Your definition would have the absurd upshot than any and all who believe in entities with causal powers are thereby naturalists. — Bartricks

Only with the addition that those entities can causally act on all other existing entities, and in turn can themselves be acted upon by all others. I don't think that's absurd for determining naturalism.

What's wrong with my definition? — Bartricks

Nothing wrong, but I think my definition is more accurate.

It is absurd insofar as you'd then have to describe substance dualists and monist immaterialists as naturalists! What use is the term 'naturalist' in philosophy if virtualy everyone - including those who differ profoundly over what they think reality consists of
- are nevertheless all naturalists?

'Accurate'? No it certainly isn't. See previous post above.

You are basing your definition on a misreading of one - one - philosopher's definition. Oppy is not saying what you think he is - he is not making possession of causal powers a defining feature of naturalism. But even if he was - and he isn't - that doesn't mean his definition is orthodox.

Makes sense to me. Very clear and specific. One of the things that bothers me most on the forum is how discussions go off in 20 directions because terms are not defined at the beginning of the thread. That's why I got involved.

Thank you.

To clarify things, here are several definitions of "naturalism."

The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

The belief that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality

The belief that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws

A comprehensive, science-based worldview, premised on the idea that existence in all its dimensions and complexity is a single, natural realm, not split between the natural and the supernatural — T Clark

The first really says nothing; how can we exclude the supernatural if the definition of the natural is given in terms of excluding the supernatural? If we don't have an independent definition of the natural how can we define the supernatural, in order to know what we are excluding. in other words?

The second suffers from the same problem.

The third just says that nothing outside the universe governs the universe. So, relating this to the first two shows that we are simply excluding the idea that anything outside the universe, referred to as the 'supernatural' even exists, much less governs the universe.

The fourth says this idea is "science-based", but this is circular since science is only equipped to deal with what is "in the universe" due its methodology. There are many, many things within the universe that science cannot deal with, and may never be able to deal with, so the invalid inference here is that since science can only deal with things within the universe, that it can therefore deal with all things within the universe.

I think @spirit-salamander has come up with a workable definition based on the scope of causal effect that entities are capable of and subject to, which seems to cover all the bases.

So, for example, Whitehead's God, who is affected by manifest nature, would be a natural and immanent, as opposed to a supernatural and transcendent, entity.

The selected quote from Oppy does not say as much, though.

I think spirit-salamander has come up with a workable definition based on the scope of causal effect that entities are capable of and subject to, which seems to cover all the bases. — Janus

The title of the thread is "Definition of Naturalism." At the time I wrote my post, no one had provided a definition of what naturism means in common usage. I gave four definitions from four different sources. Whether or not you like them, I think they represent pretty well what the word "naturalism" means in everyday philosophical speech. There is nothing stopping people from defining a word any way they want. If you want "naturalism" to mean two dogs fighting over a hotdog, ok. At least be clear about that from the beginning.

I like @spirit-salamander's summary also.

I was just pointing out the circular (and hence pretty much useless) nature of the definitions you sourced is all.

I was just pointing out the circular (and hence pretty much useless) nature of the definitions you sourced is all. — Janus

Disagree. I thought they were pretty straightforward. That's why I generally look for a few definitions. I find that looking at them together generally gives a better sense of what's up than just one. Naturalism says that reality is natural. Natural means that it is subject to laws that can be validated using the scientific method.

I am not making a claim that naturalism is right or wrong. I think it is a metaphysical position and is neither. I think it can be a useful way of looking at things depending on the situation.

Straightforwardly circular I would say in regard to the first two. And the second two are based on an invalid inference, as I pointed out. science thinks naturalistically because there is no other way to do it; that is if we don't think naturalistically (with regard to methodology) then we are not doing science, as doing science is currently defined. When it comes to thinking of worldviews as being "useful", I think this an category error. Speculatively thinking a worldview is a use; I don't think it makes sense to say it is useful. Science doesn't need to speculate on worldviews to practice. "Shut up and calculate" as it is said.

I disagree that naturalism is neither right nor wrong. It is right if it turns out that everything can be exhaustively explained naturalistically and not otherwise. The fact that we may never be able to discover the answer to that question has no bearing on the fact that it is in principle either right or wrong.

Straightforwardly circular I would say in regard to the first two. And the second two are based on an invalid inference, as I pointed out. science thinks naturalistically because there is no other way to do it; that is if we don't think naturalistically (with regard to methodology) then we are not doing science, as doing science is currently defined. — Janus

This is irrelevant. I gave a definition of naturalism based on it's common philosophical meaning. That is the stated subject of this thread and the one I was responding to. I did not make any judgement except to state that naturalism can be useful. Is it your position that science is not useful?

The fact that we may never be able to discover the answer to that question has no bearing on the fact that it is in principle either right or wrong. — Janus

It depends. If a claim hasn't been verified but might be in the future, then it might be right or wrong. If it cannot be verified, even in principle, then is not only not right or wrong, it is meaningless.

naturalism can be useful. Is it your position that science is not useful? — T Clark

You are conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. As I pointed out there is no other way to do science (that we currently know of) so it is not merely a matter of usefulness, but of necessity, even in regard to methodology. And the notion of usefulness is inappropriate in the context of metaphysics.

It depends. If a claim hasn't been verified but might be in the future, then it might be right or wrong. If it cannot be verified, even in principle, then is not only not right or wrong, it is meaningless. — T Clark

Firstly how can you currently decide what may or may not be verified in the future? Secondly if metaphysical positions are meaningless then why are we even discussing whether they are right or wrong or useful?

Take the claim that there is a God or some entity that created the universe; that claim may not be verifiable in principle (falsificationists say that even scientific claims are not) but do you really want to say that it is neither true nor false that a God or some entity created the universe?

The selected quote from Oppy does not say as much, though. — Janus

Oppy at least made a distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism. The latter could also be called naturism. And the former scientism.

You are conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. As I pointed out there is no other way to do science (that we currently know of) so it is not merely a matter of usefulness, but of necessity, even in regard to methodology. — Janus

@spirit-salamander is the one who made a distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. I think it may be a valuable idea, but it isn't what I was talking about. You didn't make any reference to the distinction in the post I was responding to and I didn't make any reference to it in my definitions, which is what got all this started.

I was just thinking. If my concept of metaphysics is correct, i.e. my emphasis on usefulness rather than truth, then all metaphysics is methodological. I like that.

Firstly how can you currently decide what may or may not be verified in the future? — Janus

Good point. In general, you can't, but if there is no evidence for a phenomenon, it is not unreasonable to provisionally assume it doesn't exist until evidence is found. Cases in point - the multiverse as an explanation for quantum mechanical phenomena and string theory.

Secondly if metaphysical positions are meaningless then why are we even discussing whether they are right or wrong or useful? — Janus

Metaphysical positions are not meaningless, hypothetical physical phenomena which cannot be verified, even in theory, are meaningless.

Metaphysical positions are not meaningless, hypothetical physical phenomena which cannot be verified, even in theory, are meaningless. — T Clark

It seems that I misinterpreted this then:

It depends. If a claim hasn't been verified but might be in the future, then it might be right or wrong. If it cannot be verified, even in principle, then is not only not right or wrong, it is meaningless. — T Clark

I had thought we were discussing metaphysical positions such as supernaturalism, not "hypotheical physical phenomena". As I understand it metaphysical claims cannot be verified, even in principle, but I don't think that entails their meaninglessness, or their inability to be true or false. That's why I wrote

Take the claim that there is a God or some entity that created the universe; that claim may not be verifiable in principle (falsificationists say that even scientific claims are not) but do you really want to say that it is neither true nor false that a God or some entity created the universe? — Janus

Oppy at least made a distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism. The latter could also be called naturism. And the former scientism. — spirit-salamander

I understand scientism to be metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism; the latter is just science. Are you wanting to make a distinction between metaphysical and ontological naturalism?

Methodological naturalists maintain, roughly, that well-established science is our touchstone for identifying the denizens of causal reality: we have no reason to believe in causal entities and causal powers beyond those recognised by science." — spirit-salamander

That works for me.

I understand scientism to be metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism; the latter is just science. Are you wanting to make a distinction between metaphysical and ontological naturalism? — Janus

Now that I read your distinction and question, I have to think about it again.

:cool:

I understand scientism to be metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism; the latter is just science. Are you wanting to make a distinction between metaphysical and ontological naturalism?
— Janus

Now that I read your distinction and question, I have to think about it again. — spirit-salamander

This may need tidying up, but Scientism (philosophical naturalism) should be separated from that which says methodological naturalism is the most reliable way of understanding reality, which is unable to comment on that which is yet to be identified.