Talk:Naturalism (philosophy)/Archive 2

Introductory Paragraph
The introductory paragraph seemed inadequate after the "Kinds of naturalism" section was removed and I suspect many readers would have found the distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism obscure. So I added a few sentences to try to make the distinction clearer. Ivar Y (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Quine
Although Quine is notable, this theory contrasts sharply with mainstream philosophy on Naturalism. Readers deserve to know that it is has few supporters in philosophy and that it is not mainstream. I' ll back off of fringe, though I think it may still qualify per WP policy found at WP:FRINGE. Trabucogold (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've conformed your insertion to the citation. Its OR to draw conclusions not supported by the text.  IN practice you will not find majority support for any particular school of philosophy and Quine;s work has been adapted since.  The citation indicates Kornblith as one supporter, and he edited the main text book on Naturalizing Epistemology.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This section needs to be rewritten. The problem is that the words apparently referred to by "this Quinean Replacement Naturalism" don't actually describe Quine's Replacement Naturalism.  They are much more general.  There is no reference to the science of psychology, for example.  Many readers will infer that most philosophers reject all kinds of naturalism. Ivar Y (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole article is weak, it doesn't really take account of recent developments and seems locked into some odd ideas of science at times.  We may need disambiguation however.  Naturalising Epistemology also takes a very old fashioned view of the subject.   I haven't got the time at the moment, but would support any collective effort.   This would be especially useful if it took the articles out of the religion/science debates that intrude from time to time.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I want to spend the time to rewrite the entire article. But what "recent developments" did you have in mind? Ivar Y (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If nothing else the way that Philosophy, Psychology and Cognitive Science are starting to merge, much of the work on complex adaptive systems which is giving new insights into freewill and intentionality.   Lots of interesting stuff.-- Snowded  TALK  15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of the stance
From the intro:
 * what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.

My reading of this "stance" is that it describes a sort of naturalism which insists on looking only for physical causes for all phenomena, and which consciously refuses to consider non-physical causes.

I'm wondering how prevalent this view is, and more importantly whether it is a view which underlies all Wikipedia articles about science (and ought to do so). In particular, I'm questioning the extent to which the exclusion of supernatural causation should be implicit, when we as contributors are describing matters of controversy where "men of science" and religious believers are unable to come to an agreement.

I think that NPOV requires us to step back from our own assumptions, make them explicit, and acknowledge the contrary assumptions that others have. For example, we should describe the conflict between naturalism and supernaturalism on issues such as the origins debate, as well as human psychology and such concepts as life after death. It would serve our readers well if we state explicitly the assumptions and beliefs which are the foundation of the positions taken by science (especially physical science) and religion.
 * 1) Origins: Physical science looks at physical causes as the only possible thing that got the universe of matter and energy going; and the only possible thing that got life started; as well as the only possible thing responsible for the variety of life observed in the fossil record, in written history, and in today's world. Religion posits a supernatural cause, most often gods with personalities or the Creator of monotheism.
 * 2) In psychology, physical science looks at the brain as constituting the entirety of the human mind; the idea that there is a non-physical aspect to the mind is rarely expressed (but see John Eccles). Religion postulates a mind (or spirit or soul) which survives the death of the body and brain.

I wonder whether the supernatural alternatives to mainstream science's naturalism can be incorporated into Wikipedia articles, in an impartial manner. Or is there no way to do this without giving undue weight to fringe theories? (Please see my essay at Equal validity, if this talk page is not the right place for such a discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The possibility of supernatural forces is discussed in section 2.1.


 * I don't think that it serves the reader to suggest in an introductory paragraph on Naturalism that there is such a thing as supernatural naturalism. Ivar Y (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturalized epistemology vs. Methodological naturalism
I deleted the words "Naturalized epistemology" from the first bullet in this article. "Naturalized epistemology" and "Methodological naturalism" (or scientific naturalism) are not identical in meaning. The latter is an assumption of the methods used in the sciences (physics, biology, etc.). The former advocates using the methods of science in philosophy. A scientist (e.g., Francis Collins?) might accept methodological naturalism when working as a scientist and reject naturalized epistemology when assessing, say, the existence of God. Actually, this distinction is made clear in the rest of this article. But, equating the two at the beginning of the article may mislead some readers. Ivar Y (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "methodological naturalism" synonymous with "scientific naturalism"?
In my reading I have encountered "scientific naturalism" as referring to a particular kind of ontological naturalism, namely the idea that the reality consists only of what is referred to by the concepts of the natural sciences. This article uses "scientific naturalism" as synonymous to "methodological naturalism" which is an epistemological principle. This is confusing, and I think that the reference to "scientific naturalism" in the paragraph on epistemology should therefore be removed.

Incidentally, I would have thought that "methodological naturalism" is a hugely important concept that merits an article on its own right. Dianelos (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Dianelos. Methodological naturalism is merely a heuristic within the scientific method, while naturalism is a ontological commitment. An independent article on methodological naturalism would be quite an undertaking, but I also feel it is quite warranted. Philocentric (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dianelos, your reading may be using "scientific naturalism" as a way of describing atheism, but the term "methodological naturalism" was developed to describe the scientific method as being secular and neutral in relation to untestable religious beliefs. See our source for the use of the term "methodological naturalism" in response to creationist claims that science should accept explanations based on supernatural causation. . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all a bit hairsplitting, and though I agree with Dave Souza, I can also see no objection to the creation of a separate article on methodological naturalism, as suggested by Dianelos, if it helps to really clarify these various and seemingly overlapping terms. thankyou Peter morrell 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Undo drastic changes
I've undone these drastic changes which made the article an odd version of philosophical naturalism, essentially ignoring the methologal or scientific concept, and presenting it as "opposed primarily by Biblical creationism", which would be news to many other religions. They may be useful sources, but a careful reconsideration of each is needed: best put the arguments for change on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what evidence are you doing this? This does not contradict what was already here. The following philosophers of science provided the definitions of Naturalism (NOT metaphysical naturalism) encapsulated in the definition part of the article as noted by Scharfesman:
 * Audi, Robert (1996). Naturalism. In Borchert, Donald M.. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement. USA: Macmillan Reference. pp. 372-374.
 * Danto, Arthur C. (1967). Naturalism. In Edwords, Paul. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: The Macmillan Co. and The Free Press. pp. 448-450.
 * Kurtz, Paul (1990). Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism. Prometheus Books.
 * Lacey, Alan R. (1995). Naturalism. In Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 604-606.
 * Post, John F. (1995). Naturalism. In Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 517-518.
 * They provide THE definition of naturalism and this article is about naturalism per se. It does make note of Methodological naturalism and Metaphysical naturalism which are different--as schafersman notes: 1: Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism. and 2: Metaphysical naturalism, is the belief that naturalism is the descriptor of reality, i.e., ontology. You will find that Barbara Forrest (already quoted in the article) chimes in with the same view.  As it stands now, the article is unclear as to the distinction between naturalism, methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism as propounded by philosophers. And it is very poorly written.  -AshforkAZ (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For good or ill, this article has developed as a disambiguation article focussed on methodological naturalism, with Metaphysical naturalism covered separately in an article of its own. It's quite possible that the changes you've tried would be more appropriate as amendments to that article. You could also make an argument for paring this article down to a brief definition of the two basic forms, splitting methodological naturalism off into a new article on its own. As an aside, "scientific belief" appears to be a self-contradiction, science is a method rather than a belief system. Could you please consider these points and make proposals for changes rather than just altering thw whole basis of the article – it's welcome that you've been bold, but as you'll see there are reasons for reviewing proposals before reinstating these changes. Thanks for giving this consideration, dave souza, talk 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is named Naturalism (philosophy) and it is fine that it should touch on the differences between MethdN and MetaN. But the information I provided is about Naturalsim, not MethdN nor MetaN, as understood by the philosophers, so it should go here.  The section on MethdN needs expanding to fit how it is understood by philosophers.
 * To show that Methodological Naturalism is assuming naturalism, without really believing in naturalism (scientists can believe in God if they want to), Schafersman quotes Eugene Scott of the NCSE:
 * "After stating her repeated distinction between ontological and methodological naturalism, she says, "if it is important for Americans to learn about science and evolution, decoupling the two forms of [naturalism] is essential strategy." "if an individual is attempting to explain some aspect of the natural world using science, he or she must act as if there were no supernatural forces operating on it." (Scott, 1996, p. 518) In her conclusion (p. 520), she states the following:
 * “I suggest that scientists can defuse some of the opposition to evolution by first recognizing that the vast majority of Americans are believers, and that most Americans want to retain their faith. It is demonstrable that individuals can retain religious beliefs and still accept evolution as science. Scientists should avoid confusing the methodological [naturalism] of science with metaphysical [naturalism]."{Scott, Eugenie C., 1996, "Creationism, Ideology, and Science," in Gross, Levitt, and Lewis, The Flight From Science and Reason, The New York Academy of Sciences, p. 505-522.}
 * I wasn't the one who talked about scientific belief, that comes from the sources.
 * I have not seen any argument or evidence that the information on naturalism I supplied is in conflict with anything in the article. AshforkAZ (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, some of your proposed changes seem to be in conflict with each other. Something that's a bit worrying is that there seems to have been some WP:Close paraphrasing: for example, "The truth of Naturalism presumably depends upon the existence of a supernatural realm. If there is empirical evidence or a logical reason to believe in the supernatural without that evidence, then naturalism would be false." looks rather close to "Naturalism's truth would presumably depend on the existence of a supernatural realm. If there was empirical evidence for the supernatural or a logical reason to believe in it without such evidence, then naturalism would be false." You really need to think about what the source is saying and make a clear and concise summarizing of that in your own words. As it is, there may be a translation problem as it would be clearer to say that the truth of philosophical naturalism depends upon the non-existence of a supernatural realm, while the truth of methodological naturalism disregards the existence or non-existence of a supernatural realm as being beyond empirical testing or analysis. So, careful review needed. . . dave souza, talk 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep thinking that 'Naturalism' as defined by the philosophers is the same thing as "philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism". Schafersman makes it clear that it is not.  It is your thinking that makes that connection.  Given the choice, I'll take what the philosophers actually say.
 * Also, Your summary above of schafersman is incorrect. He was not talking about the truth of MetaN nor MethdN, but of naturalism.  He said,  "The truth of naturalism depends upon the lack of empirical evidence or some logical reason for the supernatural."  You are making flawed leaps of logic by adding your view that he is talking about MetaN and MethdN.  I have been keeping very close to what the sources are really says (perhaps to close on that one paraphrase).
 * As I read this article it seems that the editors have picked and chosen bits and pieces of sources to fit their ideas in combat with creationism rather than seeking to restate what the sources really say. What I posted on naturalism in this article is what the sources say, not my POV of what they say.  If there is conflict in the article, it is not between me and the sources, but possibly with incorrect summaries by other editors.  Naturalism and Metaphysical Naturalism are not the same thing. - AshforkAZ (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that very similar changes have been made to Metaphysical naturalism, and again they seem to be designed to set up a "science" v creationism argument.-- Snowded TALK  08:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get your apparent paranoia. These sites are about Naturalism and should reflect what philosophers say about it.  The material I added is from an anti-creationist author writing an anti-creationist article explaining what naturalism, methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism really are in order to prove creationists wrong.  I don't know if what he says conflicts with your understanding or not, but it is not only his position, but that of other philosophers whom he quotes.  He talked about some points which were not in these WP articles and so I added that information to make the article clearer and stronger.  I cannot see how any of that helps the creationist position in any way.  It is simply descriptive of what naturalism is.  That's it. If you don't believe me, all you need to do is peruse his article. _AshforkAZ (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ashfork, I've perused the articles you used as sources and think that they're better summarised in the present article as restored. This doesn't mean that we exclude changes, but we have to consider each proposed change carefully. For example, in "Definition" you gave some but not all of the examples provided by Schafersman, but put them in quotes as though they were his definition and omitted the sources he cited for these specific definitions. Putting them in the footnotes isn't enough to avoid this confusion you'd created. You also added "Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism" which I can't find in the source. This looks like very poor summarising on your part. I've also drawn attention to the next paragraph in which you gave an excessively closely paraphrased version of Schafersman's own views, but presented in Wikipedia's voice as though it's the only view – Schafersman himself acknowledges the views of others about methodological naturalism. He's also writing a specific response to intelligent design proponents around 1996, things have changed a bit since then. So, several problems with your approach. . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of naturalism that was posted was a direct quote from Schafersman which was his summary of all five (Danto, Audi, Post, Lacey, and Kurtz) quotes on Naturalism in the article. In the note, so as to not clutter up the article, I listed all five complete quotes as found in Schafersman's article.  And I harv linked to each book so that anyone could look them up.  This is not my summarizing or editorializing, this is exactly Schafersman's definition of naturalism based on his sources.  And it is his definition of naturalism NOT methodological nor metaphysical naturalism which he talks about as different from naturalism which anyone reading the article can plainly see.  And I had just added his definitions of methodological and metaphysical naturalism directly from the article to the appropriate subsections, and was going to add more from Scharfersman, when everything was reverted.
 * Concerning "Naturalim is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism" This actually ends with Supernaturalism.  But anyone reading his article knows that what Schafersman meant by Supernaturalism is Biblical creationism in all its horrible forms.
 * As for this paragraph: "The truth of Naturalism presumably depends upon the existence of a supernatural realm. If there is empirical evidence or a logical reason to believe in the supernatural without that evidence, then naturalism would be false. If it were certain that the supernatural did not exist, then naturalism would be true. But even if there is no evidence and no reason to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, the supernatural may possibly still exist without our knowledge. Thus, the naturalist must be agnostic about the existence of the supernatural and the ultimate truth of naturalism. Because of the lack of empirical evidence, it seems reasonable to disbelieve the supernatural and believe that naturalism is true."
 * This is a paraphrase (an extensively close paraphrase it is claimed) from Schafersman's paragraph where he wrote about the truth of Naturalism (NOT Methodological or Metaphysical naturalism, he makes that distinction) and based that truth upon the truth or falsehood of supernaturalism. On one hand, I'm accused of paraphrasing too closely and on the other misinterpreting the paragraph.  I'd like to see a point by point analysis, because your generalization is confusing.
 * Finally, are you saying that the definition of naturalism is so fluid that it means one thing when used against ID and something else when used against Answers in Genesis, for instance? I thought that a creationist is a creationist.  _AshforkAZ (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He sets out a number of definitions, each attributed to an author, and each apparently presenting metaphysical naturalism. Other authors will have other definitions, in the case of Scott and Pennock presenting methodological naturalism as an alternative. Schafersman isn't the only expert on the topic, and drawing on one oldish paper by him addressed to issues raised by ID gives undue weight to his opinion.
 * Your claim that Schafersman means Biblical creationism when he says supernaturalism is blatant original research and is also spurious, as ID promotes supernaturalism, as do many other religions.
 * See WP:Close paraphrasing for issues your paragraph raises, and note also concerns about WP:Plagiarism. Schafersman is specifically giving his own view, and it should be presented as such, if it's significant enough to the topic to be included.
 * You're misinformed about creationism, and there are clearly differing definitions of naturalism which we should summarise, including methodological naturalism. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Souza say: "He sets out a number of definitions, each attributed to an author, and each apparently presenting metaphysical naturalism."  Here you are jumping to conclusions.  He is specifically talking about Naturalism not Metaphysical naturalism.  He does talk about Metaphysical naturalism later on and mentions Scott and Pennock, providing a specific definition of Metaphysical naturalism distinct from the definitions of naturalism mentioned first.  You need to read and understand what he actually says and means not what you think he says.
 * The reason why I have been talking about Schafersman is because he is one of the few scientists who has examined and defined naturalism. Most authors don't bother.  Obviously, he's not the last word, but he has at least taken the time and energy to examine the foundations of the science that he does.  Again, most scientists don't.  When you are done with his article there is no question to what he means by naturalism and Methodological naturalism and Metaphysical naturalism, unless you don't understand what he is saying.  The WP articles generally lack any definitions with any precision and my goal was simply to added definitions to the articles, primarily from Schafersman to begin with, but which could be expanded later to include other authors.
 * I was reminded that I should take the attitude of good faith toward the other editors. I have no problem with that, so long as it is reciprocal.  And that has not been the case.  The assumption here has been that I am out to subvert truth, without any evidence of checking to see if the source is fairly represented.  _AshforkAZ (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @ AshforkAZ, I don't doubt your good faith, the question is whether it's appropriate to present a selected group of definitions from a 1990s debate as The Definition of naturalism, or to present one scientist's views as Wikipedia's definitive explanation. See WP:WEIGHT. The issue of definition and progressing this article merits a new talk section. . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Schafersman isn't the only on to put great emphasis on the conflict between naturalism and supernaturalism concerning science. Barbara Forrest, a philosopher, is quoted on this page. This is what she says in the abstract of her paper.  "I examine the question whether methodological naturalism entails philosophical (ontological or 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."  And a full half of the paper is devoted to arguing against any form of supernaturalism. (see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html  published in 2000)  What these authors do is follow to its logical end the acceptance of any form of naturalism. They see naturalism and supernaturalism as mutually exclusive.  To try to believe in both at the same time is a form of schizophrenia. But Gould says that's ok with his NOM (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) proposal.  Just turn off your scientific brain when you go to church, and turn off you supernatural brain when you go to work. (something I find ridiculous) _AshforkAZ (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions
The above discussion on issues of definitions has led me to search the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and a number of reasonably recent articles confirm the basic division into ontological and methodological naturalism, with a wide variation in how they're defined or where the boundaries are set. See Naturalism for the basic outline, with useful historical aspects briefly covered. That would make a useful model for revision of this article, as a framework covering the range of views and describing main views in outline, probably moving detail of methodological naturalism into a sub-article.

We should also note the various fields of philosophy it comes up in, including Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics which introduces more subdivisions, Naturalism in Legal Philosophy, Philosophy of Biology, Moral Naturalism, Moral Non-naturalism.

Other relevant articles include Scientific Realism, Philosophy of Religion, The Naturalism Debate in Creationism (rather exaggerates Johnson's leading role), Moore's Moral Philosophy, Physicalism, The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge, Scientific Realism, Morality and Evolutionary Biology and possibly Biological Information. More can probably be found, the first priority is to set a framework which can briefly note these issues, possibly linking to main articles on the topic summary style. . dave souza, talk 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are much better sources. Schafersman's sermons are too circular too often: "the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real"—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Machine Elf but Schafersman's reasoning is not circular. Here it is point by point.
 * The truth of Naturalism presumably depends upon the existence of a supernatural realm.
 * If there is empirical evidence for the supernatural or a logical reason to believe in the supernatural without that evidence, then naturalism would be false.
 * If it were certain that the supernatural did not exist, then naturalism would be true. [the opposite of the previous proposition]
 * But even if there is no evidence and no reason to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, the supernatural may possibly still exist without our knowledge. [Simple point about the limits of naturalism, i.e., not being able to discern the supernatural naturally]
 * Thus, the naturalist must be agnostic about the existence of the supernatural and the ultimate truth of naturalism. [logical conclusion]
 * There is nothing confusing about it. Schafersman is a logical, anti-supernatural scientist, not a preacher. :) _AshforkAZ (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Testify Ash, I didn't say it was confusing. What I did say, on the other page, is that it's trite. And I wonder if you could stop putting words in other people's mouths and just let it go.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim was that Schafersman's arguments were circular, such as his "supernatural" stuff. I just pointed out that his logic about the supernatural was not circular.  And, by implication, the same applies to the rest of his article.  _AshforkAZ (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I quoted was circular. Schafersman goes on to equate non-atheism with supernaturalism, ("gods, goddesses, lesser deities, angels, devils, fairies, trolls, leprechauns, ghosts, wood nymphs, etc."), and maintains that it's morally reprehensible for a scientist not to be an atheist. He's obviously extreme, and, regardless, that particular work was explicitly a polemic against creationism and intelligent design.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see Schafersman as extreme, but rather, that he follows the logic to its full end. And to your specific quote: "the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real," it is not circular.  The problem is that you quoted it out of context.  When put in context of the entire sentence (read in context here) it is one of definition.
 * nature is all there is.
 * the supernatural does not exist,
 * in other words
 * only nature is real
 * therefore, supernature is non-real.
 * _AshforkAZ (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's beside the point, but "circular" was perhaps too charitable. So, to wrap it up with Schafersman... I misspoke, he maintains it's morally reprehensible to be a scientist who isn't: 1) an atheist or 2) an advocate of Intelligent Design. (If he entertained the possibility of "Atheistic Intelligent Design", I missed it; maybe the "nogoD" space aliens touched on it). Despite finding their (non-schizophrenia?) so "refreshing", he rejects the sophistry of naughty ID advocates who practice upon the scientific ignorance of the americans the unwashed masses. As we're paraphrasing our mixed metaphors liberally: it's a dirty job, but some (atheist) scientist has to fight the good fight.

