Non-Naturalism: What is real?

Weird Video. I think they should get a different person to speak because he was just creepy. But, basically Cosmic Humanism is pantheistic. Everything is god. This is, of course, going to influence and define their philosophy. Their philosophy is non-naturalism, which Noebel defines as "The belief that everything is a part of God and in essence, spiritual. The things that we can see and feel are only the manifestation of spirit, and all matter will melt away when universal consciousness is achieved" (114). Obviously non-naturalism is the opposite of naturalism and it has swung to the extreme opposite of it. This individual idea makes me question the authority of either philosophy; how can you deny integral parts of the universe. Thus, their explanation of knowledge, truth, and reality are flawed. 

For instance, the basic idea of knowledge for Cosmic Humanists is to find it in your feelings. But how can your feelings and emotions be consistently trustworthy? Their theory of epistemology promotes the idea of getting in touch with your higher self. Really? You think you have all the answers? This is not only absurd but completely conceited. Cosmic Humanists state that "when we get in touch with the God-fore within, we can intuitively know truth without limits" (115). They consider themselves already in possession of all the knowledge they need. But, again, non-naturalism denies the existence of knowledge in the physical universe. Knowledge "exists in the God-force within us" but what is the God-force and how does it know anything? (115) To reduce knowledge to the simpleness already existing in our minds is to deny history, science, and even math. 

Truth and knowledge are intertwined. The poorly conceived reasoning of knowledge translates into an incorrect view of what truth is. In the New Age movement (Cosmic Humanism) truth is equated with your emotions. "New Age truth is emotive rather than descriptive" (115). A somewhat postmodern idea of truth in that truth is "if it feels like truth to you" (115). Non-naturalism's idea of truth is like a emotion driven post modernism. Cosmic Humanists explain truth as a specific experience or feeling, but how can truth be found in a one time feeling? Truth is created from person to person and thus the idea of truth is destroyed. Anything can be truth, and therefore nothing is. 

The Cosmic Humanist's ontology (study of reality) is filled with the fulfillment and truth of self. All reality is spiritual, and the material world is meaningless. The same kind of thinking as Secular Humanists, only switching the importance of material and spiritual. Both beliefs fail to recognize the clarity of a mixture. Non-naturalism believes that humanity comes from God and that He is the "essence of our humanity" (115). They consider everyone a god and strive to treat everyone as such. Reality is therefore skewed and flawed because how can everyone treat everyone like gods? It is impossible. Cosmic Humanists do not see the problem that no one can identify what this god is made of, instead they find comfort in the idea that "since each of us arrives at our own truth and our interpretations will differ" (115). Everyone has a different idea about reality, and their complacency in accepting this reveals their inability to see the physical world as worthy of truth. 

The explanations of knowledge, truth, and reality fail to explain the evidence within the universe and especially within the human mind. Their ideas stem from hopefulness and remain trapped in foolishness. 

Difference Between Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism

Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism are atheistic worldviews, thus their philosophies stem from the same ideas. For instance, both philosophies agree that reality is composed only of matter- that is nothing outside of science can be knowledge. Dialectical Materialism emphasizes the necessity of testing belief in order to insure their validity; whereas naturalism supports the absolutes of science . Both philosophies deny the existence of the supernatural, of God, and the afterlife. However, the application of their atheistic worldviews provide a different approach to life. 

For instance, in the area of metaphysics, their ideas differ. Naturalism promotes that science is all that exists and this determines every aspect of life. Ultimate truth is found in science and science has even become a kind of religion to naturalists. Furthermore, "Secular Humanist naturalism requires that we apply science to every aspect of life, including the social and the moral."(104) On the other hand, Dialectical Materialism denies the existence of metaphysics and instead Marxists state "that dialectics is a method directly opposed to metaphysics, which they claim is an outdated mode of viewing the world." (110) First, let us define dialectical materialism- Noebel states that "the dialectic says that in everything there is a thesis (the way things are) and an antithesis (an opposition to the way things are), which must inevitably clash. The result of the struggle and merging that comes from the clash is the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis. This new thesis will eventually attract another antithesis, and produce a new synthesis."(109) Instead of basing the entirety of their belief on science, dialectics prefer to state that everything is in the process of evolutionary change. Therefore, they claim that there is no metaphysics because it "views reality in disjointed parts, while dialectics views reality as an interconnected whole."(110) However, objectively dialectic's metaphysics is one simply that matter is everything and causes everything. 

Another area of differences is the mind/body problem- that is how does the mind work in relation to the body. Naturalism states that the mind is simply a manifestation of the brain and that it is a "physical phenomenon." (104) It is a belief called monism which uses evolutionary processes to explain the complexity of the mind. However, dialectical materialism states that the mind is a reflection of the material world. Weird, huh? Marxists state that "consciousness is just a subjective reflection of objective reality."(111) Dialectics believe that the mind is simply matter. Both philosophies have a distinct twist on the same idea- how do you explain the human mind when you have denounced a intelligent creator?

              Finally, the main distinction between naturalism and dialectical materialism is dialectic's belief in the constant change of the universe. Naturalism ignores the purpose of mankind, where dialectics believe that new syntheses are happening continually. 

Problems of Naturalism

         Naturalism is the philosophy of Secular Humanists. It claims that all of reality is composed of matter and that everything can be explained by science. Denying all supernaturalism, absolutes, and religion Naturalism places all faith in science. Science has become their religion. Many critics argue that it takes as much faith to rely on science as a religion. How do you explain reality, truth, and knowledge when your philosophy undermines all of these vital facts of life? Instead of adding to the understanding of man, naturalism has merely clouded the lines between everything. A truth is no longer a absolute truth. Here a complication is found, by claiming that Secular Humanism is based upon science but then stating no absolutes exist is ridiculous. Naturalism provides an inaccurate view of reality, truth, and knowledge.

      First of all, naturalism has a limited view of reality. It denies all existence of the supernatural and therefore throws away all possibilities of a Creator or design. By ignoring supernatural and using science as the explanation, naturalism provides an inaccurate description of man. Naturalism states that man's "mind is strictly a physical phenomenon." (Noebel 104). If man's mind is purely physical then how can personality, emotions, and morality be explained? If man is merely evolving, how can you predict the mutations that will develop? How can mutations explain the complex nature of man? Without the existence of the supernatural, God is "sheer folly" according to Humanists. (Noebel 102). Thus, naturalism proclaims that the cosmos randomly produced life, but then they contradict themselves and state "She [cosmos] cannot create but eternally transforms." (Noebel 103). The flaws are obvious. They is still no logical, scientific explanation for the creation of the world. By ignoring all signs of the supernatural, naturalism fails to explain the basics of reality.

          Truth is therefore skewed. Naturalists say truth is only found through observations. Things that can be measured and witnessed. Truth only exists in the physical realm. Naturalism requires that science be the basis for all actions and thoughts. But how does science explain logic or justice? These ideas cannot be measured or proven scientifically, but very few would deny their existence. Science fails to provide reasoning for the evil within the world, the good, and the complex. The physical is not the only thing that exists and therefore cannot be the reference for all things. To be able to state that science is the source of all truth requires more faith than to explain the existence of the supernatural with a Creator. If no moral truth exists, than what happens to the justice department, education, the armed forces? Morality exists, and naturalism foolishly refuses to acknowledge it. If it becomes subjective and scientific, how will truth remain valuable? 

          All of these ideas build off one another. Like the idea of dominos, if one falls down everyone tumbles. Knowledge is based off truth, but if truth fails to accurately describe reality, how can knowledge by true? Noebel explains this problem through epistemology, the theory of knowledge and how it answers the question How do we obtain knowledge? (104) If knowledge is only obtained through science, how do we find information about the nature and character of man? Naturalism cannot answer this question, and merely responds that science is inseparable from knowledge. Because science is constantly changing, how can knowledge be trusted? New discoveries and advancements will destroy all of the knowledge you once possessed. True knowledge is elusive and untrustworthy. Imagine living that way. 

Finally, naturalism is hopeless. To live life purely for community's sake or do find knowledge, where is the satisfaction or security. When life's troubles come in, how do you find peace? Naturalism destroys the system of morality governing the world and the meaning of joy and hope. Naturalism produces only physical answers, so where will you find answers to everything else?

Is God a human invention?

Today, people are constantly claiming that something is a relative truth. That no absolutes exist. God is dead was Niezche proclamation. How do you handle confrontation between people that deny the existance of God? Where do you even start? First of all, I would point out that God's existance can be found everywhere. From the complexity of the human body, the origin of the world, and the natural world around us- a intelligent creator is a logical conclusion. If they disagree, you could point out the flaws in evolution. Such as, where did the particles that prompted the big bang come from? Deep philosophical questions often will stirr people to question why they believe what they believe. Sarah and Mark are ignoring their own thoughts and bodies by claiming there is no god. Search back into the ancient civilizations and you will find record of a god. Perhaps not he god of Christianity, but at least some reference to a higher being. Without the existance of God and therefore salvation the human life becomes very short. You are born and then you die. It is a scary thought. There is no explanation for the hard times of your life or the good times, you are left in a state of apathy and fear.
        However, I will not disagree that society creates its own gods. Not the true God, but certainly they invent their own personal god. Either they themselves are the god (as with cosmic humanism) or the state/government becomes their god. This, in itself, proves humanity's need for a higher truth and law. Humanity needs some kind of salvation.
        In response to Mark's comment that man should evolve past our need of God, Mark obviously disbelief in God negates man's need for him. However, Mark misunderstands the purpose of God, He is our salvation and we will always need Him. Thus, I would describe the nature of God and His love and grace to Mark, allowing him to receive an objective view of Christ. Obviously, to believe in God requires an amount of faith but importantly God is a logical explanation of our world. It is not blind faith, but faith prompted by historical evidence and personal experience. The world is complex and thus demands a complex God.
       Proving the existance of God to an atheist will require patience and prayer. Although my belief in God is one hundred percent strong, an atheist has no knowledge of who God is or what He does.

The Forever All

Weird video. Very much like propaganda. But, its approach to life, while very weird, is accepted by many. Just look at how many likes it received. I wonder how do you respond to someone who denies the very existence of God in exchange for the All. To deconstruct every thought and idea is daunting to me, I cannot claim to know all the answers. But, certain aspects of the video were purely illogical and superficial. Yes, it would be wonderful if we continued forever and ever- but did the author overlook the fact that we die? He, obviously, is not dead and provides no other factual information for the continuance of life except for recognizing a supernatural all.
       The first point I would like to argue is that if you believe in an All, your belief is based on nothing. They state you cannot define the All, you are the all, the fly is the all. Really? Is that all the information you have? It is very unsatisfactory to have no facts or information to suggest why you believe in an All. Basically, Pantheists believe everything is god, or in this case the All that has entirely existed. This is completely illogical. How can it provide answers to the origin of man, the origin of the universe without answering how the All existed. It hurts my brain to try and answer these questions because Pantheism seems so odd. Did the All create them or is it a purely spiritual essence? In the beginning, I would have said the descriptions of the All sounded like God. God did create triangles and pi, but God is a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent personal Creator. The All is a force. Questions remain unanswered.
         The video said that we are part of a forever cosmic tree whose branches never end. Sounds pretty much like Hinduism, without any references. The entire problem with "branches never ending" is that we die, our body ceases to exist, and if this All remains what do you become? Part of a All blob? It sounds ridiculous. To say we continue to exist prompts questions like where will you go, what will happen to you? Pantheism provides very little explanation for what the All does after you die. Along with this idea that we are indestructible, we are obviously indestructible! Pantheists look over the concept of human sickness, wickedness, and death as separate from the All.
           Finally the flagrantly contradictory statement that you remain unique, but you are all the same. These statements are not in agreement. You cannot all be the All and yet be different. It does agree with society, if we are all a part of the All then how come we cannot agree about religion, politics, or economics? If we are created from the All, and remain steadfastly apart of the All you would like we would share similar beliefs. Yet, the world is consumed in arguments. Pantheists cannot just say we are all one, but uniquely different without clarifying, and they do not.
        Pantheism is a hopeful belief, but naive. It fails to explain the nature of people and the state the world is in. It chooses to ignorantly state there is no God, but uses his creation as evidence for a supernatural All. The appreciation of others and nature is beautiful, but these ideas also have to stem from something more then a force.