tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post116431669440387804..comments2024-03-21T03:55:51.565-07:00Comments on Omniorthogonal: Scientism, Naturalism, and Ismism.mtravenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-51929487195815289272009-10-03T16:49:59.947-07:002009-10-03T16:49:59.947-07:00[accidently deleted and re-created]
Thanks for the...[accidently deleted and re-created]<br />Thanks for the note!<br /><br />><br />> Actually, naturalism comes pretty naturally once one has divested oneself of<br />> faith-based preconceptions. No huge intellectual effort is required, just a<br />> commonsense appreciation of cause and effect and a commitment to empirical<br />> evidence as the basis for what to believe about the world.<br /><br />It is difficult to reconcile materialism with a bunch of commonplace human experiences (consciousness, the appearance of free will, etc). This doesn't mean that naturalism is wrong, but it means that believing in it takes work. I don't believe the masses of people will bother, though I could of course be wrong.<br /><br />Religion on the other hand takes less work to believe, and offers greater benefits (meaning! eternal life!). Naturalism appeals to people who put a strong value on evidence, truth, logic, and consistency, but I fear that's a minority taste. So I'm pessimistic about naturalism's ability to take over the world from religion, but that doesn't say anything about its truth or value for individuals.<br /><br />> Re isms: Do you really accept faith as a valid alternative way of knowing?<br /><br />Sort of. I'm not particularly religious, but I believe religion captures something important. In my view, religion is not primarily about belief or faith or even knowing. It's best thought of as a cultural practice, with things like community and ritual playing parts that are just as important, or more important, than belief. Most of the recent critiques of religion totally miss the point because they insist on viewing religion as nothing more than a bad scientific theory, when it's actually something quite different.<br /><br />More here and here.<br />> And how would you best describe your worldview, if you have one? Does it<br />> include anything supernatural? If not, then you're a naturalist by default.<br /><br />I have dubbed my worldview "transcendental materialism", although I haven't been able to say what that means yet! Probably nothing in it that would offend a naturalist.<br /><br />My pet project is to come up with a naturalistic theory of the supernatural. Don't ask me exactly what that means either, but see the here (towards the end) for a first cut. What I would like to do is assume that supernatural concepts mean something, then try to come up with a theory of what that could possibly be that would not be in conflict with what we know of the material world.<br /><br />Basically I think it is a category error to talk about supernatural things either existing or not-existing.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-191574071846564612006-11-29T12:50:00.000-08:002006-11-29T12:50:00.000-08:00Hi Mike,
Glad you found the bracing term "natural...Hi Mike,<br /><br />Glad you found the bracing term "naturalism", hope you'll spread the word.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"Religion provides answers in areas (morality, the soul, the afterlife, ultimate purpose) that are evolved to match the needs of the human psyche. Naturalism tries to address these but requires a good deal of intellectual effort and as such is only going to appeal to a small minority of people. Religion is natural, science is not."<br /><br />Actually, naturalism comes pretty naturally once one has divested oneself of faith-based preconceptions. No huge intellectual effort is required, just a commonsense appreciation of cause and effect and a commitment to empirical evidence as the basis for what to believe about the world. Of course naturalism can't offer ultimate purpose or eternal life, but there's considerable comfort to be found in human community and plenty of purpose here on earth. If faith-based religion didn't have such a huge memetic head start (1,700 years), naturalism would be quite competitive. And the decline of the church in Europe suggests that it stands a good chance, *if* it's presented not merely as the denial of god, but as a positive, comprehensive worldview with applications in many domains of life. <br /><br />Re isms: Do you really accept faith as a valid alternative way of knowing? And how would you best describe your worldview, if you have one? Does it include anything supernatural? If not, then you're a naturalist by default. And you can still stand up for fanatical anti-fanaticism.Tom Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08414754510736349472noreply@blogger.com