The radical forms of naturalistic epistemology look more like revolutionary manifestos than a reasonable alternatives. A modest form of naturalism is worth promoting. This modest form can cooperate with hermeneutics to solve epistemic problems, and therefore wins the title of cooperative naturalism, and benefits from the hermeneutic account of experience. Cooperative naturalism somewhat bridges the gap between analytic and continental philosophy.
This essay proposes a synoptic way of understanding the various dynamic “fields” that are ordered constituents of John Dewey’s emergent naturalism . For Dewey, experience is always situated within and interactive with a greater context. With this basic idea in mind, I offer an exposition of
This is an explication and defense of P. F. Strawson’s theory of free will and moral responsibility ( 1962 , 1985 ), aka Strawson’s naturalism . I respond to criticisms leveled by free will skeptics ( Smilansky 2001; Pereboom 2001, 2014; Sommers 2007 ; G. Strawson 2010
interestingly different, concerning scepticism in their thought. 1 I wish to tarry a bit myself, then, in this essay and reflect upon a number of the alignments and misalignments I find in the work of these two philosophers towards the end of figuring something about how naturalism relates to scepticism in
The traditions and institutions that we call religions abound with references to the supernatural: ancestral spirits, karma, the afterlife, miracles, revelation, deities, etc. How are students of religion to approach the behaviors, doctrines, and beliefs that refer to such phenomena, which by their very nature are supposed to defy the methods of empirical research and the theories of historical scholarship? That is the question of methodological naturalism.
The Question of Methodological Naturalism offers ten thoughtful engagements with that perennial question for the academic study of religion. Contributors include established senior scholars and newer voices propounding a range of perspectives, resulting in both surprising points of convergence and irreconcilable differences in how our shared discipline should be conceptualized and practiced.