One of the main reasons I revived my blog was so I could discuss philosophy. Now that I am a college student at a liberal arts school, philosophy is at the forefront of my mind. Even though I am studying the more “hard” social sciences (political science and economics), such discussions of philosophy are inevitable. I’ve even become passionate about them.

Get ready for this.

 

So as you can see in the sidebar of this blog, I have declared myself to be a “naturalist-humanist”. What does that mean? Quite a few people have been asking what it means. What if I told you it means I am an… atheist.

Eek! It’s that dreaded a-word! Before you start running around in circles calling me evil or telling me to read the Bible, I would like you to calm down and hear what I have to say. I’d like to say that I have read the Bible and I do live a moral life without God. Promise.

Also, before we begin, I’d like to point out that this initial essay, and the more to come, were inspired from taking a religion course in college and after reading Ricky Gervais’s Essay on Atheism, Daylight Atheism, Common Sense Atheism, and The Internet Infidels. I have decided that I want to add my personal opinion.

 

Table of Contents for this Essay

• So What Does Naturalism-Humanism Mean?
• Defining The Natural, the Supernatural, and the Paranormal
• Also, Humanism
• Why Not Just Call Yourself an “Atheist” or “Agnostic”?
• That’s Great. But How Do You Know the Supernatural Doesn’t Exist?
• How We Know Anything
• The Good and the Bad of the Scientific Method
• The Very Basic Case Against the Supernatural
• Why Are You a Humanist?
• The Freedom of Humanism
• So what is the meaning of life without God?
• So what happens when you die? Won’t life losing meaning then?
• How does morality work without God?
• Is There Some Sort of Conclusion to Draw From This?

 

So What Does Naturalism-Humanism Mean?

First off, naturalism-Humanism is two different things, obviously enough — naturalism and humanism. Let’s start with naturalism.

Naturalism can mean a lot of things, actually. It has implications in both art and literature, and means entirely different things in each. It can also refer to someone who studies nature. However, I’m not talking about those beliefs — what I am writing about is a belief in metaphysical naturalism, or the belief that there is no sufficiently convincing reason to believe in the supernatural.

What does not believing in the supernatural mean, however?

I would typically define it as three prongs:

1. there is no good reason to believe that something exists which is not solely the result of a combination of matter-energy in space-time
2. there is no good reason to believe that something can happen with no mechanism behind the action (even if we may not know what that mechanism is)
3. there is no good reason to believe that it is possible for the laws of physics to be or become suspended or transcended

Of course, in common terms, this basically amounts to the fact that I do not believe in any god or gods, I do not believe in the soul (or a mind separate from the brain), I do not believe in spirits, I do not believe in angels, I do not believe in Santa, I do not believe in ghosts (like Casper), I do not believe in miracles as described by the Bible or the Koran, I do not believe in reincarnation, etc.

 

Defining The Natural, the Supernatural, and the Paranormal

We know the basics of what is natural and supernatural — we can tell the difference between a tree and God. Let’s do something more complicated. Love clearly exists. I believe in love. Is love supernatural?

No. Love is the mere result of the combinations of matter-energy within my brain and nothing more. (Though this doesn’t diminish the power of love as much as you might think.) Furthermore, I can have evidence that love exists — I know what the subjective brain experience of love feels like and I can easily assert and prove the existence of such an experience.

Is God supernatural? Yes. God is not the result of combinations of matter-energy, since God (as most people define him) exists outside our universe. People do experience God, and just like love these experiences do exist. However, God is said to be something more than love — unlike love, God is said to exist independently of anyone’s beliefs. This independent existence is exactly what is supernatural and not yet proven. This independent existence is what I do not believe in.

But what of things like the paranormal? The paranormal are things that are natural in origin, but do not fit in current science. Therefore, the definitions work like this:

• natural: something that is dependent solely on arrangements of matter-energy within space-time. The category of natural includes things that are both metaphysically normal and paranormal.
• metaphysically normal: something that is natural and of which the basic mechanisms for its existence are consistent with currently known science For examples: gravity, rocks, love, humans, etc.
• paranormal: something that is natural but not metaphysically normal, meaning the basic mechanisms for its existence are not understood by current science. For examples: flying reindeer, teleportation, alien abductions, ghosts, alchemy, voodoo, mind reading, etc.
• supernatural: something that is not natural. This would be anything that is independent of arrangements of matter-energy within space-time to some degree. For examples: a soul, miracles, gods, anything that breaks the laws of physics such as conjuring something from absolutely nothing, etc.

