Metaphysical Naturalism: an attractive myth

[Neithan]

I find metaphysical naturalism an attractive model of the Universe, even if I don’t think it totally “works,” philosophically. Anyone else feel this way? There’s something appealing about it, and I’m not talking only about the radical moral freedom attached to it that I imagine is a major attraction for many people.
C.S. Lewis once wrote (forgive me but I can’t find the citation at the moment) that there are two kinds of souls: those moved most by Tragedy and those by Comedy, and that the materialist/naturalist view of the universe is the Tragic one, whereas the supernaturalist - especially Christian - view is the Comic (i.e. happy ending). There is a melancholy beauty in the sadness of a history that will end in the annihilation of the hero - Mankind - without any salvation. Is that morbid thinking?

Like that guy in the Matrix, there is a part of me that is tempted to “take the blue pill” and become a Naturalist. I can understand why so many people - both scientists and poets - are thrilled by the tragedy of a wonderful yet hopeless world; its fragility and finity make it seem more precious in a way. I also think it might help us to evangelize naturalists if we could somewhat sympathize with them.

 

[That_one_guy]

:console:

 

[Donald45]

I find metaphysical naturalism an attractive model of the Universe, even if I don’t think it totally “works,” philosophically. Anyone else feel this way?..

I do, though I agree with you that it is ultimately philosophically unworkable. Upon the recent death of the great Catholic theologian, Avery Cardinal Dulles, I decided to reread his little volume titled A Testimonial To Grace. If you’ve never read it, I can’t recommend it highly enough, especially for those who are philosophically minded. (It can be found for sale online, or ordered through your local bookstore.) What a cogent and compelling antidote to the naturalist tendency which runs through fallen humanity.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Sideline]

I find metaphysical naturalism an attractive model of the Universe, even if I don’t think it totally “works,” philosophically. Anyone else feel this way? There’s something appealing about it, and I’m not talking only about the radical moral freedom attached to it that I imagine is a major attraction for many people.

I find this post really interesting. I have almost the exact opposite feeling. I would love, love, love for their to be a mystical, magical, eternal element to universe. Even after I left Catholicism I clung to the idea of a “great spirit” and a “universal energy” for years before I finally gave up and reconciled myself to naturalism.

The 'radical moral freedom" isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be either. How is it really freeing to feel like you are responsible for making the world the way you want it? Especially when one is continually aware that they are going to fail.

I find the tragedy of the human condition rather… tragic.

 

[crowonsnow]

Naturalism for me doesn’t contain any magical mystical qualities. Nor is it hopeless in any sense. It simply is what it is. And the mental freedom that naturalism confers isn’t radical in any way. Perhaps it only appears radical if one has been steeped in supernaturalism.

 

[Neithan]

I find this post really interesting. I have almost the exact opposite feeling. I would love, love, love for their to be a mystical, magical, eternal element to universe. Even after I left Catholicism I clung to the idea of a “great spirit” and a “universal energy” for years before I finally gave up and reconciled myself to naturalism.

Yes, I’ve often thought about how our beliefs are naturally conditioned by our experience, and without any mystical experience it would be difficult to maintain a belief in anything mystical or transcendent. Naturalism might be a kind of ‘default’ way of viewing the world when nothing supernatural happens to us. We can see that intelligent and rational people are on both sides of the God debate, and I can only conclude that the difference lies somewhere in experience, or lack thereof.

The 'radical moral freedom" isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be either. How is it really freeing to feel like you are responsible for making the world the way you want it? Especially when one is continually aware that they are going to fail.

Yeah, that is fascinating… I suppose it might not feel “freeing,” subjectively, and could really be almost a kind of enslavement to responsibility assumption, which for any individual becomes practically limitless!

I find the tragedy of the human condition rather… tragic.

Would you say that your submission to Naturalism was a kind of despair?

 

[Sideline]

Yes, I’ve often thought about how our beliefs are naturally conditioned by our experience, and without any mystical experience it would be difficult to maintain a belief in anything mystical or transcendent. Naturalism might be a kind of ‘default’ way of viewing the world when nothing supernatural happens to us. We can see that intelligent and rational people are on both sides of the God debate, and I can only conclude that the difference lies somewhere in experience, or lack thereof.

I have to agree that experience seems to be the most important factor in whether people believe in something transcendent. It certainly isn’t intelligence, logic or rationality. As you say, there are intelligent rational people on both sides of the debate.

Yeah, that is fascinating… I suppose it might not feel “freeing,” subjectively, and could really be almost a kind of enslavement to responsibility assumption, which for any individual becomes practically limitless!

It is interesting really. I once described it like this: Imagine that you have a kitchen timer without any numbers ticking out the seconds left in your life. That’s how long you have to make the world the way that you want it.

Would you say that your submission to Naturalism was a kind of despair?

Well, it came in stages actually. It really picked up steam when I read an article by Karl Popper. Not to get into a debate, but he asked the question: How is your concept of God different from an imaginary God or no God at all? That question really threw me.

