Atheists are not Freethinkers

[viscousmemories]

I was just surfing around the American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org) site and found the Atheism FAQ (http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html), attributed to "The WEBMASTER". After two years of discussing and debating these issues in various online venues, I really didn't expect to be surprised by anything I read in the "official" Atheism FAQ.

And I wasn't, at first. They covered the standard refrains "Atheism is NOT a belief", "Atheism is NOT a religion", and "Atheism is NOT linked to Communism". But then, "Atheists are NOT secular humanists" caught my eye. I mean, I'm always the first to say that atheism really isn't anything more or less than the lack of belief in god(s), and I firmly believe that. But American Atheists is an organization claiming to represent and promote an Atheist ideology. An ideology I always thought pretty much synonymous with secular humanism. I guess I was wrong about that. But even more surprising, "Atheists are not freethinkers". Um... what?

Atheists are NOT "secular humanists"...

Atheists are NOT "secular humanists", "freethinkers", "rationalists" or "ethical culturalists." Many of these terms have their origins in religious doctrines. Rationalism, for instance, was a movement which tried to reconcile religious faith with the findings of science especially during the Enlightenment. "Freethinker" has been used to describe a spectrum of belief, including those who questioned the doctrine of the Trinity.

Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels. This is sometimes understandable, considering the opprobrium Atheists have been subjected to throughout history. There have been times when Atheists who described themselves by using the "A-word" faced public condemnation, even violence for their convictions.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS have struggled for over three decades to "de-sensitize" this culture, and demonstrate that Atheism is a moral and legitimate intellectual conviction, and lifestyle. We try to live ethical, positive and productive lives without god-belief! There are over 25 million Americans who are Atheists, or describe themselves in approximation to this position; our organization works to encourage these people to "come out of the closet," and proudly admit -- and proclaim -- their Atheism!

So Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a "moral and legitimate intellectual conviction, and lifestyle" founded on a lack of belief in god(s)? Doesn't it seem like a bit of an equivocation to refer to an "intellectual conviction" as opposed to a "belief"? I mean, what's the difference? And although they acknowledge earlier in the FAQ that (emphasis mine) "Atheism is NOT historically linked to Communism, or any other particular system of social organization", it's a "lifestyle"?

This is the problem I have with the idea of promoting Atheism. It's one thing to promote humanist ideals, separation of church and state, etc. but this kind of stuff looks to me more like they're trying to make Atheism into a dogmatic belief system and/or political movement in its own right.

[John Carter]

I have no problam with the first two paragraphs. Not all atheists are freethinkers, for example, just as some theists are freethinkers. There are several examples of the former at IIDB, and I personally know of at least one of the latter. The third paragraph, however, seems rather contradictory to me. I also agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions about promting atheism.

I always cringe when I hear some atheists gleefully talk about deconverting theists, while at the same time time berating Christians or other religious types for proselytizing. It seems quite hypocritical to me.

[Gurdur]

AMERICAN ATHEISTS have struggled for over three decades to "de-sensitize" this culture, and demonstrate that Atheism is a moral and legitimate intellectual conviction, and lifestyle.

Difficult to see just how atheism can be descirbed as a "moral intellectual conviction" per se; Stalin and Charles Manson were atheists.

Also difficult to see how atheism can be described as a "lifestyle" in anything beyond except an extremely trivial meaning of the word.

The whole AA statement is a fudge that massively over-reaches.

[godfry n. glad]

Ahem....

If atheists aren't humanists, what are they? Weaselists? Lagomorphists?

Why are they not humanists?

[beyelzu]

well, I for one find my atheism to impact all facets of my life, I decorated my house in the latest atheist designs, I bought a car approved of by the atheist subculture, I only wear atheist approved clothing and I only eat babies with the atheist stamped seal of approval.


You guys are nuts thinking atheism isnt a lifestyle.

:tmgrin:

[Gurdur]

Ahem....

If atheists aren't humanists, what are they? Weaselists? Lagomorphists?

Why are they not humanists?
Stalin and Charles Manson were atheists, but definitely not humanists; the philosphers Dennet and Rawls seem to be both atheists and humanists; Spinoza was more or less a humanist, but not per se an atheist; Maimonides seems to have been a humanist, but was religious; Karen Armstrong (author of A History Of God) is a humanist but has given up atheism in favour of an ill-defined pantheism; Martin Gardner (of Scientific American and PSICOP fame) was the Sceptic Par Excellence, Non Pariel, and also a very strong and very outspoken humanist, but definitely not an atheist (a fideist instead).

