Is Ridicule of Ideas Antithetical to Promoting the Naturalistic Worldview?

This article is mostly a response to fellow Nirmukta coordinator Lije's post on his blog, stating why he is giving up ridicule as a strategy for promoting freethought.

It is certainly true that the case for ridicule has been made previously without sufficient nuance. But I do believe it is one of the many behavior-altering tools that can be very effective, if used properly in the proper circumstances. Here's a point by point argument in support of that thesis.

1. We're technically talking about ridiculing ideas, not people. Although this is not how people always behave, this is what I'm advocating for. There is plenty of precedent here, and a fair amount of consensus among freethinkers. Any attempt at attacking people is inconsistent with this ideal.

2. Feelings of contempt for another human being, which the passage from the article in Naturalism.org talked about, involves a very different set of emotions from, as a society, ridiculing wacky ideas that individuals may have. I am of the view that in certain circumstances the humane thing to do is to ridicule a terrible idea, while acknowledging the humanistic implications of the naturalistic worldview when it comes to the individual who professes belief in said idea.

3. In elevatorgate, the major reason for the intensification of animosity was personal attacks and accusations. Although I am in complete agreement that this is undesirable, both ethically as well as from a political standpoint, it is not the same thing as simply ridiculing bad ideas. Again, the line is not always clear, but its there in a fuzzy way, like it usually is when demarcating most such socially validated concepts.

4. There are cases where Dawkins and Hitchens got to those who were clearly on the "other side". I do agree that much of what they do goes towards rallying the troops- the in-group. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing overall in terms of promoting freethought. For example, 20 years ago someone disillusioned with religion would probably have just stopped worshiping and got on with his/her life, going along the path of least resistance. Today, a good proportion of such people are likely to get involved in criticizing religion's regressive influence on our society, working to address discrimination against the non-religious, and participating in secular activities/events celebrating science and reason. On the whole, ridicule of, frankly speaking, ridiculous ideas, is good for a healthy society.

5. Now, I do agree that there are circumstances/individuals where ridicule will not work. But I'm not advocating ridicule alone. People are different in what motivates their behaviors and to what extent. I just see ridicule as ONE of the tools by which people manage the distribution of ideas through society (or, looking at it another way, its just one of the ways in which memes propagate themselves). There are others, and which ones are most effective will depend on the individual and the circumstances.

6. One way ridicule works to propagate ideas is by showing individuals (often subconsciously) that the idea being ridiculed is socially unpopular. That is, you are creating a social cost to believing in that thing. Its a strategy that political campaigns and ad companies use very effectively- a way of using social desirability bias to work for you. Again, of course, it will not work on all people.

7. On a more wide-reaching level, a culture of ridiculing bad ideas helps break the unquestioning rigidity of faith. Comedians do it all the time, usually getting even believers to agree with them that a literal reading of scripture is just plain silly and laughable. In the long run, numerous small steps making blasphemy and other forms of ridicule acceptable in society can help sideline religion. On the flip side, there are extremists waiting to pounce on every perceived "offense". However, I feel we're on the right side of history.

8. We should also keep in mind that ridicule and rational refutation of bad ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go very well together. For example, Sam Harris' brilliant analogies in his End of Faith demonstrate very well the logical incoherence of faith in god by comparing it to faith in any equally ridiculous idea. Pascal's Wager has seldom been refuted more vividly or memorably than by Dawkins when he referred to Poseidon and the Great JuJu up the Mountain. The concept of 'burden of proof', deciding on which side of the debate the onus towards providing evidence lies, has been written into the mainstream popular narrative, conjuring up images of a flying teapot, an invisible pink unicorn, and his noodlyness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

One approach to adopting a strategy of directed ridicule might be to actually study it using the tools of science, to gauge what level of ridicule is useful, under what circumstances and to which demographics. There isn't any evidence that ridicule of religious ideas is more hurtful to believers (from the humanistic point of view) or counter-productive to our cause (from the promoting freethought point of view), than aggressive and rational criticism of dangerous, bigoted and often inhumane religious ideas. In the end, it is the false dichotomy that I think we must avoid when it comes to promoting freethought.

There are areas of nuance where we can agree. For instance, when someone who is capable of rational thinking is at the point of coming around to seeing the logic of the naturalistic worldview, it would probably be unwise to ridicule the remnants of his/her religious beliefs. But when, to take another example, a group of people are willing to kill someone for simply drawing the image of their prophet, it is clear that such violent opposition to having the ideas ridiculed is actually a defense mechanism employed by the religion itself, and needs to be dealt with before any rational conversation with room for doubt can be entertained.

Reason and ridicule are both essential in promoting freethought. Perhaps just as there are different types of believers for whom different approaches are required, there are different types of freethinkers suited for adopting different strategies. I think such a pluralistic approach makes sense in a pluralistic social context.

Does Biological Evolution Presuppose Scientific Naturalism?

It has been a while since I debunked a creationist or defended naturalism from creationists intent on misrepresenting science, but an article that was recently sent to me by Nirmukta member Sajith Unni gives me an opportunity to do both. The relevant portion of the article is this:

In Darwin on Trial, Johnson drew out the suspiciously sequestered fact that Darwinism presupposes a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism, as a worldview, says that nature or matter is all there is; the supernatural does not exist or, if it does, is entirely irrelevant to life in the natural realm. Johnson deftly pointed out that naturalism is not a scientifically deduced fact but rather a philosophical presupposition.

The first result of Johnson’s contribution was to expose the atheistic scientists’ philosophical presupposition of naturalism and separate it from their science. Like the lad saying the emperor has no clothes, he identified the philosophy masquerading as science and pointed it out. More far-reaching, though, Johnson gave birth to the scientific movement of intelligent design theory (ID).

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection.

The author of this article deliberately conflates different versions of naturalism, as often do most critics of naturalism in general. A philosopher of science will be aware of these different versions, such as ontological or metaphysical naturalism, epistemological naturalism and scientific naturalism. Opponents of science, even if they know the distinctions between the different types of naturalism, will lump them together when debating scientists. This enables the creationists and the like to argue against a form of naturalism that does not actually apply to the case in question. That is, they use the fact that most people don't know the differences between the distinct forms of naturalism, to create straw men arguments. In the case in question, the author is arguing against metaphysical/ontological naturalism (a hard stance that could in its most extreme form be said to presuppose the idea that nature is all there is), when in fact the relevant form of naturalism in this context is scientific naturalism (also known as methodological naturalism). Let's take the statements individually:

"In Darwin on Trial, Johnson drew out the suspiciously sequestered fact that Darwinism presupposes a naturalistic worldview."

Evolution by natural selection does not presuppose any worldview that is not also presupposed by science. But science does not presuppose any worldview! Science only presupposes certain philosophical rules of logic that are based on the empirical tradition. These are not worldviews, but the foundational principles of science that are subject to revision if the evidence does not fit them. What we discover is that rather than presupposing naturalism, science necessitates a certain naturalistic worldview based solely on the success of the scientific method.

"Naturalism, as a worldview, says that nature or matter is all there is; the supernatural does not exist or, if it does, is entirely irrelevant to life in the natural realm."

Firstly, as mentioned above, the author is talking about metaphysical naturalism here, which is not based on the scientific method and therefore implies that the argument is a straw-man in this context. But let us analyze the statement nevertheless. Nature is not synonymous with matter. The scientific understanding of nature is a lot more complicated than that. To demonstrate the absurdity of the claim made by the author all one needs to do is to point out that scientists believe that the universe contains anti-matter. Scientific naturalism is not the idea that matter is all there is. It is the idea that all we can know about the natural world it is possible to know only through systematic study of the natural world. No one has been able to design a scientific experiment or even make an observation that can determine if there is any supernatural world, or if there is another medium responsible for communication between the natural world and any possible supernatural world. That is, all things in the natural world have natural causes as far as we can tell, and no one has proven otherwise. This is a simple enough concept that anyone except creationists can easily understand.  

"Johnson deftly pointed out that naturalism is not a scientifically deduced fact but rather a philosophical presupposition."

So which is it- a fact or a worldview? On this point the author is relying on the lamentable fact that many who believe in the validity of the scientific method are clueless about philosophy. The truth is, there are many philosophical presuppositions that are built into the scientific method, but the naturalistic worldview is not one of them. The naturalistic worldview, unlike the logical presuppositions in science, follows from adopting the methods of science as the most reliable tools we have for understanding reality. I will quote from Tom Clark here:

It’s important to see that naturalism depends on taking science as your way of knowing about the world and what ultimately exists in it. Scientific explanations tend to unify our view of what exists, since once something gets understood scientifically, the connections between it and the rest of what science understands are made clear. This is what science does: to show the pattern of connections between different things. These connections are sometimes literal physical connections, such as how our bodies are put together, and sometimes they are causal connections, such as how the wind causes a sailboat to move. Either way, science inevitably unifies the constituents of the world into a single whole, in which everything is either closely or remotely connected to everything else. It doesn’t and can’t show that there is a separate supernatural realm, or some sort of supernatural stuff that is categorically different from what’s in the physical, natural world. So, science is the basis for naturalism. If you take science as your preferred way of knowing about the world, you’ll be led to naturalism.

"The first result of Johnson’s contribution was to expose the atheistic scientists’ philosophical presupposition of naturalism and separate it from their science."

The past 4 centuries of scientific study have shown us that the observable universe functions in scientifically predictable ways, as observed using the scientific method, which is all the information we need to determine that the naturalistic worldview is accurate. The scientific method is what provides the ultimate logic behind the epistemology of naturalism, which declares that anything that can be known about the natural world must have natural causes. This makes any non-naturalistic worldview a superstitious and faith-based view of the world. The methods of science uniquely determine the philosophy of scientific naturalism. Science does not presuppose naturalism. Quite the contrary, scientific naturalism is an epistemological understanding that is inextricably linked to the scientific method.  

"Like the lad saying the emperor has no clothes, he identified the philosophy masquerading as science and pointed it out."

He has not done anything of the sort, as I have indicated in my analysis. Scientific naturalism is intact. If the emperor has no clothes, then science and reason will determine that fact, for sure. If anything, this particular creationist attempt to disprove evolution by attacking scientific naturalism is akin to attempting to prove that the emperor has no clothes by arguing that clothes do not exist. 

Now for the creationism part:

"More far-reaching, though, Johnson gave birth to the scientific movement of intelligent design theory (ID).

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection."

ID never was nor ever will be a scientific theory, and not because it violates scientific naturalism. ID is not a scientific theory because it violates scientific methodology. Here are some of the methodological principles of science that it violates:

1. Testability: As mentioned above, there is no scientific test for the supernatural.

2. Predictability: ID makes no future predictions that can be tested.

3. Falsifiability: There is no way to falsify the idea that 'god did it'.

These are the most fundamental requirements for a scientific methodology, and ID satisfies none of them. On the other hand, biological evolution has become the cornerstone of modern biology because of how well it has stood up to analysis using the scientific method. The evidence for evolution is stacked up higher than for any other theory in biology. The fossil record, the genetic analyses, studies of geographic species distribution, experimental evidence and all the mathematical modeling studies, prove beyond a shadow of doubt that biological evolution is one of the most robust theories in modern science.

And contrary to the creationist article's claims, natural selection is anything but "undirected". That is one of the most ignorant notions about evolution that anyone can profess, and it's not to the credit of the ID movement that this is such a common misunderstanding. It's almost as though creationists as a group are unaware of the meaning of the word 'selection'.

Geographical Distribution of Related Primate Groups

Scientific Naturalism can help us make epistemological judgments about the natural world. ID, on the other hand, is simply an appeal to unknowability. Anyone who suggests a supernatural cause for a natural phenomenon is simply saying 'it's magic'. In science, 'it's magic' is a non-answer. It does not increase our knowledge in any way whatsoever. But I'm presupposing that ID proponents want to increase knowledge the way scientists do. I guess that is one presupposition that I am guilty of.

"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" 

- J.B.S. Haldane, when asked to falsify evolution. 

Naturalism, Life and Meaning in a Causal Universe

The Illustrated Sutra of Cause and Effect: 8th century, Japan.

This is the first in a series of simple introductory articles and videos on naturalistic philosophy. This article was originally posted on Nirmukta.

Many of those of us who call ourselves freethinkers are aware that there is some fundamental difference between the way we view reality and the way the superstitious folks do. We believe in a naturalistic reality and the others subscribe to the supernatural. But what exactly is this difference? What does it mean to believe in a naturalistic reality? What is ‘natural’, and how is it different from ’supernatural’?

Note: I will avoid discussion of the nature of evidence in this article since it will distract us from our objective here.

The key to understanding the natural universe is understanding the notion of causality. This idea can be stated simply as the relationship between two dependent events, where one is the caused and the other is the cause. Science works only because the natural world exhibits causality. In physics, causality is more accurately viewed as interaction between two events, objects or situations, with each of the two being both cause and effect at the same time.

