Jump to content

Talk:Naturalism (philosophy)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

What is naturalism?

Hi. I thought I'd put this at the top, because it seems like a fairly important criticism of the article. In the Oxford Companion of Philosophy, there is a suggestion that I feel quite confident about, that naturalism doesn't just exclude supernatural, but also things like non-natural values and universals. This is definetly the case for metaphysical naturalism. 'Naturalism' - everything being "natural", I would assume can have different meanings depending on ones use of 'natural' - such as supernatural, unnatural, or non-natural. I think that the article is somehow biased in this respect. I may change it in a day or so if I don't hear anything.

Sorry if changing it is wrong - is it best to wait for a discussion about these things - its really annoying me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.2.148 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 July 2006

Changing is fine. It's part of the ethic of being bold at Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 15:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
SA's right, but if you want the change to stick make sure that it's clearly understandable and, if possible, has a link or reference to a reliable source. I say this because I've no idea what "non-natural values and universals" are, and the article or linked articles will have to explain them to laymen like me. Posting the proposals on the talk page can allow others to help iron out any problems or misunderstandings, but certainly isn't required. Oh, and it may seem odd but it's often easier to find new comments at the foot of the page. Good luck, look forward to the clarifications. ..dave souza, talk 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Merged info

This article contains material from the former methodological naturalism which now redirects here. Let's try to describe naturalism as a whole and not splinter into small separatist factions. The only bit that didn't make it over here was a discussion of Philip Johnson's appropriation of the term which is not notable from the standpoint that he is neither a scientist, a philosopher of science, nor an arbiter of what is a subject here at wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There are (at least) two versions of methodological naturalism The simpler version requires only that hypotheses generate predictions that can be (and are) tested. It does not restrict explanations to "natural" causes, i.e., it does not exclude a priori the supernatureal. W.V. Quine advocated this kind of naturalism:
"If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes. (From Naturalism; or, Living within One's Means, Dialectica 49 (1990); also available in Quintessence, R.F. Gibson, editor)
The alternative version adds the restriction that hypotheses that postulate supernatural entities are forbidden. Barbara Forrest in Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (PDF) writes that she agrees with Paul Kurtz when he writes:
"First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible. . . ."
The current article sometimes assumes one of these versions and sometimes the other. It is worthwhile clarifying the distinction, especially since religious criticisms of naturalism assume the second version is the relevant version and not the first.
I don't know how scientists are supposed to distinguish between natural and supernatural hypotheses. In practice, the supernatural seems to refer vaguely to mankind's religions and myths and not to some more explicit criteria. People have sought to test the validity of some supernatural claims, e.g., whether some houses have ghosts. People have also sought to measure the effectiveness of prayer. So far I know, no one has ever confirmed a supernatural hypothesis. But that does not mean that they never will or that they are forbidden to try. Ivar Y 00:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Supernatural seems to refer to explanations that are external to the natural world. A supernatural hypothesis would necessarily have no evidence for it, only evidence against it (such as discovery of a natural cause). This makes belief in the supernatural external to science. Joshuaschroeder 13:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a definition of supernatural that provides no guidance for scientists. The only way for scientists to determine whether some idea is supernatural (and, hence, forbidden) is to treat the idea as a potentially valid scientific hypothesis and see if there is some way to confirm it. If scientists can confirm it, then that idea is scientific even if that idea involves a god or a ghost or whatever. Put another way, scientists can confirm that some things are natural (even, potentially, a god). They have no way to confirm that some things are supernatural (as defined above).
The Catholic encyclopedia -- see External links -- says that God is supernatural because God created the natural world and, hence, must be above the natural. However, if God is the Creator, what prevented God from installing evidence in his creation that, in fact, He exists? Why can't God be both a supernatural being and a "natural cause"? When Phillip Johnson complains that scientists are wrong to arbitrarily reject ideas deemed supernatural (in particular, to reject Johnson's God), he has a point.
I'm suggesting that statements like the following need to be rewritten:
"Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalist."
"The first [i.e., methodological naturalism] refers only to the application of the scientific method to science that assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes."
If there is "no higher tribunal for truth than natural science," then the description of that tribunal should not suggest that science can lead only to ontological naturalism (i.e., atheism).
Thoughtful scientists don't reject the supernatural a priori. Rather, they require that hypotheses, whether natural or supernatural, be testable. Ivar Y 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Just because the Catholic encyclopedia defines God as supernatural doesn't make a God that acts in the universe supernatural. That is, according to the definitions provided, if the evidence leads inexorably to a phenonmenon that can be called "God", this phenomenon will be a natural phenomenon. Joshuaschroeder 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by supernatural? Contradicting the "laws of nature"? Not accessible to science? Markus Schmaus
The latter definition. The former could be said to apply to certain physical paradoxes such as the GZK paradox or the Pioneer anomaly -- clearly not supernatural. Joshuaschroeder 13:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Ivar Y. As I see it, the first version actually describes naturalism, a philosphy I would subscribe, while the second version is how opponents of naturalism try to describe it. In fact, the second definition only makes sense under the assumption, that the supernatural and natural are distinct, which is a supernaturalistic assumption.
Is the supernatural external to science? Well, by the definition of supernatural it is. There are various views of what supernatural is, but it mostly comes down to something which is not accessible for science. Scientific method on the other hand, doesn't refer to supernatural at all and all it does is to require hypotheses to be testable, that is they have consequences, which infulence myself, I might see them, I might feel them, they might kill me. So if the supernatural has any impact on myself, it is not external to science.
Proponents of the supernatural define it as not accessible for science, but simultaniously assume that it has an impact on life. They conclude that science is limited, as it has no access to some phenomena influencing our lifes. Please note, that this conclusion is not reached by looking at science and does not depend on what science actually is. In fact it is wrong as science does not know any such limitation and hence at least one of the assumption has to be wrong as well. But rather than accepting this, one of the proponents, Philip Johnson, tried to redefine science by calling it "methodological naturalism". Markus Schmaus 15:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If "God" is not supernatural, then what is he? Apparently anything could be called natural if labeled as a "phenomenon". Sanjat312 8:07 December 2006

At the top, Joshuaschroeder wrote: "Let's try to describe naturalism as a whole and not splinter into small separatist factions." That is a terribly hard thing to do, even if placed under "Naturalism (philosophical)". The fact is, naturalism is so fractured that dozens of competing defintions exists, some of which are only minor comparrisons, but some are philosophically opposed to each other. The fact is, there are "philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, methodological, scientific, epistemic, and ethical" naturalism. Last week I attempted to describe some of these differences (see diff under My Contributions) but was overruled by one of the editors--NOT because he disagreed, but 1) he said I didn't have enough attributions (but you will see there were at least 6 with quotes); 2) he thought I had an agenda; 3) he saw no use for one of the quotes or its attribution.

Its true I did have an agenda: to describe the differences as written by others, not by me, and put them side by side; and to introduce one aspect mentioned by the Thomas Moore Institute (TMI). (This was one of the attributions the editor said didn't exist, yet it was in the endnotes. Honestly, I don't understand that complaint. I attributed every quote and source I used.)
The aspect introduced by the TMI is that some metaphysical naturalists can accept the metaphysics of "mind", "ego", "free will", and other concepts not accepted by science, because "methodological naturalism limits the metaphysical categories one can use in scientific explanations." Certain metaphysical naturalists such as myself see these things as entirely composed of the material that comprises the nature of human physiology, and does not consider it to be anything but natural.
"Mind" is a metaphysical description of a phenomenon, that which at present may be immeasureable but can be described as the momentary in particular intent, (the extension of its immediate purpose), but continuous in its intension as the volitional physical forces behind consciousness, forces that are created specifically by the physiology of the brain.
Scientists do not deny that there is a force in the muscles called "electricity" that allows or causes muscular contracts. Why then do they deny that electrical or other physiological conditions of the brain cause all the elements of cognition to maintain the description of "mind"?
It is specifically political of them; that is the reason. It has to do with "social justice." This is a quote from Thomas Clark's website, [1]. "...we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility... Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do...we concentrate our energies on creating the conditions which promote constructive personal and social change. The ethics of compassion is matched by a practical efficacy based in scientific knowledge....This reduces unwarranted self-righteousness, moral superiority, pride, shame, and guilt. And since we see others as fully caused - for instance substance abusers, criminal offenders, the destitute and homeless - we become less blaming, less punitive and more compassionate and understanding... This insight provides the basis for a naturalistic ethics of empathy and compassion that guides personal behavior and grounds effective social policy...
"We don’t have souls that continue after death." [Of course we don't; that doesn't mean we don't have souls that die when our body dies, that the soul is not a manifestation of the central nervous system.] "More and more, biology and neuroscience show that the brain and body do everything that the soul was supposed to do." [But what if biology and neurology create the very soul of which almost every human experiences at some time in their life, and that when the biology dies, so dies the soul. The soul does not have to be supernatural.]
Here is one that really grabs me the wrong way: "We are fully physical creatures," writes Clark, "without souls. Since we are fully caused to be who we are and act as we do, we don’t have contra-causal free will." [All emphasis of Clark's quotations added by me.]
Free will isn't supposed to be contra-causal. I do not disagree that we are fully-caused to be who we are, by virtue of our experiences no matter what they may be. Without experiences we would have no "causation" at all. To throw in the red herring that free will must be contra-causal implies that we would have to go back in time to eliminate one or more of the "causations" that made us who we are. That is, we would have to deny that existence exists as it is and that life means dealing with.

Dealing with it does not require that free will be contra-causal. As a matter of fact, I just stated that without causation, we would be nothing. Therefore, free will must be defined as the volitional agent that acts with or against the causations of our being who and what we are.

My entire argument here is that methodoligical, scientific naturalism denies the things that have always been considered supernatural, instead of finding natural, physiological reasons to explain the metaphysics of concepts that don't seem to apply to anything that is physical in nature.

They call this sort of metaphysics "materialistic dualism, or pluralistic." Materialism, or physicalism, is a "monistic" form of naturalism in that it maintains that only one basic kind of stuff exists--physical stuff. Pluralistic naturalism, by contrast, combines naturalism with ontological pluralism, the idea that there is more than just one basic kind of stuff." [1]

Interestingly, one of the most prominent of the Internet Infidels is an acquaintaince, Quentin Smith, with whom I have infrequent communications. I have not had the opportunity to ask him why the acceptance of "mind" etc. must be considered supernatural, instead of being a metaphysical explanation for what science is soon to show us is a continuously operative, almost-organistic demonstration of very natural processes, and that that process deserves the metaphysical designation of "mind", in the same way that natural processes cause what we experience as "emotions", which naturalists do not seem to deny.
As you see, I can go on about this, for hours, but I'll stop here for questions, comments, and whatever you may wish to say. Determinism makes me angry, and this kind of thinking is nothing but determinism and social-justice disguised as science. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Source needed

I removed the following from the page today because it did not have supporting documentation:

These groups have been known to argue that the philosophy is necessarily ontological and even a religion itself.

If you know of a source, please provide it and add this back into the page. Thanks. Swmeyer 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ID=creationism

Regarding this change to this statement:

Common critics of naturalism are creationists who claim that their religious perspectives are not respected by the current practices and theories of science, including proponents of intelligent design who hold that there are phenomena that cannot be explained by "undirected processes" inherent to the naturalist conception of reality.

While it is possible to be a creationist and a proponent of ID, being one doesn't necessarily make you the other. Please consider this from one of ID's biggest critics, Ronald Numbers:

Except for the fact that both of them oppose evolution, they have nothing in common.

He discusses ID more here. --Swmeyer 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

ID is by definition creationism. This is a matter of simple logic, not perspective. ID proponents claim life is too complex and improbable to have arisen by chance. ID posits it was "designed" by a designer. Design as used in "intelligent design" is a euphemism for creationism. ID is thus by necessity a form of creationism. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, your conclusion follows because you define ID as creationism. Specifically, you say ID is a euphemism for creationism, therefore, ID is creationism. That's the crux of your logic, and it is an assumption, not an argument. ID proponents claim there are certain indicators found in biological data that indicate intelligent design that is beyond random mutation and natural selection. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text, even though many proponents may have a theological belief in a Christian God. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect through specification whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.
--Swmeyer 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. FeloniousMonk, if you have a response, please do so over on the intelligent design talk page.
Your confusion here is caused by your reliance on the narrow definition of creationism - a specific form of creationism, as found in the book of Genesis.
The general definition of creationism is merely the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. ID is the assertion that life is the result of intervention of a designer. The two are not just consonant, but equivalent. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If you insist that "ID" is a euphemism of "Creationism", you still cannot deny that there are two different kinds of Creationism when taking into account what Swmeyer describes above. Religious Creationism defends a literal reading of the Genesis account or some other religious creation story, while Scientific Creationism is an effort to empirically detect through specification whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design. One ought to be palatable to the rigors of science while the other is not. It is clearly wrong to blacklist "Scientific Creationism" or "ID" just because it happens to have religion-friendly implications, because one can be investigated without the other much like evolution can be studied without diving into its atheistic implications. Once again, mainstream science risks being on the wrong side of history as it has so often in the past. DavidPesta (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Except for the fact that both of them oppose evolution, they have nothing in common." That's an odd statement. As FeloniousMonk says, they not only both oppose naturalistic accounts of the universe (not just evolution), they hold that the universe was formed and moulded by an intelligent, purposive being. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The ruling on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) trial under judge John E. Jones III has analysed this in detail, and he concludes that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." More detail earlier in his judgement. ...dave souza 00:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Teleology and naturalism?

Hi! This is a good, clear article, which is impressive given the abstract nature of the topic. But coming in from the teleology article, this article seems a little too focused on the relationship to ID/creationism. If anybody could say more about other current schools of thought that have an issue with philosophical naturalism, I think that'd round out the article nicely. Thanks! --William Pietri 04:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Naturalistic worldview

I'm redirecting Naturalistic worldview & Naturalistic world view to Bright. Naturalism doesn't seem to describe the obvious meaning of Naturalistic worldview, though you may disagree, so I mention it here. Likewise Atheism seems unsuitable for the redirect as it's more specific. --Singkong2005 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Scientific materialism"

Dave souza added "alteernate terms" to the introduction: This approach is also known as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism. To my knowledge, these terms are only used by Intelligent design proponents, and not by philosophers or scientists---that is, not by the practitioners of naturalism. The term is intended to be degrading by association with "materialist morality" and such "materialist" systems of government as the former USSR.

Dave souza also edited Materialism to jive with this link: Science uses a working assumption, sometimes known as methodological materialism, that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

I would like to hear from long time contributors to this article if this is an acceptable edit. I am concerned that this is an attempt to create fact by making Wikipedia say it. I could be mistaken, so I'm asking for consensus before editing.

—Daelin 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify why I made the edits, these terms were linked as redirects to materialism, which appeared to support the "intelligent design" proponent's inaccurate portrayal of modern science as atheistic. It seemed to me that this page more accurately described the scientific position which they are contesting, and I redirected the links here. If the terms are only used by them, this should be stated in the mention of these terms both on this page and on the Materialism page. It may be relevant that on page 65 of his conclusions on Kitzmiller v. Dover Judge Jones says "Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today" and goes on to discuss ID quotes referring to "scientific materialism" and "materialism". I'll be grateful for more knowledgeable guidance on this. ....dave souza 00:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That was very informative, and I'm sorry for the implication of misconduct. My understanding is that Discovery Institute (the ID think-tank) objects to methodical naturalism because they believe it leads to Materialism. I prefer your redirection, because it reflects the point of debate, rather than the implication. But, I can see it being debatable if Materialism were a better article. (Unfortunately the easiest path for improvement would be codependent articles.)

I'll consider making the changes. There's a contentious issue however: I feel it's necessary to explain why they use different terms, and it requires more than a little dissembling language to maintain NPOV on this. It is, after all, an intended ambiguity (at least at its genesis), and therefore a verbal fallacy. —Daelin 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article devoted to the terms would be in order? I can see it being quite a bit longer than a stub, and it would be a good place to shunt some of this evolution–ID debate. —Daelin 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see separate articles did exist, and were pretty bad. Heh. This'll be a project. —Daelin 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's been a bit of a problem of POV splits with articles as offshoots of intelligent design, and I've come to accept that it's best to avoid separate articles on such ID usage as "unguided evolution" etc. ....dave souza 02:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I've written a draft anyway. I imagine the introduction can be lifted into either article. —Daelin 03:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

I rewrote the lead section.

First, it was inconsistent. The paragraph explaining that naturalism does not distinguish between the super- and the natural did distingish between them, which sounded as if naturalism would do so, too.

Second, it wasn't NPOV. "restricts itself" is judgmental.

I partly based it on the German version de:Naturalismus (Philosophie). Markus Schmaus 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification is welcome, but the rewrite lost the methodological approach explaining events without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, a basis of the scientific method which makes it compatible with religious faith. As the Kitzmiller case emphasises there is a movement seeking to introduce a theologically based science which would remove all naturalism, and they seek to portray the scientific method as atheistic. Methodological naturalism leaves room for a supernatural realm beyond science, and it's important that this be clear in the intro. ....dave souza 04:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I at least removed the selfcontradictions from the first paragraph. I hope these changes are uncontroversial. Markus Schmaus 13:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism

The intelligent design movement currently defines methodological naturalism as follows.

A methodological principle that some scientists think ought to guide science. Methodological naturalism requires that scientists limit themselves to nauralistic or materialistic explanations when they seek to explain natural phenomena, objects, or processes. On this understanding of how science ought to work, explanations that invoke intelligent causes or the actions of intelligent agents do not qualify as scientific. International Society for Complexity Information and Design

According to naturalists they don't require science to limit itself to naturalistic explanations

But, does science as it’s currently practiced really presume naturalism? Does science invoke a metaphysical assumption about causes being strictly natural in order to conduct it’s inquiry? Do scientists start out by declaring their allegiance to naturalism and their rejection of the supernatural? It would seem not. The vast majority of scientific texts, papers, experiments, hypotheses, conjectures, and napkin scribblings make no mention of the natural/supernatural distinction. Scientists rarely, if ever, pronounce up front an allegiance to naturalism as a guiding philosophy when laying out their methodological presuppositions (if indeed that is their guiding philosophy, since many scientists are religious). Science operates without any a priori ontological commitment as to what sorts of entities exist. It need not make such claims in advance, and indeed to make them might very well bias inquiry. Science is, and should be, open to the existence of any entity which gains sufficient empirical, theoretical support in the course of scientific investigation and explanation. naturalism.org
Darwin, in his conclusion to The Origin of Species, allowed for the possibility that life was first "breathed into one or a few forms," which suggests a willingness to allow supernatural claims to be made. Nonetheless, he gathered and dissected the evidence available in the body of the work without invoking supernatural entities. This seems like a textbook case of methodological naturalism. One may cite an ultimate divine cause if one wishes, but scientific reasoning itself is not based on such claims.

In fact from the viewpoint of naturalism such a requirement would be superfluous. As it is impossible to explain anything by the supernatural.

