thus, the first choice is between natural belief and faith in the extra-natural.

III. THE MAIN DIFFICULTY OF NATURAL TRUST

You have to choose; And let's not laugh at the limitations of logic...

A. E. Richards. Foundations of Literary Criticism, ch. 25

If the truth is behind nature, any object and any event can in principle be explained without going beyond the limits of the system. I say "in principle" because no one demands that naturalists explain everything at once. Of course, much will be explained when science allows. However, we have the right to expect that someday everything will be explained. If it is impossible to explain at least something in this way, natural faith is over. If, in the course of reasoning, we have to admit that at least something, at least to some extent, exists on its own, requires independence, and does not only express the properties of a system, we will betray the belief of nature, for by it we mean the doctrine that there is only one system in the world, where everything is interconnected. If it were, every event would be conditioned by it—say, you couldn't help but read this book now, and on the contrary, you read it only because the whole system in such and such a place, at such and such a time, inevitably led to it.

One blow has already been dealt to the strict nature of nature. Previously, scientists believed that the smallest particles of matter move according to strict laws, that is, that the motion of each particle is associated with the entire system of nature. It seems that some people now believe, if I understand them correctly, that this is not so. A unit of matter (it is inconvenient to call it a particle) moves as it pleases, that is, by itself. It is impossible to calculate its path, just as it is impossible to calculate which side the coin will fall, and patterns arise only with the appearance of large numbers. If this theory is correct, we have found something outside of nature, and our conviction that the system of nature is complete and closed must be shaken. This means that the extra-natural exists, although it is too unusual to consider it supernatural, after all, it is, as it were, below nature. But all the belief that nature has no doors, and there is nowhere for them to open, should disappear. Outside of nature, there is the "subnatural," and it is from there that all events and bodies are nourished. If there is a hatch down, there can be an attic window, and events can be fueled from above.

I have spoken of this doctrine for the sake of order and clarity. I don't believe in him myself. For those who, like me, have received a philosophical rather than a science education, it is almost impossible to believe that this is what physicists mean. It seems to me that they want to say something else: the motion of a particle cannot be calculated by us, and from our point of view it is lawless for us. If they want to say that it is lawless in itself, an outsider will involuntarily think about whether this will not be refuted by new scientific achievements tomorrow. Science is good because it develops. So I will gladly move on to another topic.

Everything that we know we deduce from sensations. I do not mean to imply that we, as children, regard our senses as reliable evidence, and that we judge space, matter, and other people only on the basis of them. What I meant is that if we are old enough to understand the question and doubt the existence of something (say, the Great Armada or the solar system), we will reason on the basis of feelings. It would look something like this: "I perceive colors, sounds, volumes, pain, or pleasure that I can only not fully predict or control. The more I perceive them, the more orderly their behavior appears. Therefore, there is something outside of me and it is ordered." Within this very general statement, the particular ones will also fit. For example, we believe in evolution because we see or read about fossils. We believe in the existence of our own brains because we (or others) have seen brains in the heads of creatures like us when we anatomize.