What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part Two

What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part Two

Yesterday, in Part One, I quoted a noted scientific naturalist as saying that, "in dropping the soul and free will we get rid of the fictional supernatural agency that blocks true explanations of phenomena." What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part One

I also stated that I, as a metaphysical naturalist (MN), find myself in the position of having to explain what my Academy defines as MN. This is because the average person who knows nothing about the difference between one form of naturalism and another can do a web search, only to discover that not even the naturalists themselves all agree on a definition. We use different terminology for exactly similar philosophical positions; or use precisely similar terminology for differences that may be subtle, or may be extremely and fundamentally different.

Critics confuse the issue more by doing the same thing. One creationist may define a specific form of naturalism according to the definition given by the naturalist he most opposes; then, his congregants who know nothing or little about naturalism are apt to believe what he tells them. He may be as rigorous in his use of terms as he knows how, and as he is familiar with. But if he is to broad or general, or just wrong, his congregants will walk away anxious to "fight the righteous fight," only to fight wrong enemy. I pointed out one example of that yesterday.

Or the creationist may define it in terms that solidifies an idea for his readers/listeners/congregants while ignoring that not all forms of naturalism are as he describes them. Even some naturalists act as if their's is the only form.

The Academy's Strong Position on Naturalism Academy's Strong Definition of Naturalism, to be truthful, will not only not help the layman, but will probably make it more confusing to him or her without the explanation that follows. Since exactness is necessary in creating definitions, this is unavoidable. But since the Academy takes exception with so many of the philosophical positions of other schools of naturalism, including those which call themselves metaphysical naturalists, it becomes necessary at some point to break down the Academy's definition into more easily understandable descriptive parts.

Let's begin first by explaining why it is called a "strong" position. Wikipedia states: "Metaphysical naturalism, which is often called 'philosophical naturalism' or "ontological naturalism", takes an ontological approach to naturalism. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics that studies being, and so this is the view that the supernatural does not exist, thus entailing strong atheism."

(And therein lie even more discinctions, even more divisions, of naturalism. We won't go into them in this discussion. It is the remark about atheism that we must contend with here.)

Since metaphysical naturalism denies the supernatural realm of existence, atheism is the result when a person accepts MN as his/her epistemological base. I say it is the result, the consequence, of accepting the epistemology. It is not the starting point from an intellectual or academic standpoint, though a great many people may come to accept naturalism from an investigation of the roots of atheism.

But "strong" and "weak" are words that mean different things to different people. I have taken exception to the terms strong and weak, especially "strong atheism", in the agnosticism/atheist forum on About.com, written by "Austin Cline, Atheism Guide". http://atheism.about.com/

I have taken my exception in comments that I have posted to Cline's site, to the extent that Cline has publicly stated in his column, in unequivocal terms, that my logic stinks and my position is untennable! He now refuses to allow any comments I make underneath his column. He simply blocks them. "Strong" vs. "Weak" Atheism; The Debacle of Categorization For this I have dubbed him the "Deity of Atheism"--and you can even Google that. For the entire thread of our conversation see Threaded with Austin Cline--Pop Culture vs. Ontology; and Saturday Quotes

I have also taken exception to the terms "strong" and "weak" when used in naturalism. Tom Clark, director of the Center for Naturalism http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/index.htm , was much more civil and rational than Cline.

Clark wrote this to me in an email, after I explained to him my own positions on several aspects of strong, weak, altruism, and egoism:

See What is Metaphysical Naturalism Part 2 continued

In Part Three: The Mechanical and Moral Arguments

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC


mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Atheism is Protected by Law; Austin Cline has Adversaries

Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court

For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y. Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own beliefs.

"The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand him." In addition, the "Step" program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature."

Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!

"Attorneys for Mr. Warner relied on a number of legal precedents, including:" [refer to link] http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm

Atheist Groups in Prison
But two years earlier,in the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared atheism a religion for purposes of protection under the Establishment Clause. The court said prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"James Kaufman filed suit while incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution after submitting an official document titled "Request for New Religious Practices." He asked permission to form an inmate group "to stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought, and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices, (and to) educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices." http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger
An atheist blogger saw a good side and a bad side to this ruling. "What the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:" said Matt Dillahunty, was that "atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."

What court got wrong, Dillahunty said, is that "Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics."