I spent another 10 years trying to come up with an answer to the question. The process was extremely painful, but at the end of the process, I did come to peace with it.

If I did have an experience of the transcendent, I’m pretty sure I would abandon my naturalistic tendency in a heartbeat though. And I still hope sometimes I will have some experience that changes my mind.

 

[wildleafblower]

And I still hope sometimes I will have some experience that changes my mind.

Hi Sideline

Great to see you again! Have you ever spent time alone just talking to Jesus? I mean making time for him. I usually do a rant like…“I really need your help! Help me!” It always seems to work for me.

I was wondering if you might think about buying a 10 lb. block of potters clay then try your best to sculpt a bust of Jesus’ head with that 10 lb’s. Don’t forget to put the 1" crown of thorns on his head. After you do that come and tell me about your “experience”. That is if you decide to do it. I hope you might be up for the challenge. (tee hee)

Oh, by the way, I got my January/February 2009 ARCHAEOLOGY magazine in the mail. I enjoyed reading the “Top 10 Discoveries of 2008”.

I hope you won’t mind me praying for you. Peace be with you during this holiday season. God bless you in a very special way~

 

[Sideline]

Hi Sideline

Hi!

Great to see you again! Have you ever spent time alone just talking to Jesus? I mean making time for him. I usually do a rant like…“I really need your help! Help me!” It always seems to work for me.

I was a Christian for 25 years, including a year as a seminarian at a Benedictine Monastery… so, yes… I gave it a go from time to time.

I know many people who find prayer uplifting, but for me it was like trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t exist.

I was wondering if you might think about buying a 10 lb. block of potters clay then try your best to sculpt a bust of Jesus’ head with that 10 lb’s. Don’t forget to put the 1" crown of thorns on his head. After you do that come and tell me about your “experience”. That is if you decide to do it. I hope you might be up for the challenge. (tee hee)

Sorry… no.

1. I don’t know how much clay costs where you live, but at my local art supply store 5 kilos of clay (about 11 lbs.) runs between $30 - $80 dollars depending on the type and quality. If I’m going to spend that much on clay, I’m going to make something that I can sell. Where I live that means one of four things: dragons, fairies, orcas or bears.
2. I appreciate that you think that this might be a transformative experience for me, but really, it’s not. Annoying and frustrating, but not transformative.

Oh, by the way, I got my January/February 2009 ARCHAEOLOGY magazine in the mail. I enjoyed reading the “Top 10 Discoveries of 2008”.

Oooh!!! I should pop on down to the local library.

I’m really impressed that you remembered that I studied archaeology, by the way.

I hope you won’t mind me praying for you. Peace be with you during this holiday season. God bless you in a very special way~

Nope, don’t mind. I can’t help but think there are better things to pray about than me, though. But I certainly don’t mind.

Happy holidays!!

 

[Neithan]

Well, it came in stages actually. It really picked up steam when I read an article by Karl Popper. Not to get into a debate, but he asked the question: How is your concept of God different from an imaginary God or no God at all? That question really threw me.

It’s an interesting question, no doubt. I suppose it hinges on the empirical content of belief? Does it presuppose falsifiability as a measure of truth?

Perhaps you could start a thread here with that question (or have you already)?

I spent another 10 years trying to come up with an answer to the question. The process was extremely painful, but at the end of the process, I did come to peace with it.

So I guess your answer was: “it doesn’t” ?

If I did have an experience of the transcendent, I’m pretty sure I would abandon my naturalistic tendency in a heartbeat though. And I still hope sometimes I will have some experience that changes my mind.

That would be awesome (literally).

 

[JDaniel]

I have to agree that experience seems to be the most important factor in whether people believe in something transcendent. It certainly isn’t intelligence, logic or rationality. As you say, there are intelligent rational people on both sides of the debate.

It is interesting really. I once described it like this: Imagine that you have a kitchen timer without any numbers ticking out the seconds left in your life. That’s how long you have to make the world the way that you want it.

Well, it came in stages actually. It really picked up steam when I read an article by Karl Popper. Not to get into a debate, but he asked the question: How is your concept of God different from an imaginary God or no God at all? That question really threw me.

I spent another 10 years trying to come up with an answer to the question. The process was extremely painful, but at the end of the process, I did come to peace with it.

If I did have an experience of the transcendent, I’m pretty sure I would abandon my naturalistic tendency in a heartbeat though. And I still hope sometimes I will have some experience that changes my mind.

Greetings, Sideline:

Your dilemma is an age-old one. The quasi-religion, scientology, has discovered some good things (interestingly enough) about the mind. The mind can be divided into about 10 - 11 parts, but, one of the main parts (and, it is a large one) is what is called the “reactive mind”.

It is in this area of the mind that we store “engrams”. Engrams are those memories that our brains record especially during times of un-consciousness, semi-consciousness, severe emotional distress, or intense pain. Over the course of our lifetimes, the mind stores more and more of these productivity blocking memories. Down the road, our mental stability can be severely affected and distorted because of the re-stimulation of various engrams as we go about our daily businesses.