Food for thought: in 1871, Lord Kelvin first suggested panspermia, the seeding of life on Earth, as a scientific principle: "I am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all space and all time, that life proceeds from life, and from nothing but life... If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power." — IO Pan! Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Elf, you put words in Schfersman's mouth. He did not use morally reprehensible with respect to being anything but an atheist or an IDer.  He says, but once, it is morally reprehensible what he thinks creationist (of any ilk) do:
 * "'Some goals of creationist pseudoscience are to subvert legitimate science in courts, legislatures, and school boards, to confuse the public about the methods and powers of science, and especially to derogate the heroic accomplishments of science that demonstrate the overwhelming truth of evolution (such as the finches of the Galapagos Islands (Weiner, 1994), the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria (Goldschmidt, 1996), the fruit flies of the Hawaiian Islands, the whale, horse, reptile-to-mammal, hominid-to-human transitional sequences in the fossil record, Cambrian fossils (Gould, 1990), etc.). These efforts are not only morally reprehensible, they are dangerous...'"
 * Inaccurate generalities and overstatements seem to plague almost everything you have said so far. _AshforkAZ (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, meow. Consider posting a "hyperlink" rather than blocks of text from an article. You can find 16 occurrences of the word "moral". Most will be relevant. I'll take it on good faith that you aren't trying to be obnoxious about words, (AGAIN), and that you're free of guile, that you're simply coping with some kind of distorted sense of reality+introspection. You must be very brave.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph
I don't think this paragraph is adequately sourced and is probably incorrect: "Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, mathematical laws, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain but are still somehow immanent in the physical structure of the universe." Maybe others can comment. Peter morrell 20:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to the schaferson's article you will find that this is his opinion based on his research and based on the other sources he quotes from. I believe that he is a reliable source.  One would need to find another reliable source which conflicts with Schaferson and make a note from it.  AshforkAZ (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is simply not sufficient to rely on the views of ONE author for such a contested field; a range of views are required to give a more balanced view. I will endeavour to search out some other source material to show how inadequate that quote is. Peter morrell 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved Schaferson down to a less prominent place because he is merely a geologist and not even a philosopher, so it seems justified as his POV views were too prominently placed. The article is about a philosophical positon, not about creationism or evolution, and so other 'irrelevant stuff' has been removed. If there are objections, then maybe this can be placed here and/or discussed further? Peter morrell 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your view on Schaferson. His 4 points are very typical of the 'strong' naturalists, which is what was being discussed at that point in the article.  What others of the 'strong' naturalists disagree with that particular point you cited?  I agree that a balanced view from both the 'strong' and 'weak' viewpoints.  The article needs work and more sources from different viewpoints need added.  I'm sure that schaferson's data was added not because it was the end all on naturalism, but because it is a beginning toward filling out the article.  YumaTuba (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Consult any decent philosophical text about naturalism and you will find no mention of Schaferson; he is an irrelevance, that is why he had to be moved down. I would have preferred to delete him entirely, quite frankly, he is but a 3rd rate geologist with strong anti-creationist views, so what? bigdeal? who cares? I will locate and post up some better cites for the philosophy of naturalism to show the range, as you suggest, avoiding where possible all this other tangential stuff. Peter morrell 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3rd Rate... Do you have evidence for you classification of Schaferson as a 3rd rate geologist, or is this your opinion.  I dont care if he is a good or bad geologist.  Nor if he is a fanatical anti-creationist.  When it comes to this topic the only thing that matters is if he is being logical and consistent in his philosophy.  And that is what needs to be shown when making claims about his philosophical position.
 * I have taken enough classes, more than 280 credits so far, to know that text books are often obsolete before they are even published. You need to turn to the journals and published materials to see the current thinking.  Which is what I'm sure you intend, as I, to do.  YumaTuba (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we both aim to bring greater balance, range and neutrality to the article, which is good. I am not able to do much right now, but will try to dig out some stuff hopefully at the weekend. Thanks for your dialogue. Peter morrell 19:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
It is difficult to write an article that attempts to explain (a) what does exist and what does not exist and (b) how we can know this. Unfortunately, the current article does not do this very well.

The current draft offers more than a half dozen definitions of naturalism. They are largely redundant and often vague and ambiguous. The naturalist may believe that nature is all there is but what is nature? What is excluded? God? But, if nature is all there is and, nevertheless, God exists, then God is a part of nature, by definition. Readers are likely to be confused. If God is excluded, what about intelligent extra-terrestrials, whose advanced technology would seem magical to us. What powers might such ET's have as a result of a much longer evolution? If such ET's are considered a part of nature, how can one assert that "gods" are not a part of nature? And, what is meant by supernatural? And, if "nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical chemical properties...," what is a mind?

I'm not suggesting that the definitions in the current article are wrong. I am suggesting that a plainer, more understandable definition is needed that clarifies the meanings of the words. (Of course, naturalists probably do not agree on the meanings of the words.)

The definition of naturalism in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) might be a good starting point for such a discussion:


 * "The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."

Arguably, scientists must assume methodical naturalism. Science advances by developing abstract mathematical models that represent some aspect of nature. For example, the solar system could be represented by a model based on Newton's Laws and on information about the sun and the known planets. Acceptable models predict observations that can be tested to determine whether the model is good or bad. In practice, such modeling must reject supernatural elements; no testable predictions can be derived from the claim that "God did it." Methodical naturalism, thus, limits science to investigations of the "natural" world.

However, if methodical naturalism is the heart of science, does this mean that supernatural beings and events do not exist? W.V. Quine -- certainly, a respected philosophical naturalist -- wrote that supernatural beings were conceivable:


 * "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."

Further, Eugene Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, said in a speech:


 * "Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act."

She persuaded the National Association of Biology Teachers to delete the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from their statement defining "evolution" because we can't be sure that "God didn't do it."

That change was controversial. Paul Kurtz is one of the people who objected to the change. In the current Wikipedia article, Paul Kurtz is quoted as saying that "all hypotheses and events [are] to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events." The original Kurtz article adds the words "... to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible." Why? Apparently because he believes that it is highly improbable that God (or other supernatural beings) exist. Steven Schafersman and Barbara Forrest, who are also quoted in the article, appear to share this view. In short, Kurtz's words quoted in the article are meant to imply that science has demonstrated that there is no God, i.e., that metaphysical naturalism is true.

Obviously, this view is controversial. This Wikipedia article is not going to resolve it. But it should report the controversy.

I don't know how to interpret this first sentence in the current article:


 * "Naturalism is a philosophy that posits a particular picture of reality, being, and existence that typically excludes the supernatural."

Is there a kind of (metaphysical) naturalism that does not exclude the supernatural?

Also, I do not understand the purpose of the first paragraph in the Definition section. I understand that it is based on the Papineau essay on "Naturalism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But it seems to go further in implying that Christian and other religious naturalists are cowards who want to hide their religious views. I may not agree with Alvin Plantinga or Robert Audi (another source quoted in the article), both Professors of Philosophy at Notre Dame, but I have no reason to think that they are timid. Ivar Y (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It comes as somewhat of a surprise to many that naturalism does not include the idea of God. In its purist form, "Naturalism is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be."  i.e., there is no God.  Your proposition:  "But, if nature is all there is and, nevertheless, God exists, then God is a part of nature, by definition." is not naturalism. Few people really bother to learn what naturalism is.  And those Christian scientists (who make up the bulk of the scientists in the US) who learn of this truly atheistic basis of naturalism upon which they do their science are uncomfortable with that fact.  As a result they typically adopt various compromising schemes to account for the fact that they, as Christians, do indeed do science without being atheists.  Methodological naturalism is one of those schemes.  This form of naturalism pretty much states that you do your science AS IF God does not exist, even though he may.  The idea being that God, if he exists, is not actively doing supernatural stuff in the natural world that can be measured by any scientific means.  Nature runs on laws that God set.  Studying those laws does not involve knowing whether He exists or not.


 * Naturalism, in its purest form, is also known as Metaphysical naturalism. Atheistic naturalists, such as Scott, and other mentioned in the article, have no problem with allowing for the compromise Methodological naturalism because God is relegated to a non-involved entity who is basically irrelevant to reality and life on earth.  Some philosophers try to make a big distinction between Metaphysical naturalism and Methodological naturalism, (one is ontological and the other is epistemological) but when you take a close look them, they are virtually identical (both are epistemological and ontological with one 'allowing' for a disinterested god).  Timidity is not the issue.  The issue is what is naturalism and what is not naturalism.


 * Also at stake is the idea that naturalism can be the ONLY basis for science. Few seem to question that idea, and so you get Methodological naturalism.  Some of those who do question the idea are creationists who believe that the Bible is the only basis for science. AshforkAZ (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You write, "Naturalism is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be. i.e., there is no God."


 * Your naturalism seems to be defined, not by science, but by a need to eliminate anything labeled supernatural. How do you know that there is no God?  Your reasoning does not appear to be scientific.  There are no hypotheses.  There is no testing.  God is undefined. Nature is undefined. The supernatural is undefined.


