Mr. Dennett is an interesting figure because he does not argue that man is not by nature deterministic, but he certainly gives it new meaning, and his ideas appear alongside the names of others who may--or may not, there are so many of them--see the nature of man as more fatalistic (see below.) Some may even see us as less deterministic than Dennett; I couldn't begin to list the view of all the other people he appears beside if I had a year to do it. Which books, which lectures, which interviews did those others write or give in which their idea of man's determinism is defined?
The field of scientific naturalism leaves the door open to so many who "do not think alike on many action issues, and beyond the other principles [listed] below, it is not the movement’s desire to press for conformity." [emphasis added] The Brights
This lack of conformity is the reason that this Academy Blogger holds as a principle that free will and the soul exist, not as supernatural entities, but as a collection of Man's physiological actions which he then identifies as having a common "thread." This thread is a "unit" which is a "bridge between metaphysics and epistemology [and are] viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships." [emphasis in the original] Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; Ayn Rand
Thus, man is able to naturalistically use his conscious powers to identify common elements between certain relationships of emotion and intellect, relationships which theists attribute to the supernatural, but which a metaphysical naturalist identifies as merely part of the process of the life of a man. He groups together these things into a relationship which he gives the name "soul."
Scientific naturalists refuse to identify these relationships as having the name "soul" because it is so tied through history with the theist notion of supernaturalism. But that is the theist's mistake; the scientific naturalist's mistake is in not recognizing the correct title of the relationship while denying the origins given to it by theists.
Properly identifying those relationships as "internal experience," someone mockingly wrote: "Pity us poor rational dualists. We have internal experience and yet no beliefs about God or Afterlife. We have more to lose. What I wonder: Are you absolutist non-dualists pretending not to have experience in order to soften the terror of your own deaths?"
I wonder if it is precisely this "internal experience," this "consciousness [of] certain existing relationships," that most naturalists fear?
Perhaps the "absolutist non-dualist" ideas he was considering were these:
"More and more, biology and neuroscience show that the brain and body do everything that the soul was supposed to do."[1]
"If you don’t believe in anything supernatural – gods, ghosts, immaterial souls and spirits – then you subscribe to naturalism, the idea that nature is all there is."[2]
"...there’s no evidence for immaterial souls..."[3]
"This means to see ourselves as completely physical, embodied, caused creatures, linked to the world in each and every respect, without souls..."
And: " The death of God up there is now followed by death of the “little god” in here: the soul..."
And: "...in dropping the soul and free will we get rid of the fictional supernatural agency that blocks true explanations of phenomena. This gives us power."[4]
The last bullet quote in [4] demonstrates how getting rid of the word "soul" itself somehow gives scientific naturalists their "power" to explain everything by physiology. But notice that while the author of all those quotations refuses to admit to a "non-material" soul, he is referring to something about "internal experience," identified as metaphysical. Metaphysics by definition is not material, so the author is denying the soul as "internal experiences" to which we give the metaphysical name "soul," even while metaphysical naturalism keeps supernaturalism out of it. To say something is "metaphysical" is not to say it is supernatural.
The author of those quotes, Tom Clark, runs a pair of websites devoted to debunking the metaphysics of the soul and of free will. Daniel Dennett's name appears on Clark's sites, alongside those many other names who may or may not agree with either Clark or Dennett, who here appear to be disagreeing each with the other.
Last week, I wrote, "...because the brain is specifically an animal organ, a determinist would think that his thoughts are actions caused by specific psychical or physical conditions." This is what Clark would have us believe.
And, in fact, this view is true, if you do not figure fatalism into the mix. "Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Clark would have us believe in this powerlessness. The argument runs that if you could go back in time and all other things remained the same, would a man have the free (libertarian) will to do differently than he did the first time? To answer no is fatalism, because it denies the ability to do something other than what one did do. To say "given that all other things remain the same," is to say "of course he could do nothing differently; nothing has changed." That is a not a fair test of free will, to change nothing, yet expect that free will would do something different anyway. Change one thing, then ask if free will would act differently, or if it would choose the same.
The difference between the determinism of scientific naturalism and the non-determinism of metaphysical naturalism is in this case metaphysics. The determinist has us believing that the brain is nothing but "conditioning," nothing but physiological actions of the "sensory cortex [ ] activated [ ] using corticocortical and corticothalamic fibers." Bernard J. Baars and Katherine McGovern
Such determinists do not deny that we have choices. In an interview in Reason magazine online, Daniel Dennett, appearing to contradict much of what his fellow authors say, said this:
"Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you're caused to know, and so forth -- but still, what you do matters. There's a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out."
Thank goodness someone sees the metaphysical relationships that determine the existence of "me, myself, and I." The way scientific naturalism is headed, someone, someday, is going to declare that those entities are also supernatural, and therefore do not exist.
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:
"This is a straw man argument. Its ostensive purpose is to say that because we live in a world we did not create, and among forces we cannot control, and being influenced by our genes, our nurturing, memes*, people stepping on our toes, the rain falling from the sky and other forces which are the result of living in existence, we have no free will. We are forced to always apply our will toward dealing with existence, over which we have no control. If we had such control, that would constitute free will. Hence, we have no contra-causal, i.e., free, will."
