Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study brings together the naturalist and irreligious elements of Hume, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. By “naturalist,” I refer to their shared commitments to universal conceptions of human nature and reason that are exhaustively defined by experience, and that pervade our ordinary modes of relation, whether epistemic, linguistic, interpersonal, moral, or otherwise. While not exclusively antagonistic to religion, there is an intrinsic tension between those natural categories and the supernatural and supra-experiential categories of religion. I accordingly describe this tension as ‘irreligious’ to avoid the comparatively softer connotations of ‘heretical’ or ‘iconoclastic’ as well as the harsher connotations of ‘anti-religious’, where ‘irreligious’ implies that traditional religious forms are targeted, while not all possible forms of religious expression or concepts are in principle rejected. In developing that tension rather than reconciling it, Hume, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein contribute decisively to the canon of irreligious naturalism, whose other representative authorities include Hobbes, Spinoza, Feuerbach, Darwin, and even Lucretius and Epicurus. My analysis is structured according to two focal points: beliefs and values, where each describes a particular revaluation of those categories in the context of religion. Parts 1 and 3 present my sources’ contributions to irreligious naturalism according to these revaluations, while Part 2 bridges them by marking the transition from beliefs to values, advocating a metaphysics that traces experiential possibilities to values. This proposition sounds like a contradiction between a universal category and a relative one, but in fact, it harkens to Kant’s view on the conditional role of judgment on human rational experience, which implies a background of agreement on essential judgments. This latter insight is also intimated by my titular sources, and in accordance with their naturalism, it points to a need for shared, natural values that structure human rational experience universally. The invocation of Kant supports this idea that values can be treated universally, while still allowing framework-specific values to shape experience. But that shaping now stands in relation to our shared, natural values, and the structure of that relation with respect to religious values in particular informs the naturalist revaluations of this work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".