Naturalism?

[Twentythree]

What is the difference between a naturalist and an atheist.It seems like in order to be one by default you would be the other. Historically however naturalists have also been theists.So where does one draw the line, and con one consider themselves a naturalist but not consider themselves a scientist?

[Davin]

An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in a god or gods. Almost any other position can be adopted. So there really aren't any uncrossable lines, it's more like Venn diagrams.

[xSilverPhinx]

From wikipedia:

Naturalism originally meant "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and "the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1]

I think maybe in the broader sense, naturalism basically excludes all forms of theism and even deism, but I've known a few deists who would consider themselves to be naturalists, they see the universe as having only natural laws but were put there by something(s) "outside" of our natural reality. Theists would have to seriously compartmentalise, I think. There's nothing to keep them from studying and gaining knowledge on the natural world, but they see the supernatural sown in as well to a greater or lesser extent.

[Melmoth]

An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in a god or gods.

I think that's a slightly over-reductive way of looking at it. If you ask someone "What is your world view?" and they respond "Atheist," it reveals a lot more about that person than their simple lack of belief in god or gods. I'd agree with Twentythree and say naturalism is among the things that it heavily implies, if not states explicitly.

OP: I think that in general, people who attribute the term 'atheist' to themselves tend to have arrived at that position for naturalistic reasons. That doesn't make them the same, or imply a blurry line between the definitions, it simply means that they can and often do compliment each other. As you pointed out, theists can also describe themselves as 'naturalistic', just as 'atheists' - especially in the broader, more technical sense that Devin defined - can be very spiritual and metaphyisical in their thinking. I don't see much of a problem with the words, except that I don't understand some people's positions; no theistic naturalist has taken the time to explain theirs to me, and I don't see how it could work. A naturalistic outlook, followed to a logical conclusion, only leads to atheism as far as I can tell.

[Twentythree]

In an interesting book I read a while back "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. The author actually outlines a naturalists rational for god. Actually 3/4 of the book is a very well articulated argument for naturalism. The kicker is that the author then weaves god into the very root of evolution itself. He is basically saying that god planted the seed of chemical reaction, which lead to the formation of DNA, which led to evolution, which was his plan to devise a mind completely capable of free will in order for that mind to accept or reject him. The ultimate final judgment. His argument was not that god created everything in the natural world, but simply lit a fuse. So since there is an implication of the supernatural fueling the base of his naturalistic argument, is he a naturalist? There would be no empirical way to test his claim that god basically wanted us to evolve so we would be sufficiently enough confounded to need him, seek him, and accept him.

[proudfootz]

One book which might prove helpful is Sense and Goodness without God by historian and philosopher Richard Carrier:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/naturalism.html

[Whitney]

someone can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural (not that they'd be justified in that belief); so the two are not tied together.

[xSilverPhinx]

In an interesting book I read a while back "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. The author actually outlines a naturalists rational for god. Actually 3/4 of the book is a very well articulated argument for naturalism. The kicker is that the author then weaves god into the very root of evolution itself. He is basically saying that god planted the seed of chemical reaction, which lead to the formation of DNA, which led to evolution, which was his plan to devise a mind completely capable of free will in order for that mind to accept or reject him. The ultimate final judgment. His argument was not that god created everything in the natural world, but simply lit a fuse. So since there is an implication of the supernatural fueling the base of his naturalistic argument, is he a naturalist? There would be no empirical way to test his claim that god basically wanted us to evolve so we would be sufficiently enough confounded to need him, seek him, and accept him.

I never read his book but watched one of his online lectures in which he states that he finds it offensive that some people would say that god would need to intervene in the evolutionary process in order to "help it get through the tough bits" or something like that. He sees that claim as an affront to his god's omniscience and omnipotence. My interpretaion of where he's coming from is that his beliefs merge more deism in that sense, in which god "guides" the naturally unguided process that way. Looks like the sort of compartmentalisation scientific theists make, in which they're only naturalists when studying the natural world. In other aspects, they're not. I may be way off the mark, though...

[Twentythree]

No, I totally agree. It’s sort of a default answer, when we reach the edge of our understanding we pin the rest on god. How did evolution start? “Well, god of course.” What is past the edge of the universe? “Well, god of course” It hearkens back to the origins of religion. What is the sun? “Well, it’s a god of course”