It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The physicist Sean Carroll coined a new phrase/idea in his recent book he calls poetic naturalism. It contrasts with the idea of reductive naturalism that reduces the meaningful things of life down to their microscopic components. So like love is just the release of oxytocin in response to phermones or biological impulses, what-have-you, or we don't have choice because our decisions are deterministic firings of neurons.
So he's saying we can still talk about a world of meaning with love, morality, choice... the big picture things while taking a naturalistic approach to the world without need for the supernatural.
Naturalism has been certainly been around for a very long time, but as more people become naturalists and talk to each other, their disagreements within naturalism are interesting. I thought there was a judicious middle ground, which I call poetic, between “the world is just a bunch of particles,” and “science can be used to discover meaning and morality.”
To me the connotations of “poetic” are that there’s some human choice that comes into how we talk about the world. In particular, when it comes to questions of morality and meaning, the way we go about deciding what is right and wrong, and meaningful or not, is not the same as the way we discover what is true and false.
Would anyone here consider themselves a poetic naturalist? Or maybe being a Buddhist forum a religious naturalist