The definition of methodological naturalism as given by the intelligent design movement, is therefore not a form of naturalism but a form of supernaturalism. Markus Schmaus 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: From the naturalistic viewpoint intelligent design is not wrong, because it's supernatural but because it has no explanationary power and is unproductive naturalism.org. Markus Schmaus 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent links which I'm still getting my head round. As you'll note, the ID definition claims that scientists are required to "limit themselves" to naturalism which their linked definition gives as "The philosophical worldview that the physical or natural world (or the space, time, matter, and energy that constitute nature) is all that exists. Naturalism denies the existence of any intelligence outside or beyond nature. " - in other words, ontological naturalism. The explanation from naturalism.org points out that science doesn't presume such naturalism. On the contrary, it makes a methodological search for natural explanations without presuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. This leaves religion free to deal with the supernatural realm. However, if so-called supernatural phenomena are given a scientific explanation, they cease to be supernatural. The ID movement wants science to be subordinate to their theology, and falsely posits that things unexplained by science thus prove their "faith" position. As the Kitzmiller judgement puts it, "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;... Since [the 17th century], science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth". The judge says more, worth a read. The article isn't contradicted by these points, but could do with improvement and adding the links. ...dave souza 12:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The German version gives the following definition of methodological naturalism.
Die explizit auf die Methode naturwissenschaftlicher Forschung bezogene Variante des philosophischen Naturalismus wird als methodologischer Naturalismus bezeichnet und in der Nachfolge von Sellars und Quine heute vor allem in der Tradition der englischsprachigen Analytischen Philosophie vertreten. Mit ihr kann die Unbestimmtheit des Naturbegriffs umgangen werden; sachlich läuft sie stattdessen auf einen szientistisch begründeten Naturalismus hinaus. Hier wird nach Geert Keil aus der metaphysischen These „Alles ist Natur” die methodologische These vom Erklärungsprivileg der Naturwissenschaften. Dieser Naturalismus folgt dem Scientia mensura-Satz, nach dem die Naturwissenschaft statt den Menschen, die sie betreiben, das "Maß aller Dinge" ist. "Die naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden sind der Königsweg zur Wahrheit, sie können überall angewandt werden und verschaffen Wissen über alles, worüber es überhaupt etwas zu wissen gibt. Dieser Naturalismus ist also kein Ismus der Natur mehr, sondern ein Ismus der Naturwissenschaften. Für diese Position gibt es noch einen anderen Ausdruck, nämlich Szientismus."
My translation:
The variant of philosophical naturalism which explicitly relates to the method of scientific research, is called methodological naturalism and, in succession of Sellars and Quine, is mainly hold by the anglophone analytical philosophy. With it the indefiniteness of the notion of nature can be circumvented; factually it instead amounts to a scientistically justified naturalism. According to Geert Keil the metaphysical thesis “Everything is nature” here becomes the methodological thesis of the privilege of explanation of the natural sciences. This naturalism follows the scientia mensura-statement, according to which science instead of the people practicing it is the “meassure of all things”. “The scientific method is the siler bullet of truth, it can be applied everywhere and provides knowledge about everything about which there is anything to know. This naturalism is no longer an ism of nature, but an ism of science. For this point of view, there is another term, namely scientism.”
Today, methodological naturalism is mainly used within the context of the intelligent design movement. So this definition should definitely be presented. But it should also be pointed out, that this definition assumes the supernatural and hence is not a form of naturalism and that science does not fit this definition. I do not know to what degree the alternate definition is used in anglophone philosophy, but I do know, that it makes a lot more sense than the definition by the intelligent design movement. Markus Schmaus 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

An argument against naturalism

Goethean added a section under scientific materialism which seems to be intended as a bunk on evolution as it was originally written. The paper actually says something a little different, so I've rewritten it in the paper's terms.

However, it took me a long time to find a way to do this. There are two reasons for this. First of all, most of the paper is devoted to something else--a description of "defeaters". Secondly, there are serious logical and epistemological problems with the arguments. For a superficial example, on page 9 he makes the forth part of his proof by cases, and it's an argument from incredulity fallacy on its face--it's a qualitative probabilistic argument. This is by far the most important part of that proof. It degrades into a wordy discussion which is basically about the fuzziness of certainty, and never makes a solid conclusion.

I've got a lot more I to say on the paper, but my point is that it's a bad source, and I don't think it belongs in the article. This is one out of thousands of works on naturalism, it does not represent a strong or persuasive theory, is not representative of a particular body of works, and I see no reason for giving it special merit. Without that paper, the section doesn't exist. —Daelin @ 2006–01–23 05:39Z

I agree that Platinga is not generally considered to be a good academic source on any subject in philosophy (or even religious studies, but that's another matter). I think removing this particlar bit is fine. We can keep the link to the paper in the references for people who are interested but this is probably an unnotable if predictable comment from Platinga. --ScienceApologist 06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Platinga, as you call him, is widely respected in just about all secular philosophy; your comment is inexplicable. His free will defense against the problem of evil is largely responsible for the paradigm shift to the evidential problem of evil in atheology he reinvigorated interest in the ontological argument, his work on modality is widely used and discussed, his contributions to the debate between actualism and possibilism is significant, his work on naturalism elicited peer-reviewed articles and an entire volume of criticism, he has made enormous contributions to the analysis of knowledge, and on and on. Three seconds of searching in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Web of Knowledge, or any other standard sources reveals this immediately. Any discussion of criticism against philosophical naturalism is impoverished without discussion of Plantinga's commentary. This is recognized in scholarship, and it seems to me that scholarship is a decent model for any article. Dextris Dei 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It's always revealing when advocates cannot abide by the sight of arguments that run counter to their cherished assumptions. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Saek

User:Saek added this comment to the article:

I do not believe naturalism. Naturalism is basically believe that nothing is designed. Everything happens randomly.Self-inprovement. Nothing exsits outside the nature. Eveything made of matter. Nature is big chunk of matter. So, here is my questions. Where we come from? How can you say the people is perfect being even thou we do not have adams that we had in first place? How can physical matter so aware?I believe that there is something make things. There is something other than matter. Naturalism says that everything that happens in nature has cause something else in the natural order. Where is sonething else come from? It is seems like going circle and never end. Something happens and there something else that cause of something.... Who is making that cause? Is that naturally happens? So something happen from nothing? I know my discussion is not really discussion, but I want know that how they believe naturalism. Is this naturalism make sense? I do not think so. Naturalism modern scientis are having peroblem with some of naturalism's beliefs, like DNA. How is naturalist explain about it? Where in nature start? Where in nature come from? Naturalism is not make sense at all to me. I hope that someone will answer my questions.

I've moved it here to allow discussion, ...dave souza, talk 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing at something that could use attention. I think the more-or-less "pro-/anti-/neutral" sectioning of links is a bit antagonistic. Anything supportive worth citing will also be critical. The "supportive links" are also all pretty poor, and seem to have mostly been added by people not logged in. The criticism links are mostly decent, though a few are self-defeating with even a superficial read.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daelin (talk • contribs) 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Methodological Naturalism

While having a hunt for info about this subject which seems to be unmentioned (unmentionable?) on scientific method, came across this interesting discussion at The Panda's Thumb: On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism. One gem it includes is:

supernatural explanations are unconstrained, and without constraints, you cannot derive empirical expectations, which are what science relies on to proceed

Another useful link is ASA March 2006 - Re: Methodological Naturalism Hope to review what can be used to improve this article, am cautious about adding a link to a forum, ..dave souza, talk 08:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Teleology and naturalism? (2)

As stated above, I too would like to see how other schools of thought relate to the apparent growth of the Naturalist movement in recent years. Like the creationists, I would suspect that there are others who suspect there may be underlying metaphysical constructs masquerading as science. One avenue may be that the scientfic method itself, in its reliance on objectivity and its use of peer review may not truly be a "higher standard" of proof than mere subjectivity (that which we all experience) and that such a method may not, when taken by itself, be effective in determining what constitutes reality.

Buddhism and other non-theistic religions may be a start.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedzx (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed material

Material just removed from the intro paragraph put here for review: ... Kenosis 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"According to Karl Popper, who rejected the approach as dogmatic in contrast to his own falsificationism, it is a different word for 'inductive theory of science'.[2]" 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You removed not only that, but also my clarification on the origins of the dichotomy. You allege "significant factual inaccuracies". Would you please be more specific? I added this sentence primarily for the clarification that this is really just a different word for inductive theory of science, which is also known as logical empiricism; but I was careful not to imply that Popper was in support of this position. I cited a reputable source, something the entire article fails to provide. (Which makes the removal quite inappropriate: My perfectly verifiable source should be bad, while the whole article reads like simply being invented, citing not a single source for the basic concept? That's not very encouraging.) --Rtc 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) The "criticism" doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph, cited or not (though I agree the article should be better verified and otherwise improved).
  • 2) Even after correction for factual accuracy, criticisms belongs in "criticisms". Alternately criticisms could reasonably be scheduled on a point by point basis with argument/counterargument by section.
  • 3) The addition of the material (emphasised in bold) that you added is not sufficiently relevant to include in the body text of the introduction, second paragraph: "Distinctions are made between two approaches by Paul de Vries at Wheaton College (a conservative evangelical school), the first being methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and the second ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism" That implies a potential POV to the distinction, and probably should not even be used in a footnote in order to present a proper NPOV perspective to the reader. ... Kenosis 06:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 4) I don't have time to fully explain just how radically incorrect the sentence about Popper is, because the meanings have changed radically since Popper first wrote this. Moreover, Popper was arguing for emphasis on deductive reasoning (which kind of reasoning is today also considered part-and-parcel of methodological naturalism in large part as a result of Popper's efforts some 40-60 years ago), and arguing for falsifiability so other researchers could actually check theories and hypotheses to see whether they are correct or not. And, Popper did not refer to his own theory as falsificationism. That is a classification (and a very debatable one at that) used by others to describe the debate of the day. ... Kenosis 06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1) That does not justify a revert. Why didn't you simply put it there yourself and improve it?
2) So what are these alleged "significant factual inaccuracies"? Why are you not disclosing them? I can only make a rough guess about your claim, do you want to say that carefully interpreted, Popper is perfectly consistent with what is nowadays understood as 'methodological naturalism'?
3) "Distinctions are sometimes made between two approaches" is a WP:WEASEL statement. The policy states "Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?" I added the who, the when and the kind of bias (and that "probably should not even be used in a footnote"? How come the policy requests that?). This should clearly improve the weasel statement. If it's not good enough for you, you can easily improve it further, but please don't revert.
4) "the meanings have changed radically since Popper first wrote this" and "which kind of reasoning is today also considered part-and-parcel of methodological naturalism" Who says that? Please name sources for your claims. This is just in the same way a WP:WEASEL statement.
I hope not only intellectual academics but also interested laymen may edit the Wikipedia articles. Please be more cooperative. --Rtc 06:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Taking on board Rtc's points, I've added sourced definitions and at the same time reorganised the article so that its structure is more in line with Metaphysical naturalism, and so that elements of history and criticism which were scattered in the article are put in their respective sections. The history could still do with expansion, and the many inline links I've left alone would be best converted into < ref > links, so it's work in progress. ..dave souza, talk 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done. --Rtc 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Epistemic or Justificatory Naturalism vs Methodological Naturalism

We're trying to be careful on the difference between metaphysical naturalism and something weaker, but I am worried that their is a seperate distinction between Justificatory Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism, and thus that methodological naturalism is a slightly stricter position that the page implies.

lets try this

  • Justificatory Naturalism = Justificatory support for all claims must be natural rather than supernatural (whatever that distinction is), thus if inference to the best explanation is part of the justification then the explanation must be non-supernatural
  • Methodological Naturalism = the method of inquiry or investigation limits itself to the natural, physical and material.

To see the difference consider a researcher who prays and sacrifices a chicken to Damballa (or any other more clearly supernatural method) asking for guidance in hypothesis formation, then dreams that perhaps the molecule he is studying has such and such structure. Then the researcher does lots of nice verifiable experimentation to test the hypothesis and published an account with no supernaturalistic overtones. I take it that this is an example of Justificatory Naturalism, nothing in the justificatory structure of the researchers case turns on the sacrificed chicken, nonetheless it is NOT methodological naturalism, because praying and sacrificing was part of the method of hypothesis formation.

Now instead imagine that researcher forms the hypothesis naturally, but during the experiment is worried that some of the samples may become contaminated, so he uses a supernaturalistic method to try to prevent sample contaimination, during testing it becomes clear that the samples weren't contaminated in the way the researcher feared. That still looks like justificatory but not methodological naturalism to me.

Now imagine that a our Ab'orisha scientist is told that he is required by the scientific method to refrain from supernaturalist methods at all stages of the process, not just in the justificatory part, he is allowed to beleive in the orisha, but not to enact his beleif. That would be scientific atheism not in the orthodox sense, of requiring belief in atheism, but in the orthopractic sense of requiring the practice of atheism scientifically. Any attempt at prayer, or any other supernaturalistic method anywhere along the way make you not a methodological naturalist, but many scientists of many religions DO use supernatural methods, just not in the justificatory part of the project.

The kind of naturalism that the scientific method requires is vastly less than methodological naturalism in the sense presented here. 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't follow that without re-formatting your text. --Uncle Ed 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How bizarre

Just browsing through. Are 11 separate references (making up more than half the total references for the whole article) really necessary for the statement "Many modern philosophers of science" in the third paragraph of the intro? (As of this verion) Is it a typo, broken refs, something else? It looks strange. --Easter Monkey 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a hangover from that statement being strongly challenged, and when finding justification for the statement I came across a lot of rather useful looking references which I added, thinking that they might also come in useful elsewhere in revising the article. In the event one did: have now tried grouping the others, which looks tidier in the intro line. Will try to review the usefulness of the refs, but recall that many seemed of interest. Comment? ..dave souza, talk 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced essay

At 05:12, 26 September 2006, 70.27.195.105 added this to the lead, as well as incorrectly claiming that "science is "without theism", which is the definition of atheism" – it isn't in Chambers Dictionary.

A simple and effective argument against traditional supernaturalism is one of logic and definition. By the very definition of the terms "universe" and "natural", one must conclude that any event that occurs in our universe must by definition be natural, if for nothing else (for argument sake), then for the very reason that it is occuring in our universe. Spacetime, matter and energy are all "our universe" and do not exist "outside" it. Thus, if an event can be observed, or experienced, or felt etc. by an observer who is him/herself "the universe" (read: "part of"), it must occur in spacetime, and must include matter and/or energy, thus it must be natural. Both the event and the observer would have to be extra-universal to make supernaturalism possible, only one of these being true is not enough. If events were somehow able to exist in our universe but be extra-universal, then the observer could not experience them for the simple reason that the observer is "natural". Similarily, if the observer was somehow able to experience extra-universal events, there would be nothing for him/her to experience as such events cannot exist due to those pesky laws of nature (ever put a red ant in a black anthill?). Simply put, supernaturalism fails on both counts, the event and the observer. Not only can events not exist if they are not part of the universe, the observer, being "the universe" as is everything else, cannot possibly experience in any way or form, something that is not "the universe". Since science has no authority on events "not" in our universe, the term "supernatural" has no meaning. It follows then that any event observed and deemed "supernatural" by an observer is either a psychological and not "real" event, one that only the subject senses, or a natural event not understood by the observer. Examples of the latter are abundant in history. Many events deemed supernatural at one time slowly became natural once understood, or declared myths once analyzed with modern tools and knowledge.

Despite this, an alarmingly high chunk of the total population is convinced of the real existance of supernatural events, regardless of lack of evidence, regardless of how many times one of these events is proven either to be a hoax or a genuine natural event, and most importantly regardless of the logical fallacy of the belief, as explained above. Furthermore, people are very quick to define something supernatural, as if it gains something by being defined this way, rather then described as an "unknown" with no connotations.

It can be argued that theism encourages belief without evidence, however there is still a fundamental difference between religion and supernaturalism, as religion generally focuses on faith, which is furthermore very specific (such as faith in God). One does not have "faith" when it comes to supernaturalism, so it is likely there is another independent reason for the willingness, indeed need, to believe into the unseen (often this belief is considered as a negative even by the very religion this person practices, yet it changes nothing). In fact, there are theists who hold no supernatural beliefs whatsoever, short of the belief in their diety, while there are atheists who believe in everything except the one Abrahamic diety (the genuinity of these beliefs is in question, as these people clearly have an agenda and are anti-Christian for various, usually humanistic, reasons). The key interest in the persuit of this answer is to determine when the need for blind faith arose in humans, as it clearly isn't the default, and furthermore determine whether it was natural selection that is responsible for its dominance in humans.

This obviously doesn't belong in the intro which should be concise as WP:LEAD, and appears to be completely unsuitable for Wikipedia: this article describes the philosophy set out by reliable sources rather than introducing a new argument and contravening Wikipedia:No original research..dave souza, talk 08:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a Rename

Since this article mainly deals with methodological naturalism and the methodological issues, I presume changing the name to "Methodological naturalism" would be more desirable. Canadianism 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've mixed feelings about this: problems arose at one time because those claiming that science is materialist were directing links the wrong way, and as it is now people clicking on the link come to this page which explains the various names and positions, compares them and then expands on the methodological variety. If we move this article, then the whole intro has still to appear at Naturalism (philosophy) to provide effective disambiguation of a complex problem, and avoid people looking for "naturalism" being redirected to a surprising title. A new "Methodological naturalism" article would still have to explain these various positions, so we'd effectively end up with duplication covering the same ground. ..dave souza, talk 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

where to begin

I believe this article requires cleanup to reach the objective wikipedia standard. Too many statements are unsupported, and statements such as "many philosophers of science" and "some proponents" tend to cloud an already complicated issue by lending credibility and authority to ideas that are not academically established. This article contains too much original analysis and argument, and not enough published scholarship. For example, the given definitions of terms are to be found in which reviewed journals? My understanding is that materialism has a strict Berkeleyian definition, and that the modernisation of those ideas is termed physicalism. From where do these other terms arise, such as methodological materialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazizoma (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 November 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. .. dave souza, talk 10:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, your vague understandings seem to be unsupported by references, and the questions as to the source of the term "methodological naturalism" and the meaning of "many" are covered by the sources cited under [1] and [2]. Improvements will be welcome, but this tag indicates your failure to study the article rather than any constructive effort to improve it, so I'll remove the tag. .. dave souza, talk 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the diambiguation page. As such I think both articles are wrong headed. I suggest leading out the arguments page until someone reads something written by someone with some qualifications ;)

Removed section

I've removed the following section, and am placing it here for future reference. Some of the material may be relevant to metaphysical naturalism, but it has little or no relationship to this article. ... Kenosis 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Naturalism and philosophy of mind ==
There is currently some dispute over whether naturalism rules out certain areas of philosophy altogether, such as semantics, ethics, aesthetics, or excludes the use of mentalistic vocabulary ("believes", "thinks") in philosophy of mind. Quine avoided most of these topics, but some recent thinkers have argued that even though (according to them) mentalistic descriptions and value judgements cannot be systematically translated into physicalistic descriptions, they also do not need to presuppose the existence of anything other than physical phenomena.
Donald Davidson, for example, has argued that individual mental states can (must, in fact) be identical with individual brain states, even though a given kind of mental state (belief in materialism) might not be systematically identified with a given kind of brain state (a particular pattern of neural firings): the former weakly "supervenes" upon the latter. The implication is that naturalism can leave non-physical vocabulary intact where the use of that vocabulary can be explained naturalistically; McDowell has dubbed this level of discourse "second nature".
Craig DeLancey (DeLancey 2002)[3] [4] cricizes the view advocated by Donald Davidson as not being able to properly explain the role of emotions. According to DeLancey:

In contemporary philosophy of mind, almost everyone pledges allegiance to naturalism; yet we are in the ironic position that there is a widespread reaction to naturalism in contemporary analytic philosophy, often apparently motivated by the belief that naturalism is an impoverished approach to mind. This is ironic because the offered alternatives are usually stupefyingly simplistic, the most common being that all of mind and action can be explained by generic concepts of belief and desire {...} it is hard to overestimate the harm that this notion has done to moral psychology, action theory, and other aspects of the philosophy of mind.

