Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
What I Would Believe Were I a Metaphysical Naturalist

What I Would Believe Were I a Metaphysical Naturalist

Last updated on: June 25, 2017 at 3:47 pm by Roger E. Olson

What I Would Believe Were I a Metaphysical Naturalist 2017-06-25T15:47:14-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

First, let me say that, whatever others may think of me, I believe I have the capacity to think rationally. I do not claim that reason governs everything I believe and do, but I do claim that I have been trained in rationality and have the knowledge of the laws of reason and evidence necessary to think and behave rationally. I have taken courses in philosophy (including on the graduate level at a major national research university) and have read many books about philosophical reasoning and logic and have even taught courses in philosophy that included units on logic. I do not believe that I am here merely engaging in satire or being guided by an unconscious imagination about these matters.

One thing many people who know me have said is that I am well able to “play the devil’s advocate.” Recently a former student told me that she enrolled in the seminary where I teach because when she visited it as a prospective student, visited one of my classes, and heard me pretend to be a convinced Calvinist (which I am not) she was so impressed that she, though also not a Calvinist, wanted to study with me.

Over the years of my life as an academic I have studied naturalistic metaphysics in some depth and detail. One of my mentors in this was the late Paul Kurtz, leading proponent of secular humanism who, in many of his writings, including In Defense of Secular Humanism, explained that secular humanism is a form of a naturalism. I not only used his book in my classes—as a required textbook—but also engaged with him by e-mail in dialogue in an attempt to understand as thoroughly as possible his perspective which I can say with confidence is the same as most metaphysical naturalists.

However, through my study of naturalistic metaphysics I came to one abiding, enduring and deep conviction about the subject: Secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism, although usually combined, are incompatible. Were I to adopt metaphysical naturalism, the world and life perspective that nature as understood by modern science is all there is, all that is real, I would reject humanism. I believe “humanism,” the belief that humans have special dignity, value and rights above the rest of nature, is inconsistent with metaphysical naturalism.

(For those who are new here and are not “in the know” about these matters—which have been discussed here much—I need to say that “metaphysical naturalism” and “methodological naturalism” are not the same. I support the latter as necessary in scientific research although I also think scientists need to remain open to whatever realities their scientific research indicates might be real.)

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

Again, to repeat my thesis here: Were I to adopt metaphysical naturalism as my world and life perspective, my belief about what is real and what is not real, I would discard humanism entirely or believe it is mere wishful thinking rooted in self-interest insofar as I held to it. I believe that otherwise I would be falling into irrational inconsistency.

*From here on I will be writing as if I were a metaphysical naturalist. These are my words, but they do not reflect what I really do believe. They reflect what I would believe (and not believe) were I a metaphysical naturalist.*

As a metaphysical naturalist I believe that everything that is real is governed, even controlled, by mathematically describable natural laws that are in principle scientifically discoverable. I believe that no event has ever happened or can happen that science could not in principle explain by appeal to natural laws. I believe that all that exists, all that is real, is some form of what science calls “matter” and “energy” and that the two are completely controlled by natural laws as described above. I do not believe in anything spiritual, sacred or transcendent in any traditional senses of those words. If I use the words “spiritual” or “sacred,” I only mean to identify a certain feeling I (and perhaps others) have about nature. But I do not worship anything even though I do admire some things and abhor other things. I realize, however, that those are really only feelings that are caused in me by chemicals because my entire body, including my brain, is composed of chemical compounds only. What I call my “mind” (and others’ “minds”) is really only my brain and its chemicals and the energies (e.g., electrical impulses) interacting there.

I do not believe in what some call “free will;” I believe that everything is what it is and cannot be otherwise even though in the realm of appearances there seems to be spontaneity, novelty brought about by my deliberations and those of others. But until and unless science can explain thoughtful, reflective deliberation and decision as something more than chemical interactions in the brain I withhold belief in free will.

Because I do not believe in free will, as anything more than thoughts and actions that persons feel free to think and do and as entirely compatible with determinism I do not believe in evil. Or, if I use the word “evil” I do not mean what most people have traditionally meant by the word. I mean by it only that which I consider harmful to my survival and happiness and to the survival and happiness of others about whom I care. But why do I care about them? I don’t know; my care for them has to be caused by some empathetic epiphenomenon of my own self-interest in survival and happiness. There is no rational reason why I should care about them otherwise. (Those who appeal to some “altruistic gene” only indicate, if it even exists, that my own self-interest is tied to the survival and happiness of my clan or tribe which is why I sometimes care about others’ survival and happiness—viz., it comes back to my own as the real reason.)

