Three Kinds of Naturalism

"Conservative naturalists are straight physicalists—nothing exists but the physical, and the physical is characterized by all and only the properties of a completed physics (and perhaps chemistry, if chemistry cannot be reduced to physics). By contrast, moderate naturalists differ from conservative naturalists in that they expand their conception of the natural world so as to include abstract objects (e.g., propositions, properties, possible worlds, etc.). Finally, liberal naturalists differ from moderates and conservatives in that they not only admit into their ontology of the natural world the abstracta of the moderates, but they also allow for concreta that have more properties and powers than the conservatives and moderates allow. Examples of liberal naturalism include Spinozism and Russellian monism (also known as panprotopsychism)."

Is God the Best Explanation of Things? Felipe Leon & Joshua Rasmussen (p. 91)

[EmersonGreen]

"Conservative naturalists are straight physicalists—nothing exists but the physical, and the physical is characterized by all and only the properties of a completed physics (and perhaps chemistry, if chemistry cannot be reduced to physics). By contrast, moderate naturalists differ from conservative naturalists in that they expand their conception of the natural world so as to include abstract objects (e.g., propositions, properties, possible worlds, etc.). Finally, liberal naturalists differ from moderates and conservatives in that they not only admit into their ontology of the natural world the abstracta of the moderates, but they also allow for concreta that have more properties and powers than the conservatives and moderates allow. Examples of liberal naturalism include Spinozism and Russellian monism (also known as panprotopsychism)."

Is God the Best Explanation of Things? Felipe Leon & Joshua Rasmussen (p. 91)

[craigreedtcr]

Ha ha ha. OMG! Dude, I actually pulled this segment from your convo and was going to post my own version of this. Quite literally.

[Sentientism]

Loved this - thanks Emerson! Helped enrich my thinking about naturalism.

[racsooj]

Thanks for the vid Emerson.
I think his initial point overlaps quite well with what you were saying about how we understand words and meanings. It seems in the end a theist with all knowledge could end up being comfortable with the word naturalist because the word natural would just mean 'what's real'.
I think the word atheist probably needs to be in the description somewhere. Atheist naturalist or atheist physicalist or atheist non physicalist or whatever.

There's an interesting parallel to the question that's often posed to theists about whether there is an upper limit to the amount of evil that could exist in the world before its not made by a good God. With the question, how much amazing stuff will the naturalist accept in the universe before it becomes a non indifferent one. Not a perfect parallel but this conversation does bring it to mind for me.

[broccolinyu]

As a Naturalist myself, I can tell you that often times Naturalism aligns with Science. The things we have been able to observe because of science have come from the observable nature of the earth. In my view, whatever happens in the world has a scientific and by extent, natural explanation.