So it's sometimes-overlapping Venn groups rather than synonyms.

[John Carter]

Gurdur has it here, I think. His Venn Diagram rather than synonyms statement is right on the money. The same argument can be made for freethinker vs atheist.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay... I can understand the Venn diagram idea, but I'm still wondering what it is that makes atheists Josef Stalin and Charles Manson not humanists. I was rather under the impression that humanists used human action as the ultimate moral arbiter and measure, whereas theists used some kind of "higher intelligence" thing. Doesn't that still make Stalin, Manson and Mao humanists? Twisted, immoral, dreadful humanists, but humanists none-the-less?

Or, are the humanists in this discussion trying to paint anyone who fits their label of humanism as "good"?

godfry

[Ensign Steve]

I was an atheist for a long ass time before I was a humanist. Owing to the fact that I didn't know what it meant to be a humanist (so even if I was one, I did not self-identify as one), and also I was a libertarian. :D

[Gurdur]

...I was rather under the impression that humanists used human action as the ultimate moral arbiter and measure, whereas theists used some kind of "higher intelligence" thing.
That is the defintion according to many theists.
What they say is that only "God" can give morality, so if you dump gods, perforce you have no morality.
As you know, this argument fails completely as soon as you start questioning to any depth the particular "God" and the particular morality of whomever is telling you that.

Since we have absolutely no proof for a genuine, objective morality that can be known to us, well now, we're left on our own to make our own ethical decisions.

Now, having made my own ethical decisions, I choose to treat almost all humans with a minimum respect at the very least (and I so treat animals too), and this is "humanism", in short, the idea you should give humans a minimum respect, i.e.. you shouldn't burn them at the stake or send them to gulags merely for disagreeing with you.
Or, are the humanists in this discussion trying to paint anyone who fits their label of humanism as "good"?
No; the whole history of humanism, no matter how vague, does reveal an over-riding central tendency, in short, the idea you should give humans a minimum respect merely for being human -- and that regardless of gods etc.

Religious people can be humanist, so can atheists. Religious people can be dreadfully anti-humanist, so can atheists.

It's more than just being "good", or co-opting all "good" people into a label --- it is very definitely the choice to accept certain premises, such as free will and free choice in ethics, and to adopt the idea you should give humans a minimum respect merely for being human.

[Corona688]

So Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a "moral and legitimate intellectual conviction, and lifestyle" founded on a lack of belief in god(s)? Doesn't it seem like a bit of an equivocation to refer to an "intellectual conviction" as opposed to a "belief"? I mean, what's the difference? And although they acknowledge earlier in the FAQ that (emphasis mine) "Atheism is NOT historically linked to Communism, or any other particular system of social organization", it's a "lifestyle"? American Atheists extremely radical. Don't take them to be representative of all atheists -- unlike major religions, atheism is not a club. For that matter I'm not even american, damnit :PThis is the problem I have with the idea of promoting atheism. It's one thing to promote humanist ideals, separation of church and state, etc. but this kind of stuff looks to me more like they're trying to make atheism into a dogmatic belief system and/or political movement in its own right. If they're making you capitalize atheist they've already won :P Seriously, 'atheist' doesn't tell anyone anything about me except I don't believe in any gods, and if it weren't for the vast morass of people who think we ought to believe in their invisible skydaddy ought to be a nonissue. But we have to start somewhere, and the logical thinking required to properly examine the self-contradictory concept of a "god" is a good start.

[godfry n. glad]

...I was rather under the impression that humanists used human action as the ultimate moral arbiter and measure, whereas theists used some kind of "higher intelligence" thing.
That is the defintion according to many theists.


Obviously not theistic humanists.

I found this site to be helpful: http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm

They do claim "that 'moral values derive their source from human experience.' Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious. They are highly motivated to alleviating pain and misery around the world. Many are active in refugee, human rights, anti-death penalty, environmental groups, etc."

This would seem to make the whole idea of Christian Humanists, or any theological humanist, an oxymoron. Interestingly, Buddhism fails the test for humanism.

This one: "They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms," seems to exclude the likes of Stalin and Mao.

[viscousmemories]

I actually didn't know that naturalism was intrinsic to most definitions of Humanism until I started surfing around looking for more info on this thread. The American Humanist Association's Definitions of Humanism (http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm) are pretty interesting. In particular the Humanism with a Capital 'H' (http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/lebrun.html) essay.

Incidentally the AHA front page says:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

[godfry n. glad]

Also... After having read I.F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates, I have my doubts that humanism's (or Humanism's) claim that "Many regard Socrates as the first and greatest of the Humanists," to be dubious and possibly misguided. Socrates scoffed at democracy. His students lead two of the worst tyrannies which ancient Athens was to ever suffer under.

[Gurdur]

Also... After having read I.F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates,
A truly excellent book, that.
I have my doubts that humanism's (or Humanism's) claim that "Many regard Socrates as the first and greatest of the Humanists," to be dubious and possibly misguided.
Agreed in full.
But then, rarely should you trust anyone who capitalizes the "h" in humanism and humanists, and who claims to speak for them all.
Socrates scoffed at democracy. His students lead two of the worst tyrannies which ancient Athens was to ever suffer under.
All very true. And Plato was worse.

[copiae]

Atheists are NOT "secular humanists"...

Atheists are NOT "secular humanists", "freethinkers", "rationalists" or "ethical culturalists." Many of these terms have their origins in religious doctrines. Rationalism, for instance, was a movement which tried to reconcile religious faith with the findings of science especially during the Enlightenment. "Freethinker" has been used to describe a spectrum of belief, including those who questioned the doctrine of the Trinity.


??? As far as i'm aware, rationalism is an epistemological doctrine that knowledge can only be derived from reason (its often contrasted with empiricism), and that theological rationalism holds that human reason, as opposed to divine revelation, is the correct way of going about things when it comes to religion (its often associated with deism)...




Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels. This is sometimes understandable, considering the opprobrium Atheists have been subjected to throughout history. There have been times when Atheists who described themselves by using the "A-word" faced public condemnation, even violence for their convictions.


Hrm, once again, as far as i am aware, atheism, as it is now, is only a relatively recent phenomena (and an ancient one)?


AMERICAN ATHEISTS have struggled for over three decades to "de-sensitize" this culture, and demonstrate that Atheism is a moral and legitimate intellectual conviction, and lifestyle. We try to live ethical, positive and productive lives without god-belief! There are over 25 million Americans who are Atheists, or describe themselves in approximation to this position; our organization works to encourage these people to "come out of the closet," and proudly admit -- and proclaim -- their Atheism!


I seem to recall a thread on II a while ago about this, but why are they capitalising the 'A' in atheism?

Also, I've been scratching my head trying to figure out how "Atheism is a moral and legitimate... lifestyle", but all that I could come up with is that atheists don't have to go to churches/temples/mosques much ;).

[Gurdur]

Also, I've been scratching my head ....
Join the club.

[godfry n. glad]

Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels. This is sometimes understandable, considering the opprobrium Atheists have been subjected to throughout history. There have been times when Atheists who described themselves by using the "A-word" faced public condemnation, even violence for their convictions.


Hrm, once again, as far as i am aware, atheism, as it is now, is only a relatively recent phenomena (and an ancient one)?



Isn't "as it is now" and "relatively recent" kind of a tautology?

Atheism has been around as an epithet for quite some time. The Romans smeared the nascent christian movement with the tag "atheist" because they would not acknowledge the civic gods of Rome....or any god, for that matter, other than their one and only. That qualified as "atheist" in the Roman's eyes.

[godfry n. glad]

I seem to recall a thread on II a while ago about this, but why are they capitalising the 'A' in atheism?



To magnify their self-importance, just like those who captialize christianity.

[Gurdur]

well, I for one find my atheism to impact all facets of my life, I decorated my house in the latest atheist designs,....I only wear atheist approved clothing ...
And you thought you were making a joke.
See this thread entitled "Atheist apparel: What do you think?" (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772)

[copiae]

Isn't "as it is now" and "relatively recent" kind of a tautology?

The way i expressed it, certainly. What i meant to say was (in response to "the opprobrium Atheists have been subject to through history..." and its implications) that atheism, and certain modern attitudes towards it is a relatively recent trend (and an ancient one)... i.e. atheism has been a bit of a non-issue between ancient times and modern history. My opinion is based on the absence of material I've seen about it, although it could just be that I'm reading the wrong stuff ;).

