1.1. Expand the limits of nature beyond scientific parameters but there is no need to postulate any other world than the one we live in, move in and have our being in.
1.2. More to the natural world than what can be comprehended by scientists. It is value involving and value cannot be easily comprehended by the scientist.
1.3. A middle ground between scientific naturalism and supernaturalism - avoids difficulties of these positions whilst retaining their insights.
1.4. We are receptive to value by virtue of being human
2. Scientific Naturalism
2.1. Object to supernatural phenomena. Make sure proper clarification is used for terms like nature, natural and supernatural. They worry about the metaphysical and epistemological difficulties that arise when supernatural realms are introduced. Griffin claims that you do not have to adopt a reductive form of naturalism to postulate that an other-worldy realm of values produces unnecessary problems.
2.2. De Caro and Macarthur: 3 influential types of naturalism. 1.The ontological scientific naturalist - entities posited by scientific explanations are only genuine entities there are. 2.The methodological/epistemological scientific naturalist - Only by following empirical methods that one arrives at genuine knowledge. 3.The scientific semantic naturalist - Concepts employed by natural sciences are only genuine concepts.
2.3. The limits of the natural world are to be circumscribed by science, but is science to be the measure of reality?
3. Against naturalism
3.1. There is a nature of reality that science can't make sense of (Kantian transcendent metaphysics) -Although it can still be seen as a logical compliment. -Can science explain anything about aesthetics, morality, love, moral value, goodness? This things are not reducible and therefore do not fit the reductionist model. -What kind of naturalism is the naturalist even making reference to? If scientistic naturalist has narrow conception that it is an unsustainable position - accomodate other positions? But conception of reality it may still be argued is too narrow.
3.2. The claim that science is the measure of what there is is neither scientifically or philosophically supported.
4. Intro
4.1. There is a theoretical and scientific view of reality and then an everyday conception of reality. These 2 differences are called the scientific image (posterior) and the manifest image (Intuitive way of experiencing world, ordinary thought and talk)
4.2. Sellars states 'Science is the measure of all things, of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not'. Naturalists are those that accept that scientists have a monopoly on reality.
5. For Naturalism
5.1. -Avoid reference to anything 'spooky' or supernatural -Nature is all that there is - it would be outrageous to postulate phenomena which are non-natural -In this sense remains grounded and avoids metaphysical flights of fancy -The notion of the supernatural is to be rejected
6. 6. Naturalism and God
6.1. Naturalism typically excludes God. Expansive naturalist will tend to think that we can explain what we need to explain without including God. Wiggins: God is simply beyond our ken. Ellis: God is revealed in natural world. What goes for value also goes for God (Levinas) Meaning of naturalism is not fixed and has pliability.
