Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who cares? The initial quote doesn't talk about naturalism.

The statement IS naturalism .If science is not naturalism then no amount of science is going to exemplify it.

[Stranger]

He seems to counteract his own view of evolution and psychological competence which he classes with the admirable functionality of other evolved features and yet suspends in the case of religion.

Not really, he says "admirable - but not perfect". There are lots of ways in which humans tend to get things wrong.

We are left wondering, if not evolution, what declares God to be unnecessary and are back to a circular naturalist philosophy.

You keep on about "god" is is there were an agreed definition. As for the vaguely connected human ideas of gods, in order for them to even be in contention for being necessary for any sort of understanding of reality, they need to be properly defined and there needs to be some objective means to investigate claims made regarding them.

So far, there isn't either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, he says "admirable - but not perfect". There are lots of ways in which humans tend to get things wrong.

You keep on about "god" is is there were an agreed definition.

If New Atheists and I'm quite willing to accept you are not in that number can confidently assert that nowhere is God necessary to understand reality then it suggests they know what they mean by God.

Therefore to suddenly rif on God not being defined probably undermines the confidence of the assertion.

It doesn't help a Atheist assuming agnosticism about God and at the same time being pretty sure there isn't one.

My purpose is to call the assertion of the OP into question.

[jeremyp]

The statement IS naturalism

No it isn't. It's a statement about the realationship of God and the supernatural to our understanding of reality.

If science is not naturalism then no amount of science is going to exemplify it.

The statement doesn't mention naturalism anywhere. It simply says God and the supernatural are not necessary to help us understand reality. Science helps us understand reality. Fact. Science explicitly excludes God and the supernatural. Fact. Its success supports the statement.

Now, I've done enough supporting the statement. Show us your counter examples.

[jeremyp]

If New Atheists and I'm quite willing to accept you are not in that number can confidently assert that nowhere is God necessary to understand reality then it suggests they know what they mean by God.

Let's assume it's your god. Is the god of Vlad necessary to understand reality. No.

Your move. Counter examples please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. It's a statement about the realationship of God and the supernatural to our understanding of reality.
The statement doesn't mention naturalism anywhere.

Any definition which has itself inside it is a piss poor definition.

The statement defines Naturalism because it says that the supernatural is not needed.

[jeremyp]

Any definition which has itself inside it is a piss poor definition.

What are you talking about?

The statement defines Naturalism because it says that the supernatural is not needed.

The statement is a statement that claims that God is not necessary to understand reality. Nothing more, nothing less. Show me a counter example if you think God is necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you talking about?
The statement is a statement that claims that God is not necessary to understand reality. Nothing more, nothing less. Show me a counter example if you think God is necessary.

The statement is a declaration of naturalism end of.
It is a world view stated by new atheists therefore, supporting examples are on you.

[jeremyp]

The statement is a declaration of naturalism end of.

Who cares. It says what it says. Concentrate on that and provide your counter examples.

It is a world view stated by new atheists therefore, supporting examples are on you.

I gave you the example of science. Now let's see your counter examples.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who cares. It says what it says. Concentrate on that and provide your counter examples.I gave you the example of science. Now let's see your counter examples.

It's not a matter of caring about it.It is what it is.
Science is not Naturalism and doesn't exemplify it.