Showing posts with label Secular Humanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secular Humanism. Show all posts

Friday, January 2, 2009

Naturalism's Link to Humanism


Not All Metaphysics of Naturalism

Are Created Equal

One of the problems I have with other authors' definitions of "naturalism" is that I often see what appears to be mistakes, albeit sometimes they are small. But they become untenable with the larger context of that author's message, because until the mistake is fixed, the reader (me in this case) doesn't know what to make of it. So I write to the author and I ask for clarification.

On the Home Page of the Secular Web, a naturalistic and humanistic website, Paul Draper is quoted as saying that naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it." The conclusion is then made that, "Thus, 'naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities."

Well, no it does not imply that, not as written.

To say "nothing that is not part of the natural world" leaves open the possibility, for anyone who thinks there is more than the natural world, of a thing that exists that is more than the natural world--like God. Mr. Draper leaves an open hole. I would have thought that leaving open such holes are mistakes of epistemology--or simply a gaffe of grammar or syntax, or even one of thinking faster than the pen can write.
It seems untenable with the larger message to leave such a hole.

So I wrote to Mr. Draper and asked him about the it. It seems it not a hole in his opinion, and is intentional and correct by his metrics of naturalism. It is a question, not of epistemology, in his mind, but of metaphysics.

"The statement," replied Draper, "that the universe is a closed system does imply that there are no supernatural entities because a supernatural entity is defined as a non-natural entity that AFFECTS THE NATURAL WORLD. Thus, naturalism as defined in the quoted passage rules out supernatural entities but does not rule in or out non-natural entities." [emphasis his]

The supernatural is defined as non-natural, yet this published naturalist author concedes that the non-natural may exist? And, isn't Draper's idea that no supernatural entities exist exactly what I said was implied?

Mr. Draper is an educated man and qualified as far as his peers are concerned, I'm certain, to be held in esteem, to be a published author, and to be the editor of Philo, "published biannually at the Center for Inquiry with assistance from Purdue University," reads the home page of the online magazine, concluding with: "Philo is the publication of the Society of Humanist Philosophers."

Interestingly, I found nothing in the Google search engine for the Society, except an ancient reference to Philo before Draper was Editor; and the remark in Wikipedia that it is a program of the Council for Secular Humanism.

The Council is responsible for many things. Originally called the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, it was begun by Paul Kurtz a naturalist humanist. "The council acts as an umbrella organization for a number of other groups, such as the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, African Americans for Humanism, and provides support for Center for Inquiry - On Campus. It also publishes several magazines and newsletters, including Free Inquiry," states Wikipedia.

Kurtz calls his form of humanistic naturalism "philosophical." Michael Friedman of the American Philosophical Association says this "philosophical" form "has reached the end of its useful life."
I am not a humanist of any sort. www.jcn.com/humanism.html lists 8 sorts. About secular humanism it says it is "an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought." That ought to say something to those who understand rationalism. And freethought explains the slippery language used by humanists and by scientific and philosophical naturalists. While elevating science and reason, freethought does so at the cost of a rational metaphysics.

The website for the Council supports most of what Wiki states about it, and also makes this declaration:

"Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation." [emphasis added]

Gee. I just wrote about this on Tuesday. It's kind of strange, sometimes, how the world goes around. The subjects that secular humanism "emphasizes"--reason, science, individualism, responsibility, human values, and compassion--are defined by that movement very differently from Metaphysical Naturalism. But what does it have to do with Paul Draper's differentiation between "supernatural" and "non-natural" entities?

To begin with, this: I never seem to be able to get answers from naturalists like Mr. Draper that make much sense to me. It all seems gray, undifferentiated by any substantiality, or it seems like metaphysical double-speak that goes round and round, stopping only long enough to get in the phrases "tolerance," "compassion," and a few others with similiar altruistic connotations--and they do mean it altruistically as I will show; there is nothing about justice connected to their phrases for "cooperation".
When I answered Tom Clark's critique of my comments to him about naturalism, he did not come back with analyses about what I had written. Apparently he couldn't match me logic for logic. Instead, he wrote, among other things:

"Ok, many thanks for these clarifications, most interesting. It would be nice if all [Ayn] Rand’s acolytes examined her philosophy as assiduously as do you, ending up with more nuanced conclusions about the legitimacy of compassion and limits of egoism." [emphasis added]
My "nuanced conclusions" on those subjects were that compassion was worthless in the wrong circumstances, and that there are no limits to egoism when defined as "rational egoism."

Clark is a dedicated humanist, and some of the contributors to his site also contribute to Philo. It seems, from the other things Clark wrote me, that humanists cannot accept egoism because they exalt altrusim.

"There are two errors," he writes about my ideas, "in addition to thinking we’re ultimately self-made. One is to suppose that in empirical fact we are merely self-interested creatures. But we aren’t; there are many altruistic bones in our body. Second, it’s to commit the naturalistic fallacy of arguing that if we are selfish by nature, that means we should be selfish. But there is no direct implication from a natural is to an ethical ought."

Humanists take issue with Rand's clear disdain of altruism. I accept her disdain completely, because she did not allow the definition to become watered down by humanistic definitions that make it seem as if "altruism" is merely being human to one another. Rand fiercely upheld Compte's definition; after all, it was Compte who coined the word.

"For Comte Altruism meant the [ ] eradication of self-centered desire, and a life devoted to the good of others; more particularly, selfless love..." [emphasis added] http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html Devotion to the good of others when coupled with selfless love--a contradiction in terms--is duty, and duty has nothing to do with rational compassion, yet such irrational duty is the field of secular and other forms of humanism.

I replied to Clark that "'to commit the naturalistic fallacy of arguing that if we are selfish by nature, that means we should be selfish,' is the definition of 'logical' egoism," not rational egoism which Rand knew was the necessary form of egoism for man to lead a rational life. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm

Which leads us to the rationality of humanists and scientific and philosophical naturalists. Every concept has only one antonym, though many words are connected to more than one concept, so you must choose your concept carefully. Sometimes, depending on the way a dictionary has separated concepts, the differences are unclear. Definition 2) may seem to one's logic to be the same as 3). Such differences are subtle and sometimes not even legitimate.

But if the ontological concept of "natural" has the antonym of "not-natural", then "supernatural" must be a sub-set of "not-natural." Mr. Draper does not see it that way.

"I define a 'natural entity'," he wrote, "as an entity that is either physical or that is causally or ontologically reducible to physical entities. Skyscrapers, for example, are natural entities by this technical definition. There are, of course, other senses of the word 'natural' in ordinary language."

So far I agree, but then he went on: "Non-natural entities by my definition are entities that are not physical and are not reducible to physical entities. Perhaps abstract objects are non-natural, but that's debatable."

Since abstract objects are concepts of human thought rather than Platonic Forms, and since thought is natural, I would refuse to debate it. He does not make clear what any other objects are that he might define as "not physical and not reducible to physical entities."

"The supernatural is a subcategory of the non-natural", he continued, a complete reversal of my Metaphysical Naturalist position. "If there were any supernatural entities, then they would be entities that, in spite of not being natural, nevertheless affect natural entities."

The way I see it, God, if He exists, is natural, not supernatural. Why should we see Him as anything other than natural? We see Him as supernatural because then we do not find ourselves able to have empirical evidence of God, and we do not want empirical evidence, except perhaps for the indirect kind. Ronald Reagan's comparison of the physical world to a dinner table laden with food--that had no chef--comes to mind. The physical world "revealed" to our senses are all the evidence that supernaturalists say we can ever have, unless they are also of the opinion that revealed revelations e.g. Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, are possible.

However, Mr Draper tells me, "For while we have empirical evidence that the natural world is closed (our success in discovering natural causes of natural entities), it would be idle metaphysical speculation to claim that no non-natural entities exist."

From this we can infer than Mr. Draper knows of no non-natural entities, yet insists that the category must remain an open one in order not to "idly speculate" that the category is empty of entities!

This is the road that humanism plows, one of metaphysical mud and muck from which no logic can be ascertained except that of definitions with no clear denotations; and capitulation to the idea that clarity is egoistical and egoism must be "logical" rather than "rational" and therefor must be rejected (despite a very big difference between them); that egoism is the opposite of altrusim (which it is) and, that altruism is the metaphysical mud and muck that humanists prefer in their metaphysics over any form of egoism.

They do, after all, accuse Rand of being "black and white," "too concrete," and even "irrational."

Objectivists "strike me as being pretty irrational when it comes to ideas about the self and free will," Clark wrote to me, "and it seems to me this irrationality supports a morally objectionable radical individualism, see my critique here."

I will let his critique stand on its own, and see whether or not I can pull my feet out of humanism's muck without losing my shoes. If the category "non-natural entities" is an empty category, yet it contains a sub-category (supernatural,) then I can walk on water.





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 ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com


http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/







Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The Single Intelligible Object--Repost

Repost of Blogger from 9.3.08
The Academy's Blogger of 9.01.08 on the subject of "world views," specifically that of the Atomist Lucretius as he described his own view in his historic poem "On the Nature of Things," allows us to take up the subject again, this time from other perspectives than those of Atomists.
"It is because atomism [naturalism] views matter as independent of God," I wrote, "that atomism was demoted by St. Augustine from the predominating world view, a view that held sway for nearly 1000 years. St. Augustine turned it into the skeptical position against theism. All men have a world view that for each, in some way, is his explanation of the meaning of existence, of the world." http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/08/atomism-is-incompatible-with-judeo.html

The purpose of the mind of men turning to thoughts of the meaning of life is to summarize it, and the briefest summary is the one that describes everything in the least possible words. A definition of a word in a dictionary is the meaning of a word, in the least number of words.

"A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are. But it is important to remember that a definition implies all the characteristics of the units, since it identifies their essential, not their exhaustive, characteristics..." Ayn Rand; "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"; p.42

It is that idea that creates the need to describe the world in which we live, not as a single word, which would leave out so much of the essence of existence and our emotional reaction to it; but the fewest number of words which describe that essential characteristic, as a single intelligible object, as any dictionary definition turns the concept(s) described by a word as a single intelligible object.

What follows is a very brief condensation of my book, The Search for the Single Intelligible Object. The purpose of the book is to address the need for such a description, and to explain the naturalistic, objective description of a world which neither knows about us, nor cares about us, and can become anything we have the capacity to turn it into. Or, we can become whatever we let it makes us become, for better or worse and usually for the worse, by ignorning thatexistence has no cognizance of us, and by believing that we cannot over come genetic predispositions, and environments, and a "world we didn't make.

But to do so is a return to Plato's Cave, to astrology, the "reading" of cards and tea leaves and spilled toothpicks on the kitchen floor. It is a return to the belief that there is a wrathful intelligence in the universe, rather than one of justice and truth, and that it is us.


I
The Single Intelligible Universe


Imagine, for a moment or two, floating way away from Earth. Float away to the outside of the universe itself, outside of all known and unknown existence, and then look at the universe as the astronauts on their way to the moon saw Earth, as a whole. Except that instead of seeing only one-half of the global universe at a single moment, there is no "dark side of the moon," so to speak. You are able to turn the universe over and over in your hand and examine it in minute detail as if it was a snow globe. You are able to look into any part of it of which you are aware. The examination, and the detail you discover, will be determined by your own capabilities.

Those of us who are least aware of the concept of “cosmology” easily understand what it means when it is explained as an awareness of the universe, an awareness one has when one “holds the world before his mind as if it were a single intelligible object.” To which it must be added, “While holding the universe in one's hand and mind, he decides what his place is or is to be, in that universe as he comes to understand it.”

Aurelius wrote, “He who does not know what the world is does not know where he is, and he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is. But he who has failed in any one of these things could not even say for what purpose he exists himself." Such a conscious examination is formal cosmology, not in the science of physics which deals with very different questions and information; but in the sciences pertaining to formal Philosophy. Sometimes that "science" is quite simply the meditations of people who find the time to think about the world, because it requires a deeper thread of thoughts, and deep thinking is the science of philosophy.

Deciding, i.e., evaluating, one’s place in the world in which he lives, means: holding before his conscience (as if in his hand, as well) the evaluation of one's judgment of his world, for the mind does not operate in a moral vacuum, but is attached to its moral center of judgment. Deciding what one’s place in the world "is or is to be" means looking, sometimes deeply, into one’s conscience, because that is where the real results of evaluations take place. The conscience is the one place where one cannot lie to oneself about who and what one is, and where he is.

Conceiving of the universe as a single intelligible object and then trying to perceive it in metaphysical terms [the theory of everything that exists,] and placing oneself in that universe, leaves us with a "sense of life." The human mind cannot not think in metaphysical terms; it is the first science of Philosophy without which the mind would not be conscious. The mind works in strict terms of philosophical principles whether or not one has evaluated them or is even conscious of them.

“Holding the universe as a single intelligible object," William Watson wrote of it using, not epistemology, the philosophical science of proving the truth of what we believe, but by using literary aesthetics, another philosophical science, in “Dawn on the Headland.” His words ring with an emotional truth, a truth that scares some people and comforts others:
Yet I know that I dwell in the midst of the roar of the Cosmic Wheel
In the hold collision of Forces, and the clangor of boundless Strife,
Mid the sound of the speed of worlds, the rushing worlds, and the peal
Of the thunder of Life.

There is, for those not frightened of it, an exciting and moral challenge in dwelling “in the midst of the Cosmic Wheel.” For those who find the words chilling more than comforting, they may, after understanding the sense of life, the cosmology, found in metaphysical naturalism, discover instead the excitement of that moral challenge, and find it uplifting. It is a challenge often posed in the questions and answers of theology.

Religions have cosmologies.

“The term ‘Logos’ in Christian theology marries, through the revelation of St. John’s Gospel and the Epistles of Paul, its Greek philosophical meaning of an all encompassing rational order uniting humans and divinity into a ‘great cosmos,’” says a long article called “Sacred Cosmology in the Christian Tradition," by Vincent Rossi, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_1_30/ai_59520591 and is “thus the supreme ordering principle uniting all levels of being, from the sublimity of the divine to the deepest density of the mineral kingdom.”

This “all encompassing rational order” certainly exists. It exists, though neither as a miracle nor as something intelligently designed either from within, or from without as a chef might design a wedding cake.

It is an all-encompassing rational order only when made comprehensible through an act of rationally ordering what one knows about it, in other words, putting its parts in a hierarchy of rational meanings. This rational ordering is done by the only thing capable of such ordering: the mind of Man. It is Man's mind that decides what his place is or is to be in the "all encompassing rational order."

Any human thought, sentence, expression of language, or fully developed work of fiction, non-fiction or art can and usually does contain a sense of life, an idea that expresses the place of men in the world in which they live.

The Declaration of Independence, is one of those, placing into an all-encompassing rational order the exact purpose for its existence, i.e., it rationally says all it has to say about why the signatories signed it. It does this in its very first paragraph, which is incredibly only one long sentence, part of which is: that often it "becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," the colonies from England. The Founders knew their place in the world in which they existed, and they knew where they wanted their place to be and it was not in the world as seen by the British Empire. The Founders' sense of life was one of political freedom from tyranny.

Metaphysics are the values of philosophy, and epistemology is the method of "proving" the values. These two manifestations. these elements of consciousness, help make up the subject of cosmology as far as the humanities are concerned. There is also a science of cosmology that deals almost specifically with what are commonly called the "laws of nature," and it is called Physics. Physics has its own "cosmology," described in phrases meant for other physicists.

This sort of cosmology "attempts to measure the immeasurable in mega parsecs and speak rationally about the immensity of space, to explain how its incalculable number of astronomical bodies occupy their incalculable vastness. Cosmology is the human effort at locating us and our environment in relation to all the other environments and their possible inhabitants."[a]
But it has always been the profession of philosophy to put into perspective the ideas of all the other professions. It is why there are ethics of law, ethics of medicine, ethics of warfare, and of journalism, to mention only a very few.

Not one person on Earth needs formal training to make a judgment about the world he lives in, in the sense with which this book deals. We all make those kinds of judgments everyday of our lives.

In the connotation of cosmology as a sense of life, it must be recognized that this sense is as automatic a function of Man's consciousness as his "five senses" are. It cannot be turned off any more than sight can be turned off. We can close our eyes and ignore what would otherwise be visibly before us. We can also choose to ignore the cognitions of our sub-consciously, automatically, evaluating mind: cognitions of impending marital doom, or of something simply being amiss, such as the bad behavior of a child when our evaluation of his behavior turns us toward thoughts of mental illness. Who wants to jump right to that conclusion? So we put off jumping until jumping is no longer a choice. That is, we put it off if we are not rigorous in the integrity of our minds. Most of us are not, sometimes. Many are not, most of the time, suppressing the unasked question, "What should I do?"

Naturalist Loren Eiseley, in his own tranquil and unique cosmological styling, wrote in his classic work, "The Immense Journey," http://www.amazon.com/Immense-Journey-Imaginative-Naturalist-Mysteries/dp/0394701577 of an archaic Homo sapiens, an early Man, having the experience of pondering the meaning of existence. It was about the “Adam” of men, about the first Man to have such contemplation, the first man to think in philosophical terms.

“For the first time in four billion years a living creature had contemplated
himself and heard with a sudden, unaccountable loneliness, the whisper of the
wind in the night reeds. Perhaps he knew, there in the grass by the chill
waters, that he had before him an immense journey. Perhaps that same foreboding still troubles the hearts of those who walk out of a crowded room and stare with relief into the abyss of space so long as there is a star to be seen twinkling across those miles of emptiness.”

In the art world Grandma Moses described in paint on canvas a sense of life which obviously was not formed of the elements of say, a Van Gogh or a Rockwell. Her skills and her cosmology are described as "Primitive." No matter the skill of the artist to depict her world, the way in which any artist sees it, good, bad, ugly, or wondrously beautiful, gives us a look into the soul of the artist. Hers was a productive soul, intent on journalizing the world in which she lived.
"Her images of rural life provided soothing respite from otherwise turbulent times, and fifty years later her vision of the simple life still strikes a resonant chord." [with examples of her work] http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/7aa/7aa76.htm

Dow Chemical's world view was presented in its advertising, giving the world a gift of Romanticism, i.e., the world view of the ideality of what it means to be alive in the best sense of "alive." Dow called their advertisement The Human Element. It is rare anymore to see Romanticismi expounded so elegantly, not to mention unabashedly.