It is interesting that at the same time, sitting in my email box, was a fund-raising letter from The Center for Naturalism (CFN). I subscribe to their infrequent mailings to keep up with their activities. In the letter was this statement:
"Although naturalistic in outlook, none of the worthy humanist, skeptic, or atheist organizations I know of are articulating the full implications of seeing ourselves as completely natural beings. Many secularists still harbor quasi-supernatural beliefs about human nature, even if they've long since abandoned belief in supernatural gods."
I admit this is not a widely-read blog, although the director of the CFN and probably a few of its famous, listed supporters, and a few of its famous critics, do read The Academy Blogger. I know that some of its critics read the Blogger, because I have received email from them. I'm going to have to promote this blog in order to make it "worthy", so the CFN can say that at least one widely read and influential organizations is worthy. This is not the desire to be worthy in the minds of the CFN, but rather to be worthy enough to help counteract the influence of the CFN.
However, the CFN will never admit the Blogger is worthy even if became as influential as the CFN--precisely because the Academy does not "articulate the full implications" as the CFN sees them. The Academy Blogger is distinctly opposed to much of what the CFN publishes and believes.
Why? The scientific naturalism (SN) of the CFN does not admit the metaphysical importance of the finite human soul. The CFN claims the human soul does not even exist, that it is merely the neurological events of the human being as perceived by its consciousness. This is strictly in keeping with the tenets of SN, which is never to admit that the existence of the world around us with all its parts are the only things upon which our will can be exercised.
SN tries to make the argument that our will is not contra-causal, or libertarian as SN sometimes calls it, because it cannot change the influences upon which our will is exercised. These influences are the very things the CFN says "fully causes us", in its strange use of the language, to be who we are. "We are fully caused creatures," it repeats over and over, as if to drum into the readers' minds that we cannot "cause" ourselves because we cannot "cause" the influences upon which our lives are made.
If you go to the CFN's list of "Allies of Naturalism http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/allies_of_naturalism.htm you will not find one author I am aware of who supports human free will while at the same time admitting that of course it is not contra-causal and libertarian if they are going to make such a silly straw man argument out of it.
Free will is, however, libertarian in the sense that psychologically uncoerced thinking in an otherwise biologically sound mind is free to be whatever it wishes to be or to become, including senselessly drug or alcohol affected, and that it has the power to think or not to think.
And that is the point that scientific naturalism does not wish you to understand. Their language is that of obfuscation, and contains the "soft", non-concretized idealism of the New Age. That is to say, as long as their words walk softly and talks the soft-language of diversion--away from enabling individualism, and toward mystic "memecry"* --they can get away telling you the mesmerizing phrase that humans are fully caused by things out of their control.
[*"memecry": a play on "mimicry", connoting that "memes" are the causative force of learned human behavior, a cause from which we cannot escape and which thereby acts as one of the elements of our full causation and denying metaphysical individualism. SN states specifically that memes are such a causative agent, and SN's adherents use memes to as one more argument to deny free will; but metaphysical naturalism accepts them--if they exist--as simply another element of existence itself, without which we would and could be nothing at all--so they are no different than the rain or a hurricane or a family event or anything else in the existence of an individual person. Memes, therefore, do not connote lack of free will.]
Men, says SN, cannot change what is. While that is absolutely true, they use it as an excuse to say that since men are fully caused, they cannot take total blame for their actions or be held totally accountable for them, nor can they take total glory for their accomplishments.
This doctrine is epistemologically flawed, metaphysically creating impotence in men, and is psychologically abusive. Yet it is gaining ground in intellectual circles, including, I believe, the circles containing such people as Al Gore, Barak Obama, and others who's influence will rise with the policies of the Obama Presidency, just as the Silent Majority rose with President Reagan.
Why are People Driven to Ask Atheists About Revelations?
After taking three holi-days of breaks from blogging, (I don't blog on Sunday,) and working exclusively on my brickfront retail operation Meta Candles and Gifts*, I would like to say that I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving weekend. Even the smallest turkey was too large for the two people in my home; I'm going to freeze one of the breasts, but we managed without too much difficulty to finish off the pumpkin pie! I know at Christmas I will be forced to eat what ever pie we decide on, and freeze half the Honeybaked Ham.
[*Click on one of the pretty images if you want to order online America's best-made candles or fabulous gift baskets! Hint: Join the Candle of the Month for a near-50% discount! Or contact me through that online site if you have questions about the products and services. Blatant capitalistic promotion is naturalistic, don't you think?]
I hada casual, workplace conversation with the owner of the brickfront, who deals in rare, unusual and expensive antiques. He is religious, and has talked about his work in the church as organist; he keeps a piano (for sale) in the antiques store and sometimes sits down to play it. But until yesterday he never brought up the subject of religion in any way that required an answer or reaction from me, except to listen.
Yesterday he asked if I "believed." I told him I did not. What came next is not unusual in such a situation; it has happened to me many times, so many over the course of four decades of discussing it that I try never to discuss it, because what I hear, and what I am forced to repeat, is simply too pedestrian, and lame at that, to allow myself to be forced into discussing my beliefs--because no one ever lets it go at what I answer.