Atheism has been around as an epithet for quite some time. The Romans smeared the nascent christian movement with the tag "atheist" because they would not acknowledge the civic gods of Rome....or any god, for that matter, other than their one and only. That qualified as "atheist" in the Roman's eyes.
Great stuff. Its always interesting to track down both the origin and development of words and thoughts.

[Corona688]

well, I for one find my atheism to impact all facets of my life, I decorated my house in the latest atheist designs,....I only wear atheist approved clothing ...
And you thought you were making a joke.
See this thread entitled "Atheist apparel: What do you think?" (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772) which has jack-all to do with "official atheist-approved clothing" for all I can tell... he was asking for opinions, and opinions he got. ooh, the entrenched authority of it all.

[Gurdur]

which has jack-all to do with "official atheist-approved clothing" for all I can tell... he was asking for opinions, and opinions he got. ooh, the entrenched authority of it all.
You've missed two points:
1) you apparently don't quite get my sense of humour
2) and the thread talks about making statements through clothing, about expressing atheism overtly through clothing much of the time, and is a good discussion on that too.

Sorry if that was all a bit too complex ?
ooooo, the irony and complexity of it all.

[beyelzu]

well, I for one find my atheism to impact all facets of my life, I decorated my house in the latest atheist designs,....I only wear atheist approved clothing ...
And you thought you were making a joke.
See this thread entitled "Atheist apparel: What do you think?" (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772)
this got me thinking, I made a shirt that said Jesus coming and you better fucking swallow last year, I did it because I thought it was funny and offensive. so I suppose there is "atheist" apparel, interesting thread.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah... I'm an inveterate teeshirt wearer (I feel blessed by being able to wear them to work every day, not just "casual Fridays"), so I have a sizeable collection. I love travel teeshirts. But I also love political statement teeshirts ("Which five votes counted for more than half the US electorate?") I've thought long and hard about picking up a "friendly neighborhood atheist" teeshirt, because I like the attitude projected. The problem is, even though I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist, I don't think of myself as an "a-theist" because I don't like referring to myself as "not-something", it presumes the "something" was precedent or otherwise preferential. (By the bye, I think that "I'm an militant apathist: I don't care :glare: and neither do you", would sell teeshirts like hotcakes.)

That's why when it comes to quick and dirty labels, I actually have always preferred the "freethinkers" category. It's more positive, y'know. Upbeat, an' all. But when I use this, I find that atheists think I'm being archaic and quaint, while the theists complain that they are "freethinking" individuals and that's how they arrived at their faith.

I'm still not clear what naturalism is, but it sounds right. No supernatural powers, right? No afterlife, right? No fairytales. No miracles. No ghosts, no ghoulies, no zombies, no transgressions of physical laws.

[Crumb]

(By the bye, I think that "I'm an militant apathist: I don't care and neither do you", would sell teeshirts like hotcakes.)

This is fantastic! :1thumbup: I would buy one.

[Gurdur]

Yeah... I'm an inveterate teeshirt wearer
So am I, though mostly it's Joy Division T-shirts, though sometimes I consider making myself a Magazine T-shirt (Magazine like Joy Division being rock groups):
"I will drug you and fuck you
On the permafrost..."

But people look at me strange anyway enough already.

But the thread I linked to had two interesting points about atheist apparel, one being that some people take it all too damned seriously and without any fun, and as a result mirror-image the super-ernest Christians who wear God Loves You T-shirts and crosses; either way, a strategy unlikely to win support among the general populace, and (the point being made in that linked discussion) such in-your-face stuff can be very counter-productive.
(By the bye, I think that "I'm an militant apathist: I don't care :glare: and neither do you", would sell teeshirts like hotcakes.)
I think I would add the slogan,
And bugger all of you
, I find that atheists think I'm being archaic and quaint,
Not me.
I'm still not clear what naturalism is, but it sounds right. No supernatural powers, right? No afterlife, right? No fairytales. No miracles. No ghosts, no ghoulies, no zombies, no transgressions of physical laws.
That sums it up pretty well.

Just to be cautious:
there are two kinds of "naturalism" there at hand (there are more but bugger it):
1)the kind of naturalism you use in scientific work, i.e. setting up experiments, making conclusions --- methodological naturalism, anyone can use it, even theists.

2) the kind of wholesale naturalism applied to the whole goddam universe and time and everything; metaphysical naturalism.

One's simply a set of assumptions used as a working method, the other is a set of assumptions regarding the whole damned universe and everything else.