The Dow TV ads are a collage of video clips of real people in their own real environmental "elements," on four continents. Dow says it describes their company's vision for the future in their interactions with cultures and environments and people. I was pleasantly surprised the first time I saw it, and I have not been disappointed yet, seeing it over and over again.

It is a brilliant, shining star of Romantic cosmology, of what Man means in the universe, in an environment that would have no purpose without him.

The Human Element
For each of us / there is a moment / of discovery.
We turn a page. / We raise a hand. / And just then,
in the flash of a synapse, / we learn that life / is elemental.
And this knowledge / changes everything.
We look around / and see the grandness / of the scheme.
Sodium / bonding with chlorine.
Carbon / bonding with oxygen.
Hydrogen / bonding with oxygen.
We see / all things connected.
We see / life unfold.
And in the dazzling brilliance / of this knowledge
we may overlook / the element not listed / on the chart.
Its importance so obvious / its presence / is simply understood.
The missing element / is the Human Element.
And when we add it / to the equation / the chemistry changes.
Every reaction is different.
Potassium / looks to bond / with potential.
Metals / behave with hardened / resolve.
And hydrogen and oxygen / form desire.
The Human Element / is the element of change.
It gives us our footing / to stand fearlessly
and face the future.
It is a way of seeing / that gives us / a way of touching.
Issues. / Ambitions. / Lives.
The Human Element.
Nothing is more fundamental. / Nothing more elemental.

"We see all things connected. We see life unfold. And in the dazzling brilliance of this knowledge we may overlook the element not listed on the chart. Its importance so obvious its presence is simply understood. The missing element is the Human Element." What more can be said about a cosmology of wondrous delight in being human, of human interaction, of human bonding; of "a way of seeing that gives us a way of touching issues, ambitions, lives?"

Philosophical Romanticism is the benevolent cosmology described (by me) as, "From each according to his ability, then he ought to be rewarded ten times over." It is the cosmology of ideals that are attainable by the best of Men (qua Men,) and it allows for the rest of us to look up to things as having possibility, e.g., the performance of Olympic Athletes; wealth created by men of vision in any endeavor, but look at the founders of Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, and at Warren Buffet and others, for inspirational examples. They came, they created, they took, and now they give back a hundred-fold.

Cosmology is demonstrated in every piece of art, which is created by psychological action. Scottish novelist George MacDonald wrote of a young man in a story about the title character called "Malcolm."

Malcolm is a fisherman about whom there seems to be a mystery that he himself is not too aware of; and honestly, he does not much care about the mystery. His mind is on things that matter, and the mystery about him is not high on his hierarchy of values. Malcolm has a blind father he loves more dearly than anyone in the world, yet who he knows is not his biological father and believes to be his grandfather. This is part of the mystery about which he cares little, because Malcolm is as devoted to his father and to the people of his Scottish fishing village and to the Lord of the manor, as anyone could be to anyone or anything. It is not that he does not think about the future or the past, but he lives in the present and his values are not of things he cannot control, but of things he can control. He is loved and revered by the fisher folk, and the only person in the town who treats him badly is a woman who treats everyone badly and who is considered by some to be a witch. Malcolm has serenity.

MacDonald wrote about Malcolm that;

“Joy itself seemed embodied in the wind blowing on him. When it came on to blow hard, instead of making him feel small and weak in the midst of storming forces, it gave him a glorious sense of power and unconquerable life.” [italics added]

Those words in italics are a world view, perhaps caused only when Macolm felt the wind blowing, as you might guess by this excerpt. But is describes Malcolm's overall sense of life, and he carried it with him throughout each page of the book.

The cosmology of Malcolm made it one of the most enjoyable reading experiences I have ever had, and indirectly, along with Moby Dick, set me to thinking about writing this book. Malcolm's psychology is one that ought to be emulated much more than it is. There was a time not so long ago when a reasonable and "decent respect"i for "the opinions of others," as Malcolm demonstrates toward everyone he meets, was expected, even if it was a surprise when it came as gracefully as it came from Malcolm.

Today, many people seem to be in spiritual agony, skeptics, hatefilled for life itself, or at least for most other human beings. We are losing our grace in the face of people, places, and things we cannot change and over which we ought not have control. But we want people to be the way we want them to be, and we let it eat at us like acid on metal. And that, in itself, is a world view, that people are objects to be changed into what we disire them to be in order to make our own world better, and that when we don't get what we want the world throws acid on us.

Although Malcolm was not thinking in the metaphysical terms of "glorious" and "unconquerable," the author clearly was thinking of Malcolm’s psychology—Malcolm was “feeling” the impression upon his soul in those seconds of living in the moment of the wind, and his reaction was automatic. Few of us contemplate our own minds when we are "feeling the moment"; we are too busy enjoying the feeling; or too busy wishing the problem would go away; or too wrapped up in trying to make others be what we want them to be.

MacDonald’s words describe in psychological framing a beautiful moment, for while a cosmology can be descriptive of the entirety of a man’s evaluation of his place in the universe, it is most often consciously experienced at pivotal moments. The rest of the time, we just go on about our lives.

Some persons, perhaps most, never know that such a thing as a "sense of his life" exists, at least not in conscious terms. They may simply experience life as “generally happy,” for example, or “generally drab;” or they may feel that "sense" suicidally, or with melancholy or joy, or with any other emotion within Man’s range. One does not have to be aware of his own cosmology in concrete conceptual terms as described here. Yet in concepts of the connection between mind and soul, reason and heart, it can be seen to exist automatically, as automatically as consciousness itself, for it is “first consciousness.” That is why metaphysics which describe it is the "first science."

Without cosmology we humans would be not even be Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, the “Vulcan” who denies the effect of emotions upon his logic and must subjugate them to it, as do all Vulcans. We are not Vulcans; whether you believe the soul to be eternal or to die with the body, to be real or fantasy, to be mentally or biologically mechanical, or mystic and religiously spiritual, or to be the sum total of a man’s evaluation of what the world is and who he is and where he is in it—your emotion-perceiving soul is demonstrated through your actions, and your soul can often be seen in the way you live and in the way to treat and speak to others.

