Ever since I published a book with the title Religion, Science and Naturalism (1996), some have considered me a ‘religious naturalist’. However, I decline this label for myself. In this contribution, I seek to articulate my position more clearly. I advocate science-inspired naturalism. I will argue that this need not imply philosophical naturalism and religious naturalism. If not, as I will argue, why not? When one considers the interpretation of science and of mathematical objects and moral values, one cannot just turn to science. More is needed. A question is whether that ‘more’ falls within the ambit of ‘naturalism’, as a philosophical naturalist seems to hold. As I see it, for all practical purposes one might take a science-inspired naturalistic stance in daily life (e.g. when needing medical assistance), consider Kantian constructivism an attractive strategy when it comes to philosophical justification of values, appreciate the motivating and identity-defining power of religious and personal narratives that integrate ethos, loves, and one’s worldview, while considering oneself agnostic on matters of ultimate explanations and values.
|Title of host publication||Issues in Science and Theology: Nature - and Beyond|
|Editors||Michael Fuller, Dirk Evers, Anne Runehov, Knut-Willy Saether, Bernard Michollet|
|Place of Publication||Cham|
|Number of pages||7|
|Publication status||Published - 26 Feb 2020|
|Name||Issues in Science and Religion|
- naturalistic theism
- negative theology
- philosophical naturalism
- religious naturalism
- science-inspired naturalism
Drees, W. B. (2020). Why I Am A Science-Inspired Naturalist but Not a Philosophical Naturalist nor a Religious Naturalist. In M. Fuller, D. Evers, A. Runehov, K-W. Saether, & B. Michollet (Eds.), Issues in Science and Theology: Nature - and Beyond (pp. 31-37). (Issues in Science and Religion; Vol. 5). Springer.