DeLancy also states that

{...} since many researchers in the philosophy and science of mind see emotions as something to be tacked onto a theory of mind after cognition is explained, the failure to explain emotions is hardly surprising.

He proposes the hierarchical naturalistic view of mind stating that:

{...} certain capabilities are seen as more fundamental to autonomy, and are likely to be required by other (hence, dependent) capabilities. In particular, many of our affective capabilities, and also our capabilities underlying motor control and its integration with perception (capabilities that are likely highly integrated with affect), are more fundamental than, and can and often do operate independently of, the kinds of capabilities that are typically taken to constitute highcognition; and in turn many cognitive abilities make use of, and may require, these other subcognitive abilities. Instead of a top-down, highly cognitive view of mind, in which language is seen as the fundamental mental capability that enables autonomy and intelligence, a proper appreciation for the role of affects in our lives reveals that we must start with a bottom-up, embodied view of mind in which motor control and its integration with perception, along with our affective capabilities, are the fundamental features of autonomy, upon which intelligence must be built. Equivalently, I argue that explaining a general conception of autonomy, and not cognition, should be the primary goal of the philosophy of mind.

... 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Newton reference

I'm new to editing articles, and so I'm going to post a criticism here before taking the liberty of editing. Perhaps bad wikettiquette, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

The article suggests that Newton's famous "hypotheses non fingo" quote was written in response to a question about the role of God. This is mistaken. That quote comes from the General Scholia to the Second Edition of the Principia, and was written concerning Newton's unwillingness to posit a hypothetical mechanism to explain gravitational attraction. The author is, perhaps, confusing this with Laplace's response, "I have no need of that hypothesis", to Napoleon's question as to what role God played in HIS physics.

Newton was actually quite the supernaturalist, and thought that God was continually working acts of Providence, if not outright miracles, to keep the planets in their orbits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Horst (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New First Sentence

I have been bothered by the previous first sentence of this article and, therefore, changed it.

The previous first sentence was:

"Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural (including strange entities like non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) from nature."

This is too broad and too vague. Religious fundamentalists, for example, could claim to be naturalists because they believe that the supernatural is real and, therefore, cannot be distinguished from nature. People who believe in witchcraft could make similar claims. The references to materialism and to pragmatism help a little. However, these terms do not define boundaries and a reader who seeks information about naturalism shouldn't have to go to another article to find out what naturalism means. Ivar Y (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

moving section and renaming it

I have moved the section titled "Definition of Methodological Naturalism" to the bottom and renamed it to "Methodological Naturalism vs. Metaphysical Naturalism". I was fairly confused when the first heading seemed like it was trying to resolve a dispute up front. I think the article should start off with a general treatment of the term itself, and then go into more details about sub-groupings or derivative forms and their distinctions. Let me know if you think otherwise. —Memotype::T 07:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Schafersman?

I just had a look at the Schafersman article that is linked to. It seems a bit dodgy. There's much better stuff on naturalism and especially on methodological naturalism. If anyone's interested in changing it, have a look at the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.66.151 (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This is a very biased article. It presents methodological naturalism as being anti-religion, when it is the central dogma of science. It makes no real mention of the science perspective of the topic. In the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board:

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)). As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter “NAS”) was recognized by experts for both parties as the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”(P-649 at 27).

Dolphinrider16 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article I'm reading? Because it makes clear the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism here:

This makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. This is often contrasted with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.

And it makes plain that methodological naturalism is not anti-religion:

Naturalism of this sort says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural which by this definition is beyond natural testing.

MN rules out recourse to the supernatural, not the supernatural per se--Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

What did the nominator find biased about the introduction? Or relevant about the law quote? I see nothing here and vote to remove the neutraility tag. Jok2000 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. I see nothing to back the claims. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move at this time. Insufficient participation, after a month. Keegantalk 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Naturalism (philosophy) → Methodological naturalism — It's the real subject of this article. When did metaphysical naturalism cease to be part of philosophy? —Srnec (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Did you look at the edit just before mine? And the longstanding hatnote? This article is supposed to be about methodological naturalism and it makes no sense to have it called "Naturalism (philosophy)" with a redirect from "Methodological naturalism". If you want to merge them all into one, fine, I'd support that. Propose it. If you want to have three articles, then a methodological naturalism article must be created and this one needs to be rewritten. Srnec (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not make a right. Agree that am article on methodological rationalism would be good, but I don't see why we need to sacrifice what used to be a perfectly good article on a different (but obviously closely related) topic to do it. Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. What did I do wrong? If this was once a good article on naturalism in philosophy in general, will you revert back to that point, or at least give me a link to the "good" version? This article is a complete mess and it doesn't even know what it's about. I am trying to make it about methodological naturalism because that seems to be the intent of its lead paragraph. Either: move this article, clean it up, and create one on "Naturalism (philosophy)", OR clean this up and create a new article on "Methodological naturalism". I don't care, but if you prefer the latter, will you do something about it? (The article has had a hatnote since 17 September 2006.) Srnec (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support There are two consistent options here: separate articles for Metaphysical naturalism and Methodological naturalism or a single Naturalism article dealing with both subjects. As I think a merger is dramatically wrong-headed, this article should be renamed. A further irony with the current name is that methodological naturalism is at least arguably not philosophy at all. It is better described as a technique or principle which philosophers of science broadly recommend for the scientific endeavour. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, methodological naturalism is also an important theme in philosophy today. Look, for example, at the methodological naturalism sections in the Naturalism article by Papineau in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ivar Y (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Ivar Y. It would seem that methodological naturalism does have two applications, if not separate meanings; its application to philosophy and its application to science. Papineau introduces his subject by saying: "In what follows, ‘methodological naturalism’ will be understood as a view about philosophical practice." It would seem that this "methodological naturalism" as applied to philosophy is identical with Naturalized Epistemology. The vast majority of this article doesn't deal with it, and I think the article title remains misleading. I believe renaming this page remains appropriate. Furthermore, I suggest that a disambiguation page be created for Naturalism, pointing to Methodological Naturalism, Metaphysical naturalism and Naturalized Epistemology. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, having taken a closer look, I don't think Naturalized Epistemology is the same thing as the philosophical application of methodological naturalism, though it obviously has things in common. Perhaps a subfield or school of methodological naturalism (philosophy)? At any rate, perhaps we need a separate article entitled Methodologial naturalism (philosophy)- then have a hatnote on this page, when it's renamed Methodological naturalism. So, the rough idea is three main pages: Methodological naturalism, Metaphysical naturalism and Methodological naturalism (philosophy), with appropriate hatnotes, etc. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think it important to define methodological naturalism in terms of method and not in terms of kinds of causes. The latter approach will be confusing to many readers. For example, if methodological naturalism is defined as the claim that natural causes explain all phenomena and metaphysical naturalism is defined as the claim that there are no supernatural causes, then many readers will conclude that methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are identical, i.e., that science entails atheism. On the other hand, if methodological naturalism does not explicitly exclude causes commonly deemed to be supernatural, then methodological naturalism seems to exclude nothing, i.e., it is meaningless.

In other words, the latest changes to the wikipedia article on naturalism made it more obscure, not clearer.

It is true that the scientific method implies that hypothesized causes will (almost always?) be natural causes. The reason is that hypotheses must be testable if they are to be scientific. Testing required predictions. One can derive testable predictions from hypotheses about natural causes. One cannot derive testable predictions from vague assertions that supernatural causes such as magic, miracles, and gods are real. Some may be real but these concepts lead to no testable predictions. (If God actually returned to Earth as predicted in the Bible, then things would be different. Arguably, God would then be an observed natural object, at least, as defined by methodological naturalism.)

However, I agree that the current names of the wikipedia articles relating to naturalism are awkward. The article on methodological naturalism should not be named "Naturalism (Philosophy)." Fixing this will require some rewriting.

It is worth pointing out that methodological naturalism is used in two different contexts. There is methodological naturalism as a part of a philosophy of science. And, then, there is methodological naturalism as an approach to all of philosophy. See the Papineau reference in the wikipedia article. Ivar Y (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page (haven't looked at metaphysical naturalism yet) needs an overhaul. I think a move is a great way to start: it helps define our enterprise before we begin it. I do not claim that the article(s) are great or even decent, but they are mis-titled and I can't even begin to sort it out or correct it until I know what I am supposed to be doing to fix it! Is this article about Naturalism in philosophy or Methodological naturalism?? How do you suggest this topic be organised? Srnec (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
When I browse through the references of the wikipedia naturalism article and through some books that I have, I conclude that writing an authoritative article (or articles) on naturalism is a daunting task. Further, I suspect that the wikipedia will never be very good at providing articles of this kind mainly because the wikipedia authors are amateurs. (And, the professionals, e.g, from academia, may not be much better.) At best, wikipedia articles on naturalism can introduce the reader to some of the concepts and can, perhaps more importantly, provide some good references.
Regardless, a way to make a quick improvement might to rename this article "Methodological Naturalism" and to change the philosophy bullets on the disambiguation page to something like the following:
  • Metaphysical Naturalism is any philosophical view that denies the existence of supernatural entities such as God.
  • Methodological Naturalism is the view that philosophy is best approached using the methods of science. Supernatural entities are not necessarily excluded.
Note that I have deleted the "Naturalism (Philosophy)" bullet. Ivar Y (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely, that is why I proposed the move. Move this to "Methodological naturalism" and clean it up. If we need a general article on philosophical naturalism (and we may), we can create it after we clean up the separate topics, which I agree will be very difficult. Srnec (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism is not simply a claim about how philosophy should be approached. Rather, it is the guiding principle of the physical sciences, as they are currently construed in the philosophy of science. And I do not agree that writing a clear, concise and informative article on naturalism will be too difficult. What has been muddling this topic for a while now is the confusion would-be editors have about what properly constitutes pure naturalism and what properly constitutes methodological naturalism. I think this confusion was amplified by merging the methodological naturalism article with the philosophical naturalism article. I propose that we undo the merge and focus on writing clear articles for each topic. Aletheon (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that "[methodological naturalism] is the guiding principle of the physical sciences, as they are currently construed in the philosophy of science" is overstating things, I believe. Are there no other guiding principles? Is this the only one, the overarching one? I don't think so, nor do I think all philosophers of science think so. I think all broad topics, like naturalism, are difficult for Wikipedia, but not impossible. (And what is "pure" naturalism?) I agree that the merger was misguided and that separate articles are an improvement. Srnec (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarifying Wording

I made two changes on the first page, mainly to avoid any suggestion that naturalism is necessarily the equivalent of atheism. The previous wording might have lead the casual reader to infer that it is.

