Why I Am A Science-Inspired Naturalist but Not a Philosophical Naturalist nor a Religious Naturalist

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