|
Freethought Association Minutes, February 9, 2005, #179
Naturalism: The Next Step for Humanists?
Tom Clark
Announcements:
We were reminded that the Freethought Award ceremony was postponed until further notice. It had been originally scheduled for February 12, 2005. We are still taking nominations for this award which can be either an individual or organization that exemplifies freethought ideals and mission of our group. In lieu of this, on Saturday, the 12th there will be a Darwin Day Celebration at members, Kathy and John's house; 826 Fairmount SE in GR. It is Vegan (potluck; bring a dish to pass and your own beverage) and fragrance free. They invite you to bring a drum!
On February 15, at 7PM, two episodes will be shown from the film series Shocking & Awful, A Grassroots Response to War & Occupation at the Wealthy Street Theatre (1130 Wealthy St. SE, GR). The episodes are Globalization at Gunpoint- The Economics of Occupation, and Empire & Oil. This is sponsored by the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID).
February 16 (Wednesday) Jason Pittman will host the next Movie Night, featuring the film Y tu mama tambien. This will be at his home- 740 Lockwood NE at 7PM. For more information: 616-634-2471, or jpittman@backpacker.com.
The next day, February 17, another Lockwood Street Freethought Commune member, Jeremy Crow, will host the Book Discussion Group. The book being discussed is Freethinkers; A History of American Secularism. For more information: 616- 706-2029 or jaycosmos@yahoo.com.
On Saturday, February 19, Jennifer Beahan will host the Freethought Women's Group. This did not make it on the calendar. For information and details, contact Jennifer: 616-706-2029 or musiqueforlife@yahoo.com.
**NOTE: Word was just received that this was canceled due to scheduling conflicts.
Our lively schedule continues this month with Freethinkers on Snow Tubes! This will take place on February 21 from 7-10PM at the Pando Ski Center; 8076 Belding Rd. in Rockford. Please RSVP as soon as possible and for more information, contact Jason Pittman: jpittman@backpacker.com.
Rounding out the month, our next meeting will be on February 23. Hard Times Cafe- An Empowerment Model will be presented by Kathy Needham, mentor and coordinator of the Hard Times Cafe.
Some other upcoming events on our calendar are as follows: Freethought & the Arts will be our special presentation on March 23, where we get to see another side of our membership. If you are interested in participating, please contact this year's coordinator, Charles LaRue at calart@hotmail.com. So far we have five individuals/teams signed up. For our last such presentation (Nov. 12, 2003), we were able to successfully accommodate 10 artists/performers/musicians, so more are welcome and encouraged!
Our Annual Board Meeting will be on April 3 at 9AM at the Seavers'; 10721 52nd Ave., Allendale, MI. All are welcome to attend.
Remember to save household items for our first Freethought Garage Sale Fundraiser. This will be on Lockwood St., NE; 740 & 743, on May 28. More details to follow. Coordinated by Jan Van Oosterhout.
The Annual Freethought Picnic will be at Millennium Park on July 9 at Open Shelter A from 12 noon-6PM. Coordinated by Charles LaRue.
The Van Oosterhouts; Jan and Bill, will open up their Lake Michigan cottage to us again for Freethought on the Lake, on July 23. More information to follow.
Josh D. and Amanda N. reminded members to start bringing in mugs for use for the coffees and teas they bring in (Mainline Coffee) as they have discontinued supplying the styrofoam cups; when they run out, they're gone. Jeff mentioned that some people may wish to check out our Freethought Association merchandise link on our website: http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/ to purchase mugs with our logo on them. Josh and Amanda have graciously offered to wash and bring in all donated mugs each time for our use.
It was learned that well-known community activist and executive director of The Grand Rapids Media Center, died following a heart procedure complication. Dirk Koning, 48, was hired to run the fledgling GRTV public access television station in the early 80's. That station grew into the Community Media Center on Bridge St. NW, operating two cable channels, WYCE-FM, Internet service provider GrandNet Services, and the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID). His tireless work, inspiration, passion, and example will be sorely missed.