 

(Keep in mind that these categorizations are not permanent. As knowledge and understanding improves, it would be entirely possible for things that were once thought to be supernatural to become paranormal, or things that are paranormal to become metaphysically normal.

The naturalist will deny the existence of the supernatural by definition, but will not necessarily deny the existence of the paranormal. However, the way a naturalist believes will generally also exclude the paranormal, since there is no good evidence for it.)

 

Also, Humanism

But what of humanism? Humanism does not have a definition that is widely agreed upon and can actually mean a variety of beliefs that essentially uphold human dignity. Generally, I see it as the belief that humans can solve their problems without appeals to the supernatural (such as God). Essentially, it answers questions like “Can you be good without God?” and “Can you have meaning in life without God?” with a definite “Yes”.

If humanism is true, humanity can construct its own moral code, find meaning in life, and ameliorate suffering without needing intervention from a higher power. Humanism itself makes no claim that the supernatural does not exist, it just claims that the supernatural is unnecessary and that humanity can solve our own problems. Naturalism itself makes no claim that humanity can solve problems without the supernatural, it just claims that there is no good reason to believe in the supernatural.

Being a naturalist does not require you to have any specific moral code. That’s why I combine naturalism and humanism together. Both those views represent my personal philosophy.

 

Why Not Just Call Yourself an “Atheist” or “Agnostic”?

It’s certainly a fair question. The answer is that I am an atheist. I am an agnostic. Those two terms are actually implied by naturalism. It is true that I lack a belief in God, the strictest (and most correct) definition of atheism. Under other definitions of atheism, it is also true that I go farther than a mere lack of belief — I have a belief that God, especially as described by the major modern religions, does not exist. However, that’s where atheism ends.

I don’t actually have any problem identifying me with the terms “atheist”. The problem is that atheism doesn’t imply enough for me. There is no need to reject the soul to be an atheist. There is no reason to reject reincarnation to be an atheist. There is no reason to reject anything besides God to be an atheist. Sure, it’s true that the vast majority of atheists also reject all of the supernatural. A vast majority of atheists are probably naturalist-humanists. I just prefer to be more specific.

For more, see “A-Unicornism and the True Definition of Atheism” and “The Folly of Debating Definitions”.

 

That’s Great. But How Do You Know the Supernatural Doesn’t Exist?

(Well, at least I hope you’re phrasing it that way. I’ve heard others phrase it with significantly more cuss words and an accusation of being an arrogant jerk for dismissing their beliefs. However, in the civil form, it’s certainly good question.)

This question is also a very detailed question — millions of pages have been written over thousands of years on that exact topic. There are perhaps several hundred arguments for and against the supernatural that have to be addressed before any “conclusion” can be made, and even then, it still won’t be enough to break someone’s faith.

Before answering, I would like to say that I don’t actually know for 100% certain that the supernatural doesn’t exist. As I will explain later, such absolute knowledge with no doubt whatsoever is impossible. But I do know is that just like there is no rational reason to believe in unicorns or Santa, there is no rational reason to believe in any supernatural claim. But why am I unconvinced that the supernatural exists? I’ll give it to you the answer like this — the short version and the long version.

The short version is essentially a different question: “How do we know that the supernatural isn’t simply imaginary?” Since no convincing answer has yet been given, I conclude that there is no good reason to believe in the supernatural. Supernatural claims are indistinguishable from fake claims. And until something is done to distinguish supernatural claims from fake claims, there is no way I can determine that supernatural claims are true. Therefore, I do not believe in supernatural claims.

I’m sure you want a little bit more than that, though. That’s what the long answer is for. However, first a preface. Let’s be clear with what we’re working with.

 

How We Know Anything

Knowledge is an incredibly complex topic. Let’s start with the statement that there is an objective, knowable, physical reality around us. There are things that are facts — which are things that are true, no matter what anyone believes about them. Likewise, there are things that are false, regardless what anyone believes. Mere belief or disbelief will not change the reality of facts.

