Why Should Anybody Be a Naturalist?

Philo 7 (2):138-145 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Michael Rea has argued that philosophical naturalists cannot coherently regard the adoption of naturalism as a “research program” as more epistemically rational than the adoption of the alternatives, like intuitionism or supernatural theism. I show that Rea’s argument fails by overlooking several species of epistemic reasons for adopting research programs.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,088

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Naturally Understanding Naturalism.Stewart Goetz - 2010 - Faith and Philosophy 27 (1):79-90.
Naturalistic Ethics and the Argument from Evil.Mark T. Nelson - 1991 - Faith and Philosophy 8 (3):368-379.
Rea on Naturalism.Andrew Melnyk - 2004 - Philo 7 (2):131-137.
Replies to Critics.Michael Rea - 2004 - Philo 7 (2):163-175.
Against Rea on Presentism and Fatalism.Andrew Moon - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 15:159-166.
Naturalism and self-defeat: Plantinga's version.N. M. L. Nathan - 1997 - Religious Studies 33 (2):135-142.
Naturalism in Action.Michael Hicks - 2009 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 52 (6):609-635.


Added to PP

12 (#957,483)

6 months
1 (#1,149,473)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references