Presentation
This meeting's topic was Naturalism: The Next Step for Humanists? It was presented by Tom Clark who is the Director of the Center for Naturalism in Boston, where we flew him in from. The Center for Naturalism is an educational non-profit organization devoted to increasing public awareness of scientific naturalism and its implications for personal and social well-being. The CFN (www.Naturalism.org/Center_for_Naturalism) seeks to foster the idea that human beings are fully caused, entirely natural phenomena, and that human flourishing is best achieved in light of such understanding.
Clark had spoken to the Great Lakes Humanists Society (the GLHS and our group jointly host an email freethought/humanist discussion group, with information for participation that can be linked to from our website) the previous night. While his organization exists to disseminate information on naturalism to the general public, which is mired in faith-based thinking; he challenges groups such as ours, too, in the secular humanistic community to explore fully articulated, thorough-going naturalism, complete with its personal and social implications. He was impressed by the size of our group and told us that the scientific and philosophical components of naturalism are uniting factors for various types of freethinking people. The explicit underlying element is that there is no supernatural agency involved in leading a good and ethical life.
Some of the CFN's activities include educational and outreach programs on naturalism, advocating for policies consistent with naturalism, research into the subject of naturalism and to create a community of naturalists. Its policy domains are in criminal justice, social and economic equality, public education and environmental sustainablility.
Naturalism is based on knowledge derived from the physical and social sciences and holds that human beings are fully included in the natural world. Science tells us that we are connected and united, in every aspect of our being, to what surrounds us. An individual's development and behavior are entirely the result of conditioning circumstances, both genetic and environmental. Naturalism, therefore, denies that persons have traditional contra-causal free will- something capable of acting as a self-created first cause. Understanding causality is the key to understanding naturalism, Clark asserted, and science, which is evidence- based, is at the heart of the naturalistic world view.
Since it replaces the dualism and human exceptionalism of free will with the unity of full causal connection to nature, naturalism has deep implications for how we conceive of our place in the world. The psychological, social and spiritual consequences of naturalism are far reaching and positive, giving us a sure sense of being at home in a vast, awe-inspiring universe as we create meaning in our lives and a more humane, sustainable society.
Naturalism can help create a better world by illuminating the conditions under which individuals and societies flourish, and by providing a tangible, real basis for connection and community. Doctrines and policies which assume the existence of a freely willing agent, and which ignore the actual causes of behavior, are unfounded and often counter- productive. To the extent to which we suppose persons act out of their uncaused free will, we will be blind to those factors which produce criminality and other pathologies, or, on the positive side, the factors which make for well-adjusted, flourishing individuals and societies. This view can also influence public policy objectives by changing fundamental attitudes about credit and blame based in supernaturalistic views of the self. We are entering a faith-based era, Clark told us, so the challenges are great. The Center he represents is the only one which specifically addresses naturalism and its benefits to society and policy.
Naturalism tackles the deep questions of who we are and our very notions of self. It closes off the Cartesian dualistic view of an extra, nonnatural ingredient needed for humans to be fully alive and special. There is nothing in biology generally or in studying the brain specifically that gives us any reason to look for a ghost in the machine- a soul, or any other supernatural element that performs and functions in the existence of the human being. There is only evidence of the natural world that we are fully connected to, and by seeing our deep connection to nature in every respect, we can have the basis for a mature, fulfilling, and a cognitively consistent quest for personal growth and meaning.
The naturalistic creation story rivals any nonnatural one ever posited. The evidence- based scientific tale is one of billions, not thousands, of years. It tells of humankind as being fully woven into the fabric of he cosmos, a cosmos that is more vast that can be comprehended, instead of being isolated from the universe and the center of an impoverished tiny mote of space. We are composed of the elements forged in the nuclear furnaces of suns that have been born, burned brightly and then expired in a cosmic gasp, sending those altered elements out to seed nascent planetary bodies; we are carbon based organisms because we are stardust, our blood runs red with the iron from those stars in their death throes among billions of other stars in galaxies that, themselves, number among countless billions. Our ancestry is not traced to a couple wearing fig leaves a few millennia ago but to the very first organisms on Earth; all growing, evolving, adapting and surviving life's blind contingencies over eons on an ever changing, dynamic planet. A mythic soul is a rather tragic thing next to the human brain, with its billions of neurons and synaptic connections, for something to confer a special quality to us.
Clark cautioned us against the over-extension of science to where one becomes scientistic, rather than scientific, in approach. Some things that make life so beautiful; art, literature, cooking, love, and friendship as examples, are not proper things for severe reductionism; where the vista becomes one of molecular activity. But no matter how far one goes up or down the scale of life in examining it, there is no sensible need or evidence for an appeal to supernatural causation.
Even for people who reject the God concept, there is difficulty for them in getting past the homunculus idea—something apart from the wholly material brain and body that is somehow in charge; the “I” of consciousness that is hard for most people to reconcile with the life processes that generate this sense of self. This thinking gets in the way of understanding our natures truthfully and locating what makes life meaningful in a non-illusory way, as Owen Flanagan noted in his book, The Problem of the Soul.
The soul idea, Clark mentioned, is a mysterious essence that cannot be detected by natural means, causes acts but is uncaused itself, and does not produce the stuff of natural agency, does not have a life process, does not connect up with anything in all the world that is natural by any meaningful or measurable means and leaves no room for genetics and the environment that we know to exist and can examine naturally.
Concepts of the soul usher in meditations on free will. If the ultimate self-hood exists apart from the wetware-- the neurobiological, electro-chemical, fully physiological entity; one that transcends or is even just unaffected by the environment, past experiences and present circumstances-- then people become possessed of a good or bad soul, not the natural outcomes of nature and nurture and situational realities. Clark mentioned Clarence Darrow in light of his rejection of the metaphysical basis for behavior. When Darrow (as portrayed by Roger Brewin) came to speak to our group, he brought out how he typically defended his accused clients by getting the jurors to see themselves in the defendant's shoes; with his client's background and motivations, how he might come to his state of mind, naturally, in his situation, and how they- given the same set of circumstances- might do the same thing.
Belief in an invisible, immaterial essence that is apart from the natural being decouples our human connection with each other and even with the other life forms of the planet and ultimately all of nature. It is easier to deem a person evil and not be concerned with rehabilitation if his behavior is governed by a soul that exists outside the realm of natural-world care. If a spiritual aspect of us survives death, life becomes less precious. If a glorious hereafter awaits us, then the natural world is that much more expendable.
Clark said that we do not need an ethereal essence to possess freedom. Steven Pinker talked about how people understand that the brain is involved in mental function but that they see it as a sort of pocket PC for the soul. Everything comes out of something else. For those who believe that behavior is produced by the soul, the regression stops there. Since it is not connected by anything to anything in any tangible, measurable way, those who hold this view need not press on further to look into the mechanisms involved or other natural means for the soul's existence or its role in directing the show.
As science explores ever deeper, however, we learn more about the natural causes for actions and interactions. We see how the levels of hormonal secretions change moods, we see the effects of our chemistry kicking into action—we can even see the activity of the thinking process now, with scans that show glucose consumption in different regions of the brain while the subject is working out problems.
Of course, it is seldom mentioned how the fact of brain injury essentially negates the whole soul idea. When the brain becomes damaged and loses (or sustains alterations in) some brain function, this directly links up to predictable personality, motor and behavioral outcomes. Should not an immutable non-corporeal essence carry on just the same no matter what occurs to the body that hosts it? We can see how the environment, acting upon the genetic legacy of a person, will shape behavioral results. We can regress further, through genetics to see what sort of mind/body outcomes are more or less likely to occur in individuals based on their family histories. Mysterious essences play no discernible role in all this.
And taking a look back further still, to our more remote ancestors, we can see how the environment that they evolved in and the social strategies that were successful, are borne out in modern humankind. We can trace back further and further yet in evolutionary history to all of life's grand history, and as mentioned, beyond the Earth itself to the stars that spawned our natural elements.