For example, one thing we believe about reality is that the planet on which humanity resides, Earth, is a mostly spherical object. It doesn’t matter how many websites are dedicated to upholding the Flat Earth, or how many millions of people are utterly convinced Earth is flat. In objective, physical reality, the Earth is still spherical.

 

Now we must ask — How do we know that the Earth is spherical? If we figure out how this is known, we can find some sort of basis to evaluate all claims of the truth of reality. The answer is that we weigh the evidence.

We have thousands of pieces of evidence that indicate the Earth is a sphere — we know that it casts a circular shadow upon the Moon during an eclipse and we know that ships can sail “off” the horizon. We also know far more irrefutable facts such as a complete and thorough search of the Earth has never revealed an “edge” and that looking at the Earth from orbit demonstrates it to appear perfectly like a sphere. Furthermore, all the physics we know only work if the Earth were a sphere.

Lastly we can analyze things by contradiction. Clearly, if someone were to ask us if we know that the Earth is not a flat disc, we would answer “Yes”. Surely such a claim is reasonable — an Earth that is a flat disc would contradict everything we know.

However, are we absolutely, 100%, perfectly sure? Sadly, we are not. For example, we could be living within a Matrix computer program that actually resides on a flat Earth. All beliefs in a flat Earth could be the result of false thoughts planted by demons or evil extraterrestrials. Of course these theories sound immensely outlandish, but they are possible.

 

The point isn’t that we should think we are living within a Matrix on a flat Earth. The point is that we will never be 100% absolutely certain about anything we believe. The best we can be is pretty darn sure, 99.9999%. The best we can say is that this belief about reality fits with all the evidence we have observed (or believe we have observed).

In the end, when we want to know if claim {X} is true, we must ask (1) is there evidence for {X}? (2) does the existence of {X} fit with what we already know about reality? If so, to what degree of consistency? How much evidence? From this, we can determine how likely a belief (including the hypothesis, claim, explanation, or theory) is to be true.

Lastly, truth values as we know them are not set in stone. When we gather more evidence, we can re-evaluate the belief and see if it’s likelihood of truth needs to be changed, and then change it. When a claim achieves a certain likelihood of truth, we will believe that claim. When a claim falls below a certain likelihood of truth, we will no longer believe this claim. This method of using evidence to validate claims is what forms the foundation of the scientific method.

 

The Good and the Bad of the Scientific Method

This scientific method has one goal: to maximize the amount of claims that are both objectively true and are known to be true and minimize the amount of claims that are objectively false yet known to be true. I really doubt that anyone would honestly challenge this goal and say that it is not worthy. We want to maximize truth and minimize lies — it is actually a key part of survival. It will never be perfect — this is why we will have to continually update with new information. And we will never know everything. There’s also the very real possibility that there are many perfectly true claims that may not be believed just because we don’t have enough evidence to believe them. That’s the bad.

This method has proven better than any other method in history. No one doubts the “miracles” of science — giving us new technology and understanding on everything from basic agriculture to complex quantum physics. Such a method has been far better at determining what is true than methods by reference of referring to a sacred text, through meditation, or through prayer. Clearly the scientific method is reliable — something does have to be said for the fact that we did not learn how to build a skyscraper by reading about it in the Bible.

For more on how we know things, see my series on knowledge.

 

The Very Basic Case Against the Supernatural

When it comes down to it, we need to do this by the evidence. The amount of false claims greatly outweigh the amount of true claims. If we started beleving things without requiring proof for them, we would start assuming a lot of objectively false claims to be true. The supernatural fits within this — we can’t distinguish supernatural claims from other claims that are false.

If we’re going to believe in supernatural claims, we’re going to need a good reason to. We don’t have that good reason. We have no good evidence. This is why I am not convinced of the existence of the supernatural.

For more on why I don’t believe in the supernatural, see my essay “Twelve Reasons I Don’t Believe in Supernatural Claims”. For why I don’t believe in God specifically, see “Where is God?”, “The Great Problem of Evil”, “The Contradictory Failure of Prayer”, and “Why Not to Take Pascal’s Wager”.

 

Why Are You a Humanist?

