How does this [see 1] translate into this [see 2.]?

Question

1) "Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric, but purposeless,...
http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html

2)"...naturalistic psychology emphasizes the physical basis of human behavior; ideas and ideals are largely treated as artifacts...." ibid
AND
2)A) "...human beings as "products" should be studied impartially, without moralizing about their natures."
http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/natu...

This is not a test. I don't see the connection. How did those views come to be connected, when to me they seem entirely opposed? If naturalism disposes of "anthropomorphology," then why does it resort to the same, instead of morals, in defining human action?

Answer 1

I'm not sure why you think naturalism, which is a philosophy concept, should have some necessary connection to naturalistic psychology, which is a concept for psychologists. Regardless, they don't seem wholey unrelated.



About the last paragraph you wrote, naturalistic psychology says it's looking at "physical basis of human behavior," which is really just a mechanistic explanation of human behavior, just like naturalism explains things mechanically. Psychology's subject is humans, so they're studying it from a philosophically naturalistic perspective. 2A re-emphasizes this, I think, though the link is broken.

Answer 2

They seem consistent to me. 1 says that there is one material universe( no god or souls), and it follows nothing other than its own mechanical laws in arriving at any particular state of circumstances in time and space, which results in accidental formations out of ironclad laws. ?!



2. is a style of literary writing that treats human beings as biological machines within the universe described by #1, operated by natural laws, such as territoriality, survival, sexual passion, etc., without moral goals or any higher spiritual realities.



We really do not know enough about the laws of the universe to say, though, just how human beings do and will behave. Philosophy is generalizing (guesswork) based on our limited knowledge. If we could entirely know the laws and facts of the cosmos, philosophy would not exist.

Answer 3

Come now, YaoiRand. Nature is not something argued over! Only crybabies like yoursellf have -isms and -ologies in this strange, unnatural, opposition to each other. Shall I come burp you? YaoiRand will feel so much better.

Answer 4

I think (1) is inductive, (2) is deductive, complementary arguments of the same reductionist modes

Answer 5

People impose their narrow views on a wide subject in order to stand out in academia.