[Ronin]

Is a man who believes the Book of Revelations is an accurate depiction of a coming Armageddon (the ninth chapter was the "Family" guide) that he will usher in and then models a set of followers to believe he is the second coming of Jesus Christ who will reign after the holocaust an atheist?

No.

Manson was no non-believer in the supernatural or the Christian model of God.

Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles prosecutor who presented the case against Charles Manson...interestingly enough, is a non-believer (iirc).

Religious people can be humanist, so can atheists. Religious people can be dreadfully anti-humanist, so can atheists.

This, Gurdur, is spot on.

As to the OP:

from the American Atheist "webmaster" FAQ:

AMERICAN ATHEISTS have struggled for over three decades to "de-sensitize" this culture, and demonstrate that Atheism is a moral and legitimate intellectual conviction, and lifestyle. We try to live ethical, positive and productive lives without god-belief!

From the American Humanist Association brief:

Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.

So, without further ado, I offer this to gooberhead at AA...

:wtfsign:

[Gurdur]

...Manson was no non-believer in the supernatural or the Christian model of God.
Interesting, thanks. I'll stop using him as an example then, but I would still be cautious; Manson was into mindfucking, and using Armageddon is a typical mindfuck ploy, all emotion and melodrama.
IOW, whether he actually believed that crap is open to question.
Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles prosecutor who presented the case against Charles Manson...interestingly enough, is a non-believer (iirc).
I think it would be hard sometimes to be a prosecutor or cop and still be a believer.
My hat off to those doing dreadful jobs dealing with the lowlife, who still maintain their dignity and hope, and humanism towards others. You have my full respect.

This, Gurdur, is spot on.
Even I can be right sometimes.

So, without further ado, I offer this to gooberhead at AA...

:wtfsign:
* snicker *
I couldn't have put it better myself.

[godfry n. glad]

Manson was no non-believer in the supernatural or the Christian model of God.

Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles prosecutor who presented the case against Charles Manson...interestingly enough, is a non-believer (iirc).

Just off the tracks a bit...

Vincent Bugliosi has, in my estimation, written one of the most incisive pieces on the Bush vs. Gore and made the most interesting assessment of the current SCOTUS (Betrayal of America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156025355X/qid=1113579845/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-2513139-4181561?v=glance&s=books)). If I remember correctly, he states that Rehnquist, the chief justice, should be stamping out license plates rather than serving as the head of the highest court in the land.

We return you to our program in progress.....

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm...

If I'm not "atheist", but I'm not a theist, then what am I?

I'm a heathen; being a "wastelander dweller".

I'm an agnostic; being without adequate knowledge.

I'm a skeptic; being thoughtful and inquiring.

I'm a heretic; being able to choose.

That makes me hash. I can live with that. :D

godfry


(and...if you're confused, it's okay to refer to me as an atheist, I just don't think of myself "that way".)

[Gurdur]

That makes me hash. I can live with that.
It's called "being human", and also, "being reasonable and acknowledging complexities".

Beats the alternatives.

[viscousmemories]

2) the kind of wholesale naturalism applied to the whole goddam universe and time and everything; metaphysical naturalism.

One's simply a set of assumptions used as a working method, the other is a set of assumptions regarding the whole damned universe and everything else.
Ever since Clutch argued against the value of that use of the term MetaNat in this IIDB thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65962), I've stopped using it to describe my own beliefs. This leaves me pretty much without a good label, but then I've never much liked being labelled anyway.

[Ronin]

I file you under "unlabeled".

[viscousmemories]

I file you under "unlabeled".
That's me. Naked as a jaybird.

Ever since Clutch argued against the value of that use of the term MetaNat in this IIDB thread,
I should amend this comment to read "Ever since I read the thread wherein Clutch argued...", since I'm pretty sure I read it at least a year after it was posted.

[godfry n. glad]

2) the kind of wholesale naturalism applied to the whole goddam universe and time and everything; metaphysical naturalism.

One's simply a set of assumptions used as a working method, the other is a set of assumptions regarding the whole damned universe and everything else.
Ever since Clutch argued against the value of that use of the term MetaNat in this IIDB thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65962), I've stopped using it to describe my own beliefs. This leaves me pretty much without a good label, but then I've never much liked being labelled anyway.

Why, thank you, vm.

I actually got through to that thread. That's a first.

I came out of it with the following question:

In an instance metaphysical and/or epistomological leakage, is one more likely to leak into the other, or is there an equitable rate of interfusion? Or, are they leaking on to the ontology?

