Naturalistic Paganism
World Population Day
July 11th is World Population Day. This event initiated by the United Nations Development Programme was inspired by Five Billion Day on July 11, 1987, when world population hit five billion people. By 2007, it had risen to 6.7 billion (Wikipedia).
The theme this year is “Universal Access to Reproductive Health Services.”
The UNFPA website describes the event:
…many activities and campaigns will call attention to the essential part that reproductive health plays in creating a just and equitable world. Help us generate greater commitment to the idea that everyone has a right to reproductive health.
The day seems like a perfect opportunity to contemplate the sustainable limits of our planet, and take action in favor of equal access to reproductive health care.
Matter thinking over mind, by Thomas Schenk
Is it possible that matter is made out of mind?
The mind is made of matter! So I’ve been told, and I don’t disagree. But I have to wonder what this really means.
What is matter? The keyboard I type at is made of matter; I see it with my eyes and feel it with my fingers. The seeing and feeling, though they appear to be outside my mind, are in fact in my mind. How do I get from these appearances to something real? Logic tells me it must be real, otherwise the whole world is just an appearance in my mind, and such solipsism leads to absurdity. But logic is just in my mind, too. Yet I will trust it on this matter and have faith that there is reality behind the appearances.
Now all of this consideration of appearance and reality has been contemplated and analyzed in subtle details by the great Enlightenment-era philosophers going from Locke and Hume to Kant and beyond. There is no final conclusion to be drawn from this long, wonderful discussion, but following it certainly helps us appreciate how large and interesting the question is.
As I trust that matter is more than an appearance, I also trust that the scientific analysis of matter, which leads to modern atomic theory, is on the right track. This theory tells us that matter is made of atoms. The word “atom” was borrowed from the ancient Greek materialists, and it means that which is utterly simple and indivisible. But the modern atom can be split, it is not indivisible, and it is certainly not simple. In fact, the atom as understood by modern science is bewilderingly complex. Read More
The HPedia: Scientism
Your help is needed! Please critique this entry from the HPedia: An encyclopedia of key concepts in Naturalistic Paganism. Please leave your constructive criticism in the comments below.
One simple definition of scientism may be extending the authority of science beyond what the facts logically justify in a given case.
Another way of defining it is provided by Julian Baggini:
Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, and that everything has to be understood through the lens of science or not at all.
A further dimension of scientism may be overestimating the reliability of scientific claims, taking as absolute truth what is actually only a high probability. As Dan Kahan puts it, “Science is a scale that never stops weighing.” Scientific claims, by their very nature, are always open to being disproved by future evidence, and so there is always some degree of uncertainty. This is what Willem B. Drees calls the “wildness of experience” – facts are ultimately not knowable with absolute certainty. Yet while reality always remains to some degree “wild”, Drees notes, nevertheless science can understand the wildness of reality. In other words, it can take into account the margin for error, and approach reality from that more humble perspective. This is not a weakness of science, but rather a strength.
A similar perspective is put forward by DT Strain in his “Top Ten Signs of Good Spirituality” under the heading “A humble approach to knowledge.”
Given HP’s general endorsement of and trust in scientific method as the best means we have so far developed for knowing our world, it seems justified to be on alert for scientism. At the same time, elements of the Fourfold Path may build in counteracting tendencies. The embrace of subjective enrichment of experience through myth balances the objective and subjective, so that neither may dominate. In addition, responsible action calls for an effective means of rooting out scientism, which in this case might take the form of peer critique: it ought always be deemed permissible in HP for a person who makes claims to be asked for evidence, and then to have that evidence subjected to critique.
Equally vulnerable to the charge of scientism may be those who play loose and fast with science to justify favored theories. An example might be those who would invoke quantum physics to justify magic, since the facts of quantum physics as we know them at present are not nearly enough to justify feats of human mental telepathy, telekinesis, weather control, influencing of probabilities, or other such extreme magical effects (note this may not necessarily apply to definitions of magic more modest in scope of possible effects).
Drees acknowledges that scientism is always a potential danger, and must be investigated on a case by case basis. At the same time, he notes that the charge can be used irresponsibly as an “easy excuse” to dismiss a given scientific claim, without making a well-focused argument. It can also be invoked “at the expense of limiting science to the instrumental or empirical domain, robbing it of its theoretical dimension, which is where science reaches beyond what has been measured and observed so far.”
See also “Hubris”, “Fourfold Path”, “Myth”, and “Responsibility.”
Check out other entries in our HPedia.
Naturalism in prehistory?
Were our earliest ancestors naturalistic?
– by B. T. Newberg
Were our earliest human ancestors naturalistic? Some might assume so, reasoning that before the first gods were invented, people must have been naturalistic. But was that really the case?
The column Naturalistic Traditions, hosted by Patheos, is investigating the history of naturalism in an ongoing extended series. After an introduction and examination of naturalism in modern cosmology and evolution, it has investigated early hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. This post summarizes the findings thus far on prehistory.
Misconceptions of naturalism
There are two key misconceptions that tend to foul up investigations into early naturalism:
- Nature religion does not equal naturalism
- Doubt does not equal naturalism
First, many people assume that if our ancestors revered nature, they were naturalists by default. Unfortunately, that’s incorrect. Naturalism, as we shall see shortly, is a worldview with a particular conception of nature that may or may not overlap with that of various nature religions.
Second, many believe that a lack of belief in gods, spirits, and magic amounts to naturalism. This is fallacious as well. One can lack belief in such things without adopting any particular worldview and conception of nature.
With those two misconceptions out of the way, let’s look more closely at naturalism itself.
Read More
The HPedia: Science
Your help is needed! Please critique this entry from the HPedia: An encyclopedia of key concepts in Naturalistic Paganism. Please leave your constructive criticism in the comments below.
Science, from the Latin scientia, Ancient Greek epistemē, can be described as the systematic pursuit of knowledge of the natural world by the most reliable methods of the day.
Note that “natural world” includes humanity insofar as it too is part of nature.
Mirriam-Webster provides two definitions useful here:
- a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
- knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
The first definition is broad, encompassing virtually any subject of systematic study, which is more or less what Aristotle meant by “science.” The second is more restricted, associated with a specific method, and more in keeping with what modern scientists mean by “science.”
Many distinguish between science, or the investigation of the natural world, and technology, or the application of knowledge of the natural world.
Historians of science vary on when science began. All cultures of course pursue technology, but it is debated how many pursue science per se. Some scholars consider science to have begun no earlier than the Enlightenment. Others, such as Karl Popper, locate its origins in the Ionian philosophers like Thales and Anaximander. Still others, such as David C. Lindberg, are willing to extend the term “science” to whatever historical period, letting context define the “science” of the day. Thomas Kuhn argues that ancient, discarded beliefs are not therefore unscientific; rather, we must look at the integrity of science in that age.
In Naturalistic Paganism, individuals vary in exactly how they view past periods. As for the current era, “science” almost always connotes the pursuits and findings of the mainstream scientific community, employing scientific method, drawing tentative conclusions based on the current most compelling evidence, and critiqued by a community of peer experts.
On the basic assumptions of science, Wikipedia observes:
Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
It seems quite probable that most Naturalistic Pagans would subscribe to these assumptions as well.
Naturalism is often considered fundamental to science, at least as a methodological assumption.
Another fundamental principle of science is that all conclusions are inherently fallible. Every “fact” is liable to being overturned by new discoveries. This is not a weakness, but rather a strength, as it is what leads to progress.
Scholars vary also in the precise details of scientific method. Some demand rigorous adherence to a detailed list of methods, while others are more loose. D. Jason Slone provides a simple, approachable version in four points:
- Research
- Hypothesis
- Experiment
- Peer Review
Some consider the goal of scientific method to be determining the most probable conclusion, while others such as Karl Popper argue one can only hope to falsify some hypotheses. Still others such as Thomas Kuhn take the radical position that progress in science only comes about through shifts in paradigm.
Modern scientific method may be contrasted with ancient Stoic methodology, as presented by Maxwell Stanisforth: 1. impression (sensation in response to stimulus), 2. assent (to whether the impression is a truthful presentation of objective reality), 3. conviction (only upon surviving the scrutiny of reason), 4. knowledge (only upon verification by comparison to past ages and sages). Missing in this Stoic method is empirical experimentation in order to adjudicate assent.
It is probably true that not all questions can be decisively addressed by scientific method, or at least not currently. Many issues discussed in Naturalistic Paganism may fall into this category. In these cases, the paucity of scientific evidence is no justification for this or that preferred belief. All one can do is place the question in the category “unknown” and suspend judgment.
Lupa has published an excellent critique of poor attention paid to research methodology in “proving” magic.
See also “Naturalism” and “Scientism.”
Check out other entries in our HPedia.
Buy Godless Paganism (paperback)
Buy Godless Paganism (ebook)
Pagan Coming Out Day – May 2nd
Naturalistic Paganism 