Changes

<blockquote>"So understood, 'naturalism' is not a particularly informative term... The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily... reject 'supernatural' entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the 'human spirit'."

<blockquote>"So understood, 'naturalism' is not a particularly informative term... The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily... reject 'supernatural' entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the 'human spirit'."

<ref>Papineau, David "Naturalism", in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"</ref> </blockquote>

<ref>Papineau, David "Naturalism", in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"</ref> </blockquote>

These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged the [[Scientific consensus|opinion]] that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003). See [[Hypothesis]].

These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science and away from theology and religion. They urged the [[Scientific consensus|opinion]] that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003). See [[Hypothesis]].

As applied to contemporary philosophers ‘naturalism’, so understood, is not a particularly informative term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret ‘naturalism’ differently. This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the ''requirements'' of what constitutes a philosophy of ‘naturalism’. This disagreement about usage is no accident. Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand ‘naturalism’ in an nonrigorous way, in order not to disqualify themselves as ‘naturalists’, while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines set forth more rigorous criteria to define what they regard as legitimate ‘naturalism’. However it is regarded, ‘naturalism’ is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers today would characterize themselves as ‘non-naturalists’.

As applied to contemporary philosophers ‘naturalism’, so understood, is not a particularly informative term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret ‘naturalism’ differently. This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the ''requirements'' of what constitutes a philosophy of ‘naturalism’. This disagreement about usage is no accident. Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand ‘naturalism’ in an nonrigorous way, in order not to disqualify themselves as ‘naturalists’, while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines set forth more rigorous criteria to define what they regard as legitimate ‘naturalism’. However it is regarded, ‘naturalism’ is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers today would characterize themselves as ‘non-naturalists’.