Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

Most naturalists see reality as an orderly and knowable place. Orderly in that things occur and reoccur in predictable ways. It is hard to imagine how life could evolve if things had been otherwise. Reality is also knowable, well at least in theory if not in practice. A naturalist rejects the idea of anything inherently ‘mysterious’ about our world, contrary to most religious traditions.

Our way of ‘knowing’ the world (with all due concerns about the word ‘knowing’) is through human perception supported by human reason, empiricism in philosophical terms. We have no other sources. Our perceptions can be from immediate senses or from recalled memories. However the bulk of human knowledge, our social knowledge, comes from the testimony of others from their perceptions and reasoning. Hence, not surprisingly, naturalists reject revelation as a genuine information source and are suspicious of any a priori claims to knowledge – knowledge without prior experience. Artificial, self-contained rule-based systems, such as mathematics and games, are well-known exceptions.

The unreliability of human perceptions is well-known. Seeking to confirm prior opinions, people’s wishful thinking and delusions block attempts to be truly objective. In recent years our empirically-based intellectual endeavours – natural sciences, social sciences, and historical research – have clearly been our best efforts at harnessing human perceptions while controlling human fallibilities. They have produced more reliable information about the world, than numerous religious proclamations over the years. One amusing example is the early Christian predictions, some 2000 years ago, of the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom through Jesus of Nazareth. Christian zealots, Gospel writers and Paul of Taurus, were quite clear about this, even though apologists since then have attempted to reinterpret these failures away.

And what about the belief in a god ? Almost automatically, a naturalist would reject the belief as accepting something so completely incomprehensible. The naturalist’s reality is one of mass and energy existing within time and space and that we are an intrinsic part of that world. Even though known reality expands and contracts with changes in our empirically-based knowledge, all ‘things’ are of the same ontological stuff. ‘God’ stands for something else entirely – different stuff, imperceptible and unfathomable by human reason (not surprisingly according to naturalists). Even the idea of such as thing, outside of that found in imaginative fiction, is amusing or perhaps even offensive to the sensibilities of a naturalist. When asked why, a believer simply declares it to be so, accepting faith over any contrary human perception and reason. Not coincidentally, the believer’s verbalisations are shaped by his or her own religious traditions. God is then explained by rewordings like ‘master’, ‘lord’, ‘shepherd’, ‘cosmic consciousness’, ‘essence’, and so on. This is the fine art of substituting one set of magical words for another.

Our lives are full of uncertainties with incomplete and changing understandings of the world. How we explain and accept these uncertainties separates naturalists from the religionists, like the evangelical Christians. For naturalists, this is a normal consequence for being part of a complicated physical world. Though acknowledging our inherent limitations, naturalists, like scientists, continue still to strive for full knowledge and understanding of the world, to overcome our limitations. By contrast religionists explain this uncertainty by imagining an unknowable consciousness called God, one who created the world and now maintains it. And, of course, this is done in ways we do not understand.

Unfortunately for religionists, the empirically-based sciences have effectively replaced religions as the major knowledge-makers in our secular society. Very little of today’s world understanding comes from religious traditions. 2000 to 3000 year-old explanations no longer hold credence and respect they once had.

So what are typical naturalists’ reactions to beliefs in God?

• Irrelevant: the naturalist sees no need for any God to explain his or her world or to find personal meaning;
• Incomprehensible: the idea of any existence outside of the physical world does not even make sense to a naturalist. It is more incredible that most Christians claim their God has consciousness and is even worthy of worship;
• Offensive: hopefully explanations are no longer of angels and demons. To naturalists, theologies are still rooted in those ancients beliefs with human styled non-physical beings. Religions are re-calling past superstitions, rather than seeing humans as an integral part of the physical world like all other living things. We need to acknowledge that we physical only, without an exclusive non-physical soul.

Alex McCullie

How often do religious folk criticise atheists and naturalists of scientism, their ‘bogey word’ for applying scientific scepticism to religious claims? Alexis Bonari has kindly written her take on the issue. Thank you, Alexis. You can catch more of her writing at scholarships.

Does Scientism Equal Faith: Combating Misconceptions

Can a belief in natural science ever be classified as religious faith?  Most atheists have heard this question raised at least once by those of a religious persuasion.  Atheists often pride themselves on their ability to see through superstition and culturally mediated belief systems. Some critics, however, claim that they are guilty of scientism.  In other words, does an atheist fall off the rationality bandwagon when he or she believes that science is the most authoritative worldview, and/or that science will potentially provide all the answers if only given enough time?

Experiential Knowledge

To answer this question one must look at the evidence for both arguments.  Critics of scientism claim that such complete reliance on science for answers ignores knowledge that can be obtained only by experiencing a phenomenon, i.e. experiential knowledge.  Religious people often take offense when atheists attempt to determine a scientifically derived explanation for their religious experiences.  While they might concede that there are, for instance, neurochemical events that go hand-in-hand with experiencing the presence of god, they believe that focusing on potential scientific explanations would be to miss the point entirely.

When Is Science Irrational?

At their least rational, atheists and scientists claim that nothing can exist outside of our current scientific models. This is an irrational statement, as it assumes that these models are infallible.  The fields of theoretical physics and applied mathematics have provided us with compelling evidence suggesting that it is literally impossible to create a completely accurate model of the universe. These types of theories undermine the idea that one can have absolute certainty through science.

Scientism ≠ Religion

But where does that leave the debate? Does the lack of certainty through science mean that atheists should abandon their stance in favor of religious faith?  The answer is a resounding, “No”.  In order to combat these arguments, atheists must become truly comfortable with some level of uncertainty.  Even though science may not be the infallible truth-definer that enlightenment philosophers believed it to be, that doesn’t mean that it should be put into the same category as a religion.  Religion relies completely upon faith.  Those who trust science over religion are at least choosing the scientific method, an attempt to prove any theory before accepting it as fact. 

As with many answers, there are no absolutes.  Certainly, there are some atheists who cross the line from rational deliberation into territory that requires faith.  Perhaps human nature, our desire to believe in some sort of absolute spiritual or otherwise, drives this trend.  If atheists remain intellectually honest, and attempt to curtail these drives within themselves, accusations of scientism will fall by the wayside. 

Bio: Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She often can be found blogging about general education issues as well as information on college scholarships. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.

All world-views (“how we see things”), as human constructions of reality, start with unprovable foundational beliefs or assumptions. They are assumed within one world-view and impossible to disprove from another. An accepted world-view provides hopefully an emotionally and intellectually comfortable set of perspectives about our existence in the world, by addressing the fundamental questions and answers of life. More importantly we need to recognise that, despite the intellectual claims and counter-claims, world-views are shaped, at least initially, by people’s familial and cultural backgrounds. Only later some may question these fundamental assumptions when they seem overwhelmingly inadequate to explain our experiences. So the ‘problem of evil’ continues to challenge a world-view with an all-powerful, loving God and indiscriminate and gratuitious suffering.

Naturalism, as a world-view, also is founded on fundamental assumptions or beliefs about reality. Firstly, the physical world exists independently of our perceptions. I walk into a room and see a chair. I then expect that chair to exist in the room even after I leave and, if the chair is unmoved, it will be there on my return. This is the philosophical concept of ‘realism’ and is held automatically by most people. Philosophers often talk about naive and critical realism where the latter unlike the former recognises that our perceptions of external objects are always processed or mediated.

Secondly, we are physical beings in a physical world and all our experiences derive from that interrelationship. Naturalists do not seek explanations or comfort from believing in ‘realities’ beyond our interactions within the physical world. Broadly the physical world is seen as interconnected material objects and forces that are commonly referred to as ‘nature’. Nature is not considered inherently conscious.

The only way we understand the physical world is through personal perceptions interpreted by human reason. Even though we would like to think the physical world is knowable, most would recognise the inherent flaws in our preceptive-reasoning capabilities that make any such claim as nonsense. There will always be a ‘disconnect’ between us and the world around us. In many ways our views of reality are really human constructs.
Thirdly, naturalists consider the empirically-based natural and social sciences as our most successful ways of utilising human perception and reasoning to understand ourselves in the physical world. Sciences provide many safe-guards to counter human biases, wishful thinking, and perceptual errors so to produce reliable ‘social knowledge’ about the physical world. Peer testing, open debates, and seeking falsifications are all part of the scientific processes. Ideally nothing is open to challenge. And despite frequent changes in the extremes of scientific enquiry – the very small, very large, and very distant – the vast majority of scientific knowledge is stable and highly reliable.

Fourthly, naturalists are sceptical of a priori knowledge claims, knowledge claims independent of human experience. These claims are acceptable for artificial systems like games and mathematics. So not surprisingly reasoning from the rules of chess can be made without personal playing experience. One might say that scientists also make knowledge claims without having empirical support. And that’s true. Einstein promoted hypotheses long before they could be verified by experiment. However we need to consider two points here. Scientists expect to have both experimental evidence and meaningful explanations sometime in the future as the need for experimental verification can be placed on-hold if plausable explanations are provided initially. Even then full acceptance is usually withheld until verified empirically. This attitude contrasts with many religions that embrace the concept of on-going ‘mysterious’ without any rational explanations sought now or in the future. Just accept the mystery, something that is an anthema to scientific enquiry.

Fifthly and finally, naturalists do not give any particular weight to traditional beliefs and writings. Isaac Newton’s or Charles Darwin’s writings are fascinating in the history of science but of little use for today’s scientific research. They are respected as interesting historical documents but little else. This contrasts dramatically with most religious attitudes towards ancient texts as scripture, which many followers still see as unique and god-given sources of truth.

For naturalists, Christian, Jewish or Islamic scriptures are simply constructions of fragmented ancient human writings, made during ancient times and places so different to our own. Their world understandings were so alien with extra-physical beings as causing human maladies and good fortunes. Quite famously they operated within a three-tier cosmos with heaven above and hell below and the flat Earth between, being their battleground between good and evil. Those writings may have expressed some common truths about the human condition but they are so packaged within an alien world-view combined with later layers of religious interpretation to provide little attraction for people today. Most will turn to newer insightful sources.

So am I dismissing a study of Jewish and Christian texts as a waste of time? Certainly not. I regularly read and study Christian and Jewish scriptures combined with historical and cultural studies of ancient Israel and Palestine. Both libraries of books have had and continue to have immense impact on our society. But I see them as influential ancient human texts, interpreted and re-interpreted over the years effectively hiding any original understandings and intents.

Naturalism is the world-view held, in practical terms, by most people in Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe. They may profess some sort of deist ‘there must be something’ beyond our physical world, but it makes no difference to their lives. With less than eight percent as regular church attendees the vast majority see churches as social institutions and antiquated ones at that. There is every sign of the churchs’ continued decline.

Like all world-views, naturalism is built on some foundational beliefs about our place in our world. For naturalists we are physical beings in a physical world ans our empirically-based sciences are our best way of knowing that relationship. It is all about human perception and human reason. Furthermore we need to recognise that there will always be a perceptional separation between us and the world around us. We process and interpret all our perceptions subconsciously before conscious awareness. It’s a matter of finding the best fit between experiences and explanation, and naturalism provides a solid basis for both.

Alex McCullie

Historians tell stories about events in the past, events occurring in actual times and places. All historical stories are reconstructions of events from physical evidence and oral histories set within interpreted causal frameworks. Though answering ‘why’ is popular by historians today, this is controversial with some (David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, 1971) and sometimes challenged as going too far, being too speculative. Ultimately the cautionary note for readers is to be aware that these stories are products of the particular historians as well as the events they seek to cover. So we must consider the historical accounts as probabilistic by nature rather than declarations of certainty. Frustratingly for those seeking the ‘truth’, we can have two or more quite contradictory and but plausible explanations for the same series of events from equally respected historians. Perhaps the first ban in history should be on the word ‘truth’ and its associated question ‘what really happened?’ Or, at least, give them nuanced understandings different to our everyday usages. If we can never know in any absolute or definitive sense, what keeps us separate from the past?

Alex McCullie

US continues to confound Western outsiders – Australians, Kiwis, Brits, and Europeans. In response to a recent Federal Court ruling of  National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional the Pew Forum quoted a 2007/2008 religious survey, showing that 58% of the US over 18 population pray on a daily basis. Equally interesting is the spread across different faiths and denominations with the lowest faith being Jewish at 26%. The ‘unaffiliated’ are still 22%. I suppose the question for that group is ‘what is meant by the activity of prayer?’ and implicitly to whom or what. Alex McCullie

Let’s start with the big one. The mundane and short nature of our lives, some eighty years if lucky, seems a cruel trick of nature to play on self-aware beings. And worse, we soon realise that once dead we shall fade into the forgotten mists of time, lucky to be remembered one generation later. Believing in a caring, eternal god with an after-life offer some comfort;  ’see you again in another life’ at a funeral epitomises this hope.

Final Comments
Atheists argue that we should be mature enough to stand upright in our world without a prop from a god belief (or delusion). Engaging with life,  family, and friends gives genuine fulfillment “here and now” with a sense of continuity. Guilt-provoking though comforting religions are too high a price for most atheists to pay. Religious hope equates to a lotto-style dream with a high price tag. It’s a poor substitute for the reality of living.

Easter weekend featured a plethora of Jesus and Bible documentaries on cable and free-to-air television: I watched Decoding the Past: the Resurrection on the History Channel. The documentary, colourfully illustrated as History docos tend to be, presented Christian Theology interleaved with limited doses of historical skepticism. It featured two of the most prominent Christian apologists – Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig. In general historians have problems accepting miracle claims and typically exclude them from historical analyses much to the chagrin of Christian scholars. So, why should historians exclude miracle claims like Jesus’ post-death appearances?

Historical research and analysis are all about the probability of past events combined with interpretation. People should ban questions like “what really happened?”. Expressions like “best evidence suggests…” and “little support for…” are more realistic characterisations. Not surprisingly well-qualified historians, using exactly the same sources, can quite commonly draw different though equally well-argued conclusions. This can be very frustrating for outsiders seeking definite answers.

Historical research, like that of the sciences, is essentially a secular activity, independent of any religious faiths. Historians assume that the world and its people behaved in the past as it does today. So claims from the past of people flying unaided would be seen as highly improbable, if not impossible, as that cannot be done today. We have no reason to accept “supernatural” occurrences of the past that we would not accept today. Historical research assumes a predictable, natural world and miracles are rejected as making historical probabilities to historical impossibilities. Historians have little choice to do this as they are trying to make sense of considerable uncertainties without the acceptance of (highly improbable or impossible) miracles.

So what interests historians with claims of Jesus’ post-death appearances? It is the followers who make the claims. Scholars will so attempt to understand the nature and likelihood of his execution within the Jewish social context of early first century. The voracity of the claims themselves are not part of the historical analysis.

Historians work with physical evidence, written documents and artifacts – tax records, commercial documents, household items, artworks, and so on. The primary written sources for Jesus’ execution are the Christian texts – canonical and apocryphal. Here are the earliest:

Letters of Paul, dated around 50CE, were occasional letters written to early Christian communities as instructions and advice. Surprisingly, Paul mentioned nothing of the historical Jesus, only concentrating of the risen Christ, the one of later Christian faith. Even when discussing a moral point with one of his communities Paul argued without referring to a pertinent Jesus saying (later quoted in a gospel). Some scholars see that omission as evidence against the existence of the historical Jesus. Either if not the case Paul provides no useful evidence for Jesus, the man.

The “Q” document, hypothetically constructed by scholars from the common text of Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. “Q” contains sayings of Jesus only without any narratives about his life; his execution is unmentioned. “Q” is dated around 50CE or earlier.

The gospel of Mark, dated around 70CE, is considered to be the first New Testament gospel and the basis for Jesus ministry of Matthew and Luke. Like the other gospels the authorship is unknown. Mark makes no mention of Jesus’ life prior to his baptism by John and he ends the gospel with an empty tomb after his execution. Post-death appearances of Jesus are unmentioned. As an aside we need to remember that the gospels are Christian propaganda, documents of faith, that give a narrative structure to the Jesus stories and sayings circulating amongst the Christian communities. They were written by urbanised, Greek-educated Jews some 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus. By contrast most scholars characterise Jesus as an Aramaic-speaking, itinerant Jew, preaching in rural Galilee.

The gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John dated between 80-100CE and again are of unknown authorship, offer vastly differing accounts of Jesus after his death. Their stories are difficult to reconcile. Similarly their infancy stories differ markedly.

Excellent joint article by a scientist and a philosopher on limitations of the hypothesis in the doing of science and some practical alternatives.

http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(08)00953-7

Alex McCullie

Here is an interesting link on doing science – writing a hypothesis, designing a testing testing regime, and so on

http://www.experiment-resources.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method.html

Alex McCullie