The Wisdom of Alice
It would be nice if a worldview were not only true, but livable. As yet, there aren’t many thorough-going naturalists to provide data, but a hardy few have reported back on the livability of naturalism and it mostly seems to pass the test, see Living in light of naturalism. Below are some updates from Alice in Australia at the Naturalism Philosophy Forum (open membership), who describes some of the practical and psychological advantages of taking a consistently cause and effect view of ourselves, and the understandable suspicions many folks have about it. She also describes applying naturalism to child-rearing, as does Stephen, another member of the Forum. If a worldview can pass that test, then clearly it’s a winner! Enjoy…
Alice writes:
I’m really happy with my understanding of the world based on what I understand Naturalism to be telling me. In the past I’ve found that I was coming up with theories, then when I came across a theory that made sense I was applying it, but it never went smoothly, something always came up that didn’t fit in with my theory. So I jumped from theory to theory until finding Naturalism in July 2007. 18 months is probably the longest that I’ve had a theory that I’ve applied to my life where in 18 months I’ve not yet had a contradiction to the reality that I’ve experienced. I feel enlightened. I tell my friends this and they’re not sure what to think. When things go wrong in my marriage and I ‘attempt’ to speak with my mother about it – she tells me ‘well you’ve made your choices’, so then I tell her, I don’t have free will, she seems to think I’m trying to cop out of something and is very disapproving of me. In fact most people are disapproving of my belief in NFWism [no free will-ism: not having contra-causal free will]. I’m just really sorry they don’t ‘get it’. NFWism allows me complete acceptance of what is. It allows me to have compassion for all people. It allows me to make informed decisions and respond to everyone with the understanding that they ‘couldn’t have done otherwise’. This is an emancipating position. Yet still people look at me and think I’m some how being a smart-arsed shirker of responsibility, who hasn’t quite understood how life works yet – a dreamer who really doesn’t get it! Ironic that they have it so back to front – and yet my world view allows me to have total compassion for them and their attitude – whilst they look at me in judgment. It really throws the Christian door knockers - LOL!
On child-rearing:
…So the better I understand Naturalism, the better I can enact those principles in my life and use the rationality of naturalism in my thoughts and actions, the more likely that is going to permeate all my relationships and influence those around me. My eldest is currently 7 years old, and I find overt examples of my Naturalistic world perspective come out in my discussions with him regarding interactions between himself and his younger brother. Kids are very good at detecting false realities, so I have to be careful what I say if I want to maintain any authority or respect. I find that if I stick to Naturalistic parameters, my argument is quite based in reality and therefore acceptable.
I can’t see any problem with introducing all aspects of Naturalism including NFW [no contra-causal free will] to my children. Children integrate what they learn very easily and can also easily see when things don’t add up or make sense. If they feel safe they will talk about what is not adding up for them and allow you the opportunity to clarify concepts. One example of this for me was when my son’s friend told him that he would burn in hell because he didn’t believe in God. As my son approached me with his concerns, I was able to give my perspective, which was satisfactory and caused much relief.
If you hold Naturalistic beliefs and are able to concurrently have good self-esteem then there is no reason why your child wouldn’t follow you to do the same. If anything Naturalism has improved my self-esteem, as I’m more grounded in reality, feel more confident about my understanding of the world and have more compassion for everyone around me, which has lead to my feeling more valuable in society and therefore created higher self-esteem.
With my first child I had a go at punishment as a parenting technique. It caused us both lots of distress [and] it clearly didn’t work – it wasn’t effective in outcomes. Now I go for a more effective method – I change the circumstances so that I achieve the outcome I desire. The child may or may not understand what I’m doing, or why, but if I get the outcome I want and the child is not distressed it’s win-win. I have no concerns that this will create problems later on, as I explain everything I’m doing and allow the child to learn how to see other perspectives at their own rate – developing compassion (the ability to see another’s perspective) in the child is the key to socially functioning adults.
And Stephen writes:
…the other day I was talking to my daughter about what school she will be going to. She was worried in case she got "a rough one." I explained that she was an amazing biological machine able to adapt to the situation and do well if necessary, that this was the result of billions of years of natural selection going right back to the first self replicating molecule, that she couldn't take ultimate credit for the fact but still she has this amazing ability.Oh and I told her we'd get her Karate lessons too :-)
She is 10, didn't bat an eye lid but it gave her justified confidence (along with the offer of karate lessons), she stopped worrying and cheered up.
I think she's used to having one strange dude for a father :-)
[Relatedly, see this interview with Dale McGowan on raising kids without supernatural beliefs.]
Alice writes:
I’m really happy with my understanding of the world based on what I understand Naturalism to be telling me. In the past I’ve found that I was coming up with theories, then when I came across a theory that made sense I was applying it, but it never went smoothly, something always came up that didn’t fit in with my theory. So I jumped from theory to theory until finding Naturalism in July 2007. 18 months is probably the longest that I’ve had a theory that I’ve applied to my life where in 18 months I’ve not yet had a contradiction to the reality that I’ve experienced. I feel enlightened. I tell my friends this and they’re not sure what to think. When things go wrong in my marriage and I ‘attempt’ to speak with my mother about it – she tells me ‘well you’ve made your choices’, so then I tell her, I don’t have free will, she seems to think I’m trying to cop out of something and is very disapproving of me. In fact most people are disapproving of my belief in NFWism [no free will-ism: not having contra-causal free will]. I’m just really sorry they don’t ‘get it’. NFWism allows me complete acceptance of what is. It allows me to have compassion for all people. It allows me to make informed decisions and respond to everyone with the understanding that they ‘couldn’t have done otherwise’. This is an emancipating position. Yet still people look at me and think I’m some how being a smart-arsed shirker of responsibility, who hasn’t quite understood how life works yet – a dreamer who really doesn’t get it! Ironic that they have it so back to front – and yet my world view allows me to have total compassion for them and their attitude – whilst they look at me in judgment. It really throws the Christian door knockers - LOL!
On child-rearing:
…So the better I understand Naturalism, the better I can enact those principles in my life and use the rationality of naturalism in my thoughts and actions, the more likely that is going to permeate all my relationships and influence those around me. My eldest is currently 7 years old, and I find overt examples of my Naturalistic world perspective come out in my discussions with him regarding interactions between himself and his younger brother. Kids are very good at detecting false realities, so I have to be careful what I say if I want to maintain any authority or respect. I find that if I stick to Naturalistic parameters, my argument is quite based in reality and therefore acceptable.
I can’t see any problem with introducing all aspects of Naturalism including NFW [no contra-causal free will] to my children. Children integrate what they learn very easily and can also easily see when things don’t add up or make sense. If they feel safe they will talk about what is not adding up for them and allow you the opportunity to clarify concepts. One example of this for me was when my son’s friend told him that he would burn in hell because he didn’t believe in God. As my son approached me with his concerns, I was able to give my perspective, which was satisfactory and caused much relief.
If you hold Naturalistic beliefs and are able to concurrently have good self-esteem then there is no reason why your child wouldn’t follow you to do the same. If anything Naturalism has improved my self-esteem, as I’m more grounded in reality, feel more confident about my understanding of the world and have more compassion for everyone around me, which has lead to my feeling more valuable in society and therefore created higher self-esteem.
With my first child I had a go at punishment as a parenting technique. It caused us both lots of distress [and] it clearly didn’t work – it wasn’t effective in outcomes. Now I go for a more effective method – I change the circumstances so that I achieve the outcome I desire. The child may or may not understand what I’m doing, or why, but if I get the outcome I want and the child is not distressed it’s win-win. I have no concerns that this will create problems later on, as I explain everything I’m doing and allow the child to learn how to see other perspectives at their own rate – developing compassion (the ability to see another’s perspective) in the child is the key to socially functioning adults.
And Stephen writes:
…the other day I was talking to my daughter about what school she will be going to. She was worried in case she got "a rough one." I explained that she was an amazing biological machine able to adapt to the situation and do well if necessary, that this was the result of billions of years of natural selection going right back to the first self replicating molecule, that she couldn't take ultimate credit for the fact but still she has this amazing ability.Oh and I told her we'd get her Karate lessons too :-)
She is 10, didn't bat an eye lid but it gave her justified confidence (along with the offer of karate lessons), she stopped worrying and cheered up.
I think she's used to having one strange dude for a father :-)
[Relatedly, see this interview with Dale McGowan on raising kids without supernatural beliefs.]
posted by Tom Clark at 10:49 AM
5 Comments:
I'm forwarding a note to Alice from Hans in Denmark:
Hello Alice -
I've just read with great pleasure your letter in Memeing Naturalism.
I'll very briefly introduce myself: Retired meteorologist (84 now), Danish. I wrote some 12 years ago (that's to say, I finished writing, the actual writing started long before that) a small essay that I called "The Fatal Illusion"; I had for many years been convinced of 'NFW' as you call it, and had pondered a good deal of the consequenses to many aspects of human life - that essay was the result of those speculations.
It was never really published, some publisher saw my point(s), but none had the guts to publish it. Now it seems that the ideas are slowly growing up a bit everywhere. I think that there are three musts that should be realized if humanity shall have a future beyond the next century or so: The climate must come under control asap, the population explosion must also come under control - and all religious ideas must be replaced with NTW-ideas.
But please let me know if you would be interested in a copy of the essay (I think you would, judging from your writings!), then I'll send it to you. I'm no great pc-expert, so it would just be as an attached file to a mail, but I think that could do...
Kind regards,
Hans Henning Krarup
hahekra@gmail.com
I'm new to naturalism, and would like to address this quote:
"When things go wrong in my marriage and I ‘attempt’ to speak with my mother about it – she tells me ‘well you’ve made your choices’, so then I tell her, I don’t have free will, she seems to think I’m trying to cop out of something and is very disapproving of me."
Is this really naturalism in action? From my point of view, this statement IS a cop-out, even though I do not believe we have counter-causal free will.
The lack of free will only makes sense outside the self. I find naturalism enlightening because I can look at others as fully caused, but when it comes to responsibility for your actions, you have to judge from the perspective of the self. From that vantage point, we are free agents and DO have the power of choice unless we are coerced.
Alice's mother is right to point out that choices led to the current circumstances. In some ways, I wonder if Alice's mother has a batter grasp on the implications of causal-chain naturalism than her daughter does.
Josh Nankivel
EverydaySkeptics.com
Hello Josh,
"Alice's mother is right to point out that choices led to the current circumstances. "
Alice's mother is right that choices led to the current circumstances, as Alice herself is fully aware of but what is Alice's mother implying?
I think she is implying that Alice had the power to have made different choices,in such a way that makes her deserving of the consequences of the choices she made.
Alice is correctly denying this when she points out to her mother that she does not have free will.
Stephen
Stephen,
I think you are correct that Alice's mother is expressing her sentiments in a punitive way...it's difficult to know exactly without the full context or having been there.
My point is that Alice is going to extremes here... there IS such a thing as free agency, even though it is not ultimately counter-causal.
Alice's implementation of naturalism is a poor one in this case, I think. We still have the ability to analyze past behavior and choices, and change our future circumstances and behavior to increase the chances of a particular outcome.
She's throwing her hands up and appealing to ultimate determinism, foregoing any personal responsibility. Seems like a form of fatalism to me.
Josh Nankivel
EverydaySkeptics.com
Josh,
Knowing Alice from what she's written here and elsewhere, I don't think that in denying free will she's "throwing up her hands and appealing to ultimate determinism, foregoing any personal responsibility." She, like most folks, takes responsibility for her actions, for instance in raising her kids and in how she treats others. By saying she doesn't have free will she is pointing out, truthfully, that her behavior is fully caused, not that it doesn't have consequences for which she can be held responsible. But, if people can see and accept the fact that her behavior *is* fully caused, that might influence the way they hold her responsible (i.e., more compassionately) and get them to look at the circumstances (including their own behavior) that form the causal web out of which her actions arise.
There is no implication of fatalism in this, nor of abdicating responsibility. I think she would agree with you when you say "We still have the ability to analyze past behavior and choices, and change our future circumstances and behavior to increase the chances of a particular outcome."
But thanks for raising this objection since it points up the misunderstandings that can arise when naturalists deny contra-causal free will. We have to be careful not to give people the wrong impression, which means reassuring them that we are not invoking causality as a universal excuse.
Post a Comment
<< Home