The environment that we are in actually sculpts our neurology, creates new neural pathways and establishes routes and connections, while weeding out other ones. Not just trauma, but our experiences- what we learn, the conditions we are in when absorbing information and sensory input, combine with our genetic endowments to result in the kind of mind we have. If there is a soul or supernatural agency involved, there is simply very little for it to explain and no need for its existence.
So a good question to ask might be why is it that so many people feel more comfortable believing in a supernatural control system for one's behavior; whether the system is a soul or gods or demons or some wee homunculus, but feel less self directed and less comfortable with the notion that their behavior is a result of complex interactions between contingent nexus points, biological factors and other natural world occurrences?
A friend of this Secretary told me about how after her mother died, she was visited by her mother again, as a spirit or soul embodied in a bird that came by and lingered around outside her house. She took the bird's presence as a sign that her mother was telling her that she was fine and that her spirit lived on. Since the issue was not academic for her, I did not debate her reasoning with her. But I could not help but think how frightening and terrible it would be to suddenly reincarnate into an avian body, having had no experience with bodily flight, the consumption of worms, the innate drives to reproduce with other birds and survive predation from the neighbor's cat. A human mind, even if somehow divorced from the brain of the fowl, would feel trapped in such circumstances, I would think.
Johnstone Family Professor in the psychology department at Harvard, Steven Pinker further noted, in an article that Clark provided (How to Think About the Mind; Newsweek, September 27, 2004, pg. 76) that people dealing with clinically depressed loved ones will sometimes, in frustration, ask why the person will not simply snap out of it! He writes: “But depressed people don't have lazy souls. The parts of their brains that could 'snap out of it' are not working properly. To depressed people it is objectively obvious that their prospects are hopeless. Tweaking the brain with drugs may sometimes be the best way to jump-start the machinery that we call the will.” Later he talks of how Galileo's observations seemed fraught, at the time, with moral dangers and how it is still believed that if one reduces the soul to brain activity then there are “...pernicious implications for everything from criminal responsibility to our image of ourselves as a species.” Again it seems unclear why natural processes are so threatening for many people, while supernatural ones are comforting.
While not discussed during Clark's presentation, this Secretary thought of the zombie. While the 2500 gods that humankind has fashioned have different looks and attributes, interests and peoples that they watch over or whose lives they intervene in; and even when a single God is conjured up in the minds of people—there is no one consistent idea of what It is, what exactly It does, how It does it, where It is, what It looks like, etc. Zombies, on the other hand, are typed with infinitely greater fidelity. It is by their example that we may look at how people generally regard the soul, since the zombie is invariably regarded as a human being missing only that inorganic organ.
The zombie seems like a very impaired person; it walks but with a shambling gait, so the soul must not be a means of basic locomotion, but adds grace to the person. The zombie can think, but hasn't the cognitive abilities of normal humans, has no joy, no love, no creative impulse, no wonders, desires, dreams, fears...So, for those who envision the zombie, it must have the basic mental faculties to autonomously move and plan simple motor activities, but not to possess the goals and thoughts of humanity. Their eyes are always lackluster but functioning, in keeping with their attribution of being “windows to the soul.” And they are malevolent, but since they lack the athleticism and powers of other supernatural beings; vampires, werewolves, ghosts, demons, sprites, angels, etc., they can be more easily eluded.
Finally, zombies are like robots in depictions. They are expendable. No matter how humanoid the android or how much the zombie looks like a former neighbor, friend, loved one, etc., it can be eliminated with impunity. The ingredient used in this calculation of sacred life versus other volitional beings, again, appears to be the soul. Of course this calculation is used to justify our “dominion” over other, soulless animal life as well. In some portrayals where an android is a sympathetic being that stirs pathos and empathy for it, it usually possesses the imagined “stuff” of the soul. It seems to love, to “feel”, to have aspirations, a “will” to “live”, goals, and so on. Even the most hardcore naturalist knows the script and responds to it. She knows when she is seeing an ensouled being, even when not specified in this way and even when she labors under no such belief system herself.
