Talk:Naturalism (philosophy)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naturalism (philosophy) 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: 90 days

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology / 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
	Philosophy of religion

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.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Article issues and classification[edit]

The article has unsourced statements from 2018 so fails the B-class criteria. Reassess the article to C-class. There is far too much-unsourced content, in sentences, paragraphs, and at least one section. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

God is just a Name[edit]

"God" is just a name. What is means depends on how you define it. If you want God to define as something being real (instead of a human idea) then you should define it as such. If you want God to define as all-encompassing then you should define it as such. So what about defining is as all that is and is not (Which the Rig Veda does). Which in the sense of the science of physics would translate as the Omniverse or just Reality. But then we run into a problem. How do we prove the Omniverse other then by logical reasoning?77.60.121.89 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Included objections by Colin Murray Turbayne[edit]

Ciao fellow Wikipedia Editors: Just quick note since the concepts of substance and substratum appear to be so substantial within naturalism (Sorry I could not resist the pun). I hope that I have not "muddied the waters" by including the insights of Colin Murray Turbayne which may serve to "shed some light" on the philosophical underpinnings of naturalism in general. Happy editiing! 160.72.80.178 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]