Welcome to ScientificNaturalism.Org
Our Challenges
Naturalists are oftened challenged by Supernaturalists who claim we humans have knowledge both of a world of reason and facts but also of a world of faith and values.
Naturalists, say the Supernaturalists, can provide adequate explanations of the world of facts but fail miserably in their explanations of the world of values. Examples of such knowledge cited by Supernaturalists include:
- spiritual experiences,
- the certainty of moral knowledge and knowledge given by faith,
- the awareness of moral and aesthetic values
- and the experience of an inner life and of free will.
More importantly, some Supernaturalists claim that Naturalists are incapable of living a meaningful life because they cannot derive meaning from experiences of the world of faith and values.
In addition to the Supernaturalist challenges, other forms of Naturalism claim that Naturalism implies that meaning and knowledge are fundamentally linguistic and human, or that morality is fundamentally human or that free will is an illusion.1
Our Mission
We assert, contrary to the Supernaturalists, Anthrocentric Naturalists and the No Free Will Naturalists, that Scientific Naturalism provides the best explanation of human experience as a part of a continuity of sentient experience. As well, it provides the best guide to living a free, meaningful life. This website devotes itself to marshalling the best arguments for these assertions.
This site is divided into ten interrelated subject areas. Six subject areas concern philosophical positions (see explanations of each position below):
- Naturalism - as a philosophical position
- Scientific Realism - as a philosophical position
- Evolutionary Epistemology - as a philosophical position,
- Evolutionary Axiology - as a philosphical position.
- Ethical Naturalism - as philosophical positions,
- Scientific Naturalism - as a philosophical position which unifies Naturalism, Scientific Realism, Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Axiology and Ethical Naturalism into one philosophical system.
Four subject areas concern living intentionally:
- Systems of Intentional Living and
- Scientific Naturalism - as an individual system of intentional living,
- Science - as a group system of intentional living,
- Comparative Systems of Intentional Living
The Philosophical Subject Areas
Disclaimer
For the sake of initial clarity, the definitions given here are provisional, working definitions. The introductions to each subject area give more authorative versions of the definitions.
Definition of Naturalism
Naturalism is the position that we are wholly natural beings inhabiting a wholly natural world and that, in particular,
- knowledge of the world comes wholly from our natural faculties: perception and emotion, memory and intellect, and
- we have no veridical experience of supernatural beings or of supernatural features of the world or ourselves, and
- experiences of values, including moral and aesthetic values, are also wholly natural features of our wholly natural world.
This is Naturalism in a narrow sense.
Other Definitions of Naturalism
Other expressions of what Naturalism is include commitments to the governance of all events by natural law and a commitment to science as a means of organizing our knowledge the world. These other expressions refer to a more systematic position than our present use of the term. These expressions use a broader sense of Naturalism which may also be referred to as Scientific Naturalism, Systematic Naturalism or Worldview Naturalism.
Systemizing Naturalism
It is our belief that there are a number of alternatives to systematizing Naturalism. That is, there are a number of versions of Naturalism which we would count as systematic or constituting a worldview.2
With regard to the systemization of Naturalism, Naturalists differ in their commitments to certain theories of knowledge. Some systematic Naturalisms are Empiricist. That is, they understand knowledge as consisting wholly of an organization of sensory experience. Other systematic Naturalists are Theoretical Realists. That is, they understand knowledge as including knowledge of theoretical entities and our sensory experiences as being partly determined by the theories we hold. There are even systematic Naturalists who are Rationalists, Critical Idealists or NaÏve Realists.
Naturalism, Meaning and Knowledge
There are also systematic Naturalists who regard knowledge as primarily linguistic and wholly within the province of human beings. Systematic Naturalists who are committed to this anthrocentric theory of knowledge ignore or downplay animal knowledge. In our systematization of Naturalism, meaning and knowledge are the province of all sentient beings. We regard meaning and knowledge as fundamentally representational rather than as fundamentally linguistic. Moreoever, we believe meaning and knowledge evolve along with sentience.
Naturalism and Free Will
In our systematization of Naturalism, Free Will is likewise considered fundamentally representational and understood as the accessabililty, by a sentient being, of representations of alternative possibilities. We reject the notion that Free Will is confined to humans and see it as present, in varying degrees, in all sentient beings who have the requisite representations.