There was a time when people believed in the Preformationist idea of tiny organic homunculi inside each person who simply grew larger during gestation but were fully formed... from the beginning. Further, each tiny female being contained the pre-formed beings that would later be born to her. Eve had, in this view, all the Russian doll beings- within- beings that would eventually occupy the world. Because there was no concept of the blastula or the ontological developmental patterns of life, a fully formed life was easier to regard as an already ensouled being. With further medical knowledge, the question naturally arose as to when the meiotic cellular divisions would become infused with this hallmark of humanity.
We later learned that the budding life of many disparate seeming beings from the chicken to the human to the mouse all had virtually the same appearance in the early fetal formations. Further complicating the issue, the human work-in-progress itself seemed to “recapitulate” the whole of evolutionary descent—its development presenting a tube worm look, a gilled fishy look, a tailed primate look and so on. Calling a multicellular fetal life form a “child” is perverse to some while perfectly sensible to others. We seem to have to fall back on one of two (or both for some) concepts if we are to differentiate the potential human from the rest of the Kingdom Animalia. There is a point where the developing being in the womb develops brainwave patterns that are distinct from other animals. So if we are to see only human life as special, then perhaps this is the point where it can be determined to belong to that elite club.
If life is precious simply by being organic living tissue that could have potentially formed into a human (as the anti-stem cell research people seem to feel) but remains simply cells what differentiates it then from the rest of Earth's biota? If sentience is the defining factor, then we should not experiment on, consume, hunt or otherwise cause suffering to other sentient beings, as those from still other viewpoints feel. But brainwave activity remains a measurement that could be used to set one living bundle of cells (in a human womb) apart from another, once its level of development attained such differentiation, fairly far into the pregnancy as it turns out.
The other factor used is that of the soul, but since those who believe in this non-material essence, perceive it as apart from brainwave activity or the brain's structure and genetic potential, it once again becomes a disembodied whatsit with no locus nor time of implementation that can be established. So we are left to a wish-washy view of ensoulment to make the person special from the non-human animal, or a medical process that takes in only one (albeit significant) aspect of human life. Under such a determining factor, a severely mentally challenged human being would have no further claim to specialness than any non- human creature possessing a comparable or higher brainwave activity. And all this sidesteps the idea of when ensoulment even first occurred during hominid evolution. It is always a problem when one must try to join metaphysical supernatural concepts with the natural realm that we exist in, while yet retaining our ancient prejudices and ancestral concepts that still abide in modern society.
In a New York Times article (9/10/04) by psychology professor Paul Bloom, it is noted how even experts in brain function, resort to dualistic language when describing brain activity that shows up in scans. They will talk about how they think about sex, religion, or other concepts and then different parts light up in the scanned imaging of their brains, as if they are two separate processes; thought preceding organic neural activity.
Clark discussed with us that since the faith- oriented person regards his beliefs as sensible as well as comforting, the reason-based individual can gain little by attacking it on grounds of how little sense their world view makes or launching into heady scientific debate. Instead, he advocates highlighting the perniciousness and punitiveness of living with the delusion of two natures. Focus on the compassion and empathy that comes with seeing our connectedness to one another and to all life and the natural causes for behavior. Talk positively about the heart of naturalism without attempting to contrast it with organized theology. Clark said that the reduction of societal inequalities naturally ensues when we cease to hold that people deserve their fate due to having a predetermining soul that no human or Earthly intervention can act upon. Clark called for a new political humanism.
We have to be, Clark insisted, smart on crime not just tough on it. The naturalistic view pertains to criminal justice, addiction treatment, social inequality issues, etc., and places responsibility to one another in each person's hands. We can do something about the human condition if we know why things happen. This can only happen if we regard the natural causes of life's circumstances. Assigning outcomes to devils, angels, gods, spirits (for good or ill) and immaterial souls destined to burn evermore in a fiery Hell or flap about on avian wings in a Heaven, effectively dismisses any possible effectiveness of natural methods for assisting and treating our fellow beings. If we are fully caused, there is no ultimate credit nor ultimate blame that can be assigned to the individual. Causality is power, Clark said, and spoke of the the three C standards incorporated in naturalism; connection, compassion and control.
