Some splainin' to do

During his John Dewey Lecture ("A Life in Philosophy") to the American Philosophical Association in 2006, Nicholas Wolterstorff, a well-respected, first-rate philosopher, said, "Religion ... is natural to human beings; atheism is what needs explaining." Well, in spite of my generally high regard for Wolterstorff's half-century of philosophical work, I believe he's got it exactly wrong here. I would say that atheism, not religion, is natural. As Ricky Ricardo would say, "religion's got some splainin' to do."

Atheism is just part of a more general worldview, one in which the natural world and all its constituents are objects of wonder and curiosity, worthy of deep and careful study for both practical and nonpractical reasons. Science is simply the business of (1) finding out as much as possible about the natural world, (2) formulating theories for explaining what is known about it, and (3) revising both information and theory in light of further investigation and reason. This kind of naturalism is (how else to put it?) natural. In this worldview, the world and its constituents are, for the most part, quite independent of us, of what we believe, of what we say, of the ways we wish things were. There it is: the way it is whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not. Moreover, this kind of naturalist attitude toward the world and all that's in it is natural to us in the same way that hunting is natural to wolves and hiding is natural to cockroaches. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly. They can't help it; it's in their natures. Our nature is different. As Aristotle said, "All men by nature desire to understand." Most children have an innate curiosity about the natural world. We follow bugs in the garden. We wonder at the variety of birds, flowers, snowflakes. We are tickled by the caterpillar, puzzled by its cocoon, and awestruck and dazzled by the butterfly that finally emerges. We are amazed by magnets and magic shows. We marvel that numbers just go on getting bigger forever. We are born scientists. It's in our nature. The supernatural comes later.

Religion is also just part of a more general worldview, one in which the natural world is, in one way or another, subordinate to the supernatural. In this view, the supernatural is both wondrous and delightful (or sometimes frightful). Often, the religious worldview sees the careful, objective approach to the natural world as worth less or even detrimental to the amorphous, less critical, less objective, but more personally satisfying acceptance (based on what? faith? sophistry? snake oil?) of the supernatural. Led by a well-meaning adult down a supernatural path (usually, at first, into religious experience), we often abandon our natural curiosity and sense of wonder about the natural world. Any residual delight is channeled in a new direction. Any awe one might still feel about the natural is simply a shadow of the far more wonderful, more satisfying supernatural.

Too often, the result of our innate, naturalist attitude being suppressed, subordinated, or substituted by the supernatural attitude is the atrophy of objectivity, science, and reason. We become suspicious of those who still hold on to naturalism. We fear what we refuse to understand (stem cell research, gene therapy, genetically modified food sources). Accepting the supernatural (alternative medicine, crop circles, virgin births) is easier--and often more fun. Why investigate, why aim for critical understanding, why reason, why think? More generally, why risk uncertainty when absolute certainty is so close at hand? The alternative is a lot less work, and isn't everyone else (except those narrow-minded scientists and fundamentalist atheists) doing it?

Face it, the supernatural attitude is not natural. It's nonsense based on nonsense. And it's often dangerous. As Voltaire wrote, "Anyone who can make you believe nonsense can make you commit atrocities." The atrocities committed in the name of the supernatural, especially in its many religious guises, are legion. Religion, not atheism, does indeed have lots of splainin' to do--unfortunately, explanation is not its strong point.

George Englebretsen is the author most recently of Bare Facts and Naked Truths (Ashgate 2006). He is in the department of philosophy at Bishop's University in Quebec. He can be reached at genglebr@ubishops.ca.

COPYRIGHT 2008 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning