1) Naturalism has two other scholarly meanings in describing science:
A) To describe those who study nature; for example, "Carolus Linnaeus
and John Muir were naturalists who studied nature."
B) Naturalism (as defined by philosophers such as Ronald Giere,...) is
an approach that says "science" should be defined by empirically studying
what scientists actually *do*, not by just thinking about what scientists
*should do*. { Harvey Siegel [in Science & Education, 1993, pp 57-68]
discusses variations of naturalism, both normative and non-normative, and
defends the rationality of this approach: "A large and growing body of work
suggests, however, that epistemology and philosophy of science should be
*naturalized*: studied as an empirical discipline."
There are communication problems when a word (such as naturalism) is
"overpopulated with meanings." By contrast, materialism has only one
common meaning (that I know of) when it is used to discuss science or
nature. The common meaning of materialism (love of money, BMWs,...) is
usually irrelevant when discussing science, but it could cause confusion
when addressing a general audience who might get confused if they assume
this as the intended meaning. But a quick definition would be enough to
clarify; and in philosophy of science, this would not cause a problem.
2) Advocates for a view usually choose a favorable name to express their
views. Thus, in abortion the names are pro-life (not anti-choice) and
pro-choice (not anti-life). The terms chosen by a-theists for their views
(humanism and naturalism) have favorable connotations; if someone says I am
very human or natural, I accept this as a compliment. By contrast,
materialism is less positive. It is clear why atheists would choose to
call themselves humanists and naturalists, but why should theists also want
to use these terms?
3) More important, however, is the main issue: DESCRIPTIVE ACCURACY.
Most historians object to labeling interpretations of science as "internal"
(including only factors within science) and "external" (including cultural
factors that are external to science yet intrude on it from the outside),
partly because this is an overly simplistic demarcation, and partly because
this implies that science does not include cultural factors (and the
historians do not agree with this definition of science). // Similarly,
the use of "naturalism" implies that the operation of nature excludes (by
definition) the action of God; the name itself implies an a-theistic answer
to the question that is being asked, "Is God ever active (or always active)
in nature?" The use of "naturalism" implies that, by definition, "nature
is nature, and supernature is not nature."
*************************
As a term, I definitely prefer "materialism" over "naturalism", but I'm
not sure what (if anything) to use instead of "SUPERNATURALISM". Every
term I can think of has difficulties:
theistic action? You know I like this, but it can be stylistically
awkward. And some supernatural action is due to non-Godly spirits.
non-material action? This is a bit vague. And besides, the result of
theistic action often (or maybe always; it's tough for us to know) involves
matter; in fact, "affecting the matter/energy realm of nature" is one way
to define it as "action".
spiritualism? (no; this has other meanings, associated with channeling
and seances)
any other ideas?
*******************
Do you think "materialism" is a better term than "naturalism"?
Do you think "naturalism" is so firmly entrenched (due to its use by
Phil Johnson, in debates about "methodological naturalism", in the title of
NTSE,...) that, like the QWERTY keyboard, even if it is not the best term,
it will survive due to tradition and inertia?
A change would be made more difficult because I'm sure "naturalists"
love their term (for reasons 2 & 3 discussed above) and will therefore
resist changing it. But maybe they would see #1 as a reason to change.
From a theistic viewpoint, a change (from naturalism to materialism)
could be viewed as an opportunity to discuss the reasons for it, and their
relevance for the questions being discussed.
*************************************************************
PJ discusses terms on pages 38-39 of Reason in the Balance.
Re: p 38; concerns about "too many meanings" may not be warranted; I
think the phrase "only matter in random motion" captures the basic idea of
materialism, and there would be little general confusion.
also: PJ wonders mentions relativity (E=mcc, mass-energy equivalence)
but this could be an advantage because, technically, "matter" could be used
to encompass both mass and energy. In any case, this doesn't seem to be a
major factor, one way or the other.
Craig Rusbult