Read also earlier posts »Intro:About »1:Born Of Lockdown »2:Need For Naturalism »3:Equivalence Of God & Nature »4:Special Role Of Science »5:Right & Wrong Tech »6:Smartphones & Covid Vaccines »7:Irredeemable Tech »8:Tower Of Babel »9:Eden & The Fall »10:Mary Shelley: Prophet? »11:Naturalist Congregation »12:Lifestyle, First Three Beliefs »13:Natural Health
In Part 11 of this substack, I introduced seven basic beliefs of Naturalism, and since then I’ve been explaining—one by one—how these beliefs would be reflected in the everyday lives of the hypothetical followers of this new religion. Today, I’ll treat the fifth belief, on the Naturalist trinity, and the sixth belief, on the essential nature of freedom.
The fifth belief is that there is a “trinity of science, ethics, and spirituality with regard to our relation to nature.” In Part 4 of this substack, I outlined how Naturalism reunites these three elements of classic philosophy. I mentioned that these are somewhat parallel to the Christian trinity: the Father is ethics, the Son is science, and the Holy Ghost is spirituality.
First, let me define each of the three elements a bit more. Ethics is knowledge of right and wrong, of what human behavior should be encouraged or discouraged. In Naturalism, ethics is largely rooted in traditional wisdom, but also in nature itself. Science is a method of finding truth about the physical aspect of the universe, and by extension it is the body of knowledge gained by following that method. Science has a questioning and searching character. Spirituality is a connection to things beyond the typical physical world and the normal senses. It is mysterious.
These three elements of knowledge are three ways of connecting with God-as-nature (for the new reader, see Part 3 on the equivalence of God and nature), and they complement and balance each other, perhaps somewhat similarly to how the branches of government operate together in a constitutional state.
Ethics, science, and spirituality all overlap one another to some extent. For example, both ethics and science involve the idea of rules. In ethics there are rules for humans to live by, whereas in science there are natural rules that the universe follows (such as a physics formula for gravitational acceleration). Both science and spirituality involve the amazement of discovery: finding out what has previously been unknown. Finally, spirituality and ethics share a connection with non-material reality. They are both reminders that the material world—which science is mostly concerned with—is just a fraction of nature.
In the past couple centuries, modern religion has retained ethics and some amount of spirituality, but generally does not incorporate science as a part of its worship. A Naturalist, however, considers science as one of the main tools to know God. Scientific inquiry—either doing science oneself or keeping up on scientific research—is sacred in Naturalism, because it is a means of discovering God.
Sacralizing all three of these branches of knowledge allows the Naturalist to better understand a variety of other individuals, cultures, or historical sources. For example, a modern psychologist might explain a troubled person as having “mental illness,” whereas a traditional shaman might explain that the person is “possessed by evil spirits.” The first explanation is scientific, and the second is a spiritual. The purely materialist scientist sees no value in the second explanation, and might attempt to “educate” anyone who ascribed to it. The Naturalist, on the other hand, sees that these two explanations are simply two different ways to describe exactly the same troubled person. The Naturalist would also probably be wise enough to at least consider that the traditional treatments for “evil spirits” may in some cases be superior to treatments offered by the modern medical establishment.
This trinity encourages broad-mindedness, which means that Naturalists might feel curious not only about the latest discoveries in biology, astronomy, or archaeology, but also about spiritual experiences such as near-death experiences, dream interpretation, or even spirit mediums. Naturalists might even occasionally attempt to harness the method of science to study spiritual or paranormal phenomena, as has the British biologist Rupert Sheldrake. (Sheldrake, I suspect, is a Naturalist-at-heart, because of his frequent synthesis of the spiritual and the scientific.)
Any scientist or scientific institution that considers various phenomena “unscientific”, or that categorically denies the legitimacy of investigating certain topics, has likely become politicized, biased, or ideologized in some fashion or another. For example, many less-than-enlightened scientists shun Sheldrake’s investigations into human and animal intuition, or his hypotheses on the existence of biological fields. The purest motive of science is, in fact, curiosity, which should not be discouraged. Denial of curiosity is unscientific because it implies a denial of willingness to seek the truth about nature. (Of course, there can be proper ethical limits to curiosity; for example, limits on studies that cause harm to human subjects.)
Finally, the belief in the trinity of ethics, science, and spirit means that Naturalists might be prone to apply ethics to science in new ways, such as by insisting on higher ethical standards in terms of funding of studies, so that commercial or political bias will be minimized. In short, re-uniting science with ethics and spirituality is likely to do each of these elements of knowledge some good, not to mention spur some new creative approaches toward life.
In summary, the belief in this trinity is what makes a Naturalist broad-minded, understanding, mentally flexible, creative, trustworthy, hopeful, and curious. In short, it makes Naturalists well-rounded. Because Naturalists see no conflict between tangible science and intangible spirit, they would likely feel comfortable either analyzing a situation or praying about it.
***
The sixth belief of Naturalism is in the importance of freedom, specifically of speech, religion, science, assembly, healthcare, and inquiry. In Naturalism, freedom is not an add-on afterthought, but is an integral part of what is natural. In nature, animals and plants are not restricted except by the influence of natural and evolving circumstances: the abilities they have, the presence of geographic boundaries, or the nearness of predators. Natural development occurs when organisms are free to live, grow, strive, and make choices in these natural habitats. This freedom is neither idyllic nor stress-free, and may even involve substantial pain, but it is the natural state of life, and life thrives in it. Humans also need such natural self-determination, or they do not thrive.
On the other hand, humans are in a special position in nature. Far more than other animals, we have the powers of organization and technology. With these powers comes responsibility. This responsibility is otherwise known as “ethics”.
So, for humanity, freedom exists in a necessary context of ethics. Ethics can be thought of as part of a non-physical “habitat” that humans occupy freely. Philosophers since Socrates have noted that freedom requires ethical self-discipline.
Of the six types of freedom I’ve mentioned, three of these—freedom of speech, religion, and assembly—are all classic freedoms enshrined in constitutions in many countries of the world. Sadly, each of these three freedoms was abridged in many of those same countries during the covid lockdowns of 2020 and 2021.
Particularly the freedom of assembly was abridged in those years. Religion can be practiced to some extent alone, but assembly, being such an important part of our human social nature, simply cannot be denied without causing great harm. The harm is even biological: separation from society causes an “immunity debt” that makes people more susceptible to illness when later exposed to pathogens. The anti-nature policies of the authors of the covid lockdowns must be countered, and the Naturalist will likely provide opposition to these, if only by continuing to associate with friends and family during future ill-advised lockdowns.
The recent “white paper” protests in China, against zero-covid policies, illustrate that—even in a totalitarian state—millions of people are rejecting the anti-nature and anti-human policies that have prevented free assembly and free speech.
The remaining three freedoms—of science, healthcare, and inquiry—are not generally seen in national constitutions, but perhaps they should be.
In Naturalism, science is a sacred act of discovering the character of God, so science should not be infringed for reason of commercial or prejudicial bias. Such bias is an obstacle to knowing God-as-nature.
A good recent example of an infringement of scientific freedom would be the quashing of aluminum toxicity research conducted by Christopher Exley. Exley was forced out of Keele University in 2021, most likely due to corporate pressures, after he began publishing research regarding the aluminum adjuvants in vaccines.
In order to preserve important research that runs contrary to commercial aims, Naturalists might be interested in crowdfunding scientific efforts that have been shunned by unethical universities.
I should mention a few caveats to scientific freedom in Naturalism. First, freedom of science applies only to ethical study that is sincerely motivated by an impartial search for truth. There certainly is a lot of falsity, prevarication, and corruption in modern science, and one role of Naturalism would be to extend the reach of ethics into the scientific process, to counter the tendency toward fudging outcomes to fit political or commercial demands. Another caveat on scientific freedom is that any science that uses unethical or harmful tools and techniques, or has unscientific aims, would also itself be unethical. Science, like any other human endeavor, must strive to employ “right” tools (see Part 5 on “Right And Wrong Tech”).
