In an age when science has transformed our lives and environment, it would seem unnecessary to make an argument on its behalf. Would not most of the remarks in such an argument be trite? Has not the case for naturalism been thoroughly covered, and enough said on the subject already? Does not our daily practice in conquering nature by obeying her, testify to our acquiescence and loyalty? Would not our actions belie our words were we to deny it?
Will another book on the subject change any minds among those who are not naturalists? Probably not. Does science need another supporting book in order to flourish? Absolutely not. Then why write another one? My reasons are partly personal and partly because I answer the first set of questions with "yes, almost." Almost because, despite quoting others for almost all of my position, I believe I have made a significant addition to the literature of naturalism. The personal part is that I wish to be understood by the majority who hold my uncompromising naturalistic position to be culpable. - Harold A. Tichenor
| 
| 