Clark had us take ten seconds to observe the thoughts we generated as they bubbled up. He speculated that we did not know what we were about to think before we had had those thoughts. We do not need a supernatural supervisor since the brain does everything the soul is alleged to do except survive the mortal coil. The brain is adept at creating this illusory sense that we have an outside influence and monitor, and in manufacturing a sense of self that is somehow removed from the corporeal being that we are.
Our presenter spoke of the Buddha's understanding of there being nothing permanent, essential or abiding about us, focusing instead on reducing suffering in the here and now, rather than avoiding eternal torment or gaining everlasting bliss in a metaphysical hereafter. He also spoke of 18th Century enlightenment philosophers Diderot (1718-1784) who regarded anything outside of and apart from nature as unnecessary (see his Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature) and d' Holbach (1723-1789) who promoted a vigorous materialism (see his System of Nature). Clark, the founder of the Davis Square philosophy discussion group, also talked about Hume who, likewise in the 1700's, questioned thoughts arising by means of a separate essence. He also talked of later thinkers upon the human condition, including B.F. Skinner and the ideas in his book: Beyond Freedom & Dignity.
With the explosive growth in neuroscience, genetics, psychology, and other applicable fields, we can view the brain as a choice-making machine, that makes any other additives to the mix superfluous. We can now see how the brain works in solving dilemmas and how impairment to any part of it relates to changes in thought processes, behavior and capabilities. There is no Muse or soul required for our human expressions of love, art, passion or a profound sense of awe and wonder. In this regard, Clark spoke of a Naturalistic Spirituality, as exemplified by the writings of Ursula Goodenough (see The Sacred Depths of Nature) as one example, and which he did not see as an oxymoron. This involves a fully informed naturalistic view of the universe and all that fills it. Nature and natural processes are spectacularly amazing and wondrous and do not require supernatural additives to make it so, or give us a sense of a spiritual feeling when regarding it. Richard Dawkins wrote of this godless and scientifically informed sense of wonder in his book Unweaving the Rainbow, as had the late Carl Sagan in many works.
With the understanding of how we came to be who we are, we can comprehend better the underlying circumstances in life and not look to outside forces (think of the AA's fostering of a dependence on a Higher Power). Crime and punishment, in this light, take on a different approach. One does not punish for its own sake or out of retribution. One can more precisely target root causes to make more effective treatment and rehabilitation, and have more successful outcomes. The metaphysical approach allows more easily the concept of the Self Made Man, who needs no one's help. Clark mentioned the Reagan administration's perpetuation of this view of the poor deserving their fate; it is no use trying to change their circumstances as they were fated for that life. And of course we see this with the expressed view of homosexuals making “lifestyle choices” for their sexual orientation. This makes them willful sinners who only need to find a set of religious doctrines to be changed at the soul level.
We must look for what we wish to achieve, not in some ultimate justice (one of Bush's titles for our occupation of Iraq had a similar name, which, like his calling our acts a “crusade” did not sit well with Muslims who believe only Allah can bestow ultimate justice and who have had unpleasant experiences with Christian crusades). We can attempt to have others hold to standards of good citizenship and look to natural elements of forethought, planning and consciousness. We can't wait for determinism to just happen, he said. And we cannot passively await outside supernatural agents to act for or upon us.
When asked by an audience member if he believed in ESP, he said that there has never been any scientific evidence for it and no mechanism proposed. As has been mentioned in other minutes, the idea of biological evolution was understood long before Darwin and Wallace found the mechanism for it to work: natural selection. But it was this finding that transformed evolution into a scientific theory. It is not enough to propagate ideas such as God did it, the devil made me do it, my guardian angels protected me. One must propose a means by which these entities work upon the natural world. Clark further noted that as soon as a mechanism is given, it becomes a proper undertaking for study using scientific methodology. There is no naturally occurring phenomena that exist outside the purview of science. We do not have to have The Answer to everything but we must be comfortable with questioning everything, with no sacred cows or areas of thought protected from scrutiny. Mysteries remain. There is nothing better than a good question whose answers do not spring up without hard effort.