Naturalism and Ethics
Finally there are systematic Naturalists who look to Humanism for an account of moral and aesthetic value. Historically, there have been other alternatives:
- Hedonism and its various forms, Epicureanism, Cyrenaicism, Utilitarianism
- Stoicism
- Nietzsche's Superman philosophy
- Social Darwinism
- Marxism and its various forms, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism
- Behaviorism, including Skinner's Social Engineering
- Sociobiology
For our ethical account, we adopt an Ideal Spectator Theory3. This theory holds that moral sentments are based on compassion and that moral judgments are based on the moral sentiments of well-informed, disinterested spectators. Recasting an Ideal Spectator Theory as a theory of moral representations, we need not restrict moral (nor aesthetic) values to human beings. We will also argue that this account is the appropriate foundation for a science of ethics.
Naturalism as the Common Core of All Systemizations
Because there are so many alternatives to systematizing Naturalism, we prefer to use the term "Naturalism" to refer to the core insights which are common to the various attempts at systematization. The Naturalists main disagreement is with the Supernaturalists. Naturalists also disagree with each other. But for the most part, Naturalist disagreements employ debate and the marshalling of arguments and evidence rather than resorts to fear, intimidation or violence.
We believe that all Naturalists benefit from isolating the Naturalist / Supernaturalist debate from the internal debates we have with each other.
Scientific Realism
Scientifc Realism is the position that the theoretical terms of scientific theories are to be understood as referring to real features of the world. A given theory may fail in its reference to the world, in which case it is false. A true theory must succeed in its references to the world; but a theory which succeeds in its references is still be false if it fails in its predictions.
At its core, Scientific Realism is a semantical thesis about the content of scientific theoretical terms. But it can also be regarded as a philosophy of science and a (changing) ontology, or theory of what there is and a (changing) cosmology, or theory of how what there is changes. As a philosophy of science, it stands in opposition to other philosophies of science, notably Empiricism, Conventionalism and Instrumentalism.
In conjunction with a principle that rational belief requires an inference to the best available explanation, Scientific Realism provides an ontology and cosmology, derived from various sciences and histories. Commitments to these ontologies and cosmologies change as better explanations become available.
Historically, Naturalists have been Empiricists. Some forms of Empiricism, like Logical Empiricism, have lost credibility among Naturalists. In the eyes of Naturalists, other forms of Empiricism, like Constructive Empiricism, are worthy rivals to Realism. We look forward to this debate.
Evolutionary Epistemology
"Epistemology" is the philosophical term for the Theory of Knowledge, which must explain both what knowledge is and how it arises and changes.
Evolutionary Epistemology is the position that there is a continuity between animal knowledge and human knowledge and that varieties of knowledge evolved one from another, from most primitive to most sophisticated. The whole process of evolving knowledge begins with something which cannot properly be called knowledge at all, in exact parallel with life beginning with something which cannot properly be called life at all.
One important feature of Evolutionary Epistemology is that, contrary to most traditional theories of knowledge, knowledge is not fundamentally linguistic. Although there is linguistic knowledge, linguistic knowledge is itself a variety of something more fundamental. This denial of the necessity of language for knowledge allows for animal knowledge and a continuity between animal and human knowledge.
Naturalists historically have seen knowledge in solely or mainly human terms. Although many Naturalists have rejected this anthrocentrism, the issue is not settled.
Evolutionary Axiology
"Axiology" is the philosophical term for the Theory of Values, which must explain both what values are and how they arise and change.
Evolutionary Axiology is the position that there is a continuity between animal values and human values and that varieties of values evolved one from another, from most primitive to most sophisticated. The whole process of evolving values begins with something which cannot properly be called a value at all, in exact parallel with life beginning with something which cannot properly be called life at all. This beginning "something" is preference, created through a process of appreciation (that is, assignment of preferred status or assignment of value). The ability to appreciate is generally available to all sentient beings, not just human beings.
One important feature of Evolutionary Axiology is that, contrary to most traditional theories of values, values are not fundamentally moral. Although there are moral values,moral values are themselves a variety of something more fundamental. This denial of the necessity of morality for value allows for animal values and a continuity between animal and human values.
Naturalists historically have seen values in solely or mainly human terms. Although many Naturalists have rejected this anthrocentrism, the issue is also not settled.
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical Naturalism is the position that moral values are natural features of the world and are a subspecies of facts. Ethical Naturalism is a subset of Axiological Naturalism which is the position that all values, including moral and aesthetic values are subspecies of facts. Ethical Naturalists deny the conventional wisdom that "ought" cannot be derived from "is" and that there cannot be a science of ethics.
We have already listed a number of naturalistic alternatives for an ethical theory. Currently most prominent is the Humanist theory. Our understanding of this theory is that it sees moral value as attaching to individual persons or to actions impacting individual persons. It also sees these values as inherent and equal.
We will argue that:
- there are conferred values but no inherent values,
- basic values are attached to webs of sentient beings and actions which impact these webs,
- in addition to the member sentient beings, a web of sentient beings includes the enviromental components which sustain it and
- the value of individual components (that is, both sentient being and non-sentient sustaining component) is derived and apportioned (possibly unequally) from the value to the webs to which the components belong.
We again seek to avoid the anthrocentrism of other Naturalists and to include other sentient beings and the environments which sustain us and them within the scope of naturalistic ethics.
Scientific Naturalism
Scientific Naturalism, as we use the term, is a philosophical position which unifies Naturalism, Scientific Realism, Evolutionary Epistemology and Ethical Naturalism. Using a principle of inference to the best explanation and the Scientific Realist account of what constitutes the best explanation, Scientific Naturalism incorporates best explanations from a number of resources:
- Logics and Mathematics
- Natural and Social Sciences
- Natural Histories
- Systems and Information Sciences
This use of the term "Scientific Naturalism" is not meant to suggest that other systematic Naturalisms are unscientific. When we wish to refer to them we denote them as "scientific Naturalisms" and reserve "Scientific Naturalism" for the special combination of Naturalism, Scientific Realism, Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Axiology and Ethical Naturalism.
The diagram below shows the relationships between the unified philosophical positions and the resources they employ.
The role of Naturalism within Scientific Naturalism is to provide an account of what needs to be explained.
The roles of Scientific Realism, Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Axiology and Ethical Naturalism within Scientific Naturalism is to provide the required explanations:
- Scientific Realism provides answers to the questions "What is there?" and "How does what there is change?"
- Evolutionary Epistemology provides answers to the questions "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What is meaning?", "How is meaning acquired?"
- Evolutionary Axiology provides answers to the questions "What is value?" and "How is value acquired?"
- Ethical Naturalism provides answers to the questions "What is the difference between a fact and a value"? and "What is the difference between acquisition of knowledge of facts and acquisition of knowledge of values?"
To provide the required answers, Scientific Naturalism and its four explanatory components draw primarily on the following resources from the named areas of human knowledge:
- Logics and Mathematics, provide alternative, mainly structural models
- Natural and Social Sciences, provide alternative theories of how things and events happen
- Natural Histories, provide alternative accounts of what things and events happened
- Systems and InformationSciences, provide alternative, mainly dynamic models
The Intentional Living Subject Areas
Systems of Intentional Living
Definition of Systems of Intentional Living
Systems of Intentional Living are systems of related and interacting processes that produce actions intended to bring about specified outcomes.
Our account draws heavily on the various Systems Sciences.
All religions are systems of intentional living but not all systems of intentional living are religions. In particular, naturalistic systems of intentional living, such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism and Marxism are not religions but still aim at bringing about specified outcomes.
Individual and Group Systems of Intentional Living
We also distinguish individual Systems of Intentional Living from group Systems of Intentional Living. Although individual and group systems are studied using the same Framework, each contains special features for interacting with the other.
The study of Systems of Intentional Living is central to the development of the Scientific Naturalist approach to living a meaningful life. An individual system provides guidance to an individual Scientific Naturalist about how he or she should live his or her own life but also about how he or she should interact with the world with other Scientific Naturalists, other Naturalists and with Supernaturalists. It can provide this guidance because it regards the world as a natural system and other people as each having their own individual System of Intentional Living.
Scientific Naturalists also understand Science as a group System of Intentional Living or as a group of groups of such systems.
The diagram below shows the relationships between the Systems of Intentional Living we will be considering.
| Abbreviation | Meaning |
|---|---|
| GSIL or GSILs | Group System of Intentional Living or Group Systems of Intentional Living |
| ISIL or ISILs | Individual System of Intentional Living or Individua Systems of Intentional Living |
| SN | Scientific Naturalism |
Scientific Naturalism as an Individual System of Intentional Living is shown as a solid green rounded rectangle. It is enclosed in an open rounded rectangle outlined in green and representing Scientific Naturalism as a Group System of Intentional Living. The same color and enclosure represent the close interaction between the indivdual and the group systems. Only one Individual System is shown for clarity. There are, of course, as many Individual Systems are there are individuals who subscribe to Scientific Naturalism.
Both these systems are enclosed in the Naturalisms groups because of their similarities in use of resources and courses of actions. This is shown as one group; but, it is many, each of which contains at least one naturalist individual system.
