Naturalism.org

When we think about what’s real, physical objects are at or near the top of the list. Virtually no one doubts the existence of their own bodies, or those of others, or the myriads of material things that crowd around us. A 3-D physical object sitting out there where everyone can see it – my new coffee maker, for instance – can’t be written off as a collective hallucination, or at least not easily. True, a good sophist could probably convince you it doesn’t exist, but let’s set such considerations aside.

Introduction

With reassurances like these in hand (there are others, see here and Appendix 1 of Encountering Naturalism), naturalists are in a good position to make the case for the viability of naturalism. We don’t, as it turns out, need more than what nature affords to be moral, compassionate and effective agents, living meaningful lives within a cosmos that seems not to have had us in mind. Nature, our home, in which we participate as fully natural creatures, is enough.

Worldviews define themselves partially by way of contrast with their competitors. In defining naturalism, it helps to consider the differences in assumptions and conclusions between it and non-naturalistic worldviews. Below are a few of the most salient. If you’re undecided about where to place your bet about the ultimate nature of things, considering these differences can help you decide. Naturalism isn’t for everyone, at least not immediately, since it requires revising some conventional wisdom and giving up some comforting beliefs.

A rational, not faith-based, commitment to science