I cannot recall one incident in all those many years when someone simply said, "Wow. I never would have guessed!" or "Each to his own," or anything that resembled the conversational equivalent of "I have no intention of impressing on you what I think is wrong in your way of thinking." That would be a blessing to hear.
Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants to show what he/she thinks is the error of my logic. Or it goes the direction it went yesterday, when the antiques dealer brought up the subject we can call, "What if you're wrong?"
The "what if you're wrong" debate takes two forms. The first is about the idea that when we die we discover we were wrong, by discovering ourselves in the "afterworld." What will we do, then? we are asked.
The second form of the debate takes the position of, "What if something happens while you're fully alive to change your mind?" The implication here is that if we atheists were faced with some sort of revelation, either a revealedrevelation, or one of observation and logic resulting in a possible change of mind, would I be able and/or willing to change my mind? see Horvath and Revelationand On Revelations; Thomas Paine
Why do people need to know this? Why are they driven to inquire? Are they convinced we may say we would be "forced by the circumstances" to believe? Are they convinced, perhaps, that some argument on their part could makes us see the "error" of having a "closed mind"? Are they looking for an opportunity to make the case that "no one can be certain that no god exists"?
It seems my friend was of the mind that he could get me to admit that I could not be certain. I've been drawn in to this argument before, and I knew that it was he who did not have the "open" mind to listen objectively to me, and to objectively ask about my logic. People like him, who are otherwise fine as friends, would rather impress upon us the logic they believe will show we are the ones with "closed" minds.
And by the way, this is behavior in which I never engage, that is, trying to convince someone who doesn't want to listen to the logic of naturalism. It is improper etiquette--and rude.
I did not take the bait. I merely got up from my chair, walked to my computer, pulled up the Academy's "Strong" Position on Naturalism--which I then read to him. I thought that if I presented my argument in its written form, rather than trying to speak from the mind and heart--a situation where I knew he would not be able to resist interrupting me, repeatedly, to argue this point or that--that he would understand I had given the subject considerable scrutiny to publish it in a blog that is readable world-wide.
Instead of being objective, or at the least considerate of my well-thought out argument, his reaction surprised me.
"Do all those big words impress you?" he asked? Believe me when I tell you there was no sarcasm ringing in his words. He wasn't trying to be rude either, though of course it was one of the rudest things he could have thought to ask.
No, he wanted an objective answer: Was I impressed by the words?
I said no, of course not. I said I understood each and every word, that to me each of the words were not "big" words; they were the properly definitive words for the concept expressed by the word in that context. "Do not use two words when one will do," said Thomas Jefferson, though I must admit you must also take into account who will be doing the reading, and choose your words carefully for the purpose.
He was not someone who understood the words of the Academy's Position.
He told me about his cousin, his best friend, who for one of his university degrees was forced to read some difficult books with similarly "big," difficult-to-understand words, and how his cousin had read some of it out loud to him and tried to impress on him the meaning of what he was being forced to read. He had no more understood what his cousin was explaining than what I was explaining.
My friend had successfully changed the subject from my concrete, written logic (and his beliefs, for that matter,) to something else entirely: how he was not impressed by big words that meant nothing to him.
What it came down to for my friend was that he was not prepared to overcome my concrete logic with his faith. Faith, in the end, has no words, and that is the meaning of faith: that it is a matter of faulty epistemology that results in a metaphysical world-view that the supernatural must exist.
When confronted by logic that declares all things to be natural and that nothing is supernatural, this faulty epistemology is frustrated. It cannot make the leap from faith-based beliefs to objective, i.e., non-faith-based, arguments. It must stick to what it knows and that is implicit, unconscious knowlege that if a believer enters into the area of objective language, he will be forced to admit that his belief is not objective. That must be a very difficult thing to be forced to accept.
And attempting to accept, to argue, the position that naturalism and not supernaturalism is the "default position," [see The Big Question of Existence] of objective discurse, it may open a door to the other side of faith that he is not prepared to face. That door is precisely the fact that supernaturalism was the skeptical position for two thousand years, until the faulty Platonic epistemology of St. Augustine reversed the logic, making naturalism the skeptical position against supernaturalism.
But what, the frustrated believer would ask by taking Augustine's position, about the door that opens to faith, the door he would say we naturalists are keeping closed?
The answer is that Reason permanently closes that door, and the only way it can be opened is if Reason fails--if a person of Reason has what is defined as a "revelation" and his Reason cannot overcome the neuropathological or psychological causes.
The epistemology, the logic, of naturalism challenges the seemingly-convincing appeal of the cosmological, mechanical, and moral arguments for the existence of existence itself, and holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government. If someone who maintains this logic suddenly has a neuropathological or a psychological experience that causes him to abandon Reason for faith, or at the very least question his Reason in an episode of skeptical vulnerablility to faith, then he as abandonded what makes Man sui generis from all other creatures, and that is the faculty of Reason.
Faith is understandable. Our animal brains are succeptible to latching on to any argument that seems reasonable. When Man gained enough brain neuropathy to be able to add philosophy to his mental tools, it quickly became apparent--within a few hundreds of years--through the Atomists and others, that the universe was natural and that it had natural laws.
Natural laws do not admit of the existence of things which are not natural; it would be contradictory, and supernaturalism is by definition not natural. Supernaturalism is what man clung to before he discovered the discipline and science of philosophy.
There is no longer any Reason to continue thinking, as I'm certain many of our other animal relatives do, that a clap of thunder and a bolt of lightening, or the shaking of the earth, is anything beyond our understanding.
But the religiously faithful still ask "what if we naturalists are wrong, what if the supernatural exists and what if we find reason to regret our earthly logic when we die and meet our maker"?
If God exists, He will not ask us to regret using the Reason He blessed Mankind with; but He will pity the fool who believed that faith and the abandonment of Reason was what He blessed them with.
He would say that the pre-philosophical belief in the supernatural is not the default position, and therefore supernaturalism is contradictory to naturalism.
Of course, that being so, He would never exist in the first place, to tell us such a thing.
What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part Five: Summary
The caveats to the Academy's Strong Definition of Naturalismneeded inclusion because the main body of the Definition was not precise enough. It was not precise enough to stand alone for reasons that will be made clear below, and which were made clear in Part One.
To include the caveats within the body of the definition, however, will take some extraordinary thought, and some very precise writing, if the caveats are to be incorporated without altering the definition's meaning. One wrong word, one misplaced comma, and the result would be the spectacle of a misunderstanding.
("A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It took 221 years for that nightmarish sentence to be untangled by the Supreme Court. Why did Jefferson put a comma after "Arms"? What change did it make?
But the comma that caused all the problems was the first one. Did Jefferson mean to say that the right to keep and bear arms hinged on the need for a well-regulated militia, as the sentence seems to indicate? No one wanted to believe that, but a strict reading would make it necessary.
(However, a reading of Original Intent, whereby the Justices read the historical documents of the day, the minutes of the Constitutional Assembly, and other related and pertinent documents, led them to understand that the Framers did not mean to imply arms were a right only on the condition that a militia was kept, and kept well-regulated. Yet, that little comma had left the question in the air for 221 years.)
I will for that reason leave the Academy's Definition as-is, for now, except for possible amendings. This does not mean that the Academy's Definition is anymore correct or unimpeachable than the Second Amendment, now that that has been ruled on by the Court. After all, I have amended it twice already after adding the caveats, and I did not add the caveats until after some of its mistakes and shortcomings were pointed out to me by critics.
The caveats are--
that: this [definition] neither explicitly nor implicitly excludes the existence of the human soul, nor of free will,
when: soul is a "veridical perception" of consciousness;" and:
'free will' is the mind’s freedom "to think or not;" (Ayn Rand) and
that: "consciousness" is "the faculty of awareness—the faculty of [veridically] perceiving that which exists;" (AR) and
that: "that which exists" is "an 'existent' be it a thing, an attribute or an action;" (AR) and further
that: an existent is of veridical* perception and memory of empirical or abstract content, and is not fictitious, revealed revelation, hallucination, mirrage, etc.;
where: *veridical perception is a direct relation of awareness between a conscious subject and an object of empirical or abstract content that is not . (CEC) (Dict. of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism; unpublished)
What a mouthful. Their are more kinds of "naturalism" than the two discussed in this series: metaphysical, and scientific. The "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" says in its first sentence on the subject "Naturalism": "The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy."
It goes on a few paragraphs later: "So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit’." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Soul, Spirit, and God
The problem with truths about the human spirit is that scientific and ontological naturalism often equate that spirit with soul, refusing to split hairs and say that one is one thing and the other is another thing. "On a scientific understanding of ourselves, there’s no evidence for immaterial souls [or] spirits..." says one website.
Certainly the soul is made of the elements of the physiology of life, and is therefor made of "material." But if spirit is not immaterial as a metaphysical existent, then one cannot say that he or she has the spirit of an individualist, or a pianist, or a great quarterback.
Immaterial does not mean transcendental. It means that metaphysically the soul or spirit is a concept that extends beyond the idea of the scientifically measurable; that while certain areas of the brain may "light up" when triggered, they do not indicate nothing more than chemical and electrical activity. Meta physical means "conceptually beyond the physical"; it does not mean ignoring the physical, nor does it mean irrationally conceptualizing it as supernatural and transcendental of the life that gives it physiological substance.
Metaphysical as "conceptually beyond the physical" means placing a value upon that which is being measured, a value that is specific to the life form in which the measured effect resides, and it means placing that value in a hierarchy. At the top of hierarchy must be "life." Without it, Man is nothing, non-existent. Metaphysically, "life" presupposes existence. Placing "life" somewhere other than at the top does not mean one does not presuppose existence with what he/she places at the top; it does mean that he/she values something believed--rightly or wrongly--to be an existent more than one values life.
But scientific naturalism would state that since we will probably discover what it is that causes life in the first place, all life and all its attributes become measurable; and as something measurable is nothing more than "natural", where "natural" excludes what is commonly called "supernatural." (A theologian could make the case that if God exists he would be "natural." Short of doing so, God has always been the "supernatural" and this designation has been in the attempt to raise God above the creations he is said to have authored. If God existed, he would certainly be "natural." But calling him "supernatural" is to metaphysically exalt him, not to seperate him from existence itself.)
Physiological Biochemistry and Metaphysics
A man wrote to the The National Post (of Canada), saying, "If all thought and behaviour are indeed only the result of the biochemistry of the brain, then free will cannot exist, and all we have left is pure determinism.
Unfortunately, the writer, in arguing against ontological naturalism, said that if all thought and behaviour is purely the result of neurochemical synapses in the brain, then there is no mind or soul independent of the brain.
It is unfortunate because the writer makes the mistake of asserting first that thought and behavior cannot be merely biochemistry of the brain; but then asserts that they must be independent of the neurchemistry that houses them.
If they are independent of the brain in which they reside, and independent of the biochemistry, then they are transcendental. In denying such transcendentalism, naturalism needs neither to assert the soul and free will as "merely biochemistry of the brain," nor as deterministic veridical perceptions.
Rational discourse will lead to the conclusion that the values one chooses in life, such as whether to love one's spouse or to be a cheater; to love one's children or to walk away before one ever knows them; to hold to a standard of high ethics in everything one does--can alter the neurology of the brain and overall the biochemistry of the body. It is, after all, within the physical human body that one feels one's soul and one's emotions. Different humans have differing emotions about the same subjects and objects because of their metaphysical value systems. It is why one Muslim writer was able to discuss "sharia banks" in the world banking system, and then sign himself "Prisoner Of Joy." More from Act! for America
The American metaphysics of individual freedom sends shudders of horror down the backs of Westerners over the prospect of sharia law. It is specifically the metaphysical values one holds that alters neuro and bio chemistry, thus disproving determinism. But naturalism does not need to assert determinism, yet much of it does, to its own harm.
Naturalistic science would show, if it took the time to do so, that people who have a low priority in ethics and metaphysics, or a non-chalant attitude toward intellectual honesty, or who embrace tyranny such as sharia and jihad, would have a far different brain-map than their opposing counterparts. Mohammed Atta, for example, would have a very different brain map than Brigitte Gabriel. Thoughts and images that mapped as "joy" or "excitement" in Atta's brain would map as "horror" in Gabriel's.
In other words, free will when used to gain or to keep things of objective value will affect the brain's biochemistry, as will being a profligate liar or a willfull thief or an uncaring parent--or a terrorist.
The mind, the soul, free will, and the conscience are independent of the determinate forces of fate, because such tests as brain mapping would corroborate that one group demonstrates one kind of brain biochemistry insofar as what values "light it up," and the other group's "lights" would look vastly different.
What we are is determined by what we want to be. We are not "fully caused" (determined) by memes, genes, environment, and other phenomena. We are the phenomena, obeying only the laws of the nature of reason in our willful actions, and we are self-made and we are responsible, not "fully caused" and determined by forces beyond our control. It is what we do about those forces that are beyond our control that are determined by our willful choice of metaphysical values.
Various Forms of Naturalism and Intelligent Design
Wikipedia says that methodological naturalism is the same as scientific naturalism, referring to the assumption that explanations of observable effects are practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes rather than indeterminate miracles.
Wiki says metaphysical naturalism is the same as ontological naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that empirical, material existence is is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists. Natural philosophy welcomes, says Wiki, supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports theistic science.
Richard C. Carrierof the Internet Infidels identifies "Epistemological Naturalism, Ethical Naturalism, Aesthetic Naturalism, and Political Naturalism. Metaphysical Naturalism in principle encompasses all of these," he says, and he is correct, because, as he goes on to say, "all other aspects of the world derive ultimately therefrom."
But he says that epistemological naturalism is more commonly known as methodological naturalism.So, Carrier puts a different view on methodologicalism than Wiki. Carrier's associate, Bill Schultz, combines metaphysical naturalism with Intelligent Design!
"The essence of my assertions herein is that 'intelligent design' can occur without violating the bedrock principles of 'metaphysical naturalism.' In other words, you can have our universe be the product of 'intelligent design' and yet never require any supernatural phenomena to effect the "intelligent design" of our universe," writes Shultz. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html
Shultz is confusing "subject" and "object," by referring to the idea that one can objectify the design he/she sees in the mechanical operations of the universe; but this is not objective design; it is subjective design. The universe is of veridical perception and is therefor cognoscenti. Whatever "intelligence" one may see in the design of the universe is entirely within the intelligence of the observer, and Shultz confuses the issue of ID by attempting to combine it with naturalism.
Greg Frost-Arnold, who writes the blog "Obscure and Confused Ideas ", wrote this: "In the context of the debate over Intelligent Design, the anti-evolutionists often say 'Darwinism is a religious belief (perhaps atheism in disguise).' Many pro-evolutionists respond by drawing a distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, where only the second is anything close to a religious belief. Here's a rough characterization: (Methodological Naturalism) Scientific explanations cannot appeal to supernatural causes. (Metaphysical Naturalism) There are no supernatural causes." [italics added] http://obscureandconfused.blogspot.com/2007/02/methodological-naturalism-without.html
It is a never ending circle of one camp having one belief that is different from another camp. As I wrote in Part One, "not even the naturalists themselves all agree, using different terminology for exactly similar philosophical positions; or using precisely similar terminology for differences that may be subtle, or may be extremely and fundamentally different." What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part One
Determinism, or fate according to circumstances about which one has no control, seems to be the common element in all but religious naturalism, also called "natural theology," or "natural revelation."
