Prejudice and
discrimination perpetrated by
philosophical naturalists—those who believe that nature is all that exists and that supernatural or spiritual claims are inherently false—against individuals or groups who hold non‑naturalist beliefs (religious, spiritual, metaphysical, or indigenous). Naturalist bigotry often manifests as the assumption that naturalism is not a philosophical position but simply “reality,” and that anyone who disagrees is irrational, deluded, or
intellectually deficient. It uses terms like “superstitious,” “primitive,” or “anti‑science” to dismiss entire worldviews without engagement. Unlike mere disagreement, naturalist bigotry seeks to humiliate, exclude, or silence those whose ontology differs, often in the name of “reason” or “scientific literacy.”
Example: “He told her that her belief in ancestral spirits was ‘embarrassing’ and that no educated person could take it seriously—naturalist bigotry, treating his own metaphysical assumptions as
universal truth.”
Naturalist Prejudice
The cognitive bias underlying naturalist bigotry: a reflexive dismissal of any non‑naturalist claim or perspective before examination. The naturalist prejudiced person assumes that naturalism is the only rational framework and that any departure from it signals ignorance,
intellectual weakness, or bad faith. This prejudice operates as a mental shortcut, allowing the person to reject alternative ontologies without the effort of
understanding them. It
often appears in debates about consciousness, morality, or meaning, where naturalist assumptions are treated as self‑evident while other positions are labeled “mystical” or “unscientific.”
Example: “When she mentioned the possibility of non‑physical dimensions, he rolled his eyes and muttered ‘woo’—naturalist prejudice, dismissing an idea without ever engaging its arguments.”