“Everything that happens……. presupposes something upon which it follows by rule”

- Immanuel Kant, Second Analogy

To get an idea of how supernaturalists relate to the notion of causality, let us consider three examples. Each is a hypothetical case where an individual suspends belief in causal reality at different points of reasoning.

Case-I

Sethu from India believes that the Hindu god Ganesha is the keeper of his fortunes. Sethu spends 5 hours every week, praying to and performing duties for Ganesha. He strongly believes that his actions have been keeping him safe and comfortable.

In his regular life, Sethu is an engineer. His job requires him to possess and frequently rely on an exceptional amount of data on cause and effect. Even when he decides to go perform his puja, he doesn’t just close his eyes and wish that he was at the temple. He gets in his car and goes through the motions, knowing that the mechanics of the automobile will be the effect. He has a naturalistic understanding of these things. Cause and effect are intuitive in this way.

Yet when Sethu gets to the temple, he stops thinking in naturalistic terms. A very different type of behavior sets in. He appeals to what can only be conceived of as magic. This is his supernaturalistic side.

What happens here is that Sethu goes from a world where causality operates, to one in which causality does not apply, and he makes this switch based on no evidence at all! At the point where he begins to seek a supernatural explanation, Sethu stops subscribing to the real and observable principles of cause and effect and starts believing in magic.

“Shallow men believe in luck, believe in circumstances. Strong men believe in cause and effect.”

-Ralph W. Emerson

Case-II

Jen in the US knocks on wood to avoid tempting fate every time she boasts about herself to someone. She doesn’t really think about it past the ritualistic rap of knuckle on cedar. Her life is full of these meaningless idiosyncrasies.

But Jen is a successful businesswoman. She makes extremely rational decisions analyzing numbers all day long, to seek and identify patterns. She has an exceptional grasp of her natural surroundings, using the principles of cause and effect extremely well to navigate through life. Yet the superstitions are all right there.

The early morning coffee and horoscopes, the frequent tarot card readings and psychic healing visits- all side by side with the everyday real-world things she does.

Jen finds it really easy to switch back and forth between the magical fantasy world ,where cause and effect do not apply, and the real naturalistic world where they do.

“[WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?] - To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.”

-Robert G. Ingersoll, 1898

Case-III

Yalda in Morocco believes that allah is the reason she exists. In fact, allah is the reason everything exists, since he created everything. But the laws of cause and effect do not apply to allah. In fact, he created those as well.

Meanwhile, she exercises her mind everyday at her job as a computer programmer. She understands how the code she writes has an effect, which has another effect and so on. Yalda acts as we all do when it comes to practical matters, under the premise that cause and effect apply in our universe. But when it comes to allah, she suspends belief in reason. She does not stop to question the logical incoherence of claiming to know anything at all about an all-knowing being who cannot be known because he is beyond cause and effect.

“All reasonings concerning matter of fact [the empirical reality] seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect.”

-David Hume

In each one of these cases there are two types of behaviors- those based on naturalistic ideas and those based on supernaturalistic ones. If we extend this reasoning to numerous beliefs in popular culture, it becomes apparent that everywhere a supernatural concept is evoked there is a required suspension of the laws of causality. In fact, belief in any supernatural requires a voluntary surrendering of the reasonable and fundamental assumption of science that all things must have a natural cause. To the superstitious mind, magic appears to be a reasonable solution- a sufficiently explanatory state of affairs. This sort of thinking is manifested in everything from belief in homeopathic medicines and psychic healing, to belief in god.

Not only is causality key to understanding natural reality, but understanding the causal nature of reality is also important towards attaining a better idea of who we are as sentient beings. The three above case-studies all defer to an external supernatural force. However, there is another type of supernatural belief, one that is just as prevalent and harmful, but involves looking inward, into oneself. This is the belief in the idea of an internal supernatural self; a soul.

The belief in a soul is manifested in many forms in human society, most prominently in the widespread belief in “free” agency. This is the illusion of an uncaused entity within us; the seat of our consciousness and sentience. This type of uncaused “free” agency is commonly known as free-will, or more technically, contra-causal free-will.

Is it possible, or even advantageous to forgo the supernatural belief in contra-causal free-will? Will our society be able to function morally without the notion of uncaused agency? Can personal responsibility survive as a fundamentally beneficial social construct, even in the absence of free-will? The answers to these questions and others will be covered in future parts of this series on naturalistic philosophy. The next one will be on the nature of knowledge, it’s forms and its attainment (epistemology).