"Simply put, ‘natural’ revelation, or ‘natural theology,’ is what one can learn about God running exclusively on your own steam without any assistance from God. Aristotle’s Prime Mover arguments and Aquinas’s ‘Five Ways’ are such efforts. Intelligent Design, when the inference is made that God is the Designer, is ‘natural’ theology at work." Anthony Horvath http://sntjohnny.com/front/natural-versus-revealed-religion-how-atheists-drop-the-ball/349.html
The metaphysical naturalism of the Academy of MN affirms the validity of the soul as not only a veridical perception, but as an emotional element of the identity of the person whose neuro and bio chemistry give life to his/her soul; for without the empirical naturalism of those elements of our existence, the soul could not exist. It needs the body as the body needs blood.
Free will is the freedom to think or not, to choose A instead of B, C, or D. It means the ability to create B, C, or D where they did not exist before. It explains why some Muslims, to use a current example, choose to conduct what their victims call terrorism, and why some denounce terrorism, and why some Muslim nations follow Sharia and why some do not. Free will in politics explains why the U.K. is recognizing Sharia Law within its own borders while the U.S. will not.
Metaphysical naturalism does not have to be reductive and deterministic. It can be rational and promoting of individualism, individual sovereignty, egoism, free will, and a non-material yet veridical soul that is the direct representation of the human it inhabits from birth until death.
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:
Given the divided nature of the many categories of "Naturalism," which include "strong" to "weak" definitions, it is necessary to state the position of this Academy as "strong."
This is the fourth part of a series in trying to understand the nature of metaphysical naturalism. In Part One it was noted that "not even the naturalists themselves all agree, using different terminology for exactly similar philosophical positions; or using precisely similar terminology for differences that may be subtle, or may be extremely and fundamentally different." What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part One
"Metaphysical" naturalism is called "ontological" naturalism in some quarters, and those who use the word "ontological" may make some clear distinction between the use of the two words. In the unofficially described "mission" of this blog immediately below the blog title I deliberately use the sentence, "Seeking ontological rationality in every aspect of conscious existence." So this Academy accepts them as identical.
In What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part Two, ontology was described from Wikipedia as "a branch of metaphysics that studies being, and so this is the view that the supernatural does not exist..." Yet, "scientific" naturalism takes this same view, and those naturalists who use the word scientific also vary in their overall differences with other's who use the word. It may be a small, minor difference; it may be a fundamental difference.
The Academy does not use the word scientific because other, better known naturalists who have fundamental differences with the Academy's definition call themselves scientific. One case in point is the website full of famous names who are asociates or contributors to the site, famous people who go along with the idea that, "...the epistemic theme of the [scientific reductivism, i.e., that scientific naturalism] is to 'drop the soul and free will [in order to be] rid of the fictional supernatural agency that blocks true explanations of phenomena.'" [italics added] What is Metaphysical Naturalism? Part One continued
The Academy is not reductivist, which bring us to the first caveat of its strong [1] definition of naturalism. The caveats are used because I did not wish to disturb the original definition of naturalism accepted by the Academy, written by B.A.G. Fuller. It is true that I did amend Fuller's definition to the degree that I removed what was scientific in it, and replaced it with what is only ontological and acceptable without making it necessary to "drop the soul and free will."
Perhaps one day I shall be able to incorporate the caveats into Fuller's definition, but I will not do so until I can do it without making it incomprehensible. The caveats allow the Academy's distinct differences to be set apart, rather than lost in their incorporation. Fuller's definition is difficult enough for the beginner.
The libertarian, philosopher, lecturer, professor and contributor to the Cato Institute Tibor Machan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_R._Machan, wrote to me asking what Fuller meant by the word "tychistic." Machan said he had looked it up in every source he could think of and could not find the definition. Adding that definition was one of the amendments I made.
Machan also said he disagreed with Fuller's use of the word "deterministic" to describe the affairs of men. I agree with him, but Fuller was talking about the universe, not about men. Men are sui generis and while they must follow the laws of nature that govern material objects such as our bodies are, man's mind has its own laws of nature, those of the nature of life. Man is a creature of volition and of reason; together, these allow our species many exceptions to those laws which rule strictly empirical entities that have no volition, and those creatures with volition but without reason.
That is the reason I have today once again amended the Academy's Description, to include the clause "except in the affairs of mind."
Amended 11.16.08
"Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological,i mechanical,ii and moral argumentsiii, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is neither mechanistic nor anthropocentric, but purposeless, deterministic (except for possible tychistic* events, and) except in the affairs of mind; and is only accidentally productive of man; that human life as physical, mental, moral and spiritual phenomena, are ordinary natural events attributable in all respects to the ordinary operations of the laws of nature; and that man'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)
*(Tychism: any theory which regards chance as an objective reality, operative in the cosmos; [ibid])
First Caveat:
--AND that
this description neither explicitly nor implicitly exlcudes the existence of the human soul, nor of free will, when:"'soul' is a "veridical perception"** of consciousness;" and "free will is the mind’s freedom to think or not;" (Ayn Rand)
With this, we must consider that the better known advocates of scientific naturalism say the "soul" and "free will" are illusions; not that they are not real as either concepts most people accept and act upon, nor as physiological forces that can be ostensibly identified with medical monitoring equipement. What scientific naturalism makes clear is that free will is not "free of the forces of environment, genes, memes, and other influences beyond the control of human to avoid having to deal with."
