"Naturalism"; Any takers?

[pood]

So I was bopping around the forum here and I noticed that many of our site sponsors espouse or promote a philosophy called "naturalism". I don't think I have ever paid attention to this particular emanation of Western secularism, and would be curious to know more about it. Does anyone here describe themselves as a naturalist? If so, what does the term mean to you? How is naturalism different from, say, materialism? What is the "nature" part of naturalism meant to refer to exactly? I can look up wikipedia on my own, but I am curious about your personal take.

The way I understand it, naturalism is the view that the world can be understood through natural processes rather than relying on supernatural explanations. But I think there’s an important distinction depending on how someone defines it.

For example, methodological naturalism is basically the approach used in science. It looks for natural explanations without necessarily taking a position on whether anything supernatural exists. Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism goes further, holding that reality itself doesn’t include anything supernatural.

As for the difference between naturalism and materialism, I think the two overlap quite a bit, but they’re not necessarily identical. Materialism, or what philosophers today generally call physicalism, holds that everything is ultimately physical or dependent on the physical. Naturalism is a broader term, and not everyone who identifies as a naturalist agrees on exactly what belongs in the natural world.

And I don’t think the word “nature” necessarily refers to plants, animals, or the environment. It’s really referring to the natural order of things, although even philosophers disagree about precisely where to draw that boundary.

What I find interesting is that naturalism doesn’t require someone to believe we already have explanations for everything. There are still plenty of unanswered questions. The real difference seems to be how someone approaches those questions and what kinds of explanations they’re willing to consider.

That’s my understanding of it anyway. I’d be interested to hear how someone who actually identifies as a naturalist would explain it.

NHC

You’ve been away for a while. Welcome back!

 

[steve_bank]

There is something unnatural about this thread.

Anybody remember Mr Natural?

 

[NoHolyCows]

So I was bopping around the forum here and I noticed that many of our site sponsors espouse or promote a philosophy called "naturalism". I don't think I have ever paid attention to this particular emanation of Western secularism, and would be curious to know more about it. Does anyone here describe themselves as a naturalist? If so, what does the term mean to you? How is naturalism different from, say, materialism? What is the "nature" part of naturalism meant to refer to exactly? I can look up wikipedia on my own, but I am curious about your personal take.

The way I understand it, naturalism is the view that the world can be understood through natural processes rather than relying on supernatural explanations. But I think there’s an important distinction depending on how someone defines it.

For example, methodological naturalism is basically the approach used in science. It looks for natural explanations without necessarily taking a position on whether anything supernatural exists. Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism goes further, holding that reality itself doesn’t include anything supernatural.

As for the difference between naturalism and materialism, I think the two overlap quite a bit, but they’re not necessarily identical. Materialism, or what philosophers today generally call physicalism, holds that everything is ultimately physical or dependent on the physical. Naturalism is a broader term, and not everyone who identifies as a naturalist agrees on exactly what belongs in the natural world.

And I don’t think the word “nature” necessarily refers to plants, animals, or the environment. It’s really referring to the natural order of things, although even philosophers disagree about precisely where to draw that boundary.

What I find interesting is that naturalism doesn’t require someone to believe we already have explanations for everything. There are still plenty of unanswered questions. The real difference seems to be how someone approaches those questions and what kinds of explanations they’re willing to consider.

That’s my understanding of it anyway. I’d be interested to hear how someone who actually identifies as a naturalist would explain it.

NHC

You’ve been away for a while. Welcome back!

I know, right? I’ve been away for a while. Just had a lot going on, catching up on things, buying stuff, tying up loose ends, and getting some projects done around the house. You know how it goes. Anyway, did I miss anything exciting while I was gone? Any DLH sightings?

NHC

 

[pood]

I know, right? I’ve been away for a while. Just had a lot going on, catching up on things, buying stuff, tying up loose ends, and getting some projects done around the house. You know how it goes. Anyway, did I miss anything exciting while I was gone? Any DLH sightings?

NHC

No DLH sightings, whew! Things have been pretty bland around here and I haven’t been on much either. Place needs more intellectual heft IMO. Check out the thread where I proposed starting a monthly IIDB magazine. So far no takers. Hope that will change. You’d be a perfect contributor, along with a fair number of others.

 

[Jarhyn]

To me, naturalism comes down to the idea, an assumption just as assumed as the axioms of math, that the universe itself has a mathematical structure.

This would imply that a lot of weird things that we observe come up for reasons that may seem trite like "spooky action at a distance" comes from the fact that in math there are different kinds of closeness.

Frankly, the longer I keep trying to solve a particular conjecture, the more I come to realize that our universe is in fact a "substitution system" of some kind, or closely related to such systems.

From that perspective, the "natural" "laws" we observe would simply be the axioms of logic that are required for "consistency" to hold, and it's less that "nothing can break them" and more that the very definition of existence excludes anything that would, in the same way that logic forbids things like triangles in a flat euclidean space having more than "180 degrees" between their angles.

 

[steve_bank]

The only thong I would say to all that is math aka models are not reality itself, they are a way of describing and explaining reality as we see it.

So, naturalism as a philosophy is a way of looking at things, not provable.

Good science has been produced by theists who would have rejected naturalism. like Newton.

 

[Jarhyn]

math aka models are not reality itself

This is a very bold assertion, as bold as the assertion that the axioms of math fail.

It is as faith-based as anything else.

You are making the very unsupported statement that math is only a "model", whereas I say it is all that exists.

You are essentially arguing here for the existence of a thoughtful active God, from my perspective, in arguing reality is more than "math". Hell, not even an argument for a "thoughtful active (g)od" with a little g would give you "reality is more than math".