 * Note the issue is not whether there is a God. No scientist has ever demonstrated that there is a God.  The issue here is whether scientists can be sure that there is no God.  That's even harder to demonstrate.


 * Further, if you are suggesting that methodical naturalism presumes there is no God, I think that you are wrong. Methodical naturalism requires only that a natural world exist.  It is irrelevant to the scientist whether that world was created by a supernatural god or by some (godless) natural process.  The sun rises in the East either way. Incidentally, it doesn't matter whether god is disinterested.  Scientists require only that it not meddle in their experiments too often.


 * Your naturalism is not a basis for science but, rather, is an expression of atheism. Your naturalism and methodological naturalism are very different. Ivar Y (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a common misconception that naturalism comes from science. Just as you said, "Your naturalism seems to be defined, not by science..." However, Naturalism is not and cannot be defined by science, because the philosophy of naturalism supplies the philosophical assumptions needed in order to do science.  I.e., It is logically impossible for science to be the basis for the philosophy of naturalism that is the basis for science.  For instance, two extremely important assumptions required for science to function are 1) the uniformity of law across time and space and 2) the uniformity of process across time and space.  S. Gould, in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, discusses how these two philosophical assumptions are required before you can do science at all.  He said something like, "you cannot go into the field and find uniformity of law and process, rather you have to assume them first and then you go into the field."  It is impossible to prove by logic nor by science that natural law and process are the same across time and space.  Philosophy supplies these unprovable, yet required assumptions; in this case, the philosophy of naturalism.


 * It is also a common misconception (and a religious belief--Scientism) that science is the basis for all knowledge. Logic is the basis for all knowledge, whether that involves scientific methodology or not.


 * You said "Methodical naturalism requires only that a natural world exist". That is exactly the same thing as Metaphysical naturalism (or just, naturalism) which states that "Nature is all that exists."  It doesn't matter if one "requires that" or the other "states that" the result is exactly the same, a god either does not exist or is irrelevant.  Two sides of the same coin.  So why does Methodological naturalism even exist?  Atheists certainly don't need it.  It is used simply to placate believers in God, implying that science can be done with or without a god.  Naturalism is atheistic and Methodological naturalism is simply for believers in god, i.e. you can still do naturalistic science by just pretending god doesn't exist, while you may still believe he does.


 * You are right that science cannot prove God exists. And neither can it prove that God does not exist.  Since science can only deal with the natural, if there is a supernatural god, it exists outside science's capabilities.  Whether there is a God or not can only be determined by other logical means.  AshforkAZ (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism are different:


 * Metaphysical Naturalism: Nature is all that exists; the supernatural, e.g., God, doesn't exist.


 * Methodological Naturalism: The methods of science should be used in philosophy (and science).


 * Metaphysical Naturalism is either true or false. If God exists, then it is false.


 * Methodological Naturalism requires that hypotheses be testable. Vague hypotheses like "God did it" are not testable.  But there is nothing in Methodological Naturalism that precludes the possibility that there is a God.  Methodological Naturalism is not inherently atheistic.


 * Methodological Naturalism does not imply that testable hypotheses about God are unthinkable. Suppose God does exist and returns to Earth ready to demonstrate to scientists that He can perform miracles.  Scientists could then devise experiments to test and confirm this.


 * Also, Methodological Naturalism does not imply that God is "irrelevant." God might cure cancer in selected patients, for example, or play with tree leaves falling in the wind.  We would see the effect while remaining ignorant of the cause.


 * You seem eager to promote atheism. I think the article needs to adopt a more neutral point of view (NPOV). Ivar Y (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashfork said: "It is also a common misconception (and a religious belief--Scientism) that science is the basis for all knowledge." Scientism is a religious belief?? can we have a citation to support this claim please? And hopefully NOT one from Schaferson.Peter morrell 16:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested New Introduction
Here is a suggested new introduction to the Naturalism article. It would replace the initial sentence plus the Definition section. I've tried to make it plainer for the new reader and more intuitive. Also, I've avoided wording that could be extracted by religious fundamentalist to attack science, e.g., wording that asserts that any mention of God is forbidden in science.


 * The Oxford English Dictionary defines "naturalism" as:


 * 2. Philos. The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."


 * Natural laws are those we live with daily, e.g., it gets dark at night. Natural laws, arguably, also include the "laws" of modern science, e.g., those describing electrons, black holes, DNA, and the like.  In contrast, supernatural laws refer to acts of God, witchcraft, and the like.  The strict naturalist believes that there are no supernatural agents or events, i.e., that there are only natural objects and events.


 * The naturalism that insists that "nature is all there is" is called Ontological or Metaphysical or Philosophical Naturalism. Ontology is the philosophical study of being and existence.


 * A related but different form of naturalism is called Methodological Naturalism. The exemplar of the methodological naturalist is the scientist.  Science is the process of collecting observations about some natural system, devising hypotheses about that system, predicting new observations based on those hypotheses, testing those predictions, and repeating this process based on the results.  The goal is a reliable and detailed explanation of how the system behaves.  Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.


 * Hypotheses based on supernatural forces are commonly viewed as worthless by the scientist because they imply no testable predictions. However, the methodological naturalist is not committed to a denial of God's  existence.  Possibly God will show up as promised in the Bible or someone will demonstrate the ability to cast a spell.  There are no scientific laws that say this is impossible.


 * Both kinds of naturalism became more persuasive in the late 19th century when scientists were increasingly successful in explaining the behavior of nature. Darwin's theory of evolution had particular impact.


 * In the 20th century, W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view.  Today, most philosophers label themselves naturalists. Ivar Y (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Another New Introduction
I made the words "Oxford English Dictionary" visible to emphasize that the first paragraph is a quote. It describes metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is somewhat different.

Paul Kurtz is an controversial source of quotes describing methodological naturalism. He is a well known "metaphysical naturalist," i.e., he believes that no supernatural beings such as the Christian God exist. The wording of his Darwin Re-Crucified article, for example, implies that he believes that biology teachers should instruct their students that evolution is unsupervised and impersonal, i.e., that science has determined that God has no role. And, when he writes in Darwin Re-Crucified that


 * ...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 invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.

many readers will interpret his remarks to mean that God is banned from science. In other words, methodological naturalism -- science -- must confirm metaphysical naturalism and repudiate God.

Of course, one might respond by explaining that Kurtz's words are being misinterpreted.

Regardless, I'm suggesting that the article will be more effective if we quote a less controversial author.

In particular, I have substituted a paragraph from Judge John E. Jones III's decision in the Kitzmiller creationism trial. Judge Jones based his paragraph on the testimony of:


 * John F. Haught, a Roman Catholic Theologian
 * Robert T. Pennock, a philosopher who has written about intelligent design
 * Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist (and a Roman Catholic)

Incidentally, Judge Jones is a Lutheran. Ivar Y (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the OR opinion of Ivar that Kurtz is "controversial". There is no evidence from any reliable source that Kurtz is controversial.  His WP page does not give any evidence but that he is a reliable and sound philosopher.  Therefore, the reliable source material that was removed based on OR opinion will be replace.  AlmondRocaFanatic (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The controversy is the theism versus atheism controversy. Evidence of this controversy is found in Kurtz's "Darwin Re-Crucified" article, which is AlmondRocaFanatic's reference for Kurtz's ideas about naturalism.  Kurtz's article is a discussion of the controversy.


 * Kurtz is plainly a partisan in this debate. From the article:


 * "Unfortunately, the National Association of Biology Teachers...deleted the words unsupervised and impersonal [from their statement defending evolution] to leave room for divine intervention."


 * "Regrettably, none of the participants in the debate [which included Barry Lynn, Eugenie Scott, Kenneth Miller, and Michael Ruse] would openly come out for naturalism."


 * "To defend naturalism today is to say something significant, for it is an alternative to supernaturalism, which is, in the last analysis, based on a literature of faith and piety, supported by powerful religious institutions, and is unsupported by scientific evidence. It is time, in my view, that scientists defend naturalism forthrightly as the most appropriate generalization of what we have discovered about nature, without retreating into neutral agnosticism or blind faith."


 * "Darwin's "most dangerous idea" is that natural selection and other causal factors provide a more adequate explanation for the descent of humans than the postulation of divine fiat or design. The efforts to re-crucify Darwin now underway, in my judgment, are motivated by fear. I submit that it is important that scientists and skeptics defend naturalism, not only as a method of inquiry, but as a scientific account of the cosmos and our place within it, and the basis for a new humanistic ethics appropriate to the world community. "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves," says Humanist Manifesto II. To realize this and accept it with courage could be the harbinger of a new, creative, moral future for humankind."


 * Kurtz is an advocate of metaphysical naturalism, i.e., atheism. Obviously, such a cause is controversial; most people, at least in America, are theists.  No original research (OR) is required to demonstrate that Kurtz's beliefs are "controversial".  Kurtz himself provides the evidence.


 * Personally, I agree with many of Kurtz's ideas (though I question the claim that science has demonstrated that God does not exist). The problem I have is relying on Kurtz's words to explain the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.  If one is a metaphysical naturalist, there isn't much difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.  Nature is all there is and that is what scientists study.  There is no mention of God because there is no god.  A theist looking at Kurtz's words will ask where is God.  And he won't get an answer.  His reaction: those wicked atheists have eliminated God by fiat.


 * I think it important to state that there are scientists who are theists, i.e., that there are methodological naturalists who are not metaphysical naturalists. Kurtz's words quoted by AlmondRocaFanatic don't do that.


 * There is another problem. The AlmondRocaFanatic opening sentence essentially defines naturalism as metaphysical naturalism.  The problem is that methodological naturalism is different.  Metaphysical naturalism says that God (or any other supernatural being) does not exist.  Methodological naturalism says that God might exist, but, if He does, He is not a part of science.  These definitions are incompatible.  My solution was to distinguish the two by using the words "originally" and "more recent." Ivar Y (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Supposedly obvious or not, it must be supported by a reliable source that specifically says Kurtz is controversial. WP isn't about truth or what is "obvious," but about what can be supported by reliable sources. No source, no statement.
 * Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological naturalism are two sides of the same coin. One side or the other is shown to interested parties to appease them and deliberately mislead. AlmondRocaFanatic (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems
The new second (Paul Kurtz) paragraph has problems. The sentences in quotes are not from Kurtz's Darwin Re-Crucified paper nor from any where else so far as I can tell. Second, the words water down the definitions of metaphysical and methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism asserts that nature is all that exists, not "probably" all that exists. Scientific endeavors should be explained and tested according to methodological naturalism, not merely "aim" to do so. Methodological naturalism means that investigators should reference only natural causes and events, not that they should merely "attempt" to do so. And, they should base explanations on natural laws, not merely "try" to do so. Third, this article is the "methodological naturalism" article. The link in the second paragraph is a link to itself. (Actually, it is a link to the previous version of the article, which is strange.) The wording of the "Naturalism," "Naturalism (philosophy)," and "Metaphysical naturalism" articles needs to be changed to make this clear.

I reverted to the previous version of the article. Rewriting the paragraph needs more thought. Ivar Y (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Christian Reference
The below reference to Christians in the opening section seems out of place. Christianity is of no more relevance than any other religion or supernatural belief. I think it should be rewritten to refer to all supernatural ideas.

"Of course, Christians (and others) challenge the idea that nature is all there is. They believe in a God that created nature. Natural laws have a place in Christian theology; they describe the effects of so-called secondary causes (see History, below). But, natural laws do not define or limit God, who is the primary cause." 220.253.128.229 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reworded it so that it is less POV. It's a good paragraph the way it helps to quickly define naturalism by introducing the starkly contrasted element of theism, isn't that so? –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  11:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Still Another New Introduction
Actually, this article really is supposed to be the methodological naturalism article. Look at the Naturalism disambiguation page. Metaphysical naturalism is a separate article. Hence, we should introduce methodological naturalism at the beginning of the article. Here is a still another new introduction:


 * Methodological naturalism defines rules for the study of the natural world. The methods are the methods of science: observe, hypothesize, test, etc.  Supernatural beings and events, if they exist, are ignored.  Miracles and magic, e.g., witchcraft, are ruled out as hypotheses.


 * Methodological naturalism differs from metaphysical naturalism in that it is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that only the natural world exists.  Paul Kurtz, a proponent of metaphysical naturalism, argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community.  For metaphysical naturalists, there are no gods and there is no "purpose" in nature.  Obviously, metaphysical naturalists like Kurtz have no problem conforming to methodological naturalism.


 * However, theists can also accept methodological naturalism because they can interpret it as the study of what theologians call secondary causes (see the History section, below). Secondary causes are the laws of nature. The primary cause is the deity who created these laws.  However, for theists, the study of this deity is a separate topic.  Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists do in fact apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications, often moral, of their work, but not the way they practice science.


 * "Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."


 * In the 20th century, W.V.O. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view.

The current Methodological Naturalism section would be deleted. Also, it is desirable to change the name of the article to Methodological Naturalism. Ivar Y (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ivar Y, I was the editor who broke out the methodological naturalism from the lede into its own section. I thought that this article is supposed to be a "general" article about naturalism.  The article on methodological naturalism was previously merged into this article.  If you are correct, and this article is specifically about methodological naturalism, then yes, it should be renamed; however, the renaming must be to "Methodological naturalism" (with lowercase letter "n") in order to be consistent with the associated articles.  Please see Naturalism (disambiguation)). –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

An Explanation of My Changes
In response to Machine Elf's question:


 * How is the discovery institute a "Better source for referenced article" than the archive of the original article?

The "original" link in the Plantinga reference is broken and the "semantic" link pauses at an unexpected "Wayback" page before displaying the article. The Discovery link is direct and faster.

I deleted the text describing Plantinga's "evolutionary argument against naturalism." Including it somewhere in a naturalism article is desirable. However, it doesn't have much to do with methodological naturalism.

A problem with the previous version of this article was that it did not explain what "proposed constraints" are. They are explained in the Plantinga source article but not in this article.

I added a quote from an earlier Plantinga article on Methodological Naturalism? that I think clarifies what Plantinga means when he talks of including supernaturalism in science. For example, he indicates that "such facts ... as that we human beings have been created by God in his image" could be "explicitly" entered into various scientific hypotheses.

I moved the Plantinga section to the beginning of the "Philosophers on methodological naturalism" section. Now the sequence of methodological naturalism topics in the article is:


 * Judge Jones decision that methodological naturalism is a ground rule of science.
 * Plantinga's response to Judge Jones.
 * Ruse's and Pennock's responses to Plantinga's response.

I added a quote from a National Academy of Science's book to inform readers that the banning of the supernatural from science is widely accepted in science and is not the arbitrary action of a handful of dogmatic atheists.

I deleted the paragraphs on Quine and Popper. They are not discussing Methodological Naturalism, per se. Quine is discussing the role of naturalism in philosophy, not the role of Methodological Naturalism in science. Popper is discussing the rules of science, e.g., induction and falsifiability, not the rejection of the supernatural. The topics are important but, in a section on Methodological Naturalism, they are obscure and irrelevant.

I continue to believe that it is desirable to split the current article into  a general introduction to naturalism article and a separate methodological naturalism article. There is already a separate Metaphysical naturalism article. Ivar Y (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The title of this article is Naturalism (philosophy). I agree, the methodological naturalism merge should be undone. It was long contested and WP:TL;DRed. The broader topic in philosophy, won't survive in this miasma.
 * How surprising is it to briefly see a loading message when requesting a page? No excuse for reverting (what) three now?, but insisting on the link to the discovery institute's website is just par for the course, is suppose, no matter how trivial.
 * The polemics are like an end in themselves according to Plantinga's in his “Material Naturalism?*” article.
 * As you know, this is neither exclusively, nor primarily, an article on methodological naturalism. However, you've deleted everything you thought shouldn't be in an article exclusively about that. You're failure to acknowledge this WP:POINTTY crazy making is consistent with the WP:TENDENTIOUS reverts to your original message, while adding little and removing much.
 * "Not surprisingly", there's no danger of mistaking “Plantinga's response to be a serious effort' to redefine science. Once again, you removed the summary of Plantinga's conclusion, and imply it's somehow unusual that a court case is judged by a judge. Perhaps you meant it would be strange for science to welcome Jones as having any kind of authority or jurisdiction over science.
 * Not unless they're prophets, You had even said Ruse wasn''t responding to that and Pennock wasn't responding to him, at all. obviously weren't responding to :“Plantinga's response to Judge Jones”. Ruth was replying to the provocative theology article you cite, which no doubt should have been called “fear-and-loathing of God-of-the-Gaps Theology*”. —Machine Elf 1735  13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Title
This article now covers both methodological and metaphysical naturalism (see the section above). I think that is OK, however, if it stays this way, the title "Naturalism (philosophy)" seems too narrow. I'm not sure what else it could be though. "Naturalism (science)" comes to mind, but I'm not sure that would be fair to philosophical naturalism. --Chealer (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. There's a separate Metaphysical naturalism article. See the article. That's a bizarre naming suggestion.—Machine Elf 1735  16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article does cover metaphysical naturalism, even though it is also covered in metaphysical naturalism. See Naturalism_(philosophy). --Chealer (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're well aware of that article. It's not clear what you're talking about.—Machine Elf 1735  16:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition - allow for supernatural or not?
I am amazed to see how complex the term "naturalism" is. In this use, there is first a big distinction between 2 "forms of naturalism", methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The difference here is rather clear.

However, it seems that just "naturalism" means different things to different people. This article is itself contradictory. The lead says:
 * Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that [...] nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.

However, the Metaphysical naturalism section contains:
 * [Metaphysical naturalism] is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling.

The definition offered in Metaphysical naturalism is almost identical to the latter.

Obviously, this is inconsistent about whether naturalism allows for (a certain form of) supernatural or not. Both definitions are sourced, the latter with several references. The former, which I didn't verify, is attributed to the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, this ambiguity is explicitly acknowledged by several sources:
 * Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of ‘naturalism’. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret ‘naturalism’ differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, ‘naturalism’ is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as ‘non-naturalists’. This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the requirements of ‘naturalism’. Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand ‘naturalism’ in a unrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as ‘naturalists’, while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for ‘naturalism’ higher.

Similarly:
 * One of the most common versions of naturalism is the position that everything that exists is natural. Robert Audi defines naturalism, broadly construed, as "the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature". Rem B. Edwards offers a similar definition: "[T]he naturalist is one who affirms that only nature exists and by implication that the supernatural does not exist... The [natural] world is all of reality; it is all there is; there is no 'other world' " Although these definitions capture some of the most fundamental features of naturalism, I think that naturalism can be--and thus should be--defined less strongly. Alan Lacey captures the heart of naturalism when he writes: "What [naturalism] insists on is that the world of nature should form a single sphere without incursions from outside by souls or spirits, divine or human".
 * I think that most naturalists would agree that naturalism at least entails that nature is a closed system containing only natural causes and their effects. Fundamentally, naturalism is a metaphysical position about what sorts of causal relations exist--it is the position that every caused event within the natural world has a natural cause. This definition of naturalism is weaker than "everything that exists is natural" because it leaves open the possibility that the natural world does not exhaust all of reality: There may be some aspects of reality which exist outside of nature.

What should be done? I guess these 2 senses need to be explained first, but then how would we choose between them? I think the difference is unimportant for methodological naturalism, but primary for metaphysical naturalism. "Weak" metaphysical naturalism seems to allow for some moral stances that would make no sense to "strong" metaphysical naturalists.

Should we choose a sense, and if not, what else can be done? Is there any terminology to disambiguate? --Chealer (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As you're aware, this is not the article on metaphysical naturalism. You begin with a brief rehearsal of Schafersman's “clear” black and white dichotomy of metaphysical and methodological naturalism, as seen on WP. Both terms are obscured by controversy, the latter especially. This article, “here”, is encumbered by the misguided efforts that made it a merge recipient for methodological naturalism, by far the more notable of the 2 because of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Perhaps I understand your earlier name suggestion better: “naturalism (science)” would be a plausible redirect to a free-standing methodological naturalism article, once it's spun back out (inevitable, IMO).


 * Like naturalism in general, naturalism in philosophy can be ambiguous depending on context. There's nothing contradictory in the definition of a qualified term like metaphysical naturalism differing from an unqualified term like naturalism, a conceit, judging by the dab page, that should itself be qualified as “naturalism in philosophy” or “philosophical naturalism” (if not artificially by parenthetical).


 * What's obvious is that you've neglected to recognize any distinction between these, despite the qualifier. There is no “inconsistency” about “(a certain form of) supernatural”, whatever that means.


 * Clearly, the intention of metaphysical naturalism is somehow different from naturalism, simpliciter, though not necessarily a proper subset. Even assuming it is a proper subset, there's no inconsistency in those definitions. Charitably, you would not be incorrect to find that naturalism in philosophy is bewildering, so to speak…, something of an ensemble. The SEP article demures from that safari, while the master's thesis (a questionable WP:RS) is more the garden variety. In general, it goes a bit too far characterizing nature as closed, but understood as a simple assumption, that's fair enough.


 * À la metaphysical naturalism, science fans have a downright irrational conviction that nature is closed. aside, that's not the case historically, and considering we're in the dark about most of the so-called “matter” and “energy” in the universe, I supposes it's whistling a cheerie tune. Barring hung-ups about skeptical hypotheses, brain in a vat offers a plausible scenario for the supernaturally disinclined (there's no accounting for taste).


 * “What should be done?” Having just given the WP explanations on offer for those 2 senses and concluding “I guess these 2 senses need to be explained first”, is what? Some kind of crazy talk? “…how would we choose between them?” It's not our job to make that kind of choice for the reader.


 * Apparently “weak” and “strong” are terms you've invented, at first blush, having only just introduced yourself to the subject matter. That's not helpful: WP:OR is no more welcome here than it would be at the actual metaphysical naturalism article. Furthermore, those are 2 woefully naïve views of morality you're saddling naturalists with.


 * Of all this article lacks, of it's myriad shortcomings and inadequacies… science buffs and creationistas both love Schafersman for the facile polemics.—Machine Elf 1735  13:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is of course not a priori contradictory that two different terms have different meanings. However, if metaphysical naturalism is simply an absolute adoption of naturalism, then their definitions should be compatible and agree on the possibility for some supernatural. In fact, metaphysical naturalism used to present "naturalism" as a short for "metaphysical naturalism". Regarding "philosophical naturalism", that is already used as a synonymous for "metaphysical naturalism", as explained in metaphysical naturalism.