The Court in this case recognized that unless the prison system had prevented all gatherings of religion, preventing a group of atheists to gather was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
"Tthey didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause." [italics added]

How did the court come to this conclusion? The Supreme Court and Circuit Courts use the "Lemon" test, Lemon v. Kurtzman, a three-pronged test concerning the secular nature of government laws and regulations. http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

Another Court, Another Time
In Wallace v. Jaffree, another court said: "At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Historical Precedence and Jefferson
This has clear historical relevance in the way the framers of the Constitution (and it's backers) thought of the secular nature of government and the need to keep it out of the way of the sovereignty of the individual. Thomas Jefferson's proudest achievement was not the Declaration of Independence. It was the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom in which his principle of the "wall of separation between church and state" first took lawful form. Jefferson said that the purpose of the separation was that, "within the mantle of [the law's] protection, [were] the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." What better example of an "infidel" than an atheist?

Jefferson also said some other things concerning religion which I wish modern Americans would take heed of:

1. "I inquire after no man's [religion,] and trouble none with mine."
2. "I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
3. "I have considered [religion] as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle."

Austin Cline Has Adversaries?

My, my! Since my post on the threaded conversation between myself and Austin Cline last week http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/threaded-with-austin-cline-saturday.html , I've discovered that I'm not the only one to have a beef with the guy.

Read these:

"Shame On Austin Cline"; http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2005/05/shame_on_austin.html

"Response to Austin Cline";http://mikeduran.com/?p=972

"An attack on [C.S.] Lewis from Austin Cline"; [A response by the author of "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason,"]
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/10/attack-on-lewis-from-austin-cline.html

This is the first paragraph of a longer piece: "While I have glimpsed in a few places atheistic reactions to my assertion that the church itself is producing atheists, I had yet to see any real formal comment on it until today, when a member of my forum pointed me to Austin Cline’s entry on it located here. It so happens that I know of Mr. Cline and have had a little interaction, but for the record I don’t believe he understands that ‘Anthony Horvath’ is also ’sntjohnny.’ That interaction has a little in common with his entry here. In word, I think he is again being quite presumptuous, and I’m going to take this opportunity to respond even though he’ll never likely see it." http://sntjohnny.com/front/austin-cline-reacts-to-the-church-producing-atheists/64.html

See this exchange of comments between Cline and the original blogger to whom he is responding, where Cline arrogantly refers to "a housewife and good little kiddies at home.” http://de-conversion.com/2007/04/06/is-the-rise-of-atheism-and-feminism-destroying-the-traditional-family/

"Austin Cline of atheism.about.com, argues that fundamentalist atheism does not exist, because it cannot exist on the grounds that atheism has no fundamental doctrines, and that fundamentalism is not a personality type." http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Fundamentalism?query=others+include+Austin+Cline But this "fundamentalism" was exactly what I was talking about when I (CEC) told him atheism, being not only about either a lack of belief in a god, or a belief in no god (this second of which he disputed,) was about also about "faith" vs. "reason." That is fundamental.

Faith vs. reason is the fundamental difference between a person who believes no god exists, and people who believe gods do exist. When you throw in to the mix the agnostic who has a lack of belief yet does not give up supernaturalism such as tea leaf readings or ghost hunting, there is a conflict of concepts, which Cline denied in our thread, even going so far as to say atheism as a belief that nothing supernatural exists is "limiting" to the idea of atheism. He wants to be "all inclusive" because of his culturally popular position as a very public blogger for a major enterprise.

"Austin Cline, in a recent article, has taken issue with one of my posts on atheism. Cline has “argued” that I unfairly divide all atheists into two “nice, neat groups”." [His own organization, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is arguing with him. Funny how my original argument with him was about how Cline himself "unfairly" divided atheists into "strong" and "weak" atheists--which I took umberage with. (CEC)] http://ffrf.org/

Cline does get some support: "I gotta hand it to Austin Cline of atheism.about.com. He is a class act." http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2007/04/austin-cline-gives-his-support.html

Dilbert.Blog calls Cline the "Poster Child for Cognitive Dissonance." http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/poster-child-fo.html

It would seem Cline likes to argue with other people, http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep96-r2.html (as he did with me.)

I'm certain there must be many more similar posts, since "Cline" can be found on 192,000 hits, and I'm not going to search them all.

Publishing Note:
I have made the attempt several times to allow the posting of reader comments to this blog. I have followed all the directions set by Google (yes, I've read the directions, several times,) but as of yet it isn't working. If you wish to comment, please email them to the address below. Thank you.

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Threaded with Austin Cline--Pop Culture vs. Ontology; and Saturday Quotes

A Threaded Conversation with the Deity of Atheism, Austin Cline

I am publishing this thread because Mr. Cline has either refused, or merely neglected, to publish the last comment I made to him [9.13.08; see below] in which I was able to refute his criticism of me as "fail[ing] to support your arguments," and of having written on the "basis of appalling misrepresentations." He said I was "long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts."

If Mr. Cline refuses to admit my credibility as it comes to me from other sources better known and respected than he is, then I am forced to publish it myself.

