@huxley,

huxley:

I thought I was rather tamed but persistent on this thread, but not unwelcoming. I know some of my other thread were a lot more strident. Just look at my post under therationa

Wow! I apologise - I missed that actually, although I was wondering if there was a link somehow between therationa and huxley. Anyway, we all learn everyday.

huxley:

As to my worldview, I identify myself as a naturalist (metaphysical naturalist). On the god question, I am an atheist. I do not consider atheism as my worldview, as I derive little from the fact that I am an atheist.

Okay, good to know. Just as one could describe me as a theist with particular reference to Christianity and hence Christian theist, would I be correct by any stretch to think about you as an atheist with particular reference to metaphysical naturalism and hence atheistic naturalist?

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Wow! I apologise - I missed that actually, although I was wondering if there was a link somehow between therationa and huxley. Anyway, we all learn everyday.

Okay, good to know. Just as one could describe me as a theist with particular reference to Christianity and hence Christian theist, would I be correct by any stretch to think about you as an atheist with particular reference to metaphysical naturalism and hence atheistic naturalist?

Yes, therationa is tpaine is huxley. therationa was banned for taking a strong stance against the Mohammedans.


Christian theist and atheistic naturalist, while being precise, are tautological. A naturalist tends to be an atheist, although a deist might also describe herself as a naturalist. I like the following definition for naturalism from wikipedia.

Metaphysical or ontological naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do not exist, or they are reducible to natural things. It is often simply referred to as naturalism, and occasionally as philosophical naturalism or ontological naturalism, though all those terms have other meanings as well, with naturalism often referring to methodological naturalism. This article presents only a basic outline of the definition and history of metaphysical naturalism and the major arguments for and against it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism)

@huxley,

huxley:

Yes, therationa is tpaine is huxley. therationa was banned for taking a strong stance against the Mohammedans.

Uh-oh! Lol, please pardon my ignorance - I've been much too long gone for a break to have known. Good to have been updated, though - so I'll keep in mind as I peruse other threads.

huxley:

Christian theist and atheistic naturalist, while being precise, are tautological. A naturalist tends to be an atheist, although a deist might also describe herself as a naturalist.

Lol, so which is it? At least I offered that I'm a Christian theist.

huxley:

I like the following definition for naturalism from wikipedia.

Metaphysical or ontological naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do not exist, or they are reducible to natural things. It is often simply referred to as naturalism, and occasionally as philosophical naturalism or ontological naturalism, though all those terms have other meanings as well, with naturalism often referring to methodological naturalism. This article presents only a basic outline of the definition and history of metaphysical naturalism and the major arguments for and against it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism)

Um, that was not about naturalism but rather about the various shades of the adjectives added to the word to bring out various ideologies (such as metaphysical naturalism). It is the "-isms" of naturalism and not naturalism itself that the article seem to have highlighted.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Uh-oh! Lol, please pardon my ignorance - I've been much too long gone for a break to have known. Good to have been updated, though - so I'll keep in mind as I peruse other threads.

Lol, so which is it? At least I offered that I'm a Christian theist.

Um, that was not about naturalism but rather about the various shades of the adjectives added to the word to bring out various ideologies (such as metaphysical naturalism). It is the "-isms" of naturalism and not naturalism itself that the article seem to have highlighted.

You might be amused to take a look at some of my earlier post. Check the bottom of the main post here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-115292.0.html to see a list of some of my other threads and my tussles with 4Him, Stimulus, Imhotep, etc, etc. I must admit, it was quite fun and interesting.

The wikipedia article is rather a brief exposition of naturalism. I have got a very good book defending metaphysical naturalism by Richard Carrier.

Are a fan of Amazon.com? If you are, then just do a search for naturalism on Amazom and see the various defenses and criticism of this worldview.

@huxley,

huxley:

The wikipedia article is rather a brief exposition of naturalism. I have got a very good book defending metaphysical naturalism by Richard Carrier.

Lol, I haven't really sat down to digest R. Carrier on his defence of naturalism. He still seems to want to impress his readers with the "-isms" of naturalism. Just as in the definition of atheism that we discussed recently, the one problem that many people struggle with is what exactly these terms mean. Often, when discussing with people, they start from the "-isms" before trying to look at the naturalism itself (same sometimes happens with atheism - people tend to look at the shades of atheism first before struggling to come back to the term itslef).

Anyhow, I was just wondering about this:

pilgrim.1:

Okay, good to know. Just as one could describe me as a theist with particular reference to Christianity and hence Christian theist, would I be correct by any stretch to think about you as an atheist with particular reference to metaphysical naturalism and hence atheistic naturalist?

Cheers.