Differing worldviews of Christians and Philosophical Naturalists

Philosophical naturalism describes a metaphysical point of view. It is essentially the view that the only reality is nature, as gradually discovered by our intelligence using the tools of experience, reason, and science. Choosing to view the world though the filter of Philosophical Naturalism (or just Naturalism) is not something one does because of the outcome of a debate between supporters of superstitious dogma and supporters of empiricism and rationality. One is not argued or debated into this way of looking at the world. Instead, we are drawn to it because it is right, it works. It is the only "system" that works. All other methods of gaining knowledge and making sense of the world fall far short of the naturalistic approach in their record of success. Naturalists don't reject gods because they want to disbelieve, or have a vested interest in proving that gods don't exist, or want to believe only in Nature. It is because these types of people value having their beliefs correspond to reality, and a Naturalistic world view promotes that goal. It is the only way of looking at things that doesn't require miracles to make everything function the way it does. Quoting Hilary Putnam, a modern philosopher of science, "Realism is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle". This is called the "no miracles argument for Realism". I think that this use of word, Realism, extends to Naturalism.

Philosophical Naturalism has the best track record of teaching us about what we can expect from our experiences living on Earth. People who want to view the world as it really is, not how they wish it were, are naturally attracted to a Naturalistic philosophy. Naturalism is not on trial, and is certainly not on the defensive. Rather, it is on the ascendent in America and throughout the civilized world. It moves our understanding of the world forward not through debate, argument, reference to ancient texts, and arcane, twisted logic. It doesn't spend time on pointless issues such as how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, how many souls can fit into heaven, whether god is one or three persons, whether salvation is through faith, predestination, or good works, or whether or not we should be sprinkled with water or fully submerged. It doesn't attempt to justify the randomness of a seemingly impersonal universe. It doesn't make up unprovable fairy tales about super beings in another dimension who care about us and will save us. It is forward looking, empirical, and methodology-driven. Let the religious faithful continue to throw stones at the unstoppable engine which is Naturalism. They have been losing ground for half a millennia, and their losing battle shows every sign of continuing in all First World countries of Western Europe, and is beginning to lose ground in America as well.

To those who take a reason-based and evidence-based approach to questions about life and the world, the answers to those question come from logical analysis, informed by both reason and empiricism, subject to correction and refinement, and ultimately decided upon by informed judgement which also has to take unknowns and risk into account. To those who approach philosophical questions from a religious or mystical point of view, their answers reflect whatever concepts they feel are enlightening, thrilling, comforting, uplifting, or that allow them to persist in their irrational (by definition) and incoherent (i.e., disorganized and internally inconsistent) god-based world view. The epistemologies feeding our different world views (science/evidence/experience/observation/reason/naturalism vs mystical/religious/irrational/revelatory) fundamental differ. One is better than the other.

Each side thinks the other side is talking gibberish. The religious worldview is based on revelation, inspiration, emotion, ancient texts, community, myth. When logic is employed to support this worldview, it is based on invalid and antiquated premises. The scientific/naturalistic world view is based on observation, experiment, measurement, evidence, theory, review, and methodology. It constantly reexamines its premises and assumptions and reevaluates them. It is difficult, probably impossible, to bridge the gap between these diametrically opposite positions. A debate between people representing these opposing perspectives will be very much like two tennis players, each delivering blistering serves, but on separate courts. It is almost inevitable that they will end up talking past each other, not to each other.

Apologists present the conflict between Naturalism and Theism as being a struggle between two different but equally respectable, "belief systems". This is false equivalence, or false balance. It is an attempt to elevate an evidence-free, faith-based belief system to the same stature as an evidence-based, faith-free way of interacting with the world. Naturalism is not a "belief system", unless you choose to use that word in what would today be called a "Bayesian" sense, as did the philosopher, David Hume:

“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of ... evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

It is economical - it does not create unnecessary complexities. It is parsimonious. Parsimony is not a "belief system". It is a conceptual technique that experience has show to be an extremely reliable guideline for working with the natural world. Failure to employ parsimony (or, Occam's Razor) would put us at liberty to invent any convenient "just-so" stories to help us make sense of things. This is how ghosts and demons get created. On the contrary, Naturalism eschews unwarranted beliefs so that reality can speak for itself. It relies on induction and inference to help us navigate reality. Everyone, even the Christian theist, is a Naturalist when it comes to 99% of their interactions with the world. We all use the evidence of our senses and our experience to stay alive, to avoid disaster, and to prosper in the world. Christians then go beyond that and layer on top of Naturalism a superfluous structure of religious beliefs that account for nothing, but provide a framework for their story of sin and salvation.

No other way of considering reality allows as reliable a path to achieving the goals of discovery, invention, theoretical progress, and publication as Naturalism. It alone is able to generate theories about the world that can actually predict future events, or retroactively predict historical/geological/cosmological events that happened in the past. It is a frustrating, but inescapable, truth that worldviews cannot be "deduced" or proved, as most convincingly demonstrated by David Hume in the 18th century (for more information, see this summary of Hume's philosophy). The best we can do is make inferences based on all our experience as to which is the most reliable way of perceiving the world. Realists, or Naturalists, argue persuasively that a very good reason for subscribing to their view is that it has an unsurpassed record of success and achievement, and no record of being wrong. That is worth repeating - the Naturalistic worldview has never been shown to be wrong. Individual theories may prove wrong, but the overall process is right. The theories produced by this worldview and practice both explain the existing state of affairs and predict future outcomes with unequaled power.

