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 »14:Trinity & Six Freedoms
In this part, I’ll explain the seventh—and last—belief of this new religion; namely, that “current religion and culture is the proper basis of any new religion and culture.” Please remember that these seven beliefs, which I first formed in Part 11, are somewhat provisional, since this religion is a work-in-progress. Nothing has been chiseled in granite yet.
The seventh belief stems mostly from observing that change in nature only happens with a large degree of continuity. Basically, the old is the basis for the new in nature. Since nature is God (see Part 3), nature is worthy of learning from.
First, I’ll detail the physical underpinnings of the this belief in the importance of continuity. After that, I’ll describe how this belief can be applied culturally, and how it would influence the life of a follower of Naturalism.
To start, please consider the “non-living” material of the universe, such as minerals, gases, liquids, and the compounds and molecules they form. There is a continuity in them lasting over several billion years. The elements remain the same, but occasionally combine and recombine differently as they interact. Although the forms the elements take can change over eons—generally slowly but sometimes cataclysmically—there is a basic continuity to them. New elements very rarely are created, and only under very extraordinary circumstances.
Now think about how living organisms change with evolution. They also have continuity, using their inherited DNA as a base, making slightly different combinations of it, with an occasional new mutation mixed in. The old is always the basis for the new, and the new is always adapting to its circumstances. Rarely, sudden cataclysms can happen, affecting a certain habitat—or even the entire earth—dramatically. There may even be a mass extinction. However, life renews, springing from the inheritance of surviving organisms. This is nature (i.e. God) at work. There is an impressive continuity of biology that has lasted on earth already for more than a billion years.
One very obvious physical sign that nature operates as a continuum is the phenomenon—noted by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in the 1800s—that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Briefly explained, this means that the embryonic development (ontogeny) in animals summarizes their evolutionary development (phylogeny). Human embryos, for example, first develop a two-chambered heart, like fish, then proceed to develop hearts resembling those of amphibians and reptiles. Eventually, they develop the four-chambered mammalian heart before they are born.
In fact, Haeckel’s observation has profound philosophical implications that perhaps have not been explored sufficiently. Primarily, it suggests that our essential makeup is tied to the past. Because our entire bodies, including our brains, develop for years after birth, it is reasonable to expect that the development of our mental faculties—like the development of our bodies—is also sourced from the past. We can witness this in many ways that kids develop. For example, kids first learn to scribble crude pictures, then better ones, then later learn to write, first crudely then finely. In modern times, they then segue into learning keyboarding and computer controls. This childhood developmental pattern summarizes what has happened in human history over thousands of years, starting likely with drawings in the sand, then petroglyphs, then meaningful pictograms, then abstract symbols associated with sounds (i.e. writing), then the transference of those symbols to a screen. The similar progression in kids is not an accident; it’s simply natural.
Now consider culture, a phenomenon that is a sort of super-organism in which individual organisms—such as humans—operate. Culture also depends on continuity. As older organisms die and newer ones are born, their culture persists. In humans, think of traditions and other norms of behavior that are passed on from one generation to the next. Much of culture is passed on intact, with some tweaks and changes each generation.
However, not all change in culture follows the typical pattern of slow, natural evolution.
Human culture is additionally prone to a different and more dramatic trend: antithesis. Humans in modern society have a proclivity to form cultural notions that oppose existing notions. The existing notions can be called a “thesis.” In time, various people notice that the thesis doesn’t seem to serve well. This critical idea spreads, and so an “antithesis” arises. According to dialectical philosophy, out of the conflict of the thesis and antithesis, a new, better “synthesis” arises that propels culture forward.
This “zigzag” dialectical development of ideas has long been noticed by philosophers. It was perhaps first explored in detail by Hegel in the nineteenth century, but the basics of it are evident in Plato’s writings and, not surprisingly, even in Genesis or Chinese Taoist philosophy, in which the relation of opposites is often explored.
Even very basic natural concepts can be applied to this model; for example, darkness as a thesis, light as an antithesis, and the complete day as a synthesis. However, it would be incorrect to say that the sun’s light is in conflict with the night’s darkness. Nature is not in conflict with itself. It simply is. It’s just our human vocabulary that can create the impression of an antithesis.
Antithetical change is, of course, an oppositional change not in wider nature, but in one small aspect of nature: human culture. Although change in wider nature is generally gradual and works by using the foundations already laid, antithetical change is instead conflictual, dramatic, and negates the foundation of tradition.
In the book of Genesis, the first antithesis involving humans occurs when the serpent convinces Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The urge to eat the fruit spreads to Adam when Eve convinces him to bite. The thesis here is that this fruit should be left intact because God indicated so. The antithesis is that the fruit would be good for eating, and that God’s directive does not have to be heeded.
The dialectician might say that the resulting synthesis that occurs is the exile from Eden, which includes freedom of choice but also the misery of living outside the harmony of Eden. However, this synthesis seems more like a punishment (in Genesis it literally is). In the Bible, the exile from Eden could be interpreted instead as a warning against antithesis because of this punishment.
It’s certainly obvious that the conflicts resulting from modern antitheses can be very destructive. In recent centuries, think about the thesis of free enterprise and the antithesis of state control of industry, and how that antithesis failed so many millions of communism’s hopeful adherents. Not even nominally communist countries, such as China, bother to pay much more than lip service to this impractical economic philosophy.
(It should be noted that Marx theorized idyllic communism to be the ultimate synthesis of a capitalist thesis and a socialist antithesis, but in terms of how politics actually played out in the early 20th century, the movement known as communism can more accurately be seen as the antithesis.)
Other short-lived political antitheses have wreaked havoc even long ago. In ancient Egypt there is the example of King Akhenaten’s regime in the 14th century BCE. In China, there is Qin Shi Huang’s short-lived dynasty of the 3rd century BCE. There are likely many more examples.
Antithesis happens not just in politics. In the development of medicine, take as an example the traditional pro-biotic thesis of relying on the body’s natural ability to heal and on natural healing aids, as opposed to the anti-biotic antithesis of a chemical “war against germs,” which is reflected in much of modern medicine. How well is this antithesis playing out? The answer is becoming clearer to those who are considering all the facts of the case.
I’m not so sure that Hegel got it right when he postulated antithesis as a driving force for progress. Although there are positive aspects to antithesis with regard to seeking truth—basically the value of the “devil’s advocate” in helping to refine knowledge—I think there is a lot of historical evidence that antithesis, when applied to social movements, is harmful, and is generally driven by elite interests masquerading in idealism.
Could the warnings from Genesis and from history mean that all oppositional conflict is negative, or that it is unethical to find yourself in conflict with something you disagree with? To help answer this, compare the American War of Independence with the French Revolution, which occurred around the same time. The first was historically successful and resulted in a stable, long-lasting government that protected personal freedom, whereas the second was by most accounts a disaster, the aftermath of which included Napoleon creating a new monarchy for himself.
One very notable difference between the two revolutions was the antithetical ethos of the French version, the purveyors of which aimed to change all aspects of the old culture, at least as radically as the later communists attempted more than a century later. In contrast, the Americans, in designing their new government, sourced from a mishmash of current and historical ideas: British governmental traditions, Greek and Roman political philosophy and history, as well as examples from Native American federations that were in proximity to the new country.
Certainly, of the two revolutions, the American one was far better grounded in tradition, which probably helps explain its success. It would be wrong to say that the Americans were not oppositional to the British, and one could certainly argue that some American revolutionaries were even antithetical. But in general, the French revolutionaries were far more antithetical, ultimately to their own detriment.
Regarding medicine again, I would similarly expect that any approach to medicine that embraces proven medical traditions, as well as the age-old natural ability to heal, will in the long-run be more successful than an approach that tries to create dependence on novel pharmaceutical products, which are simply the chemical analogs of political and economic ideologies that fail in their promises. The latest step in the “ideologizing” of medicine is the legislation that took away the rights of doctors in California in 2022. The new law, if it survives court challenges, makes doctors simply vassals who must always uphold a particular medical orthodoxy and prescribe only tightly authorized treatments. How many people expect this system to work well for overall health of Californians?
When human pursuits of any sort are affected by the oppositional ideology of an antithesis, they are straying from what occurs in nature. Nature doesn’t create antitheses. Instead, it creates novelty by employing existing material and sometimes tweaking it. Antithetical ideologies are, in effect, abstractions that humans try to impose on culture. They are anti-nature at their core, and will inevitably create hardship.
The hardship caused by antithesis can even be seen in simple home life. Jean Liedloff’s book The Continuum Concept explored the differences between life in the developed world and life in a remote Native American forest village in South America. One major theme of her fascinating description is that there was no generation gap in the culture she observed in the remote village. There was never any inter-generational disagreement, nor any demand that the youth obey the elders. Liedloff noted that this was in marked contrast to the differences between youth and parents in developed countries, in which the youth often not only feel alienated from older generations, but also feel a need to distinguish themselves from their elders by having a unique—and often oppositional-- generational identity. In the remote village, no cultural antithesis ever arises, whereas in the sophisticated modern world, it seems to arise every generation. In essence, Liedloff’s book is a criticism of modern culture for its inability to produce a satisfying multi-generational continuum, and she attributes a number of modern woes to this lack.
Now, let me explore how the belief in the goodness of having continuity with the past (i.e. the seventh belief) would affect the lifestyle of the Naturalist.
First, with regard to child development, Naturalist parents would strive to expose their kids to skill development that parallels that of historical human development. In modern times, this would mean that there is no rush to develop computer skills in toddlers. In fact, it is probably better if other more basic skills—like drawing and penmanship—are developed first (and I don’t doubt that research will demonstrate this to be true, if it hasn’t already). As source material, Liedloff’s book gives some rather interesting and surprising insights into how “pre-modern” forest kids develop, which Naturalist parents might be interested in. Although I’m not terribly familiar with Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophical (i.e. Waldorf) education, I suspect that some of those ideas for child-rearing may also be interesting to Naturalist parents.
Another facet of the Naturalist lifestyle would be resistance to ideologies that are antithetical. Warning signs of antithetical ideologies include (1) the promise of an idyllic future if only everyone would conform to the new ideas, (2) a new totalitarian ethics in opposition to traditional ethics, (3) an intolerance for at least some traditional beliefs and some types of people, (4) an anti-nature character, and (5) the use of alarmism.
Any proposal that demands a “massive overhaul” to human activity should be immediately suspect because it will almost certainly be co-opted by one elite or another, and result in a debacle. That sort of change is simply not natural. Even in emergencies, cool heads should prevail, and time-tested tools (both physical and cultural) should be the source of any changes. This is the sort of wisdom that we can glean from observing nature.
Recently, at least a few antithetical ideologies have gained prominence. One is gender ideology. Gender ideologues insist on controlling language with the use of “preferred pronouns.” They promise a future of well-adjusted people, all finding the gender that suits each best. They promote irreversible body modifications to better enable this. They alarmingly warn that youth will commit suicide if parents don’t cater to their current gender preferences. Naturalists, on the other hand, would be taken aback at the stark anti-nature idiocy of such beliefs. Although the concept of gender has plenty of cultural meaning, it is firmly rooted in very simple biological differences that have existed for hundreds of millions of years of evolution. There are, of course, only two genders, with very infrequent intersex anomalies.
The “vaccine religion” that especially reared its head during the covid pandemic is another example of antithetical ideology. The totalitarian ethos of this movement during the pandemic was that all must be vaccinated for anyone to be protected. Most public officials parroted this supremely unscientific ethos, despite the fact that the vaccines never were even designed to prevent transmission, and obviously didn’t. Of course, the same officials falsely promised a healthy future to those who believed in the jabs, and a “dark winter of death” (as Biden put it) to those who didn’t. In fact, those of a Naturalist persuasion—who held firm to the belief in natural immunity and minimal use of time-tested medications—were at a great advantage over those who signed on to the precarious and anti-nature belief that “more vaccines are always better.”
Another antithesis that is starting to brew is climate emergency. The existing thesis is the view that our current modes for producing most energy are not overly harmful to the earth or to society. The climate-emergency antithesis is the view that we are causing the imminent destruction of not only polar bears but also likely most of mankind. Here, the alarmism is very evident, as well as suppression of competing ideas and demands for conformity.
Even if there is truth to human-induced climate harm (and there may be truth to it), for Naturalists it’s clear that many people who are pushing this agenda are anything but pro-nature. In fact, the thrust of much discussion on climate now is what sort of questionable tech might be employed to “reverse” the assumed climate change, and how human activity should be radically stifled. The good Naturalist response to this scaremongering would be a cool-headed and unbiased “tech jury” (see Part 12) looking broadly at research on climate, emissions, and any potential harms emissions are causing. If in fact nature and humankind are being harmed by current carbon emissions, then cool-headed, simple, and democratic responses would be advocated by Naturalists.
Generally, Naturalists will favor a freedom-oriented society with reasonable and time-tested ethical and natural constraints. Just as animals have autonomy within the limits of their biology and habitats, we naturally should have the same within the limits of our biology and ethics. Proponents of gender ideology refuse to see obvious natural biological constraints, and deny basic freedom of speech in those who disagree with them. Vaccine ideologues refuse to see the effectiveness of natural immunity and simple remedies, and deny bodily autonomy with respect to the choice to medicate. Climate emergency advocates refuse to see the risk of their proposals, and deny the legitimacy of any evidence contrary to their claims.
Given their dedication to freedom, it’s understandable that Naturalists would tend to favor a free-market system within ethical constraints, partly because this much more resembles a natural habitat than does a state-controlled economy. It’s even possible that a lot of Naturalists might tend toward libertarianism, but I think also that Naturalists would recognize that economic systems are somewhat of a technology in themselves, and increasingly involve use of technology. In Naturalism, if human trade in goods becomes truly harmful to humans or wider nature, it is unethical. It’s very important to underscore that ethical constraints are necessary, and that they may evolve over time when the need for change arises, just as organisms evolve naturally when the need arises.
It might be said that Naturalists are innately conservative. Perhaps this is usually true with respect to attitudes toward traditions, but the term “conservative” is too easy to misapply. Perhaps Naturalists are more accurately described as “pro-continuity.”
Finally, I should mention a bit about what Naturalists would consider good change with respect to religion. Modern people are surrounded by influences from multiple established religions: Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, as well as many variations of all of those. Because of human mobility in the past century, it has become easy—and even just neighborly—to source wisdom from all of these. In fact, there are huge amounts of overlap in the ideas of each. New religion, such as Naturalism, will hopefully source liberally from these religions, and in the process clarify at least some of the spiritual and ethical commonalities of them. That provides cultural continuity for this new belief for potentially many millions of future adherents. The continuity for Naturalism that I’ve tried to provide so far in this substack is mostly sourced in Christianity and Judaism simply because that is my background. I’ll strive to keep including some ideas from other world religions, so that this new religion will be more relevant for all.
Novel aspects of new religions should always be a matter of scrutiny. It’s interesting that the characteristics of antithetical ideologies—as I outlined above—are very similar to the characteristics of religious cults, which tend to assert totalitarian control over their adherents. The sole novel aspect of Naturalism—namely, the ethical tool for judging “rightness” of technology (see Parts 5, 6, and 7)—is not an aspect that presents any antithesis. It is instead a very cool-headed method for applying ethics to technology, a field that has been largely ignored by ethics in the past. And even this novelty has various traditional underpinnings. This novelty is necessary now because technology is currently straying farther and farther from rightness, and needs moderation. Naturalism strives to be a traditionally grounded means of restoring a pro-nature ethical balance to culture.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all celebrating them! In the next part, I plan to discuss the wisdom of the children’s story of “Chicken Little” (in British, also known as “Henny Penny”), and how it relates to Naturalism.