Something Better: The Essence of Naturalism

I've reflected recently on how the arguments of naturalistic philosophy can be so sound and eloquent and yet be fiercely resisted by so many people. I've also been dismayed the dry, perversely nihilistic view that some naturalists seem to take. Science, however, is a personal and very human endeavor, a fact that is neglected by both the more nihilistic naturalists and their vocal opponents. It is the lack of consideration for this strongly personal feature that leads some naturalists to treat scientific theory as untouchable empyrean truth, and that deters traditionalists from embracing what they see as a world-view that is anesthetic and impersonal.

I had planned out a much longer essay, but for now it seems more constructive to concisely state basic, working principles. A great deal of ink has been spilled on this subject already. What's missing are ideas that can be readily acted upon:

---

1. Observe carefully. Truth is everywhere.



2. Ask questions. Knowledge begins with a question.



3. Acknowledge the unknown. Understand that assumptions have consequences, and these consequences point beyond.



4. Be the truth. Apply your full understanding, and act according to everything you know.

---

Finding and knowing the truth is everyone's business.

To be human means to live in the midst of a conflict between hope and possibility. It's been wisely said that to exist is to suffer. It may be that our uniquely human existence entails uniquely human sufferings such as these. We have the distinct ability to dream up new worries for ourselves, and then to worry ourselves sick over them. We also have the distinct ability to deconstruct our own views and perceptions and thus rationalize away any and all appearances, to the point that the world of our experience is left desolate and bare. Sometimes we see things that aren't there. Sometimes we don't see things that plainly are there. This basic principle leads to a significant conclusion: seeing is not the same as understanding, and not seeing isn't the same as seeing clearly. This principle is widely applicable to all constructed philosophies.

Science has made wide inroads to areas considered the sole domain of mysticism or metaphysics, but even the eloquence of brilliant and heroic thinkers has been insufficient to dispel the unease with which many people regard the proposition that all the phenomena of our experience proceed from basic natural laws. Empirical or logical arguments fail to convince not because they are unsound or their conclusions untrue, but because they fail to adequately replace the practical function of gradually evolved systems of personal belief.

People do not need different theories. People need better ways of theorizing. Science is the acquisition of knowledge, and the acquisition of knowledge should not be constrained to a narrow set of subjects, or particular class of professionals. There is no sense in convincing people to abandon traditional views of God, free will, or humanity's place in the Universe if it only means substituting scientific theories for pre-scientific dogmas. Both represent incomplete views of the world, the distinction being that science puts its fictions to the test. This distinction is crucial but easily overlooked. A theory is nothing but a story whose deeper meaning manifests as a discovery about the world. People embrace traditional views because these views allow them to make discoveries about themselves. They resist naturalistic explanations only when they appear sterile and unable to explain anything new or useful within the scope of their own lives.

What's needed in the reform of all our views is a sincere valuation of the truth, a deep appreciation of what it is and how it is gotten. A close examination reveals that, at the personal level, this is no different from learning and growing as a human being.

It is through fictions that we learn, and knowledge is just the skillful manipulation of fictions. Wisdom is the ability to go beyond fictions.