Surprisingly, naturalism and religion can inspire a common humanistic spirit and ethics of responsibility.
The contest between science and religion has been going on so long that the battles lines seem fixed. Religion's complaints against naturalism are so familiar by now. We often hear it said that naturalism could never support essential human needs, human aspirations and human ideals. We also hear that a humanism grounded on the cold reality of science could never nourish the vital spirit of morality. Is a naturalism without God only able to support a modest humanism reduced to the scale of earthly matters and merely human frailties? Is naturalism unable to inspire us, guide us or console us?
I wonder whether these are fair complaints to make against naturalism. By all means, judge human nature harshly. We are still unworthy of our marvelous habitat and we have not lived up to our natural potential. But judging nature is another matter and deserves more care. And it is only fair to judge us as a living part of nature. As our knowledge of nature's secrets has grown, haven't we been growing right along? We are made greater, for our knowing how much greater is our natural home.
A serious perspective on life takes a fair and proportionate measure of a life. Stand up straight and let a mark be made, to show how tall you can stretch, to a height worthy of a human being. From that height now, survey all you can see, everything for which you care, that tiny sphere of what you call your life. Now, let's lift our eyes even higher from worldly diversions toward the eternal whole. Mounting up upon nature's heights, nature can inspire us, guide us and console us, if only we would understand.
Is naturalism's message really so different from religion's? If the spirit common to religions had but a few propositions, they would sound something like this:
- That life is ultimately about a relationship, a connection with what is most supreme.
- That there are two worlds, one seen and one unseen.
- That the unseen world is the supreme world, and it holds the true power and destiny of all.
- There is something essential in us that can survive in new lives.
- That what survives of us is what is truly best in us.
- That what rightly survives of us is the nobility of virtue, knowledge and wisdom.
- That we should not prize the dark peculiarities of personality and ego, but the lasting light that shines through us.
So might the religious spirit speak if it had but few words. What can our knowledge of nature say on these matters? A natural perspective can tell us similar things:
- That every life is interrelated, woven and composed of nature's vibrant cords.
- That the unseen world of nature's energies shape life and life's beauties in endless new forms.
- That your essential energy cannot be lost or destroyed but only recycled with perfect efficiency.
- That there is a kind of afterlife, as the consequences of your conduct has influences far into the future of life.
- That our virtue, knowledge and wisdom are inherited from prior generations, and we can pass them on to next generations.
- That our spark of consciousness dims when the body dies, yet the finer part of our character can be woven into new lives.
- That each person should long consider the shortness of life, and the smallness of self-importance besides the immensity of the whole.
The core messages of religion and naturalism do not sound so different, really. Should it even be a surprise that they can converge on a morality designed for the essential needs for life?
But we may be forgiven for failing to hear such harmonious chords. By fighting over knowledge for so long, religion and naturalism have stopped talking about wisdom. Indeed, both religion and naturalism themselves make a great show by distracting us with claims that only it can provide what the other cannot. But life is rarely a zero-sum game in the long run. Does a religion's claim that you must desperately want your personal immortality, lest you be selfishly immoral, really make sense? Does a science's claim that you must sternly regard morality as illusory, lest you be irresponsibly foolish, really make sense? It is time to wisely take a stand on what we all can know to be our common responsibility.
We must at least take care of the genuine human needs of life, this one life that we know we share. And what can we all know? Like the essence of religion, nature's deep ways tell us that you are more than you may appear, even to yourself. Nature shows how its supreme reality recycles everything and preserves what is necessary. Nature reveals how its real powers are available for you to conduct what is best through you into the future where everything must go. Nature tells you that you can have all of the meaningful life to which you are deserving, but not an ounce more, for the energies of life must be distributed fairly. And you waste your natural energies at your peril, for your selfish pursuits only rob you of your rightful destiny.
These are humbling messages, but they are reassuring. Together they say that you have arrived into the world where you belong and that you belong to the world that produced you. That you have no right to hope for a better afterworld until you have made this world better. That you are not entitled to fear death until you have feared to fail at life.
This is truly a message of responsibility and purpose worthy of everyone. We might call it "A Natural Faith," if only we weren't so reasonably sure of its promise. And we'd all be wiser for making it a promise to keep.
The views expressed are those of the author, and not necessarily shared by the Center for Inquiry or its staff.
Science = a method to eliminate fallible human bias in order to study what reality says.
Irreconcilable, sorry.
"That your essential energy cannot be lost or destroyed but only recycled with perfect efficiency."
What on earth does "essential energy" mean? This clumsy attempt to couple the second law of thermodynamics with souls or spirit stuff has no place in a naturalist worldview, and to claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. "Our knowledge of nature" does not lead to vitalism. Life is about information, not "essential energy".
Naturalism gives credit to objects and biblical teaching gives the credit to the Maker of objects.
But is it truly reconcilable to your notion of religion as the transcendental and saturnian most supreme world that rules with impunity?
Science is on the side of biblical teaching.
Does anyone ever address any of the actual issues?
Judaism is this world affirming. Humans have an animal soul, not “evil”, that defines his natural self, the array of vital, spiritual and emotional forces that make the animal a man. In man the natural soul embodies the drives, volitions, preconceptions, and cravings, both physical and spiritual that constitutes his human self. Good and evil are not at issue here; we are speaking of the natural state of man, in the same way we would speak of the forces that shape the nature of any animal. The uniquely human faculties of man also derive from the animal soul. The philosopher in man is no less part and parcel of his biological self and does not express anything holy, anything that transcends the naturally human, what is zoologically defined by Homo sapiens.
The second soul is the spark of divine essence that manifest itself in his being and experience. Although the Godly soul is inherent and is the ultimate source of life from the very start, only upon the attainment of the age of maturity does it manifest itself in the form of a good inclination, as a drive and desire for attachment to God. The Godly soul only reveals itself through the animal soul. (Paraphrase Steinsalt’s Tanya Commentary).
Interesting also, that a philosopher would be concentrating on the conclusions rather than the methods of two competing epistemological positions. It almost seems as if Dr. Shook is indirectly saying that philosophy is a useless pursuit since we all intrinsically and almost axiomatically know the truths of personal meaning and morality.
An interesting read none-the-less.
The fact of the matter is the agreement is superficial and the details matter. We can't go for the sort of sloppy thinking of overlooking the details like this.
This is an admirable attempt to speak of the excellence of materialism and find common ground. But I just don't buy it.
Some sky too.
I thought exactly the same thing. It's like all the comments I've seen that claim quantum mechanics can be found in the ancient Vedic texts..
Aside from this sentence, a great piece, John. Kudos, and I hope many will read it...and I hope not comment on "machine parts".
I don't believe science claims that morality is an illusion. Science doesn't say anything about morality. It's not the pervue of science to examine and draw conclusions about such matters.
It's the religious that make that indictment of science. Their claim is that morality is inextricable from religion, whereas in actuality "naturalists" merely feel that humans are quite capable of morality without the help of religion, thank you vey much.
What science would that be??