Epistemologically they are correct. Metaphysically they are wrong. Where they are correct is that all life exists in an environment, not in a vacuum. Within that environment forces exist which cause life to make choices where it can, or to make simple adaptations where it can. No one is denying that if you are driving down the highway and a deer jumps in front of you that you must a quick decision based on the total environment, such as the proximity of other cars, the proximity of the railing on the outside of the highway or of the concrete divider in the middle, whether or not you have passengers to think of, etc, and that all these considerations leave you no choice but to act.
However, scientism in naturalism declares that because you have no choice but to made a decision, your will is not free, when in truth it is free; it is free to hit the deer or not; to hit another car or not; to risk the lives of your passengers and hope they fare better than the deer--or not to risk their lives; to hit the deer--or not.
As Ayn Rand said, free will is the freedom "to think or not." Life does not live in a vacuum. Only in a total conceptual vacuum would life be free of memes, genes, environments, and other life and considerations that impose the absolute need to act when one would care not to act at all.
Scientific naturalism is wrong in declaring that this denies man the right to claim his will is "free." You are always free to answer the phone, or not; to scold your child for wrong doing, or not; to risk the lives of other passengers on the road by swerving to miss the deer and then lying afterward to say it was all you could think to do other than to hit the deer and damage your car. You always have the freedom to do the opposite, or to do something alternative which may be to do nothing at all. An angry man whose wife just asked him for a divorce may care nothing about the life of the deer, hit it, and continue driving; he might even laugh and think such irrational things as "God isn't going to slow me down by putting a frigging deer in my path. I'll show him."
It is a metaphysical difference between the Academy and scientific naturalism. "From a naturalistic perspective," states one scientific wesite, "there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn." [italics added] http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
The metaphysics of that website are those of determinists, believing in the doctrine that every fact in the universe is guided entirely by law, the law of the impenetrability, translation and impact of matter, allowing only for mechanical causation.
The Academy holds that man is not deterministic, is not therefor mechanical, meaning he is able to make choices even if the need is for choices he would rather not make. If a billiard ball strikes another ball at a certain speed and angle and with a certain amount of backward or forward spin or with no spin at all, each of those scenarios is mechanical and is predictable. But striking ball has no choices; the struck ball has no choices. But scientific naturalists wish to put man in this same basket of eggs.
"By understanding ourselves as fully caused, and by seeing just how we are caused (by our genetic endowment, upbringing, and social environments), we dramatically enhance our powers of prediction and control, [over ourselves,] reduc[ing] unwarranted self-righteousness, moral superiority, pride, shame, and guilt. People don't create themselves, so responsibility for their character and behavior isn't ultimately theirs, but is distributed over the many factors that created them. And after all, were we given their environmental and genetic conditions, we would have become what they are, and acted just as they did: there but for circumstances go I." [italics added]
Determinism means the doctrine that all the facts in the physical universe, and hence also in human history, are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. In psychology, it means the doctrine that the will is not free but is determined by psychical or physical conditions. Determinism is synonomous with fatalism, necessitarianism, destiny. [Dictionary of Phil; Runes] "There but for the circumstances go I."
I know a woman who became a nurse, worked at a hospital long enough to gain her early retirement, then left for another job in the pharmacutical industry, where again she worked long enough to gain early retirement, and now is earning her Doctorate in Nursing. She has had her share of life-changing moments. Her husband has an incurable, debilitating disease which eventuall kills everyone who has it. Don't tell me people don't make themselves.
I took up a relationship with someone who had an infant and a toddler. I didn't have to do this. I could have chosen otherwise. I now have the infant and the toddler as two sons in their thirties, and I am very proud to have done the things that helped make them the men they are today. I didn't have to do everything I did. I did less than some parents do; much more than other parents would have done. I made myself into a proud father. Don't tell me I didn't create myself into that role.
My father was raised in a family with a background that might have caused others to lose hope in becoming better. There was depression, alcoholism, spousal abuse, horribly angry family arguments that included my mother, yet my father lifted himself out of that, built a home and raised three children very comfortably; managed his money well enough to be more than comfortable in retirement; and became known by many people around the world who shared his hobby of antique cars, which included his writing of the manual for judging certain model years at public showings where trophies and ribbons are awarded.
He married a woman with a severe medical condition that many in her generation experienced. But in my experience growing up with her, I don't remember seeing anyone as bad off as her who was not in a wheelchair. This did not hold her back from accompanying my father in his travels around the country with his cars, nor from giving her children all the attention, care and love they needed. Her condition could have held the entire family back as she had several major corrective surgeries while I was growing up. But I don't remember missing out on anything that I ever wanted, or ever wanted to do.
Don't tell me my parents did not "make themselves." Absolutely they had all the genetic, familial, memetic, medical and environmental situations to deal with that scientism says causes us to be "fully caused" in our beings, and which prevent us from being "the ultimate originators of ourselves or our behavior, [and whereby] we can’t take ultimate credit or blame for what we do."
