Timothy Williamson on Naturalism

This is worth a read, especially by non-philosophers whose world-views are roughly similar to mine. Such folk often think they are naturalists (even if they aren't familiar with the term, or don't know what it means). Personally, I'm not currently a naturalist. Alternatively, I might count as one...but only because I have such an expansive and indeterminate view about what nature is like.

Unfortunately, the unofficial metaphysics and epistemology of most non-theistic liberals I know is naturalistic...and that, I believe, is an error. It rarely matters much, though it occasionally comes up in conversation with philosophically clueless scientists and science enthusiasts, who will often say, roughly, that philosophy is bullshit, and, if pressed for a reason, they'll say something...well, something incoherent, but something that, if cleaned up and clarified, basically entails that naturalism is obviously true. Which, of course, it isn't, and which, of course, philosophy shows us. So the funniest part of all this is to hear someone saying something which even a little philosophy shows to be fairly stupid while, simultaneously, saying that philosophy is stupid. (Not that naturalism is a stupid view--of course it isn't, and it isn't close to being so; what's stupid is the view that naturalism is obviously true. It is painfully obvious that it isn't obviously true.) Of course I don't hold it against people that they have a hunch that philosophy may all be bullshit...hell, most philosophers have that same inclination. It's the dogmatic assertion that it must be by people who know nothing about it, and who are, it seems, most in need of it that is amusing.