Customer Reviews

Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and Its Uses

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In this book, Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and Its Uses, Thomas Clark, founder and director of the Center for Naturalism, provides a superb introduction to the worldview known as Naturalism, as contrasted with the supernatural worldview shared by most of the world's religions. The work is not intended as a philosophical or scientific defense of Naturalism, which can be found elsewhere (e.g., Richard Carrier's book Sense and Goodness Without God), but rather a consideration of the implications of Naturalism for our view of ourselves in relation to the rest of the universe and for the promotion of a compassionate and progressive society. Although Naturalism has been variously defined by different authors, at its core is the view that Nature is all there is, that there are no supernatural realms or entities, such as gods, spirits, and ghosts, and that human beings are fully embodied organisms embedded in the causal network of the universe. Moreover, Naturalists are generally committed to an evidence-based, rationalistic epistemology, as exemplified by the sciences. A key implication of Naturalism as a scientifically-informed worldview is that the mind is entirely dependent upon the operation of the physical brain, which is subject to the same basic physical laws as those governing the behavior of inanimate matter. We are fundamentally material beings whose perceptual and cognitive faculties are products of eons of biological evolution. Consequently, humans do not possess a disembodied soul that survives death; all of our choices and decision making processes are fully caused phenomena.

One of Clark's main themes concerns the implications of Naturalism for the question of free will. On this topic, Clark gives a clear, concise, and convincing presentation. If indeed our choices are fully caused by a combination of genetic and environmental influences, as suggested by our best scientific evidence to date, then we could not have done otherwise, given identical circumstances. Thus, the supernaturalistic concept of contra-causal free will is incoherent. Moreover, as Clark points out, injecting an indeterministic component into our decision making processes (e.g., by invoking quantum mechanical processes in the brain) in an effort to rescue contra-causal free will would not give us the free will we value, since this would simply make our choices random and thus entirely out of our control. In the final chapter of the book, Concerns and Reassurances, Clark persuasively argues that even if our choices are fully determined by circumstances beyond our ultimate control (e.g., we don't choose our genes or environmental influences), we are still to be held proximately responsible for our actions. Indeed, this responsibility follows precisely from the fact that our choices and actions are fully caused and not random. Importantly, Clark notes that determinism does not imply fatalism - the notion that the future outcome will be the same regardless of the choices one makes. On the contrary, because we are embedded in the causal network of the universe, the future course of our lives crucially depends on the choices we make.

Throughout the book, Clark thoughtfully considers the implications of Naturalism for social policy, for instance, concerning retributive justice. If, according to Naturalism, we are fully caused beings that could not have done otherwise given the same circumstances, then retributive punishment is unjustified. We can take neither ultimate credit nor ultimate blame for our actions, as anyone in our shoes would have done exactly the same. However, as Clark notes, this recognition does not by any means preclude the use of rewards and punishments to encourage and deter future actions. On the contrary, carrots and sticks are effective precisely because we are fully caused creatures. Further, understanding the biological and environmental causes of our actions makes us better equipped to shape and control our behavior in the interest of promoting human flourishing. Thus, a naturalistic, scientifically-informed view of ourselves can only lead to a more responsible, compassionate, and progressive society.

As a reviewer, I am obliged also to comment on areas in the book that I feel could have benefited from further clarification. According to Clark, Naturalism is an empirically-based worldview, defined by our best scientific understanding of the world. Naturalism is thus contrasted with supernatural worldviews characteristic of faith-based religions. Thus, Clark comments (p. 64) that science rules out supernatural explanations, since whatever supernatural entities or phenomena science discovers would become integrated into our unified conception of Nature. On the other hand, on the same page Clark states that science does not presume Naturalism- the denial of the supernatural. These statements may appear to some readers as contradictory. However, judging from Clark's other statements in the book and his endorsement of works (such as Dawkins', The God Delusion and Carrier's, Sense and Goodness Without God) that aim at debunking such `supernatural' entities from a scientific perspective, my impression is that Clark would agree that science, at least in principle, can confirm or disconfirm entities or phenomena that are commonly labeled as `supernatural', such as gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. Indeed, on page 4, Clark states that "...the denial of god is just one naturalistic conclusion we reach if we take an evidence-based view of the world". Conversely, in principle science may be able to detect a phenomenon commonly labeled as `supernatural' (e.g., beneficial effects of intercessory prayer), with the possibility of a naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon being highly unlikely (though not impossible). On Clark's view, however, such a discovery would simply render the efficacy of intercessory prayer a `natural' phenomenon. Ultimately, I suspect that this issue may boil down to a matter of labeling or semantics, i.e. how one chooses to define `natural' vs. `supernatural'. Clearly, if all entities or phenomena discovered by science, which might include gods, spirits, or ghosts, are to be defined as `natural', then science does exclude `supernatural' phenomena, but only as a matter of terminology. However, perhaps I have misinterpreted Clark's words here, in which case some further clarification of this point would be helpful, e.g., in a future edition. I unreservedly recommend Clark's book as an exemplary introduction to Naturalism as a worldview having significant implications for the promotion of a rational, compassionate, and progressive society.

Yonatan Fishman, PhD

I was sleeping lightly one evening and was woken by a friend sending me an instant message asking, "Did you know Tom Clark wrote a book?" He included a link to order the book here on Amazon. That was at 4am; I ordered the book before I went back to sleep.

If you're looking for a full blown defense of naturalism against its critics, you won't find it here. That's not because Clark has failed to provide this defense, but because that was never the goal to begin with. What this book includes is a general introduction to what naturalism is and the what implications are that naturalism carries.

Even if you are a naturalist or atheist already, this book provides a convenient presentation of naturalism that is helpful in organizing ideas and seeing the connections between them. Simply because the book is short in length doesn't mean it's low in content! Clark offers insightful discussions of many topics including epsitemology, ethics, free will, and even personal relationships while offering plenty of references for further reading in case something he says spikes your interest.

The way this book discusses the implications of naturalism from a very broad view can even challenge many people who already accept the main tenet of naturalism--that the natural world is all there is. Have you really understood naturalism and how it applies directly to your everyday life, or do you perhaps have fragments lurking in the shadows of your mind from the supernaturalistic worldview you thought you discarded? Reading this book is a good way to address this question.

Also, you can't beat the price. You'll probably spend more than the price of this book on dinner tonight. So, skip the appetizers (they're too expensive anyway) and dessert (you know you need to drop a couple of pounds before you hit the beach next month) and instead treat yourself to this delightful book. You'll be glad you did.

As the author so clearly states, at the heart of naturalism is a commitment to a way of knowing about the world, a way of deciding what exists. This is the best way we have. The way of the scientific method. This is the use of empirical science, of evidence. That's what the bottom line is.... the fact is there is NO evidence that a supernatural domain occupied by supernatural entities exists. Science has brought us to the realization that all that exists, exists within the natural world. As Clark points out, this is an uplifting and liberating understanding that connects us to the rest of the universe. The author convincingly shows that having gone from polytheism to monotheism, the next step is naturalism. It is inevitable. We are propelled towards it by science. I It is certain, that this book is only the first of many to follow that will make it vividly clear.

For most of human evolution, science was unavailable as a guide to how we think of ourselves and our place in the world, but over the last 200 years or so, science has been advancing at an exponential rate, and it's becoming nearly impossible to ignore its implications for our worldview.

Given the weight of tradition behind non-scientific points of view, there is considerable resistance in some quarters to change of any kind, but even when resistance is replaced by curiosity, there are many questions to be answered, many implications to explore, and this new territory can seem strange and frightening.

Enter Tom Clark and his book, Encountering Naturalism. He has explored the territory and brought back a favorable report: there is nothing to fear, and much to be gained. He has answers to the inevitable questions that come up when first encountering the possibility of science as the basis for a worldview: How do we understand morality, responsibility, decision-making, etc. in the context of science? What are the implications for our justice system, public policy, spirituality?

While his answers will hardly persuade the hidebound traditionalist, they are likely to clarify many of the issues for newcomers to the idea of a science-based worldview. The references he provides can be invaluable guides to further explorations, even for those with considerable prior exposure.

Welcome to the world of the future.

I enjoyed this book as an introduction to the worldview of Naturalism. Clark uses website links at the end of sections so that one can further investigate the ideas he presents. I disagree with some of the reviews of this book that it's garbage. It's an introduction, not a concise treaty of everything naturalist. So to claim that it's somehow defective is to confuse its purpose.

For the curious minded this book is a starting place. The further one searches with the links and references the more one comes to understand the ideas in worldview naturalism.

Clark has a tendency to stress the deterministic outlook of this worldview. But determinism is a crucial aspect of worldview naturalism. Clark makes a case for the benefits of determinism, as well as, makes a case for not fearing the implications of determinism and Naturalism as a whole in a very helpful appendix.

For someone that has looked into various religions and found them wanting I particularly enjoyed this short but serviceable introduction. I was persuaded to pursue further investigation into this particular worldview. It is a very pragmatic and useful worldview.

For the atheist or skeptic that relies solely on rational ideas this book helps to broaden the scope of one's understanding.

If you are seeking to understand what it is that you believe in, or want to believe in, this book is a must. You may find that naturalism is exactly what you have been searching for. For this reviewer, the book was truly a wonderful gift since it offered insights that answered my most fundamental questions. Whatever your belief system is, you will find much food for thought in this book. It opens up Reality about our existence in the cosmos. It delves into subjects that liberate the mind. The book is as rich in content as it is short and readable. The author makes ideas typically offered only in highly complex philosophical works, readily understandable. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who seeks to understand how he or she fit into the world-as-it-is, and strives to discover its spiritual nature.

Very useful and easy to understand. He gives a lot of ressources and reading if someone wants to understand more about one particular subject.

Short and sweet!

Do you have free-will? Is there morality without God? A great, short, accessible introduction to the moral implications of a naturalist world-view.

I consider myself a naturalist and bought this book expecting a general explanation of the philosophy so I could more identify with the movement. I am by no means a philosopher (I am a scientist) so I was hoping for a philosophical explanation of why naturalism is a rational system of logic for interpreting reality.

Clark says science works, and can make predictions about the future, so science is all there is. Okay, why? How about the fact that human beings are naturally curious creatures, and that all we can do on this planet is explore, learn, and try our best to understand the planet. How about the fact that current religious worldviews are utterly unsatisfactory and nonsensical for educated truth-seeking people. How about explaining why naturalism is the logical outcome of human exploratory nature? The author needs to spend a little less time rambling about his own personal politics and a lot more time explaining his rationality.

This book is essentially a reading list, with the vast majority of the recommended sources coming from Clark's own website. It would have been nice if he included the actual explanations IN the book instead of on the internet. Why buy this book when all the main articles are free online? The only good lines in this book are written when Clark is paraphrasing Dawkins or Sagan.

Honestly, I can't even decide who the intended audience of this book is.

The principle philosophy of this book is centered on the arguement of free will, with extremely shallow explanation. He doesn't even give any real explanation why the idea of free will is rejected by science except for a few vague sentences about the brain, and this is a huge problem since the book is based on the the free will debate. Clark thinks the only difference between a normal atheist and a naturalist is that the naturalist denies contra-causal free will. Why?

I am embarrassed I bought this book. I don't know much about Clark, but he doesn't sound like a philosopher, and is CERTAINLY not a scientist. The only reason I finished reading this book was in the hope that somewhere it would all fall into place, and he would have completed a coherent arguement. Don't waste your money.

Thomas Clark should be congratulated for this brief, lucid and well-referenced introduction to the idea that reason combined with empiricism is the best tool we have for creating a worldview, a spirituality and a moral compass. Among its other virtues, I applaud Clark's astute recognition that Buddhism, almost alone among the world's spiritual traditions, is centered on empirical investigation. Ken Wilber has also made this point, but in the Sisyphean context of trying to reconcile mysticism with Naturalism.

The references in the book are, for me, the most useful aspect of the book. I am familiar with the basic assumptions and implications of Naturalism, but have never been wholly comfortable with any of the free will vs determinism positions I have encountered. I will definitely be digging into this with the helpful reading suggestions Thomas Clark provides.

I think Clark's chapters on morality, ethics and naturalism are particularly welcome. Epistemological naturalism, by definition accepts it's own fallibility, consequently demands a measure of humility from it's practitioners, which is, of course, a pre-requisite for empathy, which is the only antidote to evil.

The only quibble I have is that at one point, Clark crosses over from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism in his assertion that science --which I here equate to methodological naturalism (MN)-- categorical rules out the supernatural. This is wrong, as Victor Stegner reminds us in God: The Failed Hypothesis.

One can easily imagine experiments where --abiding by the rules of MN--one would have to conclude that the best explanation or model that explains an observation requires a cause that has no plausible causal origins, like God.
An example might be the spontaneous healing of amputees only upon being read page 21 of the 1957 Toledo phone book. By a Baha'i.

That aside, I can't recommend this short book highly enough as a first taste of sanity.