One final caveat on scientific freedom is that science should not be confused with technology. Technology is the application of science to make goods and services. A vaccine, a smartphone, a rocket, a psychotherapeutic treatment: none of these are “science” even though scientific knowledge was employed in their invention. Naturalism does not espouse freedom of technology. In fact, Naturalism argues that technology should be carefully judged for its rightness or wrongness.
A Naturalist does not have to be a professional scientist, but in everyday life a Naturalist would be familiar with and respectful of the scientific method, and would be interested in the findings of scientific investigation. A Naturalist would know that science is a never-ending search for truth, and would treat scientific knowledge as findings to be weighed, not settled truth. Naturalists would avoid the trap of ideological “Scientism” that was noted by Augusto Del Noce in his work The Crisis of Modernity. Scientism is, in effect, a fundamentalist false religion that Naturalists would avoid.
A Naturalist would furthermore be able to see that the findings of modern science often are similar to knowledge in pre-scientific sources. Modern concepts of evolution and biology, for example, are often strikingly parallel to themes in creation stories from various cultures, including those from the book of Genesis. The Naturalist sees that, in a broad sense, modern science is simply a refinement of traditional religious and cultural understanding of the material world. By avoiding all types of fundamentalism—both religious fundamentalism and Scientism—the Naturalist can appreciate both tradition and science, and learn from both.
Another freedom important for Naturalists is that of inquiry. This includes any search for truth. It could involve a deep dive into philosophy, ancient texts, spiritual phenomena, mathematics, art, current events, etc. Curiosity, like the pursuit of science, should not be impaired except for reasons of ethics. Think of the forbidden fruit in Eden. God did not say that Eve and Adam were forbidden to inspect or touch the fruit: curiosity is allowed. They were only forbidden not to eat this crucial, central fruit. This implies that there are ethical limits to exploiting core parts of nature, but not to gaining knowledge of them.
In terms of lifestyle, Naturalist parents would—of course—encourage curiosity and research in their children. Because of a dedication to freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech, Naturalists would understandably be opposed to censorship motivated by politics or commercial interests, although they might find themselves supporting censorship for genuine ethical reasons.
The remaining freedom is that of healthcare. Because I’ve written extensively about the belief in natural health in Part 13 of this substack, just a few more words will suffice here.
Our culture is obviously moving steadily toward an autocracy of healthcare, to the extent that even medical doctors no longer have any freedom to act independently or creatively. What a tragedy this is for health! As for patients, it’s as though they no longer have control over their own bodies. We are increasingly becoming chattel, our wealth, health, and freedom drained by “healthcare” corporations.
Under current circumstances, the Naturalist would be inclined to be his/her own doctor as much as possible, and would strive to lead a healthy, non-medicated life outside the hospital. Part of doing so would involve free access to supplements, herbs, and other traditional medicines. I would expect Naturalists to firmly support a free market in these, but also to use them modestly and judiciously. Naturalists would be strong proponents of personal bodily autonomy, within the ethical limits of nature. They would refuse to be subject to medical mandates.
At the same time, Naturalists would realize that ensuring more independence and freedom for medical doctors will help restore our healthcare system to some amount of rightness. Naturalism is not anti-expert unless the expert is beholden to commercial or political interests.
In summary, freedom—tempered with ethics—is an essential part of the Naturalist life. Bean-counting micro-managers with technocratic aspirations are not likely to apply for membership. In fact, I feel that Naturalism has already long been an alternative to technocracy. It’s just that most adherents of Naturalism don’t know a name for their belief yet.
In the next post, I’ll explore the seventh and final belief: the current culture is the proper basis for new culture.