RE: Your position on naturalism
November 24, 2016 at 10:38 am
(This post was last modified: November 24, 2016 at 10:44 am by Ignorant.)
(November 24, 2016 at 6:54 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I've used too much invective language in this thread and for that, I apologize. I have edited my two most recent posts to reflect that. Now I regret to inform you I am withdrawing from these discussions - it seems I have to, it's becoming too heated for me.
Nevertheless, thank you for conversing with me, Ignorant. Have a nice day.
No problem. I appreciate your feedback, and I'll leave you with just a few thoughts on some of your comments:
Excited Penguin Wrote: That's where your equivocation lies. That's not the kind of natural implied in naturalism.
If you object to my labeling my view as a sort of 'naturalism'. Fair enough. I would hope, however, that you would accept that my actual position does need need to fit and correspond to 'naturalism' as you understand it.
Excited Penguin Wrote: Let us consult the Wikipedia article on naturalism
I'll draw your attention here:
Wikipedia, emphasis mine Wrote:"SOME philosophers equate naturalism with materialism . . . Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.
Perhaps it is possible to hold to a version of naturalism that does not employ this equation with materialism? If not, I'll be sure to find a different word for it. I'm thinking 'realism'. =)
Excited Penguin Wrote: Your Catholic "naturalism" is a misnomer, plain and simple.
If you want that word protected, by all means protect it. I hereby renounce my claim to be a Catholic 'naturalist'.