Humanism follows from naturalism. Since there is no higher power to believe in, we will have to get meaning in life, happiness, and morality from somewhere else. That is why I am a humanist.

Most of those who believe in God (theists) argue that our task is futile, or even impossible. However, before any arguments are made one way or another, these theists have to face the simple facts — millions of humanists have found meaning, happiness, and morality without God. Are we to believe all these millions of people, including me, are lying?

 

The Freedom of Humanism

One of the biggest parts to being a humanist is Freethought, or the ability to determine one’s own beliefs. We’re grown up now, we should be fully capable of creating meaning and solving problem by ourselves — we shouldn’t need to rely on anyone else, God or otherwise, to solve our problems or tell us what to do.

 

So what is the meaning of life without God?

So, the big question, then. What is the meaning of life for a humanist? It’s actually very easy. The meaning of life is to make the world a better place. All humanists should feel called upon to improve the human condition in some way. Called upon by what, you may ask? Since there is no God to call upon you, you are instead called upon by your fellow humanity. You’re also called upon by yourself — after all, I imagine you want to find meaning. Making the world a better place will typically make you happy.

I choose to improve the human condition by spreading ideas and learning what I can. I want to contribute to academics. Others choose to advance science and understanding of the physical world. Others choose to paint, or to entertain. Others choose to work in the military, or the police, or as a firefighter, or as a doctor. The possibilities are endless.

Contrary to what some religious people might tell you, atheists do not always believe in nothing. It is possible, and actually rather easy, to find meaning in life without God. I have.

 

So what happens when you die? Won’t life losing meaning then?

This is better answered under naturalism. Since there is no evidence of any part of the body that survives after death or any realm where dead spirits would go, the current conclusion is that the afterlife is mere wishful thinking. When you’re dead, you’re dead — nothing more. You won’t be conscious. It’s exactly like how life was like before you were born.

However, if your death is permanent, does that mean everything is meaningless? Of course not! You had a good life while you were alive. Memories of you will live on. Whatever help you gave to the human condition is hopefully permanent — you left the world a better place and you will help all the people who lived after you. Are you so arrogant as to say all that was meaningless?

There seems to be some sort of assumption that meaning has to last forever in order to exist. This is unfounded. We can have a very meaningful and fulfilling life even if it doesn’t last forever, even if the memories of us fade, and even if our improvements to the human condition fail.

For more, see “The Death of a Friend”.

 

How does morality work without God?

Morality is actually a very complicated philosophical question. However, we definitely know that God is not required as an ultimate law giver for there to be laws — we have civil law down on Earth. Furthermore, there is good reason to be moral even without codified punishment. Instead, we can follow the reward of being moral. Being moral will make people happy, allow society to better function, and improve your connections with others. There are tons of personal rewards for being moral even without God, and of course the punishments enacted by law and society for being immoral.

Also, this assumes that morality works with God, which is not conclusively proven. We can easily ask “How does morality work with God?” One need only look to the Euthyphro Dilemma, The Problem of Evil, or The Problem of Rats in a Maze to see that God-based (theistic) morality is far from conclusive. As Michael Martin argues in his essay “Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape”, Theistic morality is at best even with Humanist morality.

For more, see my series on morality.

 

Is There Some Sort of Conclusion to Draw From This?

Yes. The first is that if you also (1) believe everything is arrangements of matter-energy in space time and nothing more and (2) believe that such a belief does not diminish human morality or personal meaning in life, then perhaps you should also refer to yourself as a naturalist-humanist. You don’t have to, but it is more specific.

The second is that naturalist-humanists, or even atheists in general, are not bad people. They’re normal people just like everyone else. You probably wouldn’t even recognize them if you saw them on the street. Furthermore, those who believe in naturalism and humanism typically have a very well thought out position. Perhaps you should ask them about it. Maybe you can even see if naturalism-humanism is for you.

 

It always seems that most religious articles I read end with some sort of appeal to join the religion — information on how to accept Jesus, for example. I want to end by doing the same. It is entirely possible to have a very nice life without requiring a belief in the supernatural. In my opinion, there really is no reason why you shouldn’t leave the supernatural behind and become a naturalist-humanist.

I at least hope I gave you something to think about.

Followed up in: Defining the Natural and Supernatural