(...and I'm thinkin', "Damn! Got me some metaphysical leakage. I'll have to take it in to a philosopher now. Shit! They'll charge me an arm and a leg.")

[godfry n. glad]

So, I'm not clear why somebody would add the qualifier "metaphysical". Is it necessary? Does naturalism need to be further defined? Why or why not?

[viscousmemories]

Why, thank you, vm.

I actually got through to that thread. That's a first.
Excellent. :) I considered pasting the whole thing here for your benefit, but I thought that might be a violation of some rule or personal ethic or something.

I came out of it with the following question:

In an instance metaphysical and/or epistomological leakage, is one more likely to leak into the other, or is there an equitable rate of interfusion? Or, are they leaking on to the ontology?

(...and I'm thinkin', "Damn! Got me some metaphysical leakage. I'll have to take it in to a philosopher now. Shit! They'll charge me an arm and a leg.")
:laugh:

Yeah, I didn't really get that leakage comment. In fact I probably didn't understand half of the thread, but it seemed pretty clear that there wasn't any successful rebuttal of Clutch's argument in the OP, so I bought it.

[Gurdur]

So, I'm not clear why somebody would add the qualifier "metaphysical". Is it necessary?
Yes, it is necessary.
Pardon me, but there's a small mistake being made here in interpreting Clutch's argument.
The mistake lies in that what Clutch was arguing was how the terms should or should not be used, an argument that perforce also tackles whether metaphysical naturalism can be right at all.

Now, in that linked thread, Clutch pointed out that in effect metaphysical naturalism is --- or very very easily becomes -- a totally rigid, dogmatic position, and also a circular argument in its own premises (and the end conclusion has to be that meta nat can't be right in the form it's most often advocated).

The answer is, so what ? Metaphysical naturalism as it is often advanced by many polemicists is in fact a dogmatic position, and in the end, like all labels and terms, it must rely on premises that can not be any further defined, or else it becomes a circular argument.
That's not a problem especially of metaphysical naturalism, that's a problem inherent in all categorizational terms.

Next, the difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism is also important, because a theist scientist can easily suscribe to a methodological natuaralism in anything pertaining to science, and drop naturalism when it comes to religion --- dividing things into the two different magesteria or non-overlapping domains that Steven Jay Gould spoke of.

Now Clutch pointed out that if you take these terms to their logical extension, they become so vague as to be useless, yet in the everyday world, we find the terms useful in short-hand description of positions.

An anaology would be using the terms "Republican" and "Democrat"; both in practical politics and also when you subject the terms to the Socratic taking-them-all-the-way, they look indistinguishable and useless as terms and positions.
Nevertheless, in everyday life, we find that the terms are in fact quite useful, i.e. meaningful.
Does naturalism need to be further defined? Why or why not?
Not really; we have enough definition suitable for human purposes.

[Gurdur]

P.S.
If you wanted to label me,
then I apply a harsh naturalism in all practical situations demanding it, and for the rest, I'm easy and keep an open mind.
I also allow that many questions simply cannot and will not ever be answered, questions like the question of free will (I assume limited free will), ethics, yada yada yada.

If you can think of a label that covers all of that, I would be grateful; I can only think of describing myself as
Very hard practical but always reasonable, and tolerant to a reasonable degree.

[Gurdur]

And lastly;
you can always bring back Clutch here to argue out the points, and he should be brought back here (I believe he's in the middle of the exams period or something), and you should get The Heretic to answer too.

Like most professors of logic (I speak from experience, having had this discussion personally with six professors of logic), Clutch might well despair of my harsh way of cutting the Gordian Knot, an attitude that can easily slide into a naïve empiricism --- yet I think Clutch would grant I am not a naïve empiricist.
The difference in emphasis is that good philosophy relies on asking questions and showing the unanswerability of many questions;
while my own attitude is, hey, I gotta fields here I want to meaningfully categorize and act upon in daily life.

Some think, others act.
Such are the ecological nichés of specialization.

[viscousmemories]

you can always bring back Clutch here to argue out the points, and he should be brought back here (I believe he's in the middle of the exams period or something), and you should get The Heretic to answer too.
I actually PM'd Clutch as a courtesy as soon as I made a reference to his thread, and he did confirm that he's still busy with grading, etc. and probably won't have the time to post anytime soon.