As Mr. Cline himself alludes to, he is a writer of pop culture and must satisfy his readers and his employer. I must do neither, and if my readers find my credibility strained, they have only to refuse to read my blog.

Cline's column: 9.12.08

"Atheism is only the absence of belief in gods, so there is nothing self-contradictory if atheists believe in astrology, alien abductions, Bigfoot, psychic powers, and a host of other mystical, supernatural, and paranormal things. Being an atheist doesn't mean being a skeptic, and vice-versa. However, paranormal claims aren't very different from religious ones and a relevant atheism is one based upon a consistently and broadly applied skepticism, not one focused solely on religion or theism. Austin Cline http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/12/why-should-atheists-be-more-skeptical-why-is-skepticism-relevant-to-atheism.htm

Me: 9.12.08
"Atheism is NOT “only the absence of belief in gods.” As an atheist blogger, I can tell you it’s about “faith” versus “reason.” Atheists do not have faith, and rely on reason. An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is a contradiction in terms. My blog today http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html is about “reductive monism” vs. “non-reductive” monism, and why “reductive monism” cannot win arguments with theists.

"If you go back in your archives beginning August 7, thread #41223 re: “strong” atheism vs. “weak” atheism, you will see the silly arguments made by atheists against my black-and-white statement that gods don’t exist. One person asked me if, since I didn’t believe gods exist, did I believe Alexander the Great had been real, since he had been deified?

OMG! The reductionists even argue with other atheists!
Curtis Edward Clark

Cline: 9.12.08
"'Atheism is NOT “only the absence of belief in gods.'”

"Yes, it is. That’s the definition.

"'As an atheist blogger, I can tell you it’s about “faith” versus “reason.'”

"You’re mistaken. There is nothing about atheism that prevents a person from having “faith” or believing in any manner of nonsense. Being an atheist doesn’t mean a person is necessarily rational, reasonable, intelligent, moral, civil, or anything else.

"'An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is a contradiction in terms.'"

"That would only be true if the definition of atheism were “absence of belief in the supernatural.” That, however, is not the definition of atheism. The definition of atheism is “absence of belief in gods.”

"It’s true that most atheist in the West today don’t believe in the supernatural and don’t have “faith” in things in a manner analogous to how theists have “faith” in gods, but that is simply a function of contemporary culture and environment. Not all atheists even in the West are like that, and not all atheists in all other places and at all other times are like that.

"You should be careful not to assume that every position you happen to hold is one that all atheists must therefore also hold. That would be arrogant.

"The definition of atheism is as simple and broad as theism. Defining atheism as you have is a bit like trying to define mere theism as the same as Christianity.

"'If you go back in your archives beginning August 7, thread #41223 re: “strong” atheism vs. “weak” atheism

"First, you’re talking about a forum thread.
"Second, I am quite familiar with that forum thread and I noticed that you fail to support your arguments. I’ve linked to that thread above so others can see. You have commented on things I have written here, but only on the basis of appalling misrepresentations. You are long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts." [italics added by me, Clark, because they become relevant below.]

Me: 9/12/08
"I wrote a long reply, using “facts” garnered from Dr. Quentin Smith, Tom Clark, and Tibor Machan. I’ve met Smith, argued with Clark, and was informed by Machan about Clark’s reductionism, which led me to the subject of monism, which you did not address.
Then when I sent it, I was told my email address was incorrect, go back. In going back, I lost the entire reply. I hope it got through. If it did get through, I hope the “facts” I presented, including why theists ought to be made the skeptics to the naturalist position, rather than making us their skeptics, were acceptable to you.
If it didn’t get through, please fix your system so that in the future, such losses do not occur.
Sincerely,
Curtis Edward Clark

Cline: 9.13.08
"'the subject of monism, which you did not address. '"

"When it comes to the definition of atheism, it’s irrelevant. The subject of “consulting a dictionary” is usually quite sufficient. [italics added]

"If it didn’t get through, please fix your system so that in the future, such losses do not occur.'
"I’m not responsible for the software on this site any more than you are responsible for the blogging software you use."

Me: 9.13.08 [Cline has so far neglected to publish this last comment in his own blog.]

"Ok. So reductionism has nothing to do with the subject. I'll bite.

"But when you say I fail to support my arguments, and that I write on the 'basis of appalling misrepresentations [ ] long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts,' did you notice that in each of my blogs I use other, more accomplished thinkers than myself and I attribute them all?

"No, of course not. You didn't bother looking. Are all my authorities incorrect, or are they merely authorities you find 'short on credible arguments and facts?'

"For example, in my piece about reductionism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/ I quoted Tom Clark (Naturalism.Org), Raul Corazzon, Ayn Rand, Boethius, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, B.A.G. Fuller, and Wikipedia.

"Please don't say I'm short on facts. I never write a word without excessively, compulsively, doing background on it. I rarely see you attribute anyone but yourself.

"And as I stated in the previous comment, I've argued with Tom Clark, who, frankly, was close-mouthed with any answer to my questions at all, let alone with a credible answer. I've discussed that discussion with Tibor Machan who agreed with me. (Talk about using authorities!)

"And Dr. Quentin Smith, whom I've met, wrote: "Naturalist philosophers need to rethink their goals. In part this involves clearly distinguishing between philosophical goals and cultural consequences of the attainment or pursuit of these goals.

"'One of the four goals of informed naturalists,' Smith writes, is to, 'Reclassify the philosophy of religion as a sub field of naturalism, viz. skepticism about naturalism, so that the position in the various fields of philosophy formerly occupied by 'the philosophy of religion' is replaced by the field 'the philosophy of naturalism.'

"'The fourth goal is to justifiably reformulate, and answer, the two basic ontological why-questions that medieval philosophers took over from the Greco-Roman naturalists, and which have (for the most part) remained ever since 'questions asked in the field of the philosophy of religion.' The successful accomplishments of these four tasks will restore academia to the mainstream secularization it possessed before the post-1967 breakdown in the field of philosophy.' http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

"This means overcoming theism with non-reductionism. This means not playing the skeptic, as opposed to 'a relevant atheism [ ] based upon a consistently and broadly applied skepticism.' We need to make the theists the skeptics, according to Smith.

"It would seem that in 'distinguishing between philosophical goals and cultural consequences,' you are the cultural expert, whereas I focus on the philosophy, backed by world renowned experts. [I should have stated "even if they back my argument against their position."]

"I was interested in your blog because I thought I could use it philosophically. [But] I seem to be arguing against you. We seem we have different goals, so please lets keep this civil between us:

"You say I wrote you on the 'basis of appalling misrepresentations. You are long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts.'

"I think you cannot now claim I misrepresent all the people I attribute in my blog; nor can you say I am short on credibility, unless you wish to claim all of my attributions have no credibility.

"Let me apologize for making it sound as if the posting snafu was your fault. I meant for it to be applied to About.Com, and I can see how you would have taken my words. I am sorry. It was frustrating to click my email address from the drop-down, only to have About.Com claim it was not a valid email, and then to destroy my comment.

"You stick with your 'culture.' I'll stick with my ontology, metaphysics, and epistemic principles. You continue to write as the Deity of atheist culture your fans take you to be; I will continue to write like the expert I someday hope to be credibly accepted as.

"As I said in one of those older threads, this is why I hate getting into threads. I did not attack you personally in my first comment, only commenting on what you said.

"You on the other hand, attacked my credibility and facts, which I have now proven are not all my own opinion; and I've proved that I have authorities upon whom I can rely for straight answers and help when I need it. I guess you are not one of them.

"This is the last time I will reply. I hate threads.
Sincerely,
Curtis Edward Clark

Closing comments to this thread, not sent to Cline: In an attempt not to be "arrogant," which Cline alluded to, I referenced a dictionary, as he suggested I do:

"Atheism: (Gr. a, no; theos, god) Two uses of the term:

1. The belief that there is no God.
2. Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic." [italics added, to prove that this particular dictionary proves Mr. Cline to be incorrect, not me.]
"The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term although widely current in the history of thought." "Dictionary of Philosophy"; Runes

Now, Mr. Cline, I interpret the belief that there is no god to be different from "the absence of belief in gods," because as you yourself stated, people who merely have an absence of belief in gods can still find themselves involved in all sorts of supernatural enterprises, like astrology, hand reading, tea reading, ghost hunting, etc. As the dictionary above states, these people are not atheist; they are "not-theist." You use a "less rigorous" definition that is "widely current"; but "widely current" does not mean "correct." It means "culturally popular," and you have already identified your definition as "cultural."

Someone with a belief that there is no god may be presumed to also believe there is nothing supernatural; or I would hope it could be presumed, otherwise there is not an iota of distinction in the definitions:

"[M]an's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified by non-reductive monism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny."(amended from B.A.G.Fuller http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html see Naturalism)

That, Mr. Cline, is my definition of "atheism," taken from two, not one, source. Have a good day, sir!

Quotes for Saturday

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. Edward R. Murrow; "I Can Hear It Now"; (said of Churchill)

"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb." Sir Winston Churchill, from the essay 'Painting as a Pastime', published at the end of Thoughts and Adventures.

When they start the game, they don't yell, "Work ball." They say, "Play ball." Willie Stargell

"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." General Stark sent this toast to be read at the reunion he was too ill to attend; "Live Free or Die" became the New Hampshire State Motto in 1945 General John Stark, a toast for the 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, July 31, 1809

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®