There are some intriguing and inviting complexities around the twin concepts of nature and naturalism. For too many evolutionary biologists, and even evolutionary psychologists, who should know better, Nature with a capital "N" is rarely analyzed and when done so it is with the crudest of instruments. And for those of us who do know better, we register with some vexation that the reigning concept of naturalism has been flattened into a dull-witted colorless perspective that veers toward some kind of materialism; a belief in the exhaustive correlation of chance and law, alas, with no help from Peirce; a tendency toward a mind/brain identity thesis; an emergentism vis-à-vis consciousness (and the corollary rejection ..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/ajt.0.0011
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,379
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What’s Wrong with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism?Geoff Childers - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (3):193-204.
Broken‐Backed Naturalism.J. Wesley Robbins - 1997 - Zygon 32 (4):585-592.
What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism.Reed Richter - 2002 - Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
Plantinga on the Epistemic Implications of Naturalism.David Reiter - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:141-147.


Added to PP index

Total views
109 ( #108,931 of 2,519,659 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,756 of 2,519,659 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes