Talk:Metaphysical naturalism

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metaphysical naturalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology / Ethics / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Epistemology
	Ethics
	Philosophy of religion

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Atheism High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section Name?[edit]

Anyone have a better name for the subsection "Ancient Period"? Sanjat312, 06:15, 12 December 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

I changed the diambiguation page. As such I think both articles are wrong headed. I suggest leading out the arguments page until someone reads something written by someone with some qualifications ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.67.120 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Ricard Carrier has written this entry AND recommended his book/work in it! I think it needs to be rewrtten for thsi reason alone! Also, I don't think the arguments against section is neutral: most end in claims that the argument is incorrect, surely there is some academic disagreement as to whether e.g. the existence of qualia undermines naturalism? And why demand scientific evidence for supernatural causes, surely this is impossible as what was considered supernatural would then be natural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.77.22 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Make paragraph: the personocratic impossibility[edit]

The personocratic possibility hasn't a 50% chance when compared to all possible naturalistic theories in physics.

It has a 0% chance, because personhood according to Mary Anne Warren's "criteria for personhood", personhood isn't cosmogonic nor the foundation/the metatheory of physics.

explicitly personocratic: god being a person

Personhood is one option. The possible impersonal mathematical systems are infinite. Also if personhood were cosmogonic, being non arbitrary it would have been mathematically describable. Actually there are ways to represent biological brains and artificial neural networks. These thinking machines/brains are mathematically described as simulations and every year evolve. Personhood has nothing to do with cosmogony and the metatheoretical foundation of physics.

Some theists claim that the ousia/substance/essence of god is responsible for cosmogony and not his personhood; thus god has more fundamental components than his all, thus himself cannot be god being nonfundamental but a result of interacting components.

If the divine substance of god is tautological to his personhood, then any person can be god.

implicitly personocratic: an impersonal divine field being the projection of human biases as values of order outside physics
intermediately personocratic: for example the kami are not one, are not precosmic nor cosmogonic; also are presented as autistic, missing components of personhood (they exhibit limited behavioral patterns and means of communication/approach)

Make paragraph, and also page (in the namesake page include the theistic criticism/opinions): antiagnosticism[edit]

Greek antiagnostic poster/rationalist nontheist

Agnosticism opens the door to/the possibility of validity of metaphysical personocracy (explicitly as [a] person-god[s] or implicitly as projected personocratic bias [based on what makes sense to a thinker who fulfils Mary Anne Warren's criteria for personhood] unto an impersonal divine field [or fields]), or in the case of agnostic atheism, it closes the door to sound and complete treatises on metaphysical naturalism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:F9F8:B96A:16F4:EEF3:E944 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

make page: metaphysical personocracy[edit]

This is the view of metaphysical naturalists[edit]

..., but we need the general page on metaphysical personocracy (omnidominance of personhood - why omnidominace and not cosmic dominance? omni- means everything; religious adherents claim that there are exocosmic truths [they have to be covered]).

against metaphysical personocracy

We didn't mention some of their goals[edit]

*

renormalization of the wave function of the universe: universe's wave function renormalization (we don't have that page; 1. formulas/cosmogonic theories to be tested, 2. necessary astronomical data to be discovered in the future, 3. space-array interferometry in order very long primordial gravitational waves expose the protocosmic state... etc.)