But Free Will is Not All; There's the Soul
Don't forget, free will is not the only concern of the first caveat. The other concern is the soul when soul is a "veridical perception" of consciousness;" and where veridical perception is "a direct relation of awareness between a conscious subject and an object of empirical or abstract content."
This means that the soul, being either of empirical or abstract content, is simply an object of cognition. It is the meaning of that "direct relation of awareness" where the ideas of scientism differ from those of metaphysical naturalism. And this difference is metaphysical. They do not deny the relationship of your consciousness to your soul; they deny that the soul is anything more than physiological reactions that are measurable and which have nothing to do with our deepest emotional resources.
Both scientific and metaphysical naturalism deny that the soul is transcendental, from the supernatural god-realm, into the empirical world where it resides in our physical beings, and then back into the supernatural realm of the afterlife.
But scientism, regarding the soul as supernatural because people take it be of supernatural origin, makes no sense.
It is a cognoscentum, meaning it has validity as something of which we are conscious, and that as a veridical perception of consciousness it is something perceived which exists--as the next caveat states:
AND that
"consciousness" is "the faculty of awareness—the faculty of [veridically] perceiving that which exists;"(Ayn Rand)
AND that
"that which exists" is "an 'existent' be it a thing, an attribute or an action;" (AR)
AND FURTHER
that "an existent" is "veridical perception and memory, or abstract and ideal e.g. in conception and valuation;" (ibid Runes)
Naturalism, by its epistemology, presumes that humans have made a mistake by defining supernaturalism as that which has existence in the god-realm; that it is misidentified as belonging to a realm that is not of human, organic origins; and further, that accepting this misidentification is the negation of reason where reason is the opposite of the faith associated with the belief in the god-realm.
But scientism goes much further, turning it into a mechanical element of our existence. The website I have been quoting specifically states that they are not making it mechanical, that to the contrary, "the physical universe has produced, in us, marvelously complex and adaptive organisms, with the capacity for self-reflection, wonder, suffering, and joy. Far from mechanizing humanity, naturalism re-enchants the physical world by showing how consciousness and choice don’t involve supernatural processes."
Well, that's nice, but they can't have their cake and eat it, too. Either our "adaptiveness" gives us freedom of choice or it doesn't; either we have free will, or we don't. If we don't, we are not adaptive. If we don't have free will, nor the soul to be the mirror and the conscience of our consciousness existence, then it is true what the scientific naturalists say:
"Instead of supposing people can simply will themselves to be otherwise, we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do; [and so] we see that there but for circumstances go I, the homeless person in front of us, the convict, or the addict, had we been given their genetic and environmental lot in life."
Accepting scientific naturalism means giving up the "freedom to think or not," because genes, memes, and environment, etc, cause us to be "fully caused," and "fully caused" allows for no free will.
[1] and just as necessary to add the caveats at the end in order to distinguish this Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism from other metaphysical schools and schools of naturalism. But I would add that the terms "strong" and "weak" are unnecessarily vague, and that the categorical names are better, names such as metaphysical; teleonatural; ontological; Christian; humanist; deterministic; non-deterministic; reductive; non-reductive; etc. However, as I have demonstrated, these categories are no more apt to be difinitive than are the words "strong" and "weak."
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:
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 NaturalismAcademy'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 creatingdefinitions, 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 CategorizationForthis 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:
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
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:
Happy Hiram is a Yahoo Answers user I frequently ran into when I was using that forum. He sent me this piece and asked if I would like to publish it. It presented the logic of belief effectively enough that I thought it would add to the discussion. It is still my own personal epistemic position that "belief" as "faith" is the abdication of Reason. But Happy makes a good point here:
Would the world be a better place if children were never taught to believe in Santa Claus? I don’t think so. Would the world be a better place if adults believed in Santa Claus? I don’t think so. This puts me fairly in agreement with general opinion about an important question: Can believing in a fable provide a positive experience for an adult? What about belief in the fabled existence of God?
People of religious faith will now jump on me saying, “How dare you call God a fable?” Non-believers will criticize me for using the upper case G and reinforcing the myth. Well whether there is a God or not, he or she is not walking down Main St. Nor can I credibly attribute any action to God that would be believable to everyone. At best, objectively, his actions are mere allegations, (as in an Act of God, in law.) Based on the good and bad things that have been attributed to him, I suspect that all the witnesses are either biased or hostile, and all the evidence thus is tainted. For the sake of this article, lets assume God is a myth. Now I would like to examine the idea of God as a tool in human endeavors. What I am interested in is not does God exist, but what use is he? MORE
One way to answer the question of who to vote for, says the "philosopher" author, "is to take the approach espoused by a conservative friend of mine [who] typically says something like “why should I vote for someone who isn’t going to do what is in my best interest?"
The author then goes on to explain what things may be described as in one's "best interest." What he never gets to is that the "best interest" of any American is to stick to the Original Intent of the Constitution, throw the bums out, and elect someone who thinks in terms of 18 Century politics.
Instead, the author discusses personal best interests, as though the political table was filled with anything you might want to ask for, as if from a dessert menu, and without regard for whether or not it ought to even be on the "menu." MORE
Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the the largest radical group in America.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), is at least as radical MoveOn.org or Code Pink, arguably more so. Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama. MORE