One’s reaction to his own cosmology demonstrates him as he sees himself in the cosmos, or in the chaos if he believes that is what the world is. His cosmology demonstrates the humor, the pathos, or the travesty of the drama, or the serenity of what he believes existence to be. Spock's logic is not the highest ideal a thinking creature can achieve. Discurse is a tool of reason, and logic is a tool of reason. Irrational logic can be proven to be illogical. A Vulcan's subjugation of his emotions to his "logic" is not an ideal for a thinking feeling being. Subjugating emotions to reason is an ideal. Just ask the Stoics, or Aquinas.

But in some ideas there is a very ugly, hurtful, hurting emotion about life. Most of us would want to suppress that, or get help for it before the suppression destroyed him. We can see the soul of ideas when we look at them.

French philosopher Montaign painted a very different and ugly picture of life than MacDonald did when he described Malcolm’s joy.

“Man,” Montaign wrote, “is this miserable and wretched creature who is not so much master of himself,” yet who “should call himself master and emperor of the world?”

His miserable description of cosmological evaluations did not end there. He continued: “Man feels and sees himself lodged here in the dirt and filth of the world, nailed and riveted to the worst and deadest part of the universe.”

Other persons have felt these same things about life, and it is a pity. This is a man’s “first consciousness” expressed overtly consciously, and they are demonstrations of each author's recombinants. Imagine Montaigne's evaluation as your sense of life. You would not have to do harm to anyone else with your denigrating ideas, but you certainly will not rise out of the "deadest part of the universe."

I prefer Malcolm’s joy, or Hermann Melville’s rapturous declaration that, “Man, in the ideal, is so noble and so sparkling, such a grand and glowing creature, that over any ignominious blemish in him all his fellow creatures should run to throw their costliest robes.” Amen; Melville's declaration is a cosmology of Romanticism.

At the other end of the metaphysical/ epistemological/ psychological scale from Melville, Byron wrote in Manfred that man is “half-dust, half deity, alike unfit to sink or soar.” Dryden, on the same sink hole, wrote of man as a “dull and…insensible… beast,” and Thomas Brown called Man “splendid in ashes and pompous in the grave.”

There are stark differences between cosmologies that see man in filth and unable to climb out of it, and in one that refuses to be nailed, that values the feelings of joyfulness, gloriousness, life unconquerable, noble, sparkling, grand, and glowing.

A character in Moby Dick has a cosmology of the universe being not so good a place, life in colonial New England being what it was, and the profession of whaling being even harder; but in that cosmology he found himself a good place in which to be.
"[A]nd while ponderous planets of unwaning woe revolve round me, deep down and deep inland there I still bathe me in eternal mildness of joy," he says.

These demonstrate differences, psychologically, of each author’s valuation of Man qua Man. And every living human demonstrates in one way or another his or her cosmology, his or her evaluation of man-in-the-cosmos. Some see his status "qua Man" as filthy, some see him as the highest form of being. But the descriptions say more about him or her who demonstrates these overtly conscious ideas than about reality, because a reality not comprehended of the highest standards of personal worth and behavior do not reflect a “sense of life” of possibility, probability, serenity, virtue, or value, nor of an existence—environmental or psychological—recombinant to Man’s will.

The Human Element / is the element of change.
It gives us our footing / to stand fearlessly
and face the future.


©The Dow Chemical Company. Permission granted.


Please use the Email Link in the Sidebar, or send comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

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



Tuesday, September 2, 2008

"Strong" vs. "Weak" Atheism; The Debacle of Categorization

I used to think I knew what "atheism" was. I was an atheist, someone who had no belief in god's existence, and no faith that he/it did exist and was the cause of "all things that are."

Then I discovered, through an article written by Austin Cline, in "About.Com" http://www.about.com/ (which is printed below,) that there were those in the atheist community who either thought I was a "weak" atheist, or perhaps not a "strong" atheist. This amazing judgment of my beliefs/disbeliefs was made even more evident by comments in a thread in About.Com. It was hinted that I might not be atheist at all!

I was questioned as to whether or not I believed in a god called "Ahura Mazda," whether I put him in the same "creator gods bucket" as "Jehovah, which I presume is the god you are most familiar with," and I wondered, what sort of idiot did it take to ask me that after I had stated there were no gods.

Then, I was questioned as to whether or not I believed Alexander the Great had actually lived, because he had been "deified," and there is no "requirement" that god's be supernatural, which of course Alexander was not, and if I didn't believe in "gods," how could I believe Alexander was real?

In the name of all that is Naturalistic, where does this crap come from? This bothers me.

It bothers me for several reasons. If I had not happened upon this article dealing with this subject, I could have remained ignorant of the debate, for who knows how long? It seems to be a recent--within the last decade--division. I'm not certain yet whether it is primarily an epistemological division, or one of metaphysics. I suspect there are advocates of boths sides of the division some of whom are dividing the atheists by metaphysics, and some on both sides dividing us with epistemics.

It bothers me that there are two sides in each "camp." "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." [Occam's Razor] http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html

It bothers me because a rose by any other name is still a rose. The difference between a rose and "atheism" is that a rose is merely empirical, while "atheism" is not empirical at all. So as far as the denotational divisions go, it is perfectly understandable. We are, sometimes, in differing "camps of particularities." There are so many divisions of "naturalist" and "naturalism" that I can't keep them straight.

Here is Cline's original article, with my [commentary,] with a live link at the bottom to the original:

"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. [Commonly by whom? Attribution would be nice.] Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. [Only two categories, now, folks, but wait until he gets finished with his propositions. He will have us so divided--but then, he is no different than those among you who believe what he believes--that, a division of a division of a division, is more descriptive of "individualism," or of "diversity."

[I had always believed our "position" on the existence of god's existence was one of nullity, either that we said they don't exist and gave our reasons; or that we gave to the gods no heed, thus nullifying their influence over our thoughts and morals. Gods represent the reification of dogma.]

"Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism [attribution?], is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons."

[But according to the Law of Existence and the Law of Identity, "agnostic atheism" against the Law of Non-Contradiction, or the Law of Contradiction, which means: is a contradiction in terms.

[Weak atheism is also sometimes called the natural state of the newborn. Is a newborn to be considered a "weak atheist" if he grows up maintaining his nature-given natural metaphysics, i.e., metaphysics developed without the Primacy of Deity over-riding the Primacy of Sovereignty, whereby each unique human has sovereignty only over him/herself, an no sovereignty over others except of children, and legally with some others. And does it without ever giving it further consideration? We often make the claim that religion is taught or imposed by the society which adopts it; if an entire society failed to consider god's existence, would it be a "weak atheist" society?]
"Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.


[Wait--a "strong" atheist may be one who denies the "possibility" of gods--as opposed to only denying the existence of particular gods?

[If that is to be the definition of "strong," then we must also cordon off those who deny only particualar gods, from those deny the possibility of any gods. Denying the possibility is what I thought every atheistic proposition consisted of. Now I am told that an atheist can deny specific gods, without denying the possibility that "some" god may exist. That is agnosticism.

[Cline is About.Com's resident expert and blogger in the category of "Agnosticism/Atheism." His academic credentials are excellent, having studied here and in Europe and gaining several degrees; he is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism. So I would give Cline the benefit of the doubt and hope he simply "wasn't thinking" when he wrote that. I have made similar huried or unthought-out mistakes myself. There are several typos and other editorial mistakes in this piece because I formatted incorrectly then could not back out of it.

[But it is a major gaffe, because if someone uses it later to back up a debatable question, the answer is going to be wrong. You cannot fail to deny the possibility of all supernatural gods, and still be labeled "atheist."]

"Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
"Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims."


[Oh! Now that you have decided to be a "strong" atheist who also claims to have epistemic proof that gods do not or that gods cannot exist--wait: either-or is one more division. Why didn't Cline think of it?--now that you have decided, then your atheism is to be more questionable i.e., defeatable,* than that of a weak atheist, because you now bear the burden of your proof, and if the subjectivism of the listener disagrees with you, your entire justification for being atheist goes out the window in his opinion, along with your supposed atheism. If your justification doesn't hold up one way or the other, must you not be required by epistemic ethics to reconsider your atheistic position?

[That is precisely the challenge laid upon us by theists who attempt to debunk your justification; but you are probably going to disagree with him as he disagrees with you, even thought you may not be able to defeat his justification.]


*Dr. Quentin Smith of Western Michigan University, wrote about "defeated
justifiers," and more inportantly about the one syllogism that must remain
undefeated by theists if the naturalist is to have a justified argument. We
cannot let thests have ground, except as is found in their historical
pre-Augustinian role as the skeptical position of naturalism.


"Where N means "naturalism":

"When contemporary science and naturalist philosophy,
conjoined with an evaluation of contemporary theist arguments for "not-N," can be said to justify N;
"and where in fact this conjoining does justify N;
"then N is justified."
[See 13., 14., 15., under "Justifications," in
"The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism" by Quentin Smith
http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

[This is where the formatting mistakes begin.]

"This [gnostic] narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself. Because strong and weak atheism are often called 'types' of atheism, some people develop the mistaken idea that these are somehow akin to 'denominations' of atheism, not unlike denominations of Christianity. This serves the bolster the myth that atheism is a religion or a belief system. This is unfortunate, in particular because the label of “types” is not entirely accurate; rather, it is simply used due to a lack of better terminology."

[I have thought all along that "strong" and"weak," and the actual epistemic propositions supporting them, were due to a lack of better terminology and denotational accuracy. That means: get the definitions in taxonomic order.]

"To call them different types is to imply on some level that they are separate — a person is either a strong atheist or a weak atheist."

[Is that not what Cline has been trying to tell us all the time???? Duh. It was right there in front of us all the time, because he said it. Then he denied it. If that is not what he means, what does he mean? Well...]

"If we look more closely, however, we will note that almost all atheists are both on various levels." [italics added]

[OMG, now you divide more? How many times can atheism be divided? You are not an Atomist--not that you ought to be--if you believe they are indivisible infinitely. Every "genus" must have at least two "differentia." (Ayn Rand) So every time you make a division of two into two more divisions, you create a new genus with two new differentia. (There comes a point when there is no point to the next genus; or, to one of the new differentia, which then would automatically disqualify that genus.)

[Since "almost all atheists are both on various levels," this proposition recombines two genuses, making them as indistinguishable as are the many combinations of Empiricists with Rationalists. That, then, eliminates one genus of "atheist."

[Rand herself, I suspect, would eliminate them to one genus with two differentia. I quote Rand (cut and paste):"concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity." “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”Introduction to ObjectivistEpistemology. That is called "Rand's Razor." Yes, she had her own, similar to Occam's. What they also had in common was that each had justified true belief in the metaphysics of essences as concepts, vs. Aristotle's/Aquinas' essences as "things in themselves."

[But by the same token, they are to be integrated only by necesssity. This is because we sometimes make errors of judgment caused by lack of data; or by any means of misjudging the truth. We can multiply as often as is necessary, but we should not re-integrate in haste. We are not saints. Men do not claim to be infallible. Infallibility is for the gods. We are not gods; "We wake to the world of Men." (MarcusAurelius)]

"The primary indication of [all atheists being both on some issues] can be seen in that the definition of weak atheism, lacking belief in the existence of any gods, is in fact that basic definition of atheism itself. What this means is that all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods."

[This is an "unnecessary" division with no justification. Such people who are in denial of at least some gods, allow therefore the possibility that some gods do exist. This is not a division of atheism; it is agnosticism.]

"Technically, saying that “some” atheists do this isn’t entirely accurate. Most, if not all, atheists are willing to deny the existence of some gods if asked — few only “lack belief” in the existence of Zeus or Apollo, for example."

[And those who are not willing to deny the existence of all gods are agnostic.]

"Thus, while all atheists are weak atheists, pretty much all atheists are also strong atheists with respect to at least some gods. So is there any value at all in the terms? Yes — which label a person uses will tell you something about their general inclination when it comes to debates about gods. A person who uses the label “weak atheist” may deny the existence of some gods, but as a general rule isn’t going to take the step of asserting the nonexistence of a particular god. [!] Instead, they are more likely to wait for the theist to make their case and then examine whether that case is credible or not."

[But because of the divisions of "weak" atheists, we are still in the position of having to ask this "weak atheist" to determine for us which position he takes on this or on that.]

"A strong atheist, on the other hand, may be a weak atheist by definition, but by adopting that label the person is in effect communicating a willingness and interest to take a much more proactive role in theological debates. They are more likely to assert right up front that a particular god does not or cannot exist and then make a case for that, even if the theist doesn’t do much to defend the position of belief."

AustinCline, About.com http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

Why I am An Atheist by Curtis Edward Clark

I am an atheist, not primarily because a of disbelief,whether positive or negative; nor from a belief, whether positive or negative. Rather, I am atheist because I do not sacrifice my reason to religious faith.

Religious reason is something else altogether. For one thing, it is the "religion" of Deism, the "religion" of the Founding Fathers of America. Do you know why it is not a "religion" in the dogmatic sense? Because each man or woman was allowed, under Deism, the absolute religious freedom to believe what he/she wanted in the pursuit of Reason. http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

If that individualistic belief was anything other than in search of reason, then it was tinged with faith, and therefore suspect until the character of the individual had been assessed. Atheism as a religion is the merely the same religious freedom when granted to atheists, no more, no less. It is the belief, whether Deist or atheist, that is within the bounds of epistemic reason, of the individual sovereignty of each to believe in his own ideas.

It is within the bounds of "organized religions" that each person is advised to believe, not in his/her reason, but in the dogma. Witness the political candidates who are forced to choose between politics and their church, and choosing politics are told not to come to Communion.

Those in the eighteenth century who could not bring themselves to sever their beliefs from their church were theists, yet were trusted as much by Deists as the Deists trusted themsleves. They went to church with those theists, had discourse with them, voted for some of them in politics and in church affairs, and married together; but those who could and did sever themselves from the politic of the church they attended were called Deists.

Atheism can be religion when "religion is a frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, [such as during the time] before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. “Playboy’sInterview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

That was Rand's opinion, with which I agree. Deists, however, did not have belief in God, as supernatural religions have. Deists had justified true beliefs (undefeated justifiers) and were not dangerous or malevolent in their overall beliefs. Not, at least, on the grounds of faith, because they had no faith, as do no atheists. But a Deist has justified true belief in God, instead. Atheists have justified true beliefs that the existence of a creator is a contradiction to the Primacy of Existence, even if they have no idea what that amounts to and even if they have never heard it. State it to an atheist, and he will say, "That is what I've always felt."

The atheist has no reason to justify the existence of a God that to him is neither an epistemic truth, nor an object of metaphysical knowledge. So they each have a "sound" syllogism, the Deist and the atheist, a soundness which comes from having chosen one of the fifteen "valid" syllogisms of post-Aristotelean logic. (Aristotle allowed 24.) And each of their undefeated justifiers can and will always defeat the evangelicals, when the defeat of theistic propositions is accomplished with formal syllogistic logic that meets the criteria for "valid" and for "sound."

But when the evangelical has as valid and as sound an argument, then, like atheists and Deists on one side of the opposed-to-religion coin, then the evangelical joins the Deist on the same side of the opposed-to-atheist coin.

Rand also had something to say about her own use of the word religion, which I agree with and which I use in the definition of the Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists. (See the first Academy of Metaphysical Naturalists' weblog, under "Archive." )


"[There is one] possibly misleading sentence . . . " Rand wrote, "in Roark’s speech:

“From this simplest necessity to the highest religious
abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.”

"This could be misinterpreted to mean an endorsement of religion or
religious ideas. I remember hesitating over that sentence, when I wrote it, and deciding that Roark’s and my atheism, as well as the overall spirit of the book, were so clearly established that no one would misunderstand it, particularly since I said that religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of supernatural revelation."

Amen, as she herself said a few times. Since an atheist by definition says "religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of supernatural revelation," then I say an atheist by any other name smells as sweet. And I affirm that atheists can have religious convictions, if those convictions do not attend the existence of a god of any nature, supernatural or "natural," as with Alexander the Great.

*Free will is here used as in "free will," both the kind attributed to man's ego; and the kind attributed to legal papers such as "free wills," or generically called "free will forms." http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGQD_enUS290US290&q=free+will+form


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 ®

Friday, August 22, 2008

Naturalist Resources--A Short List Part 1

Today is a bit of an easy day for this blog. Naturalism has many homes both on the internet and in universities and elsewhere. For your benefit, here is a list of just a few of them. In an attempt to identify such organizations and educational sources for our readers, we will for the next few weeks or longer be publishing these lists on Friday of each week.

If you know of a particular website or organization or educational center you would like to see listed, or if you would like to have your own included here, please use the mailto: at the bottom.

American Society of Naturalists http://www.amnat.org/
About the ASN : The purpose of the Society is to advance and to diffuse knowledge of organic evolution and other broad biological principles so as to enhance the conceptual unification of the biological sciences. This is achieved by publishing The American Naturalist and by holding an annual meeting with a scientific program of symposia and contributed papers and posters.

History : 1867 First issue of The American Naturalist published in March. It was organized by Alpheus S. Packard, Jr., Frederick W. Putnam, Edward S. Morse, and Alpheus Hyatt, who had been students of Louis Agassiz and assistants at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Packard had been an assistant surgeon in the Civil War (1st Maine Volunteers) and Hyatt had been a captain with the 47th Massachusetts Regiment. After the museum tried to prevent the assistants from working on their own research after hours, they went to the Essex Institute and Peabody Academy of Science in Salem, Mass., in February 1867. Putnam was a nephew of George Peabody, the donor. The masthead said, "A Popular Illustrated Magazine of Natural History." more http://www.amnat.org/ASN/abo.html#history
Past Officers : http://www.amnat.org/ASN/past-ec.html#pres
Online Table of Contents : http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/an/current?cookieSet=1

The Center for Inquiry http://www.centerforinquiry.net/
About : The Center for Inquiry is a daring new concept. Although modern world civilization is based upon the achievements of science and technology, until this time there has been no authoritative and credible voice defending the scientific outlook in examining religion, human values, and the borderlands of science. If the naturalistic outlook is to supplant the ancient mythological narratives of the past, it needs a new institution devoted to its articulation and dramatization to the public. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.
The purpose of the Center for Inquiry is to promote and defend reason, science, and freedom of inquiry in all areas of human endeavor. The Center for Inquiry is a transnational nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that encourages evidence-based inquiry into science, pseudoscience, medicine and health, religion, ethics, secularism, and society. The Center for Inquiry is not affiliated with, nor does it promote, any political party or political ideology.
Through education, research, publishing, and social services, it seeks to present affirmative alternatives based on scientific naturalism. The Center is also interested in providing rational ethical alternatives to the reigning paranormal and religious systems of belief, and in developing communities where like-minded individuals can meet and share experiences.

Mission : (In Part) [U]ntil the Center for Inquiry, there were no institutions dedicated primarily to promote and defend science, reason, and free inquiry in all aspects of human interest.
The purpose of the Center for Inquiry is to contribute to the public understanding and appreciation of science and reason, and their applications to human conduct. [ ]
There is, in the public mind, a vast confusion between genuine science and fringe or pseudoscience. Moreover, there is a large reservoir of antiscientific attitudes about the dangers of scientific research, and fear that scientists who tread in unknown domains are aping the work of Frankenstein. The widespread apprehension about cloning research is reminiscent of the fear of nuclear physicists expressed only a generation ago, that in investigating elementary particles they have opened a Pandora's Box which will destroy humankind. Many even insist that there are areas of human life that scientific inquiry cannot or should not enter. [ ]
What would it mean to extend the scientific spirit to our most basic and cherished convictions? It would be to embrace a thoroughly scientific outlook (an outlook referred to in the scholarly literature as scientific naturalism or philosophical naturalism). The naturalistic outlook is at once a method of inquiry, a cosmic world view, and a new form of ethical inquiry.

Projects : Introducing The Jesus Project R. Joseph Hoffmann, Ph.D.Chair, Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion http://www.jesus-project.com/intro.htm
(In Part) [ ] in January 2007, at the University of California, Davis, the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) asked the question that had been looking for a serious answer for over a hundred years: Did Jesus exist? [ ] The Jesus Project, as CSER has named the new effort, is the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence. But we are not neutral, let alone willfully ambiguous, about the objectives of the project itself. We believe in assessing the quality of the evidence available for looking at this question before seeing what the evidence has to tell us. We do not believe the task is to produce a “plausible” portrait of Jesus prior to considering the motives and goals of the Gospel writers in telling his story. http://www.jesus-project.com/intro.htm

The Center for Inquiry's 12th World Congress: Science, Public Policy, and the Planetary Community April 9-12, 2009 Speakers already confirmed include NASA climatologist Drew Shindell, Roger Bonnet from the International Space Science Institute, author and social critic Christopher Hitchens, acknowledged authority on evolutionary biology Michael Ruse, skeptical investigators James Randi and Joe Nickell, renowned psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, and many others.

Publications and Libraries : The flagship magazines for the educated public published at the Center for Inquiry are CSI's The Skeptical Inquirer and the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry (with a combined readership of nearly 100,000).
Additional magazines at CFI are read in the U.S. (The American Rationalist), United Kingdom (The Skeptic), the Spanish-speaking world (Pensar), PerĂº (New Skepticism, and The Journal of Applied Philosophy), and Russia (Common Sense).
The Center's ground-breaking peer-reviewed academic journals include The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and Philo. more
The Skeptics Library and the fast-growing Library of American Philosophical Naturalism is unique in the world, while the Library of Humanism and Freethought is the foremost such collection in the English-speaking world. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/publications_and_libraries/

The Atheism Tapes : As part of the making of the ground-breaking series “A Brief History of Disbelief,” Jonathan Miller filmed conversations with some very distinguished minds. Jonathan, of course, could not resist the temptation to make these conversations wide ranging and so – naturally enough – their final contributions to “A Brief History of Disbelief” are only a small part of the original interviews.
Now this six part series is an opportunity to see and hear the conversations at much greater length as Jonathan Miller goes head to head with Daniel Dennett, Denys Turner, Richard Dawkins, Colin McGinn, Arthur Miller and StevenWeinberg. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/store/
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)
Council for Secular Humanism (CSH)
The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER)
Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH)

Philo
Philo is published biannually at the Center for Inquiry with assistance from Purdue University. Its goal is to publish original, conceptually precise, and argumentatively rigorous articles in all fields of philosophy. Although not devoted to any specific branch of philosophy, Philo encourages the submission of work that examines philosophical issues from an explicitly naturalist perspective. It also welcomes work on the philosophical credentials of both naturalism and various supernaturalist alternatives to naturalism. This would include work ordinarily classified as philosophy of religion (theistic proofs, the problem of evil, and the like) as well as any other work that directly or indirectly defends or challenges naturalism. Philo is the publication of the Society of Humanist Philosophers.
(See Philo's impressive list of associated scholars and authors @) http://www.philoonline.org/index.html

The Center for Naturalism
The Center for Naturalism promotes science-based naturalism as a comprehensive worldview - a rational and fulfilling alternative to faith-based religions and other varieties of supernaturalism. The under-standing that we are fully natural beings is the foundation for an effective approach to personal and social concerns, and highlights our intimate connection to the awe-inspiring universe described by science. Through its educational activities and initiatives, the Center develops constructive applications of naturalism, supports progressive social policy, and in collaboration with other secular groups, helps to build a community of naturalists.

Statement On Naturalism : Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances.

Guiding Philosophy : http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/about.htm
Programs : http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/programs.htm

Naturalism.Org, a production of the Center for Naturalism, is a resource for those interested in scientific naturalism and its personal and social implications. For background and FAQs on this understanding of naturalism, please see http://www.naturalism.org/

Please send all comments to mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com
http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm (service mark) of the
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, is the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®