Naturalism's explanatory scope and power are its most compelling features. For a detailed examination of exactly what this means see my other blog entry on "Criteria Of Adequacy". The cumulative set of theories and facts from all the sciences demonstrate extremely high coherence and mutual support that could only be explained by their being correct (or by Descartes' "Evil Demon", which is not even a serious concept, or by some other collection of ad hoc miracles). The related approaches of Scientific Realism and Philosophical Naturalism have a remarkable and unequaled track record that attests to the extremely high probability that they are the right way of viewing the world.

Short response to Christian evangelizers

Debating religion rarely change anyone's mind. Occasionally one side or the other may learn something new, and it is possible that over time, one's point of view may gradually shift through exposure and maturation of ideas as they are mulled over. But usually, theists and atheists don't share enough of a common ground to even have a useful conversation.

I am unconvinced by any claims that anyone has ever made about the existence of a divine force operating in the universe. I don't accept the basic premise that the bible is a historic document. I don't see indication that this book is anything other than a work of fiction and fables, mixed with bits of real history, based on 2000 year old Middle Eastern mythologies. The bible is a collection of propaganda pieces (hagiographies of old testament patriarchs and the new testament savior) aimed at promoting the religion, not an objective history. Basically, it is "sales literature" which attempts to convince its readers of something that is otherwise not believable.

I don't accept that the miracles described in the bible ever happened or happen now, that people rise from the dead, that they ascend into heaven or descend into hell, that a god and/or angels are watching us, that supernatural causes exist, that proper rules for human conduct come from a god, that the body is inhabited by a "soul", or that consciousness is anything more than an emergent process generated by the brain/mind/body. I don't accept a source of knowledge based on apocryphal writings by mostly anonymous authors or what you perceive to be a god talking to you. Nor do I consider a warm feeling in your soul caused by possession by the holy spirit to be a proper epistemological source. I don't buy into the convoluted logic that Christian academics use to "prove" that a god created the universe, or created the laws of nature. These arguments literally date from medieval times, and have barely been updated as the discipline of Metaphysics has matured (through Kant, Hume, Russell, Carnap, Ladyman, and others). They are just scholastic sophistry clothed in the vernacular of logic, intended to overwhelm the audience with intellectual-sounding double-speak and complex jargon, but loaded with unclear and ambiguous premises and antique conceptions of how the universe works.

The historical abuse of reason and contempt for evidence shown by past Christian philosophers convinces me that your warped use of logic is just another tool to win converts to a belief in what is ultimately a fairy tale. Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments, Paley's designed universe, Aquinas's five proofs of god, and countless others have been thoroughly refuted, or at least shown to be incoherent, as far as I am concerned.

I base what I know on what I see happening in the real world. I don't require a deductive proof of my worldview or of yours, and frankly, I don't think such proofs are even possible. I am an empiricist, and I move through the world as do all living creatures, following the evidence of my senses, relying on instinct, and using what intellect and emotion I can bring to bear. In nature, animals hunt where the game goes, the hunted hide where they can't be found, plants turn their leaves to the sun and send their roots towards the water. Humans, like all of living creatures, are part of nature. We all follow the basic life functions of seeking what sustains us and avoiding what does not. We use our talents, our gifts, and our strengths to make our lives. Instead of teeth and claws, we have big brains and civilization.

In spite of centuries of systematic and rigorous searching, no uncontroversial evidence for a god or gods has been found. The lack of existence of a god or gods has been confirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse and stubbornly contrary to continue to deny it. Everywhere we look, there is no god, and no need for a god to explain what we see. The evidence for god is of the same low quality as that for the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, and cold fusion - a few people claim to have seen these, but when asked to produce them, they are unable to. If there were good evidence, there would be no need for faith. And where faith is needed, it is principally due to a lack of good evidence.

I can see no compelling or persuasive reason to believe the fantasy put forward by religions. Given the alternative explanations for my experiences in the world, inference to the best explanation, and all available evidence supporting that inference, leads me to conclude that we live in a naturalistic universe that does not include supernatural beings controlling events behind the scenes. Until evidence to the contrary is produced, and only if the overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalism is overturned, I will continue to disbelieve in supernatural causes like gods. Produce a god for me, and you will get my attention.

No reasonable person today should believe 2nd / 3rd / 4th handed testimony coming from a lone part of the ancient world as we find in ancient manuscripts written by pre-scientific biased and superstitious people who doctored up and forged many of these texts, who cared more about swaying public opinion and promoting their new religion than accurately representing history. If I were asked to commit to "Yes" or "No" on the god question, to take a stand, without hestitation I say "No". I don't need to be saved, because I'm not lost. I am doing very well without a religion.

I agree with David Hume who wrote:

If we take in our hand any volume ... of divinity or ...metaphysics ... let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.