After discovering the intriguingly candid website for The Center for Naturalism, I wrote a post and encouraged other bloggers to share their thoughts. I’ve collected their entries along with selected quotes in this post and, like my own thoughts, they are exceedingly critical of the naturalist position.
On reflection I realize that I may have been unduly harsh and allowed a previous spat with Brian Leiter to affect my tone. After writing my post I exchanged emails with Tom Clark, the director and founder of CFN and an exceedingly polite gentleman, and realized that if I had been writing about Islam, Judaism, or another religious viewpoint that I disagreed with that I would have been more generous. My disagreements with the philosophy should not preclude me from treating such deeply held beliefs with respect.
Mike Russell from Eternal Perspectives says it best when he writes:
The purpose of dismantling their false philosophy is to replace it with the truth; thus, in deconstructing their position, we must take care that they understand that we do so with love and respect.
They, too, are people in need of the Savior; we, as people of the Savior, must find a way to bring them to the truth.
Amanda Witt finds naturalism to be of little comfort:
So there you have it. Life is meaningless, and so is death.
But some things are left unexplained. Why should someone else's continued existence after my death comfort me now? On death (according to naturalism), my bundle of nerves and sensations dissolve. Other bundles of nerves and sensations will note this and move on, shuffling along toward that moment when their own bundle of nerves and sensations will also dissolve. There's no comfort in that.
Dick Cleary of Viewpoint points out several of the peculiar conclusions that result from the CFN’s claim that “[I]ndividuals don't bear originative responsibility for their actions”:
If this is true, if no one can act otherwise than how they do act, then we are no more responsible for our behavior, which is determined by factors over which we have no control, than is a sufferer of Tourette's syndrome responsible for his uncontrollable outbursts.
Mike D'Virgilio of MDV Outlook is thrilled that naturalism is coming “out of the closet”:
I have to give them an “A” for effort, but for the last couple hundred years great philosophers have tried to get rid of God and imbue reality with meaning. For some reason the mass of humanity just hasn’t bought it: maybe because it is an absurd notion that goes contrary to everything that we are as human beings. It is refreshing, though, that there are some out there who are not afraid to proclaim the implications of evolution. The material universe is all there is, was and ever will be. We, just like the rock under your foot, are a product of time-plus-matter-plus-chance. Nothing more, nothing less.
J. Hawthorne from After Progress takes issue with naturalism -- and my post:
Naturalism is a philosophy that in its inclusivistic form rules out large bodies of beliefs that most people have; however, most of Western civilization today assumes at least one belief that presupposes Naturalism. In general western culture assumes that what counts as knowledge must be scientific or at least rooted in science, and this is clearly a point where Naturalism is already apart of our culture. So, the Center for Naturalism is probably trying to help people become consistent with their belief systems and assume that what needs to go is all this nonsense about having choices, punitive punishment, life after death, and God among other things like that you are conscious. The problem is that Naturalism has already limited what counts as knowledge to scientific data.
(Hawthorne also takes issue with my claims that naturalism is self-evidently self defeating and that it implies the necessity of emergent properties to explain consciousness.)
Hunter Baker of The Reform Club believes Leiter and Dennett are falling for a similar fallacy believed by John Dewey:
What immediately struck me about the group is that it commits to the same bizarre reasoning employed by their forebear John Dewey. They tell us that we are the product of random forces and that there is no meaning to life, BUT then go on to make policy prescriptions for the good life! On the same page, Dewey could explain our meaningless rise from microbes and then go on to promote a just industrial order! What?!!!
Tex from Mere-Orthodoxy probably didn’t want to laugh at the views of CFN but then again, does he really have a choice?
I began reading through the official website for the Center for Naturalism and found myself laughing hysterically. It really couldn't be helped. I mean, it really couldn't; it was merely a product of my biological and sociological makeup.
1
"They tell us that we are the product of random forces and that there is no meaning to life"
What so-called "naturalists" tell you is that the question "what is the meaning of your life" can not be satisfactorily answered is therefore a silly question.
Christians have been provided with answers to the question in their holy book, of course, which is why many of them are so eager to beat naturalists over the head.
You see, Christians are human beings just like naturalists. And some Christians are more prone than other Christians to succumb to annoying human tendencies, e.g., pride and the judging of others. Of course, there is a great likelihood that the repetitive invocation of strange philosophical claims about non-believers reinforces the beliefs of Christians and make them feel "better" and more "secure" about their "faith," which contributes to the strength of the religion and the zealotry of its members.
Go figure.
posted on 04.11.2005 3:59 PM2
It takes a good heart and good character to recgnonize we do not react allways in the best way. Just one thing, what do you mean by "(...)Islam, Judaism, or another religious viewpoint that I disagreed with"? God spoke to Abraham telling him that Isamel would be the father of a great nation. God blessed Isamel. Muslims are loved sons of God. Their religion is borned from the love God had of Abraham. Jews are our fathers in God. The Old Testament is also sacred to them. Christ was a jew. And a good religious jew. He celebrated all the traditional rites of His religion, like Pass Over. He was raised a jew. I don't understand how we can doubt God. How can we doubt that God did the rigth thing by creating other religions? It is not up to man to disagree with the creations of God. Christian best wishes, nuno.
posted on 04.11.2005 6:44 PM3
Okay I was a little tired. Maybe my eyes were blurry but I thought you were posting about Naturism (http://www.naturism.co.nz/). But after rubbing the sleep out of them I see the topic is slightly different. Oh well.
posted on 04.12.2005 9:35 AM4
"What immediately struck me about the group is that it commits to the same bizarre reasoning employed by their forebear John Dewey. They tell us that we are the product of random forces and that there is no meaning to life, BUT then go on to make policy prescriptions for the good life! On the same page, Dewey could explain our meaningless rise from microbes and then go on to promote a just industrial order! What?!!!"
What Hunter Baker apparently fails to appreciate is that subjective meaning is possible without objective meaning. I don't know why this concept gives some people so much trouble.
5
Many problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-
made religions and humanistic naturalistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The
balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason
cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the intellect
can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives
and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However,
as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater
than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance
and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason
to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the
rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot
invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks
a predictive capability. Without instinct or transcendent
criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight
and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight,
man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly
committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and
worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a
functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-
dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith,
initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His
Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the
choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-
made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival equip-
ment for today and the future.
Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his
environments, institutions, and respectful relations to his
fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots
are in the Order of the universe.
from - The HUMAN PARADIGM
Complete message at Homepage. jfb
6
Joe (and Tom):
I observe your summing-up post. The gracious remarks on tone are well worth reflecting on, on all sides; especially given the harshness of what has too often gone on in this blog.
However, having duly noted that, since the CFN is in the public domain, and is intended to exert influence on those who may not be aware of the serious limitations, incoherence and even dangers posed by naturalistic thinking, it is appropriate to highlight these concerns and request that they be appropriately addressed in the CFN's own site.
In particular, as a descendant of slaves whose liberty was bought at the price of rivers of blood, I am deeply concerned over the potential manipulative and tyrannical implications of CFN’s genetic and environmental determinism.
Accordingly, I request that Prof Clark kindly address the concerns raised in the previous comments thread, including my expansion of my initial “shortie” responses to his posts. The CFN’s site should be adjusted accordingly.
Grace to all
GEM
PS I see a note that seeks to equate the three Abrahamic religions. It may therefore be profitable to reflect on the observations in http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Abrahams_faith.htm and http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/On_Afroz_Thesis.pdf , as well as the concerns raised in http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Bds_decl_03.pdf .
7
"Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However, as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the
rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands."
Nonsense. Anyone who has bothered to read the mission statement of the Council for Secular Humanism sees that this is not so.
"Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks a predictive capability.
Ridiculous. Man's predictive capability has been proven time and again (consider the first lunar landing). Humanists are men, and their humanism does not rob them of the predictive capability we all share to some degree.
Without instinct or transcendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight
and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and worse.
Nonsense. See above.
"Humanism is an unworthy worship."
Secular humanism does not involve worship in any religious sense.
"The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His
Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation."
Faith is an invention of man; there is nothing transcendent about it. Such "transcendence" is an illusion.
"Fulfilled Prophetic Validation" according to whom?
This whole cut and paste treatment of humanism attacks a strawman and is built upon false premises.
posted on 04.13.2005 12:41 PM8
Although I think my last post here was a bit misrepresented, I think your tone here is MUCH better. I really do appreciate this blog and your ability to focus in on essential and urgent issues with respect to truth and a Christian world view. In my post today I make my own (simplified) argument against Naturalism from the existence of the mind.