naturalist

reesetee I agree with oroboros--good recommendations! I've already added your proposed book(s) to my reading list (as "Uselessness' Field Guide to Philosophy"). :-)

Philosophy can be hard to slog through. I like to alternate any difficult nonfiction I may want to read with a few juicy novels, just to keep things balanced. Aug 22, 2007

uselessness Thanks for the tips, I'll check 'em out! Aug 22, 2007

oroboros Bertrand Russell ("A History of Western Philosophy") and Will Durant ("The Story of Philosophy") do a pretty good job of that, although modern philosophers like Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Tillich and the like aren't included because of the publication dates of those works. Anyway, recommended. And good luck on the philosophy exegesis project! Aug 22, 2007

uselessness I love philosophy, but I admit that reading it is often frustrating because it's so thick and pretentious. One of these days, when I have more lots and lots of free time, I'd like to translate/paraphrase the major philosophers into modern language ordinary people can understand. And I'll start with Kierkegaard. :-)

I also want to write my own easy-to-read philosophy books so I don't have to be the only person in this group any more. :-P Aug 22, 2007

reesetee Work, Wordie--same thing. I mean, I am in the words business, so I figure it counts for something. ;->

Maybe I'll get back to Kierkegaard myself. Haven't read him since college.... Aug 22, 2007

oroboros My lips is sealed! *zzzzziiiiiippppp* Aug 22, 2007

uselessness Shhh! Don't tell the bossman! Aug 22, 2007

oroboros You mean "at Wordie" right? Aug 22, 2007

uselessness I am. Reading through Works of Love at the moment, actually. Well not *right* now, I'm at work. ;-) Aug 22, 2007

reesetee Wow. You really need t-shirts for your group. :-)

So you are a Kierkegaard fan, I presume? Or no? Aug 22, 2007

uselessness It's certainly fun to be your own group. I, for example, have yet to meet another emergent existentialist Christian libertarian. But maybe I'm just being too specific. ;-) Aug 22, 2007

reesetee Sure would--but I'd have to catch him on a good day. He can be a tad ornery. ;-) Aug 22, 2007

oroboros Be interesting to get his views on nihilism or anarchism do you think? Aug 22, 2007

reesetee I have to agree with you--in fact, maybe this is *his* problem, not ours. :-) I only know what he's told me. I've always suspected he uses the description "atheist" almost literally--as in, not believing in a god but not necessarily believing in anything else. Which brings us back to square one here, I suppose. Aug 22, 2007

uselessness So your friend doesn't believe in God... but does believe in supernatural occurrences? Like ghosts and stuff? I guess that could be defined as atheism, perhaps, but it would seem a person in that position might want to do some more evaluating of how s/he really believes and chooses to be identified. And then there are the apatheists, who are in a whole other boat altogether. I'd say the label "atheist" is only for people who are decided on the matter, not for people who aren't sure or don't care. Aug 22, 2007

reesetee Don't know, uselessness. I get all of that, but I've always thought that this "natural" vs. "spiritual" dichotomy is far too clean to help us make sense of the muddiness we live with. I know a self-proclaimed atheist, for example, who couldn't care less about the natural world. Where would he fall in this argument? I'm almost certain he wouldn't describe himself as a naturalist.

I suppose I should ask him directly, but he's not available at the moment. ;-) Aug 22, 2007

uselessness Oh, and I've heard "Dawkins' definition" of naturalism since way before Dawkins claimed it, I think. Aug 22, 2007

uselessness I think that's the definition of atheism. Anything veering away from a strictly natural belief system enters the territory of theism, or at least agnosticism. Aug 22, 2007

reesetee Maybe he needs to choose a different word, though. In my view, "naturalist" already has quite a good definition, and while it may intersect that of Dawkins' in some ways, it certainly isn't the same definition as the one he proposes. Presently the word refers to someone who studies nature and natural history (or teaches them), not one who "believes" in it. Awfully confusing, in my opinion.

And does he mean to suggest that all atheists necessarily believe in the natural world and vice versa? Is that really the case? (This isn't necessarily a rhetorical question--I'm not at all sure about this, not being well-versed in the subject.) Aug 22, 2007

uselessness Everything is spin. Mr. Dawkins can relabel himself however he wants, but it's fairly despicable to intentionally slight religious groups by trying to relabel them. It's like "pro-life/pro-death" vs. "pro-choice/anti-choice," which is a pretty stupid battle of rhetoric in itself. Though the word naturalist is a good one, Dawkins is a jerk for foisting the purposely negative supernaturalist on his "rivals." Aug 22, 2007

oroboros In the ongoing resurgence of atheistic thinking, the term naturalist has taken on a nuanced and politicized meeting.

Spokesatheist Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, recognizes that the term "atheist" has a negative definition, i.e. a person who does not believe in god, and that a negative definition unnecessarily frames atheists at the margin rather than at the center of the discussion. Additionally, this particular term has a negative semantic orientation among moderate, influenceable Americans.

Instead, he has proposed the adoption of the alternate terms "naturalist" and "supernaturalist." This frames atheism with a positive definition and at the center, i.e. a person who believes in the natural world, with all of the positive associations of the word "natural." This consequently frames believers at the margin, de-privileging the concepts of gods, angels, and devils, by underscoring the salient similarity between them and the concepts of ghosts, psychics, and the X-Files.

--From Tato at Everything2.com Aug 22, 2007