There are also group systems for Logics & Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Systems Sciences, Natural Histories, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities. The first four are shown as aqua, reflecting their closer alignment with Naturalisms. The last four are shown as blue, reflecting their basic neutrality between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. These are typically nested groups of groups of systems. The Natural Sciences group, for example, contains Physics, Chemistry and Biology subgroups. And the Physics subgroup contains a subgroup for each branch of Physics including Quantum Theorists, Relativity Theorists and String Theorists. There are also subgroups for the theorists and for the experimentalists.
Also shown in Blue, there are a number of basically neutral group systems for speakers of various languages, members of various cultures, members of various professions, for residents of cities, regions, provinces, countries and citizens of various countries.
Finally, shown in purple, there are the Supernaturalist groups, which are disjoint from the Naturalist groups.
The Ecosystem of Systems of Intentional Living
Our view of the totality of Systems of Intentional Living is that the systems form an ecosystem of interacting systems.
The individual system which is isolated is possible but rare. Most humans living intentionally cannot ignore the systems with which they interact nor choose to interact only with similar systems. We advocate adoption of appropriate Game Theoric strategies seeing other systems with which we interact as other players, or, what we regard as equivalent, we advocate adoption of Evolutionary Stable Strategies appropriate to the Intentional Living ecosystem.
Scientific Naturalism - as an Individual System of Intentional Living
This subject area focuses on Scientific Naturalism as an individual system and provides our primary and most detailed example of what constitutes an Individual System of Intentional Living.
The study focuses on the common features of individual systems of intentional living based on the philosophy of Scientific Naturalism. Individual systems vary based on individual capabilities, interests and pursuits but systems based on the same philosophy can be expected to have many of the same features.
Natural Science - as a Group System of Intentional Living
This subject area studies the common features of group systems of intentional living which constitute the various natural sciences and provides our primary and most detailed example of what constitutes an Group System of Intentional Living.
Other studies of group systems for Logics & Mathematics, Systems Sciences, Natural Histories, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities are needed, but not a focus of this website.
The systems within our Natural Science study will vary based on the particular science and its subsciences, as well as the roles played individuals within those sciences and subsciences. For example, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists form distinct subgroups within the group of all physicists, while physicists form a subgroup with all scientists. We take seriously here the assertion that science is what scientists do.
Comparative Systems of Intentional Living
Comparative Systems of Intentional Living is a generalization of Comparative Religion in that it expands the comparison to include both religions and naturalistic systems.
This study uses the Framework mentioned above to categorize these systems and introduces a number of means for comparing the systems so categorized.
Building on the Framework, the study introduces and deploys Principles of Comparison to insure that there is a real comparison of the systems and not not just the creation of a catalog similar to the ones which previously disappointed us.
Finally, the study concludes with the introduction and deployment of Principles of Interaction which indicate how various systems may reasonably be expected to interact.
Footnotes:
1. Sometimes "free will" is used to imply an ability to circumvent the causal order of the world or to act through gaps in the causal order of the world. This use of the term is better called "indeterministic free will", "contra-causal free will" or "through-the-gaps free will". We deny the existence of free will in this sense. We use "free will" in a sense which is compatible with both physical and logical determinism.
2. Naturalism as described at Naturalism.Org [N1],[CT1.2007a] is a systematic and scientific form of Naturalism which differs from our formulation in subscribing to what we read as Empiricsm instead of Scientific Realism, what we read as Empiricist Epistemology instead of Evolutionary Epistemology and Humanism instead of Ideal Spectator Ethical Naturalism. Although we come to many of the same conclusions, we differ on terminology and what we count as supporting arguments. And there are also some points of genuine disagreement.
3. The Ideal Spectator Theory was developed by three British Empiricists, Francis Hutcheson [HF1.1728a],[HF1.1738a], David Hume [HD1.1893a],[HD1.1896a] and Adam Smith [SA1.1759a] from earlier works by Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury [CA1.1714a] and Joseph Butler [BJ2.1726a]. We are guided in our interpretation of Hume by Ronald J. Glossop [GR1.1967a] and Sam Rayner [RS1.2005a] and our interpretation of Smith and the relationships between the works of Hutcheson, Hume and Smith by D. D. Raphael [RD1.2007a].
Document Control:
|
Author: Gilbert Bruce Fargen |
|
|
Date of First Publication: 22 Jan 2017 |
This website has adopted and enforces a Privacy Policy. |
|
Date of Last Revision: 05 Jul 2022 |
Use of material on this page and this website in general is subject to the Web Use Agreement. |