 * What I meant by "I guess these 2 senses need to be explained first" is that the first thing to do would be to change our definitions to account for this ambiguity and explain the ambiguity in a single place.


 * As for "weak" and "strong", these are English words. See Wiktionary for their definitions. --Chealer (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Schafersman paraphrases
Original quote: "Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it.

My paraphrase: Methodological naturalism is assuming metaphysical naturalism but not necessarily believing in it.

Explanation for changes in paraphrase: “the adoption or assumption of” is a long winded, way to say “assuming”. And, the end result of “adoption or assumption” is the same. ‘Within the scientific method” is not needed because that is already understood in the context of the article section. “With or without” is the same as “but not necessarily”. Whether you “fully accept or believe”, you end up the exactly the same result.

Second sentence

Original quote: "I maintain that the practice or adoption of methodological naturalism entails a logical and moral belief in ontological naturalism, so they are not logically decoupled."

My paraphrase: He further maintains that methodological naturalism requires a consistent, logically connected belief in ontological naturalism.

Explanation for changes in paraphrase: “practice or adoption of” is longwinded, unnecessary verbiage. ‘Entails” equals “requires”. “not logically decoupled” is the same as “logically coupled (getting rid of double negative) or “illogically decoupled”. “coupled” equals “connected.”

I maintain that my paraphrases are true to the meaning of the original. And the use of paraphrase is preferable to multiple long quotes. And I maintain that Steven Schafersman is a valid and reliable source on this topic. He certainly is no creationists. Mthoodhood (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Large rollback
There have been four sockpuppets editing this page - see Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. This has been a large problem spanning two years, multiple socks and considerable pov editing and copyvio. I've done a large rollback on this page which may require some tidying, but I think this is important. We don't want puppetmasters to think that they can edit with impunity, and I'd be surprised is this one doesn't come back. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

“[T]hat there is no ‘purpose’ in nature”
Yet Marx the naturalist was a proponent of teleological historicism. What gives? Perhaps, the sentence quoted from the lead is redundant. EIN  ( talk ) 17:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Marx was a naturalist? Perhaps you're thinking of Groucho? References needed, including the claim of teleological historicism. . dave souza, talk 18:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Karl Marx was an atheist, a materialist and a determinist, and he certainly wasn't keen on numerology, elves or four-leaf clovers. Seems safe to call him a naturalist. As for teleological historicism, that's just a reference to “the materialist conception of history,” a very large section of Marxism. He suggested that history unfolded inexorably in compliance with universal laws and that communism was in that respect inevitable as the final stage of civilization's development, somehow convincing himself that his conclusion was scientific.


 * But you know what? The question is not whether Karl Marx was a naturalist. Rather, what's significant is that it's possible to recognize as valid the proposition that some fundamental purpose exists naturally without believing that there exist some forces outside the physical world.  EIN   ( talk ) 08:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical Naturalism objections wrongly located in the Methodological Naturalism section
Plantiga's objections (and possibly Pennock's objections) apply only to philosophical materialism. I'll give others a few days to fix this before I review and delete the irrelevant sections.

Philocentric (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The irrelevant Plantinga section was deleted. Philocentric (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a reason to remove the material so I moved it out of that section.—Machine Elf 1735  01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Irrelevance is indeed reason for removal. Philocentric (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Plantinga is clearly not irrelevant. Your last edit continued to object to that subsection being located under the Methodological Naturalism section but that is no longer the case.—Machine Elf 1735  15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that correction. Please review the other sub-sections in the methodological naturalism section to make sure they are relevant. Philocentric (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We still have a problem. Now the Plantinga and Pennock sections are merely beneath the metaphysical naturalism section, and directly beneath the methodological section. Their opinions do not impinge on methodological naturalism. Please correct this. Philocentric (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not really much of a problem. The Views section isn't a subsection of either; there's no implication it is limited to views of Methodological Naturalism. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Then, since the objections by Plantinga and Pennock only address philosophical naturalism and don't impinge upon methodological naturalism, let's begin a new page dedicated to methodological naturalism so readers don't assume Plantinga's and Pennock's arguments affect methodological naturalism. Fair enough? Philocentric (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While I would want to see how the discussion went, I might well support the creation of a new page for Methodological Naturalism. This article is a bit of a mix of two topics as it stands. Perhaps we ought to cut down this page, and move most of the material to either the existing Metaphysical N. page or a proposed split Methodological N. page. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately methodological naturalism was merged into this article for very poor reasons and I would support undoing that. However, naturalism isn't necessarily divided into a methodological/metaphysical dichotomy and we should retain WP:SUMMARY style sections in this article.—Machine Elf 1735  15:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This would be my initial inclination as well. Gabrielthursday (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm content to let you gentlemen figure it out. As long as it no longer appears Plantinga's and Pennock's arguments impinge on methodological naturalism, I'm content. Philocentric (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There being only a couple of paragraphs here, I had imagined it would be good to revert methodological naturalism to some point before it became a redirect, but after a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&action=history I wonder if might be best to solicit some retrospective from the editors there first (pinging User:Ed Poor, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV).—Machine Elf 1735  02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering the degree of difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, I would definitely be in favor of it having its own page. I can get around to that over the next couple of weeks. Sound all right? Philocentric (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Methodological Naturalism Draft
Based on several of your comments, I'm starting the process of creating a separate article for methodological naturalism. After a few weeks, I'll be submitting the following draft you are currently free to edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philocentric/methodological_naturalism Philocentric (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Philocentric. Please make sure all the text, including the lead, is throughly cited. It's a controversy magnet...—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tom Clark
The notability of Tom Clark has been challenged. However, he is widely   treated as an authority on naturalism. This degree of recognition of his work would seem to be sufficient to justify the brief mention of his position in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed First Paragraph
Previous first paragraph was:


 * Naturalism is an a priori philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes. It describes at least two basic types of philosophical stances.

The term "a priori" is inappropriate because it implies a philosophical position that is deduced from reason alone and not from experience. This is obviously not true of methodological naturalism and is not necessarily true of metaphysical naturalism either (e.g., if the existence of evil is the reason for asserting that the Christian God must not exist).

Also, the implications of the phrase "all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes" are ambiguous. It could be interpreted by some readers as implying that science and religion are enemies. Ivar Y (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the lede really needs an update, the phrase more often used these days is "Nauturalising ...." and references an approach that sees science and philosophy as intertwined. That view is more sophisticated that implied in the first two paragraphs, for example some new work on the role of religion and "abstractions" in evolution, the way in which humans use metaphor in science and many others.  We have moved a long way from a crude dichotomy between science and religion.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence in the first paragraph seems to be missing a verb: "Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism." I'm not sure how to fix it. Fniessink (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and thank you for the good catch!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence still needs a lot of work even with the fix. It's confusing, I honestly don't know what the phrase "with philosophical entailment" is doing there, and it seems to present an unsourced quasi-argument against methodological naturalism that doesn't necessarily seem to be present in the body of the article.JustinBlank (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused, too many pages, not enough clear, summarized differentiation.
I see three Wikipedia pages on this topic so far: Naturalism_(philosophy), Spiritual_naturalism and Religious_naturalism. I hope someone writes a summary more clearly differentiating the three because right now these pages seem redundant and the long articles aren't really helping me determine which I most identify with (especially between "spiritual" and "religious") and I'm confused. Either that or please merge the pages and just have the different types on the main philosophy page. It seems no one has discussed doing this in years. 108.54.107.200 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Noting that an editor of this article, OtisDixon, has been blocked as a sockpuppet
Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Feel free to remove any edits they made. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)