In discussing consciousness, during the question and answer period, Clark said that consciousness is what the brain does and we can look to natural biochemical factors for what we feel and do. The brain produces a gestalt. Our perceptions of the world are manufactured by our brains; different kinds of minds see the environment they are in differently. He quipped that if love is but a chemical then three cheers for dopamine. This also ushers in the thought that if personality disorders or a sense of well being emanates from a supernatural organ (soul), then how is it that it responds to medications and natural world therapies exactly as if it were fully organic?
Clark, in response to another question, invoked the idea of Maxwell's Demon; an imaginary creature that James Clerk Maxwell created for mathematical thought experiments. In his formulation, Clark used it to speak of a being who could know the position of every single molecule in the universe and how this knowledge would allow for an omniscient being, a la, God. If such a being existed and just observed passively would it have any significance to our lives? If it caused the molecules to behave according to Its will, would it not bear the blame for evil as well as positive outcomes? If we were given free will by an omniscient entity to freely choose, then what need is there for a cosmic string puller? If our strings are being pulled then what need is there for free will and doesn't this reduce all life and action to a waste and prison for conscious beings?
He was asked to compare and contrast intuition with rationalism. Clark explained that educated guesses, hunches and the generation of hypotheses upon feelings were all powerful and necessary tools in asking the good questions. But the actual examination process requires rationalism. This is the reason for the double blind testing done in science experiments, so as not to get expectations that color and contaminate the resulting data.
Clark was asked about Chaos Theory. Complex systems produce outcomes that are difficult to predict but not impossible. At the heart of it is determinism. Real, natural effects make for real actual results and when these ripple outward to generate other causal effects they are naturally linked in a deterministic fashion.
He responded to a question about how the evolutionary study of human nature creates numerous causal pathways, not a single one to factor in, and how this produces various probabilistic explanations for what occurs. The trick is in devising ways to weigh these probabilities in order of their innate determining power.
Asked about Libertarian beliefs, Clark said that there was no necessary connection between the political/ free market ideas of this view and free will concepts. He reiterated, in this light, however, how if we reconfigured human society to one based on naturalness, with a clear eyed look to what creates human flourishing, we would likely see that cooperation and interrelatedness produces the best results, rather than assigning groups and categories of people to being separate somehow and beneath or apart from naturalistic assistance. If one believes (as he said earlier) that we are fully self made we are less likely to feel a need to help others who are, then, fated to their lot and do not deserve, and will not benefit from, aid. There is no metaphysical basis for the productions and arts of humanity, including the “art of the possible”--politics.
The CFN seeks to develop a broad-based community, online and in cities and states world-wide, within which naturalists can develop strategies, local agendas, and opportunities for creative expression, and simply enjoy each other's company.
“...if we understand that there are good evolutionary reasons for our wanting people to suffer when they have done direct or indirect harm to us, then we can account for our strong feelings about the appropriateness of retribution without presuming they are a guide to moral truth...We may be able to recognize our retributivist feelings as a deep and important aspect of our character- and take them seriously to that extent- without endorsing them as a guide to truth, and start rethinking our attitudes toward punishment on that basis.” Janet Radcliffe Richards, Human Nature After Darwin, (2002) p. 210.
“It seems to be one of the fixed points of our considered judgments that no one deserves his place in the distribution of native endowments, any more than one deserves one's initial starting place in society. The assertion that a man deserves the superior character that enables him to make the effort to cultivate his abilities is equally problematic; for his character depends in large part upon the fortunate family and social circumstances for which he can claim no credit.” John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1974) p.104.
“The view that assumes nonnatural causation of the sort a Cartesian free will requires, not only assumes, something we have good reason to believe is false... but is actually a morally harmful picture. It engenders a certain passivity in the face of social problems that lead certain individuals to be malformed.” Owen Flanagan, The Problem of the Soul, p.152.
Secretary: Charles LaRue |