I won’t go into the details of it, but, it seems that the younger we are, the more our minds are open to such things as “exteriorizations”, i.e., out-of-body experiences. However, as time goes on and we store more and more of those bad memories in our reactive minds, or, our bodies are wracked by psychosomatic “infirmities” we gradually, but, inevitably lose the ability to exteriorize.

Unfortunately, the older we get, the tougher it becomes to - on our own accord - encounter, or re-encounter, precisely that (or those) experiences that show us God.

Mystical experiences are out-of-body experiences, I contend. They are “places” where time stops; where we obtain a perfect mental image of Truth. (Sort of the way Sweeney does in T.S. Elliot’s poems about him.) So, if there was a way to destroy the effects of re-stimulated engrams, our minds could return to states akin to our childhood mental states, and, we would be open, once again, to mystical experiences.

Scientology has a technology that can blow out, so to speak, those stored engrams and return our youthful mental abilities. For what it’s worth, obtain a copy of a book called, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, by L. Ron Hubbard. I believe it can start you on your journey to return home.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD
PS: ignore what you read online about the organization. The vast majority of it is sour grapes, in my opinion.

 

[Ahimsa]

I find metaphysical naturalism an attractive model of the Universe, even if I don’t think it totally “works,” philosophically.

If you can’t become an atheist, then you can’t become a Christian.

 

[Sideline]

It’s an interesting question, no doubt. I suppose it hinges on the empirical content of belief? Does it presuppose falsifiability as a measure of truth?

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I’ve been giving it some thought over past little while. Popper certainly was advocating the principle of falsification in his paper. I had always hoped I was adding my own personal spin on the idea, but I’m not sure I really was.

Perhaps you could start a thread here with that question (or have you already)?

I find it hard enough to be civil and even tempered when I don’t have a lot invested in the idea that the thread is about. I am afraid that I wouldn’t handle a debate about something I find so personal all that well.

So I guess your answer was: “it doesn’t” ?

Yeah. I’m fairly convinced that most of the people who believe in God have a very clear idea of what they mean when they talk about God. I really didn’t.

That would be awesome (literally).

Well, I’m certainly open to the idea. Maybe it will happen one day when I least expect it.

 

[Ahimsa]

If you can’t become an atheist, then you can’t become a Christian.

Allow me to expand on this. An atheist denies the existence of a theos. A theos is a being not limited to a physical body; a theos might have a physical body and some other sort of body. A theos, thus, might appear in one sort of body or the other, depending upon the circumstance. Humans, however, can only appear in the physical body.

Normally, humans can’t see a theos, because humans usually experience the physical word, on the one hand, and the mental world, on the other.

To believe in a theos merely because someone else says that they experienced a theos is illogical. If you haven’t experienced a theos, and if assuming that a theos exists does not make any sense to you, then it would be best to simply reject the existence of a theos (and become atheist).

However, if someday you do experience a theos, or if someday the existence of a theos makes perfect sense to you, then admit that you believe in a theos. And if that theos happens to be Christ, then admit that you believe in Christ. But belief in Christ, or any theos, I would argue, only has power if you’re also willing (depending upon the evidence or the logic available) to not believe in Christ or any theos.

 

[StAnastasia]

I find metaphysical naturalism an attractive model of the Universe, even if I don’t think it totally “works,” philosophically. Anyone else feel this way? There’s something appealing about it, and I’m not talking only about the radical moral freedom attached to it that I imagine is a major attraction for many people…

I have lots of priest friends who are scientists, and who presuppose methodological naturalism, while not making the non-scientific move into metaphysical naturalism.

StAnastasia

 

[RobbyS]

It’s an interesting question, no doubt. I suppose it hinges on the empirical content of belief? Does it presuppose falsifiability as a measure of truth?

Perhaps you could start a thread here with that question (or have you already)?

So I guess your answer was: “it doesn’t” ?

That would be awesome (literally).

Probably for a pious Jew at Auschwitz, as with Job before him. falsibility would be a factor. One can say even for a Jew named Jesus as he hung naked on the cross, gasping his life away. But only, I must add, if faith were nothing more than a proposition, if life itself were nothing more than a set of propositions, held together only by reason acting on data. But that would make us all nothing more than a kind of artificial intelligent being like the “Data” of Star Trek but subsisting in an organic machine.

 

[Leela]

I find metaphysical naturalism an attractive model of the Universe, even if I don’t think it totally “works,” philosophically. Anyone else feel this way?

Hi Neithan,

What is metaphysical naturalism?

I think that believers tend to be mistaken in thinking that atheists are materialists. I think that you will find that they are far more often pragmatists–people who want to move the conversation past such metaphysical considerations of appearance/reality, free will /determinism, materialism/idealism, etc. by considering the actual consequences of holding given beliefs.

Best,
Leela