I changed a sentence in the "Naturalism as Epistemology" section. The previous wording, "the processes of the universe have a scientific explanation," implies a "first philosophy," which is not what Quine advocated.

I also made a couple of other minor changes. Ivar Y (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not "clarify" the opening sentence, you made it circular again by trying to explain naturalism in terms of "natural causes." If you are concerned about the casual reader trying to understand naturalism, then avoid using tautologies in the opening sentence. Aletheon (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The current introductory paragraph says:
"...'naturalism' is the principle which maintains that all phenomena can be explained and described by the physical sciences."
This wording is too restrictive. It seems to suggest (a) that science can identify ultimate truths (because science supposedly can explain all phenomena) and (b) that God will not be one such truth (because, if science can explain all phenomena, miracles don't exist, and, hence, God or, at least, the Creator God does not exist). Both suggestions are controversial. Further, restricting science to the physical sciences seems extreme. What about psychology and sociology? Music is a kind of phenomena. Do the physical sciences explain music?
I was trying to introduce both the idea of metaphysical naturalism and the idea of methodological naturalism in my initial paragraph. Here is alternative wording that may be clearer:
"Philosophical naturalism has been described in various ways. One description is that 'naturalism' is the idea that the natural world is all that exists. The supernatural (e.g., God) does not exist. A more limited description is that scientists must assume nature is all that exists because science is essentially a search for regularities and laws in nature. Gods and miracles may exist but, if they do, they are outside the boundaries of science. Still another description is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine and others have advocated this view. The first description is usually called metaphysical naturalism; the latter two are versions of methodological naturalism." Ivar Y (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You say that the "wording is too restrictive." If that's the case, then you find pure naturalism (or we can use Hilary Putnam's "bald naturalism") too restrictive. You may want a more nuanced approach in how naturalism is interpreted, which is fine. There are indeed various interpretations for naturalism, and different consequences follow from these various interpretations. But it does no good to lay the foundation in circular terms. Pure, or bald naturalism must first be defined clearly, before other definitions (methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism) can be introduced clearly. And it simply is not clear to define naturalism in terms of "nature" or "natural laws." Those terms are tautologous in this context. Pure naturalism is an attempt to explain all observable phenomena in terms of the physical sciences. Furthermore, you introduce a red herring when you state "restricting science to the physical sciences seems extreme." The sentence did not say that all sciences can be reduced to the physical sciences. It specifically and only refers to the explanations which are exclusively encompassed by the purely naturalistic worldview. Aletheon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that sentences like "...'naturalism' is the principle which maintains that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" are not very enlightening. However, "natural" is a perfectly good English word and most people will understand its meaning so long as there are no questions involving philosophical subtilties.

I modified your original sentence a little and used it to replace my original second sentence. I changed "physical" to "natural." While I understand your comment about "refers only to explanations which are exclusively encompassed by the purely naturalistic worldview," your original wording allowed a broader interpretation. Also, the word "natural" links better with the word "supernatural" in the next sentence.

Your original sentence raised questions in my mind about exactly what is science. However, when the words refer only to one of several descriptions, these issues are less important. I looked up "bald naturalism" on the web. The best answer that I found was that it is "the belief that the complete description of the world can be given in the language of natural science" (from an article by Putnam about "McDowell's Mind and McDowell's World" in an ebook). Ivar Y (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some extraneous material from the introductory section (the lead) of this article. There are, according to the reliable sources, at least two general philosophical slants called "naturalism", with several additional minor slants which include "moral naturalism" and others. Lacking a change to a disambiguation as recently proposed, I personally suggest that the article stick with the basics in the into, and let the rest of the article go on to explain in further detail, branching out to other "main articles" as may be appropriate. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for my changes:
a) The phrase "one must confine the inquiry to observable phenomena" does not define "scientific or empirical inquiry." The Salem witch trials were based on "observable phenomena," i.e., children behaving strangely.
b) Deleted "observable" in last sentence of first paragraph. It is not the "approaches and explanations" that are observable.
c) Deleted sentence from the second paragraph that is the same as a sentence in the first paragraph. Ivar Y (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The basic distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism seemed to have gone missing from the lead, so I've clarified that with reference to Barbara Forrest's article. The latter doesn't just confine the inquiry to observable phenomena, hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. Supernatural explanations of natural phenomena exclude themselves as they are inherently untestable. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your change and, in particular, your rationale for the change make no sense to me. Barbara Forrest's article essentially argues that a belief in methodological naturalism compels a belief in metaphysical naturalism:
"I conclude that the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility."
She is a philosopher who is asserting that scientists will never observe God. (I mean literally, not spiritually.) While I personally doubt that they ever will, I find her reasoning unconvincing. It's a big universe and who knows what all is inside it or, for that matter, outside it.
You wrote:
"The latter doesn't just confine the inquiry to observable phenomena, hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events."
But what does "natural causes and events" mean here? Can scientists observe unnatural events? I would argue that all observable events are natural events, even if the event is the return of God to Earth as promised in the Bible.
I don't think that you clarified the first paragraph. I think you made it more ambiguous. Ivar Y (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, your statement that "Barbara Forrest's article essentially argues that a belief in methodological naturalism compels a belief in metaphysical naturalism" is not supported by the quotation or her article. Methodological naturalism doesn't logically entail philosophical naturalism, though it does give a solid empirical grounding for it. It's her personal view that "supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility", which I'd guess another viewpoint like that of Ken Miller could phrase as "supernaturalism is a matter of transcendental faith". If the Bible is interpreted as meaning a physical scientifically observable return of God to earth, then at that point the event becomes open to scientific testing and explanation. Repeating experiments might be tricky. Genie Scott covered the point well: "It is very likely the case that all philosophical materialists are also methodological materialists. The converse is not necessarily true: that all methodological materialists are also philosophical materialists. It may be the case, but this would have to be determined empirically, it does not follow logically. In fact, such a claim is empirically falsified, as there are many scientists who use methodological materialism in their work, but who are theists and therefore not philosophical materialists. In addition to many living scientists, Gregor Mendel is a classic case of a scientist who was a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one."[2] . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Debated troubles and human nature

Philosophical naturalism is the idea that human nature is essentially perfect and that it's distortions are occasioned only by external forces. --- Should be written that way as to clearly show that in the philosophy of naturalism it's to believe that human nature is essentially perfect Theology10101 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Show a citation to support that. Every text book I have links it to a basis in science - and the citations are already there in the text. --Snowded TALK 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll give a citation but to explain to you that human reason is what determines what is the difference between good and bad science, it's based in science but ultimately in human reason to make that interpretation. Hence, human nature is essentially perfect in accords to naturalism. Next time, if you have an objection, make sure you have citations prepared for the error before you go undoing people's work. As you've been told, non-controversial material doesn't always have to be cited. Theology10101 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not a citation it is your opinion. Please read WP:CITE --Snowded TALK 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean, come on....I said "I WILL GIVE A CITATION BUT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU" doesn't mean that it's complete justification for what I wrote. Please, Quit being rude. Theology10101 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not being rude, I an simply asking you to give a citation for the statement. You are making a statement about human reason and the nature of human beings which has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophical naturalism. --Snowded TALK 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest if those citations aren't good enough you could give me a reason why. Please give a detailed explanation using the quotes I used. I could get an administrator to settle this if you'd like? You don't have to post threading messages on my message board. Nothing that I've been doing is considered vandalism but what you've been doing could stand as harassment. 1. Undoing all edits on multiple pages even when correct retract vandalism (which I could have marked you as a person creating vandalism) 2. Harassment because you refuse to allow changes be made and reject multiple citations which you couldn't have possibly had time to review. 3. In addition to put up non-basis treats on my talk page.

