Final answer:
Mereological Universalists and naturalistic metaphysicians would opt for material and physical explanations over supernatural ones.
Step-by-step explanation:
Western Philosophers like Mereological Universalists or naturalistic metaphysicians might respond to questions concerning the nature of reality and existence from a lens that does not readily accept supernatural explanations. They often emphasize physical and material explanations for philosophers' inquiries about the universe. In the context of whether philosophy is dogmatically atheist, they would likely point out that although some historical philosophical movements, like the Logical Positivists, dismissed religious language as meaningless, this stems from a specific understanding of language, meaning, observation, and experience—not solely from a dismissive stance on religion.
The naturalistic metaphysician might argue against the cosmological argument for God by suggesting that instead of assuming a deity that exists without a cause, one could consider the basic stuff of the universe, or physis, as the eternal and self-sustaining energy of reality. Thus, they often agree with alternative cosmologies, like M theory, which does not necessitate a divine creator.
In moral philosophy, Mereological Universalists might critique traditional frameworks and look to ground moral 'oughts' in something other than theistic commandments, aligning closer to moral naturalism or other secular frameworks for human flourishing and virtues, which can be seen in modern developments such as Perfectionism in moral philosophy.