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, as a metaphysical naturalist, science cannot now or ever explain free will in the traditional sense of power of contrary choice. Power of contrary choice implies something transcendent to the table of basic elements and energy (whatever that is, exactly) and natural laws. As a convinced and confirmed naturalist I do not believe in anything non-mechanistic. Metaphysical naturalism requires metaphysical mechanism and metaphysical mechanism is inconsistent with belief in free will (except in the sense described above).

That means, however, that I also do not believe in responsibility. Human beings are nothing more than “highly evolved animals” which only means we know we will die—something no other species seems to be aware of. Yes, also, somewhere along the way, homo sapiens developed the capacity to think and reason and discover and alter its environment, but other species seems to have the same capacities even if only in very primitive forms.

I do not hold animals responsible for what they do. Whatever an animal does is out of instinct. The same must be true for humans. To believe that humans act out of anything other than instinct is to imply something more than what nature itself can explain. Therefore, when I encounter a person who has done something people call “heinous” and “criminal” and worthy of condemnation and punishment I wonder why when they do not say the same things about, for example, chimpanzees who go rogue and do terrible things to others. (If that doesn’t happen with chimpanzees it certainly happens with elephants; I’ve see it on television!) Because I do not believe in responsibility, I do not believe in punishment. I only believe in behavior modification.

As a consistent metaphysical naturalist I do not believe in love. Of course I believe people feel something they (and I) call “love,” but I do not believe in love in any traditional sense of the word. When I love someone it only means he or she provokes in me a certain sensation of attraction. And when I act “lovingly” toward another person it only means (within my metaphysical naturalist worldview) that I get some kind of pleasurable feeling out of doing so.

Also, I do not believe in beauty—in any traditional sense of the word. To me, as a metaphysical naturalist, “beauty” is truly only in the eye of the beholder. I happen to find a sunset and a mountain “beautiful,” but if someone else tells me he or she finds a garbage dump more beautiful I do not disagree. I have no reason to disagree. I may find that odd, curious, possibly even eccentric, but I realize that’s only because I have been conditioned by nature and/or nurture to think otherwise.

As a metaphysical naturalist I do not believe in life after death, absolute right and wrong, justice or injustice (except as defined by communities for the purpose of their own survival and happiness), truth (except as what I happen to think is real), or goodness (except as what makes me feel happy). I believe this world and all it contains exists by accident and will eventually cease to exist and nothing of any real value will be lost.

Finally, however, and this is crucial to say (because many of my fellow metaphysical naturalists don’t agree and I think they are simply being inconsistent), as a metaphysical naturalist I must admit that everything I just wrote above is neither true nor false in any traditional sense of those words. Everything I just wrote I said because chemicals in my brain, under the control of my genes and chromosomes and my physical environment, caused me to say them. There is no point in trying to persuade me to think otherwise unless you think your words might somehow cause the chemicals in my brain to act differently than they do now. I acknowledge that possibility, but I do not think “truth,” in any traditional sense of that word, is at stake in such an attempt.

However (and this is a footnote to the “Finally…” paragraph above), I do try to persuade others to agree with my metaphysical naturalism. And if asked, I say that it’s because I believe metaphysical naturalism is true and the only reliable support for modern science on which I pin all my hopes for the improvement of humanity (including especially me and those I care about). However, always nagging at the back of my mind is that logical “voice” reminding me that I try to persuade others to agree with my metaphysical naturalism because chemicals in my brain are, for whatever reason, causing me to do that. But I silence that voice and forge on because I get a feeling of satisfaction, a form of happiness, out of getting people to agree with me. It boosts my ego; makes me feel powerful. In other words (back to the “voice” at the back of my brain), it is evolutionary adaptive behavior, not a matter of truth.

Footnote: All that I wrote above is not meant as an attack on anyone; it is only to express (one reason) why I am not a metaphysical naturalist or secular humanist by saying what I would have to believe were I to adopt that perspective about reality.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 20, 2017

The Reason for Christian Higher Education (and Pressures to Abandon It)

Next Post

June 28, 2017 Are So-Called "Non-Denominational Churches" Really "Non-Denoms?"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth