What do you think?
Rate this book
Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and Its Uses
Most of us have a worldview, an overarching context for life that helps to shape our beliefs, goals and actions. This book explores the science-based worldview known as naturalism, a comprehensive and fulfilling alternative to faith-based religion and other varieties of dualism. Taking empirical science as the route to reliable knowledge, naturalism holds that we inhabit a single, natural world; there is no separate supernatural realm. We are fully physical beings whose origins lie in cosmic and biological evolution, thus we are entirely at home in the universe. By understanding and accepting our complete connection to the natural world, naturalism provides a secure foundation for human flourishing, an effective basis for achieving our purposes and addressing our deepest concerns. We don t need belief in the supernatural to sustain us. Nature, it turns out, is enough.
103 pages, Paperback
First published June 4, 2007
2 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 16, 2015
I think that this book has some great ideas, but unfortunately they are mixed with some rather bad ones. I will start with what I like about the book. It is clear and concise. This is hard to find among philosophy books, even those written for the public. I think that Tom Clark is correct to recommend prioritizing science as one's main method of trying to learn about the world. I think that he is right to prioritize empirical knowledge more than a priori claims. I think it is probably wise to care about what is true, rather than wilfully deceive yourself. I agree with him that supernaturalism leads nowhere useful, particularly when trying to explain anything about the world or ourselves.
However, my main problems with his book are his claims about what naturalism supposedly implies or what supposedly follows from naturalism. He seems to confuse Humanism, a westernized Buddhism, socialistic ideas and American liberal ideology with naturalism. I think he puts the cart before the horse in that case without realizing it. I think morality is way more ambiguous than Mr. Clark seems to think. He focuses a lot (way too much, I think) on the notion that there is no contra-causal free will (CCFW from here on). I generally think it is obvious that there is no CCFW once you accept that everything must be dictated by the laws of physics. He generally seems to claim that, because there is no CCFW, we should be more compassionate, there is no reason to be prideful, there is no reason to feel ashamed about anything, there should be more preventative social policies regarding crime, society should be less punitive, people should blame societal conditions more than individuals when crimes are committed, people should invest in government programs to help people more than punish them, etc. He also claims that we should try to make things as fair as possible, particularly the economy, helping those who are born with less money at the expense of those who have more money. He claims that all of these things naturally flow from naturalism. Unfortunately, I think this is simply wrong and frankly a confusing presentation of naturalism that could turn many people off from it needlessly.
If one retains a sense of self without a soul, then this is different from what a fundamentalist Christian would view a self as. I can agree with that. However, I do not think it means that one should not feel shame or pride. While one does not have ULTIMATE responsibility without CCFW and while one is fully caused, shame and pride have adaptive, social importance. They can be useful for social control purposes. A criminologist named John Braithwaite wrote a book called Crime, shame, and reintegration, which is about how shame can be a useful form of informal social control if it is not used in a retributive fashion and if the person who is shamed is not permanently shamed. One can be shamed and then reintegrated into a group. Since, in typical American modern liberal fashion, Tom Clark assumes that the government should take on the role of most social change, he misses the concept of informal social control in most of his book. So, he neglects the idea that, regardless of retribution due to assuming someone is an ultimate cause of their actions, one can still use shame as a perhaps potent way to reduce behaviors without highly damaging anyone's life. It can possibly save everyone money by relying less on public employees to apply the intervention and it can even be a preventative intervention. For instance, shame can work in such a way that someone could feel ashamed of just THINKING about a given act (as Braithwaite argues). The person might think of something, feel ashamed by just thinking about it and then not act on it as a result. Would this work in all cases? Of course not. That doesn't mean it is worthless. Most behavioral interventions do not work in all cases. Shame can actually be a more humane form of social control than other interventions that might involve costly government involvement and possible abuse from police or inmates in a prison setting.
Regarding pride, I think it can also be a useful aspect of human behavioral conditioning. I will admit that I generally find people who are very prideful annoying, so I won't say more about it than that :-)
Tom Clark's claims that the government should be involved in preventing health problems and people going to prison in the first place seems to sound humane and nice initially. However, again, one issue is how much this would cost. The other issue is how effective the government would really be in changing such things. Public educational campaigns about drugs, disease and unhealthy foods sounds fine to me. However, if governments get too involved in trying to save people from themselves, that can end up backfiring by the government becoming too restrictive, thereby reducing everyone's freedom. Even without CCFW, freedom is important. I believe in the notion put forth by the lawyer Alan Dershowitz that human rights are not inherent in nature, but they arose instrumentally after humans took notice of the sorts of awful things that people are vulnerable to without rights in place. So, we should be careful not to seek some naturalistic (and according to Tom Clark, socialistic) utopia where scientists, government bureaucrats and parenting "experts" come up with all the standardized answers for the optimal social environment to make everything "fair" and "healthy." We have seen what can happen when people stop thinking for THEMSELVES and put too much power in authority figures to run their lives for them. Throw in Tom Clark's notion that "personal responsibility" (he puts it in quotes like it is a bad thing that doesn't exist or shouldn't exist) should not be in policy makers' vocabularies and you end up with a scary situation. I would also like to see some research indicating that interventions aside from effective (I stress effective) policing actually reduce crime. I am open to the idea that they do, but in a causal world, we need good data... let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
I think that personal responsibility still has a place even without CCFW. First of all, while there are no souls and perhaps there is no continuous selves (I am not a Buddhist and I do not think it is practically very important at all if there is no continuous self) humans may have a predisposition to believe in personal responsibility. They may have this (we don't know if they do or don't), along with shame and pride, because it could be adaptive. It could be adaptive because, as Daniel Dennett argues, taking an intentional stance where you assume that people do things for reasons WORKS for humans, particularly when dealing with each other. If I punch someone in the face because he calls me silly (over-reacting), I could still feel ashamed, say I am sorry and even be punished rightfully without any CCFW. Rather than arguing that my aggressive action arose from my body in a given moment (even though we may NEVER be able to describe, in non-intentional terms, HOW that actually happens) due to causes I had no control over, I could say that I was needlessly aggressive, I could take responsibility and say I am sorry. I could accept the punishment. Is that fair? Perhaps not. As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, LIFE is not fair. There is only so much one can do to set up a social game we all play where the rules actually have meaning due to the notion of responsibility.
This brings me to another point: naturalism does not at all lead to the idea that humans must make everything as fair as possible. That idea is not written in the fabric of the universe anywhere. It is a Tom Clark value. It has nothing logically to do with naturalism. Frankly, I would consider myself a Humanist and a naturalist, but I believe it is uncertain how much I should help others or try to make sure things are fair. If you look around in nature, there are haves and have-nots everywhere. I am not saying it SHOULD be that way. But, to live is partly to take from others or be different from others. Someone else could occupy the space I am occupying. Someone else could benefit from the money I make. Rather than doing anything hedonistic for myself, I could give money to charity whenever possible when my basic needs are met. However, I do not have to do that and utilitarianism is not absolutely true. Morality, I think, is far more ambiguous than that. I can be a libertarian naturalist whose main goal in life is to get rich at the expense of others. Just because there is no CCFW, that doesn't mean there is ANY obligation whatsoever to help others. Sorry, there is none. The universe itself does not care. Not all humans care, either. It depends on your temperament and culture. It depends on what aspects of your nature are emphasized in your lifestyle. I am not saying I am someone who is or wants to be rich at the expense of others. I am not. That's not my point. My point is that I could be a naturalist who doesn't care about anyone but myself or maybe my close friends. Tom Clark does not emphasize this enough and in fact I think he confusingly makes it seem like naturalism entails a particular morality and political system. It doesn't.
Valuing individuality, preserving a public notion of personal responsibility, shame and punishment of violent criminals could potentially increase well being, as Steven Pinker (a naturalist Humanist) would argue. They all may have instrumental benefits, even without CCFW. Lack of CCFW is one of Tom Clark's main focuses, but unfortunately, I do not think it has as much importance for the functioning of a society as he claims.
You may wonder what my problem is and what my agenda is. I am not arguing that compassion is not important. I am not arguing that we should torture or retributively punish criminals. I think that, if you combine naturalism AND Humanism, retribution is not a valid aim. I also think that, in a rational society that realizes there is no CCFW it makes sense for a society to not hold people ultimately responsible, there should not be a huge emphasis on shaming and there should not be a huge emphasis on pride. At the same time, I am arguing that lack of CCFW does not have the specific implications, on its own, that Tom Clark claims. You need moral reasoning or just reasoning in general that is separate from naturalism, but compatible with it, in order to get to the claim that one should be a hippy, Buddhist, socialistic type of naturalist (partly kidding), rather than a selfish, libertarian Ayn Rand worshipping naturalist (also partly kidding). That requires a different book.
If you are talking about encountering naturalism, then don't use the occasion to promote your own political and moral beliefs. That is my main point here. People who appreciate good arguments could be turned off if they notice that one's moral conclusions do not follow from given premises. One could be a sadist who enjoys revenge on others without believing in CCFW. It depends on how you're wired. One could be a serial killer and be a naturalist without contradicting oneself. Again, if you don't like this, you have to go further than naturalism. Naturalism doesn't give you particular morals. Humanism does. Utilitarianism does. This is why I encourage people to look into Humanism if they want more guidance regarding purpose in life. Naturalism just helps you rule out certain forms of morality based on supernatural claims, but it doesn't spell out how to act much at all (even though Tom Clark would claim otherwise).
Let's put it this way, if I tell you I am an atheist, then all you know about me is that I do not believe in a god. You cannot assume I am a Humanist, a liberal or have Buddhist leanings (I do not have Buddhist leanings and only some people might consider me a liberal). If I tell you I am a naturalist, then all you know about me is that I do not believe in anything supernatural. I think adding as much onto it as Tom Clark does is not warranted without saying you are talking about naturalistic Humanism.
One other side note, I think that it is not logically the case that one would empathize with another person more by emphasizing that the person is "caused." One could still take pleasure in that person's pain regardless of the person being caused. Perhaps more so. One could also find it easier to be indifferent to someone's pain by seeing that person as just one part of a string of cosmic events. I knew a person who volunteered as a fireman and apparently an experienced fireman told him to view dead bodies more as "meat" than dead people. This was a way to help to be less emotional about the dead bodies one sees in such a role. My point is that, analogously, focusing primarily on (of course it is true, but I am talking about what you FOCUS on) a person as a body part of a causal chain without personal responsibility could potentially make it easier to harm the person. It depends on your morals going into the interaction. Empathizing, I argue, involves not just considering objective circumstances, but putting yourself into the SUBJECTIVE world of another being. It involves prioritizing taking time to imagine what they might be thinking, feeling, etc. Granted, considering objective facts is important in such a case, but it is not the whole picture. If I could know the way someone's particles were behaving moment to moment somehow, in completely unintentional and completely objective language, predicting what the particles would do next, I would not be able to empathize with the person. The importance of empathy is also not written in outer space for humans to discover. That is a value issue and we must figure it out on our own (trying not to contradict physics and knowledge of Nature in the process).
I think that, personally, for some people, it may be helpful to do away with moralistic thinking, pride, shame, and being overly competitive with others. It might also help a person to give to others more and not think that one is particularly special. Feeling a sense of connectedness might be important to some people and it might help some people. However, I think that notions of personal responsibility, pride, shame, and blame serve instrumental purposes of social control in a society. I think that this is not a bad thing and there is not enough evidence that we need to campaign against such things.
Anyway, if Tom Clark named the book "Tom Clark's American liberal, Buddhist, socialistic naturalistic Humanism", I would have taken less of an issue with it. I do not agree with many of his views (I'm not as certain about morality, I am not as socialistic, I am less utopian, I think that many of the things he wants to do away with serve instrumental purposes), but there are some I do agree with. For instance, I recommend Humanistic social policies as safeguards of and investments for human well being. My version of Humanism might be different from his, though. I think Humanism is like a technology. I think it is instrumental more than inherently true. If one looks at history, I think it is a wise choice for most humans to publicly support such a belief system. If Humanism is used when forming policies in a society, this serves the human norm of trying to do well. There may be humans who don't want to do well, but most humans do not care what they have to say and they are perhaps a minority that will always be oppressed.
However, my main problems with his book are his claims about what naturalism supposedly implies or what supposedly follows from naturalism. He seems to confuse Humanism, a westernized Buddhism, socialistic ideas and American liberal ideology with naturalism. I think he puts the cart before the horse in that case without realizing it. I think morality is way more ambiguous than Mr. Clark seems to think. He focuses a lot (way too much, I think) on the notion that there is no contra-causal free will (CCFW from here on). I generally think it is obvious that there is no CCFW once you accept that everything must be dictated by the laws of physics. He generally seems to claim that, because there is no CCFW, we should be more compassionate, there is no reason to be prideful, there is no reason to feel ashamed about anything, there should be more preventative social policies regarding crime, society should be less punitive, people should blame societal conditions more than individuals when crimes are committed, people should invest in government programs to help people more than punish them, etc. He also claims that we should try to make things as fair as possible, particularly the economy, helping those who are born with less money at the expense of those who have more money. He claims that all of these things naturally flow from naturalism. Unfortunately, I think this is simply wrong and frankly a confusing presentation of naturalism that could turn many people off from it needlessly.
If one retains a sense of self without a soul, then this is different from what a fundamentalist Christian would view a self as. I can agree with that. However, I do not think it means that one should not feel shame or pride. While one does not have ULTIMATE responsibility without CCFW and while one is fully caused, shame and pride have adaptive, social importance. They can be useful for social control purposes. A criminologist named John Braithwaite wrote a book called Crime, shame, and reintegration, which is about how shame can be a useful form of informal social control if it is not used in a retributive fashion and if the person who is shamed is not permanently shamed. One can be shamed and then reintegrated into a group. Since, in typical American modern liberal fashion, Tom Clark assumes that the government should take on the role of most social change, he misses the concept of informal social control in most of his book. So, he neglects the idea that, regardless of retribution due to assuming someone is an ultimate cause of their actions, one can still use shame as a perhaps potent way to reduce behaviors without highly damaging anyone's life. It can possibly save everyone money by relying less on public employees to apply the intervention and it can even be a preventative intervention. For instance, shame can work in such a way that someone could feel ashamed of just THINKING about a given act (as Braithwaite argues). The person might think of something, feel ashamed by just thinking about it and then not act on it as a result. Would this work in all cases? Of course not. That doesn't mean it is worthless. Most behavioral interventions do not work in all cases. Shame can actually be a more humane form of social control than other interventions that might involve costly government involvement and possible abuse from police or inmates in a prison setting.
Regarding pride, I think it can also be a useful aspect of human behavioral conditioning. I will admit that I generally find people who are very prideful annoying, so I won't say more about it than that :-)
Tom Clark's claims that the government should be involved in preventing health problems and people going to prison in the first place seems to sound humane and nice initially. However, again, one issue is how much this would cost. The other issue is how effective the government would really be in changing such things. Public educational campaigns about drugs, disease and unhealthy foods sounds fine to me. However, if governments get too involved in trying to save people from themselves, that can end up backfiring by the government becoming too restrictive, thereby reducing everyone's freedom. Even without CCFW, freedom is important. I believe in the notion put forth by the lawyer Alan Dershowitz that human rights are not inherent in nature, but they arose instrumentally after humans took notice of the sorts of awful things that people are vulnerable to without rights in place. So, we should be careful not to seek some naturalistic (and according to Tom Clark, socialistic) utopia where scientists, government bureaucrats and parenting "experts" come up with all the standardized answers for the optimal social environment to make everything "fair" and "healthy." We have seen what can happen when people stop thinking for THEMSELVES and put too much power in authority figures to run their lives for them. Throw in Tom Clark's notion that "personal responsibility" (he puts it in quotes like it is a bad thing that doesn't exist or shouldn't exist) should not be in policy makers' vocabularies and you end up with a scary situation. I would also like to see some research indicating that interventions aside from effective (I stress effective) policing actually reduce crime. I am open to the idea that they do, but in a causal world, we need good data... let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
I think that personal responsibility still has a place even without CCFW. First of all, while there are no souls and perhaps there is no continuous selves (I am not a Buddhist and I do not think it is practically very important at all if there is no continuous self) humans may have a predisposition to believe in personal responsibility. They may have this (we don't know if they do or don't), along with shame and pride, because it could be adaptive. It could be adaptive because, as Daniel Dennett argues, taking an intentional stance where you assume that people do things for reasons WORKS for humans, particularly when dealing with each other. If I punch someone in the face because he calls me silly (over-reacting), I could still feel ashamed, say I am sorry and even be punished rightfully without any CCFW. Rather than arguing that my aggressive action arose from my body in a given moment (even though we may NEVER be able to describe, in non-intentional terms, HOW that actually happens) due to causes I had no control over, I could say that I was needlessly aggressive, I could take responsibility and say I am sorry. I could accept the punishment. Is that fair? Perhaps not. As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, LIFE is not fair. There is only so much one can do to set up a social game we all play where the rules actually have meaning due to the notion of responsibility.
This brings me to another point: naturalism does not at all lead to the idea that humans must make everything as fair as possible. That idea is not written in the fabric of the universe anywhere. It is a Tom Clark value. It has nothing logically to do with naturalism. Frankly, I would consider myself a Humanist and a naturalist, but I believe it is uncertain how much I should help others or try to make sure things are fair. If you look around in nature, there are haves and have-nots everywhere. I am not saying it SHOULD be that way. But, to live is partly to take from others or be different from others. Someone else could occupy the space I am occupying. Someone else could benefit from the money I make. Rather than doing anything hedonistic for myself, I could give money to charity whenever possible when my basic needs are met. However, I do not have to do that and utilitarianism is not absolutely true. Morality, I think, is far more ambiguous than that. I can be a libertarian naturalist whose main goal in life is to get rich at the expense of others. Just because there is no CCFW, that doesn't mean there is ANY obligation whatsoever to help others. Sorry, there is none. The universe itself does not care. Not all humans care, either. It depends on your temperament and culture. It depends on what aspects of your nature are emphasized in your lifestyle. I am not saying I am someone who is or wants to be rich at the expense of others. I am not. That's not my point. My point is that I could be a naturalist who doesn't care about anyone but myself or maybe my close friends. Tom Clark does not emphasize this enough and in fact I think he confusingly makes it seem like naturalism entails a particular morality and political system. It doesn't.
Valuing individuality, preserving a public notion of personal responsibility, shame and punishment of violent criminals could potentially increase well being, as Steven Pinker (a naturalist Humanist) would argue. They all may have instrumental benefits, even without CCFW. Lack of CCFW is one of Tom Clark's main focuses, but unfortunately, I do not think it has as much importance for the functioning of a society as he claims.
You may wonder what my problem is and what my agenda is. I am not arguing that compassion is not important. I am not arguing that we should torture or retributively punish criminals. I think that, if you combine naturalism AND Humanism, retribution is not a valid aim. I also think that, in a rational society that realizes there is no CCFW it makes sense for a society to not hold people ultimately responsible, there should not be a huge emphasis on shaming and there should not be a huge emphasis on pride. At the same time, I am arguing that lack of CCFW does not have the specific implications, on its own, that Tom Clark claims. You need moral reasoning or just reasoning in general that is separate from naturalism, but compatible with it, in order to get to the claim that one should be a hippy, Buddhist, socialistic type of naturalist (partly kidding), rather than a selfish, libertarian Ayn Rand worshipping naturalist (also partly kidding). That requires a different book.
If you are talking about encountering naturalism, then don't use the occasion to promote your own political and moral beliefs. That is my main point here. People who appreciate good arguments could be turned off if they notice that one's moral conclusions do not follow from given premises. One could be a sadist who enjoys revenge on others without believing in CCFW. It depends on how you're wired. One could be a serial killer and be a naturalist without contradicting oneself. Again, if you don't like this, you have to go further than naturalism. Naturalism doesn't give you particular morals. Humanism does. Utilitarianism does. This is why I encourage people to look into Humanism if they want more guidance regarding purpose in life. Naturalism just helps you rule out certain forms of morality based on supernatural claims, but it doesn't spell out how to act much at all (even though Tom Clark would claim otherwise).
Let's put it this way, if I tell you I am an atheist, then all you know about me is that I do not believe in a god. You cannot assume I am a Humanist, a liberal or have Buddhist leanings (I do not have Buddhist leanings and only some people might consider me a liberal). If I tell you I am a naturalist, then all you know about me is that I do not believe in anything supernatural. I think adding as much onto it as Tom Clark does is not warranted without saying you are talking about naturalistic Humanism.
One other side note, I think that it is not logically the case that one would empathize with another person more by emphasizing that the person is "caused." One could still take pleasure in that person's pain regardless of the person being caused. Perhaps more so. One could also find it easier to be indifferent to someone's pain by seeing that person as just one part of a string of cosmic events. I knew a person who volunteered as a fireman and apparently an experienced fireman told him to view dead bodies more as "meat" than dead people. This was a way to help to be less emotional about the dead bodies one sees in such a role. My point is that, analogously, focusing primarily on (of course it is true, but I am talking about what you FOCUS on) a person as a body part of a causal chain without personal responsibility could potentially make it easier to harm the person. It depends on your morals going into the interaction. Empathizing, I argue, involves not just considering objective circumstances, but putting yourself into the SUBJECTIVE world of another being. It involves prioritizing taking time to imagine what they might be thinking, feeling, etc. Granted, considering objective facts is important in such a case, but it is not the whole picture. If I could know the way someone's particles were behaving moment to moment somehow, in completely unintentional and completely objective language, predicting what the particles would do next, I would not be able to empathize with the person. The importance of empathy is also not written in outer space for humans to discover. That is a value issue and we must figure it out on our own (trying not to contradict physics and knowledge of Nature in the process).
I think that, personally, for some people, it may be helpful to do away with moralistic thinking, pride, shame, and being overly competitive with others. It might also help a person to give to others more and not think that one is particularly special. Feeling a sense of connectedness might be important to some people and it might help some people. However, I think that notions of personal responsibility, pride, shame, and blame serve instrumental purposes of social control in a society. I think that this is not a bad thing and there is not enough evidence that we need to campaign against such things.
Anyway, if Tom Clark named the book "Tom Clark's American liberal, Buddhist, socialistic naturalistic Humanism", I would have taken less of an issue with it. I do not agree with many of his views (I'm not as certain about morality, I am not as socialistic, I am less utopian, I think that many of the things he wants to do away with serve instrumental purposes), but there are some I do agree with. For instance, I recommend Humanistic social policies as safeguards of and investments for human well being. My version of Humanism might be different from his, though. I think Humanism is like a technology. I think it is instrumental more than inherently true. If one looks at history, I think it is a wise choice for most humans to publicly support such a belief system. If Humanism is used when forming policies in a society, this serves the human norm of trying to do well. There may be humans who don't want to do well, but most humans do not care what they have to say and they are perhaps a minority that will always be oppressed.
January 27, 2016
This is a profoundly wonderful, rich and thought-provoking little book. It's only 103 pages, including some valuable Appendixes, and yet manages to cover just about every misconception and misunderstanding about philosophical naturalism one can think of.
Thomas Clark, who maintains the fascinatingly rich website, www.naturalism.org, begins by explaining what a "worldview" is and the importance of such a worldview for how we think and act within the world. He then details the naturalist worldview, and then shares a "Brief History of Naturalism," after which, he then looks at specific issues such as the "self and relationships," the impact of a naturalist understanding on social and political policy, how naturalism fares in the 'culture wars' as well as the growing movement toward "naturalizing spirituality," which I have a particular interest in as I have been formulating and teaching what I call Zen Naturalism for the past decade or so. This is why this slim volume is required reading for students in my Dharma Teacher Training Seminary Program.
As for those appendixes: "Concerns and Reassurances" responds to questions and fears regarding fatalism (naturalism is notfatalistic!), personal agency, choice, responsibility, morality, individuality, rationality, meaning, reductionism and scientism. "Quotes on Free Will" is short, but offers some surprises and the final appendix is a valuable treasure trove of resources including websites, organizations and books.
I cannot recommend this book more highly than saying if you haven't consciously chosen your worldview (and most of us haven't, having inherited it from our family, society and culture); are at all interested in a more 'this-worldly' view and spirituality that opposes the dualism of supernaturalism and transcendence, OR if you are resistant and reactive to such ideas, you should take some time to read this book.
Thomas Clark, who maintains the fascinatingly rich website, www.naturalism.org, begins by explaining what a "worldview" is and the importance of such a worldview for how we think and act within the world. He then details the naturalist worldview, and then shares a "Brief History of Naturalism," after which, he then looks at specific issues such as the "self and relationships," the impact of a naturalist understanding on social and political policy, how naturalism fares in the 'culture wars' as well as the growing movement toward "naturalizing spirituality," which I have a particular interest in as I have been formulating and teaching what I call Zen Naturalism for the past decade or so. This is why this slim volume is required reading for students in my Dharma Teacher Training Seminary Program.
As for those appendixes: "Concerns and Reassurances" responds to questions and fears regarding fatalism (naturalism is notfatalistic!), personal agency, choice, responsibility, morality, individuality, rationality, meaning, reductionism and scientism. "Quotes on Free Will" is short, but offers some surprises and the final appendix is a valuable treasure trove of resources including websites, organizations and books.
I cannot recommend this book more highly than saying if you haven't consciously chosen your worldview (and most of us haven't, having inherited it from our family, society and culture); are at all interested in a more 'this-worldly' view and spirituality that opposes the dualism of supernaturalism and transcendence, OR if you are resistant and reactive to such ideas, you should take some time to read this book.
November 20, 2008
In this book, Thomas W Clark of the "Center for Naturalism" summarizes the philosophy of naturalism. Although recently naturalism has risen to the fore, as Clark correctly points out it is really not new -- it is merely the straightforward application of modern science to the larger stage of world thought.
While Clark is a clear and well-organized writer, I for one came away a bit disappointed. For one thing, the book spent a lot of time discussing the issue of free will and determinism. Yet as far as I can see, naturalism doesn't really have a lot to say on this topic beyond what one could learn from reading any number of modern semi-popular books in physics or the like. Yes, if we presume the naturalistic worldview, all of thoughts and actions are ultimately rooted in natural processes. But from a practical point of view I don't how this changes anything.
For one thing, there is still a huge amount of contingency in the world. It remains utterly impossible to "compute" the future, any more than we can "compute" the precise air temperature and weather conditions in one's city one year from now -- microscopic changes in the "initial conditions" will lead to utterly different conditions a few weeks out.
Yes we as a society need to realize that a person's actions, choices and values are largely determined by a combination of genetic factors and social environment, and there are limits to the extent that "punishment" or other disincentives will prevent bad behavior. But this is hardly a novel notion developed in the naturalism community -- it is the clear conclusion of decades of study in the social and behavioral sciences.
But don't get me wrong here -- this is still an interesting book. You'll learn a lot about naturalism. You may even realize that you are a "closet naturalist" yourself.
While Clark is a clear and well-organized writer, I for one came away a bit disappointed. For one thing, the book spent a lot of time discussing the issue of free will and determinism. Yet as far as I can see, naturalism doesn't really have a lot to say on this topic beyond what one could learn from reading any number of modern semi-popular books in physics or the like. Yes, if we presume the naturalistic worldview, all of thoughts and actions are ultimately rooted in natural processes. But from a practical point of view I don't how this changes anything.
For one thing, there is still a huge amount of contingency in the world. It remains utterly impossible to "compute" the future, any more than we can "compute" the precise air temperature and weather conditions in one's city one year from now -- microscopic changes in the "initial conditions" will lead to utterly different conditions a few weeks out.
Yes we as a society need to realize that a person's actions, choices and values are largely determined by a combination of genetic factors and social environment, and there are limits to the extent that "punishment" or other disincentives will prevent bad behavior. But this is hardly a novel notion developed in the naturalism community -- it is the clear conclusion of decades of study in the social and behavioral sciences.
But don't get me wrong here -- this is still an interesting book. You'll learn a lot about naturalism. You may even realize that you are a "closet naturalist" yourself.
April 6, 2013
A lot of my atheist FB friends (including me) most of the time still make comments that run up against this. We talk as though someone can act separately from their biology and experience. There is no dualism. I am my biological package working in an environment that in turn changes my biology. There is no homunculus inside us pulling the strings.
April 20, 2016
A short, yet thorough introduction for anyone interested in learning about the claims and implications of naturalism. The idea, in short, is that all things are bound by the rules of cause and effect and nothing exists that is somehow supernatural. Rather than take away from our human experience, this perspective actually helps us fully experience our rich human existence.
October 26, 2025
Very good summary of naturalism. Well argued for in all aspects. Maybe the politics are a little bit more open to opinion than Mr. Clark wants us to believe
July 9, 2012
If you want to find out more about naturalism, this book is a great place to start.
This quote from Tom Clark's naturalism.org website sums up what the book covers:
"Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances."
This quote from Tom Clark's naturalism.org website sums up what the book covers:
"Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances."
August 23, 2014
Edifyng. Reflects my views substantially.
February 2, 2014
HIGHLY recommended. Essential
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews