[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Do you have any evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people who don't believe in a deity are 'metaphysical naturalists'. Most atheist I know are empirical naturalists; they see no useful reason to posit and no hard evidence for a Deity. Their naturalism does not have metaphysical underpinnings; rather, they've noticed naturalism is a useful way to view the world, and see no pressing reason to abandon it.

By your description, RWP, and my understanding of the terms (see below) the “most atheists” of whom you speak are actually agnostic. Perhaps we should discuss what the terms mean – or shall mean to us – in our discussions on the forum?

Here are a few “cuts” to get the definition process started (emphasis mine):

Naturalism (wikipedia)

"Naturalism" refers to a number of different topics:

Philosophical naturalism: the view that nothing exists but the world — that there are no supernatural entities.
Ethical naturalism: the theory that ethical terms can be defined in non-ethical terms.
Natural history: a broad area of the natural sciences concerned with living things.
Methodological naturalism: the philosophical tenet that, within scientific enquiry, one can only use natural explanations; that is, one's explanations must not make reference to the existence of supernatural forces and entities.
Sociological naturalism: the view that natural world and social world are roughly identical and governed by similar principles.
Naturalism as a literary style.
Naturalism as a theatrical movement.

Naturalism (infidels.org)

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.

As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.

Drange: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (infidels.org) Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:

(1) Does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?
(2) If so, then is that proposition true or false?

If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist with regard to God-talk. If you say yes to it, thereby allowing that the given sentence does express a proposition, then you are a cognitivist with regard to God-talk. (Let us henceforth abbreviate these expressions, simply using the terms "cognitivist" and "noncognitivist".) All theists, atheists, and agnostics are cognitivists, so the second question applies to them: is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, "The evidence is insufficient" (or words to that effect).

[Right Wing Professor]

One of the things we empirical naturalists tend to avoid is lengthy discussion over definitions or labels. I've posted this Weinberg quote several times, and I apologize for the repetition, but it really does accurately describe the naturalism of most scientists I know.

Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.

I call myself an atheist because I do not practice a religion, don't pray (even in dire straits), and my mental pitcure of the universe does not include a deity. I don't do any of these things because in my experience religious practice is a waste of time, I see no evidence that prayer by me or anyone else works, and because a deity has no explanatory or predictive power. Atheist is a short and reasonably accurate label. If a supernatural being appearted tomorrow and said 'Hi, I'm God', having discounted trickery and hallucinations I'd certainly change my view, though I'd be more inclined to study said being than worship him. You can call this agnostic or atheist or anything you want; I don't see anything fruitful in a discussion about the particular mode in which people don't believe in a deity.

Christianity has entertained itelf for two millenia by dividing itself into hundreds of feuding sects, often based on the most idiotic minutiae of doctrine; but Christians shouldn't assume that the non-religious share the same fascination with hair-splitting about the ineffable.

I'd avoid discussion of religion altogether if religious people stayed out of my space; if they stopped trying to force their supernatural ideas into science; and if they stopped denigrating those who don't happen to share their view of the Universe (e.g. by asking if 'atheists can be intellectually fulfilled', by suggesting that atheists are inherently amoral, etc.). My parents were, and one of my brothers' wives is religious; I don't denigrate their beliefs, and I respect their intellect. I don't go asking if their Christianity is attended by some intellectual defect. Why are so many religious people unable to muster up the same level of tolerance?