Please explain how this isn't good enough

Philosophical naturalism is the idea that human nature is essentially perfect and that it's distortions are occasioned only by external forces.----CITATIONS BEGINS-----A Brief History of Scientific Naturalism "believes that we can recognize all these hallmarks of human uniqueness while retaining a view of ourselves as entirely natural creatures whose behavior is in principle explainable using standard scientific methods" "We humans are, of course, unique in that our behavior also demonstrates rationality, purposefulness, and the kinds of socially available meaning that we communicate through language and other cultural practices" "natural world as a realm of insensate matter and impersonal forces that operate independently of human or supernatural volition"<http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm>Realism and Naturalism "(under Naturalism)individual human beings are at the mercy of uncontrollable larger forces that originate both inside and outside them" <http://www.bucks.edu/~docarmos/RealismNaturalism.html>Catholic Encyclopedia: Naturalism "(Naturalism belief)human reason is the only source of knowledge" <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm>----CITATIONS END----- Theology10101 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not talking about philosophical naturalism, but instead something else which uses the same word. Please read the current article and the citations. The new advent is not an authoritative source for a page on an approach to Philosophy and naturalism,org seems to be a web site for some form of religious cult selling the services of a particular guru. Please read WIkipedia guides on editing. --Snowded TALK 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Your statement doesn't make sense "something else which uses the same word" .... I used multiple sources, plus the Catholic Church has always been known for deep discussions on philosophy. What you had written "religious cult selling the services of a particular guru" is a "point of view", is an attack on over a billion people, and isn't supported by Wikipedia, please see article on Neutral Point of View <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>
Please keep in mind wikipedia's policy on Disruptive Editing and section of "Does not engage in consensus building" which is the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Please give good reasons why those citations are not correct. If you cannot, I'll take it that the facts are correctly cited and it is the objective truth. Please refrain from any attacks on people's religions and philosophy's. I don't want to have to bring an administrator into this but I'll have to if you don't change your attitude. Theology10101 (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I am a catholic and I also have a degree philosophy and some training in Theology. I don't see your views or approach as particularly representative of catholic tradition. That however is beside the point. This is an article about an approach or view of philosophy that "naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature". That is cited with a reference to the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and other supporting citations could be used. If you look at Naturalism you will see several articles that have naturalism in their title. None of those articles match the definition you deployed. New Advent (your source) is a private web site, it does not provide a reliable source of doctrine for the Church and it certainly has nothing what so ever to do with this article on philosophy. I repeat prior requests for you to use the help pages on Wikipedia, learn how to edit. --Snowded TALK 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In reguards to the Catholic site, What I sourced was the Catholic Encyclopedia and their reference to what the philosophy believes...not what the Catholic Church believes. If you've read the article you'd understand that. My sources talk about Naturalism in the broadest sense....not the sub-categories of Naturalism, which also agrees with the super-category Naturalism. None of my sources were inadequate and may I remind you that you never cited any material that would disagree with my sources. I used 3 different reliable sources...all of which supports what I wrote. Theology10101 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, please look at the disambiguation page for Naturalism and try and understand that this article is NOT about naturalism in the broadest sense. Neither is it about naturalism in the very narrow view that you used. Your source is not an official catholic church site it is a private web site. It has not authority in comparison with a dictionary or encyclopaedia of Philosophy from a reputable publisher. Your other sources are dubious web sites. ALL the current citations in the article contradict your definition and are authoritative in nature. I have requested a third opinion (as per ANI reference) as you seem unwilling to listen to argument or read the article in question. --Snowded TALK 07:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that any of your references justifies or defends the claim that "human nature is essentially perfect" or that this claim is a part of naturalism. One can argue, like Ignacio Prado at Tufts, that humans are unique in some respects but, then, so are field mice. Uniqueness does not imply perfection. Dr. doCarmo's note is for a literature class. But he is not suggesting that humans are essential perfect; rather, he is reporting that "naturalist" writers like Upton Sinclair assert that life is "often pretty grim." The article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is actually arguing against naturalism. A few sentences after your quote, it states, "Naturalism is directly opposed to the Christian Religion." Ivar Y (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My sources are good and especially the Catholic Encyclopedia, yes naturalism is contrary to Chrisians but that's besides the point. What I wrote is the truth and cited from many Reliable sources. If you don't agree, maybe you should get some sources that would say otherwise. If not, then my sources are truly reliable and should be reflected on the page. Theology10101 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please engage with the arguments (although your talk page is interesting with mass reversions and lists of people under warning). Your sources are not reputable when compared with Philosophical Encyclopaedias. They are not relevant to an article on philosophical naturalism or for that matter to any of the other Naturalism pages. You have been pointed to this disambiguation page several times now and have failed to deal with the issue. You may want to make the case for a new article around your particular perspective and test your assertions. All you do is reassert your original position. Please engage, please learn how to edit. --Snowded TALK 14:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello people, I'm responding to a request for a third opinion.
I handle these requests in different ways, some of them are resolved quickly, others take time.
Feel free to sack me, I'm just a guy trying to help. There's plenty more where I came from. ;)
On this occasion I'm going to take the "you are both wrong" approach.
Actually, despite a little tension here, I think Theology10101 and Snowded are both showing robust but fair debate.
Here's where I think each party is incorrect. You are both welcome to correct me or try change my mind. Like both of you, I only care that all three of us end up happy with what we decide to do.
Well, here it is in black and white.
Theology10101, I think the main objection Christianity would have to Naturalism is that it excludes supernatural intervention.
Yes, Naturalism is anethema to the Bible which claims the ontological reality, not only of God, but other supernatural agents like angels, demons and the devil.
However, although some naturalists may think human nature is flawless, naturalism is not essentially an ethical philosophy. Utilitarianism may well be an ethics adopted by many naturalists or materialists, but the point is Naturalism and Materialism are belong to Metaphysics first, Epistemology second and only derivatively to Ethics.
Although I sympathise with your desire to have a Naturalism (philosophy)#Criticism section, and urge you to source first and then write it (I'll copyedit for you if you do this), I don't believe the "human perfection" thing belongs in the main part of the article. That strikes me as weasling, so I understand Snowded's objection.
Snowded, as I've just said, I appreciate your objection. I can understand frustration with Theology10101 insisting that his sourced text stand, because irrespective of sourcing, it still doesn't really fit where it is being placed. However, I think the conflict here could be solved by admitting that sourced material providing criticism of Naturalism certainly belongs in the article, it's just that it injures it if placed where it is being placed.
Recommendation: how about the two of you work together to source three paragraphs of criticism of Naturalism. I would recommend you start with philosophical objections like the Mind-body problem and Dualism; and only after that explain that some ethicists, among whom Christians are only one voice, also question the ability of Naturalism to account for human intuition of ethical principles. I think you might find that there are respected philosophers who have objected not that Naturalism thinks humans are perfect (though some undoubtedly do), but rather that Naturalism provides insufficient grounds for any system for measuring moral perfection at all! (Hint: check out George Edward Moore.)
OK guys, hit me with both barrels.
PS A good introduction and bibliography to some of the issues: Michael Ridge, "Moral Non-Naturalism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Alastair and FYI I have written and published on naturalistic approaches (even won an academy of management award for one of them). I would think more of Quine, Dewey, Clark than I would the debates around GE Moore by the way. If you check recent writings from biology and chemistry (those with are complex adaptive systems informed) you will see that there is no necessary contradiction between an understanding of religion/spirituality and a naturalising approach in epistemology and phenomenology. There probably is a necessary contradiction with rigid approaches that focus on a single revelation. If you want to look at intuition, intention and ethics you will see an emerging body of work that reflects this including some work I and others are doing on free will. Now all of that is interesting and thanks for your reflections and I would enjoy a discussion on this.
However in respect of this article and this dispute it is first and foremost a process issue, not just on this but on other articles and secondly a content issue.
On the process issue we have an editor who makes a controversial change and will not discuss it on a talk page (other than assertions followed by an immediate revert) which is not seeking consensus. Its not just this article, we saw a repeat performance on two other articles, possibly five. I treated this as an example of serial vandalism and acted accordingly. The recent exchanges with neutral editors [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Theology10101 here} have I think vindicated that position and clearly demonstrated that Theology10101 is not currently in a mood to have a discussion. If his/her behaviour changes then fine.
On the content issue, introducing criticism is a good idea, the article needs improvement. However that is not what Theology10101 is doing. He is instead inserting a definition into the lede (that I do not recognise) which does not match any of the uses of "naturalism" or better "naturalising" (the more common philosophical term) on this page on on the other articles represented on the disambiguation page. I have always been happy to engage in a discussion on any article I watch, edit or monitor. When I see a proposal and related behaviour engagement will be possible. Continuation of the current behaviour on the other hand is vandalism, and more recently a clear and blatant breech of WP:GF

I did a search on google and found Theology10101's proposed words on a page (387) from Rama P. Coomaraswamy's "The Destruction of the Christian Tradition":

"Tied to liberalism are naturalism (the idea that human nature is essentially perfect and that it's distortions are occasioned only by external forces) and Rationalism (the idea that reason is essentially perfect)."

(Note: the page came from the Amazon.com website, one of its book preview features. However, only a few pages are available. The page with Theology10101's words happened to be one of them.)

Coomaraswamy's book is sharply critical of the changes in the Catholic Church following Vatican II. While the sketchy information currently available to me makes it difficult to be sure exactly what Coomaraswamy was intending to say, I gather that he regards liberalism, naturalism, and Rationalism as bad things. In the next paragraph, he refers to "liberty" as "this false idea [that] proclaims the absolute sovereignty of the individual...."

This suggests that Theology10101's choice of words is intended to "proclaim" that naturalism is hubris and that God, not man, is sovereign. Ivar Y (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That would make sense. Checking through other edits he uses Christian Web sites (as he does here) as authority as he has here. Still nothing to do with naturalising epistemology etc. however which simply means rooted in science. That does not entail a claim for human perfection, or reason (Cog Science is increasingly showing just how little we do reason in practice). The edit is a curiosity that does not belong here, if it indeed belongs anywhere. --Snowded TALK 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
With so many people coming up with pertinent, sourced comments, I think my brief as a 3O party lapses. But as an independent Wikipedian I'd like to make a couple more reflections.
I think Theology10101 is conflating a minority theological usage of the term naturalism, with the very well known (but slightly imprecisely defined) philosophical Naturalism. What he's doing at other pages, I can't comment on, however, it would appear that he might want to be offering contributions of Christian PsOV, which is a good thing for Wikipedia, if it is done well.
On the other hand, a goodly number of editors here are raising valid objections both to specific changes being made by Theology10101, and the general "style" in which these are being made.
May I suggest that while it is a good thing to be firm about letting Theology10101 know that inevitably more editors will be called in, and perhaps other processes initiated; now that much of this point has been made, we attempt to be collaborative and welcoming ourselves. Wikipedia doesn't exclude communists, fascists, environmentalists, capitalists, or any other group from contributing sourced and relevant material from the scholarship of their party.
Perhaps Theology10101 could acknowledge that Ivar understands the well-known and verifiable Christian POV that Theology10101 would like to see represented in this article: on one Christian understanding, naturalism is a term for describing a human declaration of independent sovereignty over and against God's.
Whatever we call it, the human denial of God's sovereignty is a fundamental part of Christian theology, it explains the purpose of the crucifixion. Although I agree with Theology10101's theology (sorry for that), I also agree with other parties here that this is not part of typical discussion of Naturalism in philosophy.
I should probably retire from this discussion now. I am sincere in thinking Theology10101 is a much needed contributor at Wiki. Christian PsOV are often deleted or weasled where they are appropriate. Theology10101's energies would be better directed to those cases. Overall, I think those defending the text here from Theology10101's good faith but misguided and robust editing have been quite civil, but might like to think about redirecting contributors with passions like Theology10101's. Wiki is not against people who hold particular opinions presenting these via sources, it is just that there are reasonable constraints on this.
People often fight over limited resources, like space. Wiki has plenty of space and is committed to presenting all PsOV, so much conflict is avoidable at Wiki. As mentioned by Ivar above, process is an issue here. We need to work together to progess things to fair expression of all points of view. I agree that the sourced material Theology10101 wishes to add needs to be added in a more appropriate context, though it is marginal even there. I can only hope this is acceptable to Theology10101, and that unnecessary conflict can be avoided.
PS the "Van", Mr Quine himself, would be more my cup of tea for getting a grip on the topic than Moore. I've not read Quine on this subject (or I missed it when I did, lol). I'll bear him in mind, and Ivar's other bibliographic references, since ethics enters a little of my work atm, and recent biology certainly does. Best wishes to all, please contact me if ever you think I might be able to help. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What I wrote wasn't a Christian POV....it's completely in the realm of the Philosophy of Naturalism. I used sources from many different areas. Yet, with all this discussion...nobody is giving any sources that what I wrote was wrong. I'm frankly disappointed in the response and really understand that people here truly don't understand the Philosophy of Naturalism and the people who do know anything can't get anything published and in some cases attacked. No wonder Wikipedia is known as such an unreliable source. Theology10101 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it has been explained several times. We're not saying it is wrong, simply that your definition of 'naturalism' is not the same as this philosophical definition of naturalism. If people who write about how you see naturalism cannot get published by a reputable publisher it may be a sign that they are talking out their arse rather than a sign that every publisher in the whole world ever is wrong; which one sounds more likely to you? Lastly, Wikipedia would be a far, far more unreliable source if it included information based on sources which are unreliable and about as reputable as something you'd buy out of the back of a van, such as the ones you are pushing for us to use. Ironholds (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Then it wouldn't be any troubles for you to explain why what I wrote wouldn't be suitable for "Naturalism (philosophy)"? Please explain it because I don't see how what I wrote wouldn't fit in. Theology10101 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Its no trouble, or at least it wasn't the first three times I did it. Your material is not relevant to this article. --Snowded TALK 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Snowded repeatedly explained. I explained in my explanation that snowded explained, which you obviously read since your request for explanation was in reply to it. your. definition. of. naturalism. is. different. from. that. of. the. article. It isn't a matter of including different points of view, this is a different philosophical subject. It would be the equivalent of me asking why I can't include my information on weaponry in the article on Arms; after all they have the same name, so they must be the same thing. Ironholds (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You're not proving my point wrong...You are skirting around the issue! You should be saying that the quote "..." is wrong because it's not true about the Philosophy of Naturalism but this is the truth and here are my sources. What you said is essentially, "You are wrong because it's just different"....that statement doesn't have any substance in it and neither did your "explanation" Theology10101 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try and explain again: it is not true about this philosophy of naturalism. There are multiple philosophical theories and viewpoints called naturalism; this is a different one to that which your sources refer to. And yes I am saying you are wrong because it is different; if I turn up at the 74 mustang page with a load of information on the 66 mustang then it is completely useless; the information isn't neccessarily wrong, it is simply the wrong place in which to post it, and arguing 'but they both have mustang in the title' doesn't work. I'm not trying to prove your point wrong; I'm sure there is a philosophy called naturalism which has the characteristics described in the information you want to include, the issue is that it isn't this one. We don't include everything with the same name on one page regardless of topic; we have disambiguation pages for a reason.Ironholds (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please explain How it's wrong for this Philosophy of Naturalism? You still didn't say anything substantive on HOW this would be wrong for this article. Trying to compair 66 mustangs to other things aren't explaining how my text would be incorrect for this article. How would what I wrote be incorrect for this article? How would the substance of what I said would be incorrect for this article? That is what you are not explaining it seems to me you're skirting the issue. I've read this article many times and in fact it seemed like what I wrote would lead in very nicely to what followed. Theology10101 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ This an article about a school of Philosophy which has a definition, a body of work etc. There are multiple uses of the word naturalism which is why there is a disambiguation page to point people to different articles. Your material has nothing to do with this article. Looking at the uses of naturalism I think you need to create a new article around the particular perspective you write about. If you do that you will need much better citation support.

I suggest you look up naturalism/naturalising in any philosophical dictionary and that will give you the definition. I repeat the material you submitted has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. --Snowded TALK 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Theology10101 seems indifferent to the usual definition(s) of naturalism. I suspect his real goal is to hijack the article in order to attack and discredit naturalism, which he regards as the enemy of his religion. He has not said what the source for his proposed wording is. It might be the Coomaraswamy's book or it might be extracted from some fundamentalist religious tract. Regardless, his definition of naturalism is not that of the naturalists but, rather, is the invention of enemies of naturalism. Ivar Y (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it more likely that he simply doesn't understand the difference between his definition of naturalism as a philosophy and that of the article. A troll with that purpose in mind would be making edits to the article in question or at least trying to persuade us to include his views/follow his views; all Theology has done is well, acted thick. Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I think we have an innocent abroad and with a rather strange belief system. --Snowded TALK 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has proved what I said to be wrong. Nobody sourced anything contrary to what I've said from their "creditable sources". I'm not trying to attack the philosophy of Naturalism and all I want is that the believes to be clearly stated. In order to be clearly stated what I wrote needs to be in there substantively. Nobody is willing to prove me wrong. Please give me sources that prove me wrong. Theology10101 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources are in the text of the article. Nobody needs to 'prove you wrong'; as the person going against consensus the burden of proof is on you. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to source the contrary to what I'm saying. I could go out and find many people to support truth...But anyone has yet to source anything that says what I wrote was wrong and I would say that the basic part of philosophy, the way of thinking, should not be left out. Theology10101 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We're not saying it should be left out, just that it shouldn't be included here. I'll try and break it down for you below.
  1. Naturalism refers to many philosophical topics
  2. The definition of Naturalism used here is different from that used by you
  3. The definition used here is a very strict one referring to a particular philosophy, not every philosophy called 'naturalism'
  4. This is not because we will not include other views, but simply because we will not include them on this page.
  5. We have no issue with them being included elsewhere, however
  6. Established consensus on this page (see WP:CONSENSUS) defines naturalism as one particular thing.
  7. If you want to challenge consensus the burden is on you to provide proof, not us, as the reasons that led up to the current consensus will be documented in previous discussions/
  8. Please do not refer to anything as 'the truth'. Wikipedia seeks to maintain a Neutral Point of View.
  9. For your 'proof' see the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Naturalism. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Theology, you really need to stop. People have gone out of their way to explain this to you and you just keep coing back repeating the same points without addressing any of the evidence or the arguments. If you persist in this then pretty soon you become a Troll. Please stop. --Snowded TALK 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that Theology10101 is a troll or that he is insincere.

However, I think that he does "understand [a] difference between his definition of naturalism as a philosophy and that of the article." The problem is with what he wants to do about it. His viewpoint is religious. He reads the current article and concludes that it doesn't make clear the true nature of naturalism, i.e., it doesn't state that the naturalist is setting himself up as an alternative to God. His solution is add the words "human nature is essentially perfect...." To Theology10101, this is blasphemy; only God is "essentially perfect." Hence, with his addition, the article reveals to the initiated reader that naturalism is evil. The article will then be useful in Sunday school.

There is a problem with his solution. I can't find any evidence on the web that naturalists do think that "human nature is essentially perfect...." Coomaraswamy asserted that naturalists do think this but he was an enemy of naturalism. There are numerous sites on the web that state that God is "essentially perfect." But statements that man or mankind are "essentially perfect" are rare. The examples that I could find are:

Chu Hsi, a 12th century Neo-Confucian philosopher: "In human beings the li (manifested as human nature) is essentially perfect, and defects--including vices--are introduced into the body and mind through impurities of ch'i, or matter."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that in a state of nature humanity was essentially perfect, and that it was civilization that corrupted their natural dignity.
Kashmir Shaiva teachings "is an example of the belief that mankind is already essentially perfect...."

A search of the references in the current version of the article found no mention of "essentially perfect." Ivar Y (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a generous soul! Assuming the above (and its an interesting and well worded intervention) then the objection to Theology's edits is simple (as you imply) not naturalising philosopher would assert perfection. It is possible that someone might confuse the notion of "nature sufficient unto itself" with such an idea and/or assume that such a view is of itself anti-religious or more specifically anti-catholic. Whatever Theology should stop! --Snowded TALK 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Secular Web (Internet Infidels) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/pluralistic.html
  2. ^ "A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an 'inductive theory of science') has its value, no doubt. [...] I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of scientific method." Karl R. Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 2002), p. 31, ISBN 0415278449.
  3. ^ Engines - Book "Passionate Engines - What Emotions Reveal about the Mind and Artificial Intelligence" by Craig DeLancey
  4. ^ - book review by George Graham
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naturalism_(philosophy)/Archive_1&oldid=1136370563"