So sorry to miss the episode yesterday! Here's an update on what's going on with me, and an apology for not keeping my schedule.

I've noticed a revival of pagan ideas and rituals that have caught on in numerous movements. The climate movement, racial movements (on both the right and the left), and other ostensibly secular movements have neo-pagan elements. In order to discuss this, I want to offer a definition for neo-paganism.

I'd define neo-paganism is an explicit or implicit belief that misattributes spiritual significance. These beliefs, coupled with a set of rituals, are what I call neo-pagan movements, even if the practitioners may think they're merely secular.

Merits of Neo-paganism

While I do not find these new pagan ideas convincing, I do understand where they're coming from. So, I want to be fair and offer my thoughts about what they get right.

Although I understand the motivations and think they're a step in the right direction, I think many have missed the truth that they seek. With that in mind, here are some of the errors I find the neo-pagans of today falling into.

Now that I've discussed where neo-pagans go wrong, and where they get things right, I want to discuss how to fix their ideas to comport with reality. If we want to channel this neo-paganism and move it toward the truth, here are a few things we could do.

Previous Episodes:

The postmodernist movement is a reaction to the ideas of the enlightenment, often referred to as modernity. Basically, it developed in the mid 20th century, largely due to the developments of the 19th and early 20th century. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Postmodernism.

While postmodernist thought is far from perfect, it does raise good points. Here are a few valid claims postmodernists make:

Even though they raise valid concerns, postmodernist thinkers make mistakes. These are a few places postmodernism goes wrong:

In order to correct Postmodernism, we have to look at the core of it. The main issue I find is that it is concerned with things that exist, but they over-emphasize them or lend too much credence to those facets of their philosophy. For instance, there are power structures that influence our world. However, the way postmodernists look for these structures in every nook and cranny of human culture is disordered.

It also holds contradicting ideas like the universal truths of power structures and hierarchies alongside ideas of radical self-referentiality. Lastly, I judge a philosophy by it's fruits, and the fields that have been influenced by postmodernism have been corrupted. Many are hardly intelligible at this point.

Science is a tremendous gift, and has led to incredible human flourishing. The advancements we've seen due to science allow us to live radically more comfortable lives than our ancestors. Because of scientific inquiry, very few people experience the tremendous hardships our ancestors did. Furthermore, that number is decreasing more and more each year.

Additionally, science is a reliable method for learning the truth about the natural world. Through the scientific method, we can come to know more about the world around us, and we can do that with a common framework. One thing to remember, however, is that science is always tentative and prone to change due to new evidence.

The problem with scientism is that it lifts science up, and in the process, ignores other fields of inquiry. The word "science" originates in the word for knowledge, but now only applies to a narrow field of knowledge. I would argue that a philosopher who completely disregards science, and only accepts ontological proofs, is misguided. But in our culture, ontological proofs are discounted, and we act as though anything that can't be proven by the natural sciences is unfounded.

Scientism is wrong because it tries to use a tool for the wrong purposes. Instead of using science to inquire about the natural world, we try to apply it to other fields of study. Additionally, scientism poses a criteria for knowledge that is impossible to meet. We can never learn new things if we need hard, repeatable evidence for every claim we accept as true.

Lastly, scientism forces us to have an ever-shifting understanding of truths. In logic and mathematics, we know the truths are true in all times and places. But, in science, truth is gradually uncovered, and theories are regularly revised. In science, that is ok, but we should not apply that to all fields of study. Scientism applies that understanding of truth to all forms of inquiry, which is wrong.

What we can do to fix this is to keep in mind that science is a tool. Science is a method for learning about the world, and it isn't the supreme arbiter of truth. People who fall into this way of thinking over-emphasize the objective world. Often, they are materialists or naturalists, and they fail to take into account the spiritual part of the human condition. Instead, they act like we are merely chemistry sets or lab rats.

Next, we must not think that an epistemology that works for science will work elsewhere. Philosophy and math come to find truth in very different ways than science. So, we shouldn't make the mistake of needing experiments to come to mathematical truths. In other words, you cannot find all truth in a lab.

According to Wikepedia, "Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary."

At first, it seems to make sense. Much of what we encounter is material. Our food, light, furniture, etc. is all material. It would be easy at first glance to think everything boils down to what is material. But, does that really comport with what we experience and know?

Materialism leaves out a large chunk of the human experience. First, it fails, like naturalism, to fully account for the supernatural and the spiritual. And, in doing so, it denies free will and many other parts of our experience that are products of the spirit.

Also, materialism doesn't allow for the abstract truths we know to be. Moral truths, natural laws, beauty, and even some mathematical truths can't exist if everything is material. So, materialism fails to explain all that we know about the world.

There is more to the world than just the material. It doesn't fit with our understanding of the world. We experience more than just the material in art and music, as well as abstract concepts. We also experience the phenomenon of free will, which is impossible in a materialist world.

In order to fully comport with reality, we need to take into account more than material things. In order to fully experience the world, we have to take account for the non-material parts of our lives.

According to Wikipedia, Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws."

In this episode, I'll take a look at some of the good points and valid concerns of Naturalism. Then, I'll discuss how it falls short, and what corrections it needs.

One of the good points of naturalists is that we can attribute most things to natural laws and forces. Every little thing that happens doesn't have to be a supernatural intervention. And, we know it isn't random due to the consistency of events.

There is a time in pagan cultures when everything was attributed to the supernatural. Even in the Judeo-Christian world much of the natural order was attributed to angel's intervention. I don't begin to say that I know how Heaven governs this world and it's laws. But it appears to me that there are natural laws and that God created the world with a discoverable order. When looking into that order, it is good to work within it's bounds, which is why we have science.

The cause of why I burn my tongue on hot coffee or the sun rises everyday can be naturally accounted for. But, the fact that all these beings exist as well as the laws that govern them, none of which fully account for the existence of the universe, has to have some other explanation. Naturalism cannot account for that. Instead, it seeks for a self-explaining cause that's within the natural order.

Furthermore, there are well-attested events that do not fit into the natural world. Inexplicable miracles are one. But, there are phenomena like love and beauty that we do experience. However, the naturalist cannot explain these fully by neurons and brain chemistry. We need a deeper, spiritual explanation if we want to cohere with our universal experience.

There is one major correction a naturalist needs to incorporate all truth into his worldview. That is a recognition of the spiritual. Miracles, religious experiences, emotions, and beauty aren't simply natural phenomena. Rather, they are true experiences of something outside of the natural order. To see this in art, read The Soul of the World, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to see how this plays out. They demonstrate that there is more to this world than the naturalist can explain. And, they do it both with philosophy and story-telling.

I've discussed the Golden Mean a number of times on the podcast and in various ways. Today, I want to reiterate what the Mean is and how we use practical wisdom to seek it. But, I'll be discussing that in reference to objective and subjective reality. Where are the excesses and defects in our understandings of these two ideas? That's what I'll dive into today.

Here are some of the excesses and defects I think take us away from the mean. You can listen to the episode above to dive deeper into the why and how.

Find out more: The Golden Mean for Understanding Objective and Subjective Reality

Today, I'd like to take a break from the series I've been rolling out to discuss patriotism in honor of Independence Day. We should always be grateful for our country and what it affords us, but I think the 4th of July is a great time to stop and reflect on that more deeply. So, I want to look at this topic generally, but also specifically in regards to my love of my country and my heritage.

It can be hard to offer a patriotism definition, largely because it encompasses so much. Basically, I look at it as a love for one's own country and a recognition of and gratitude for what his country offers. That is not normally how I find people describing it. We often misconstrue American patriotism, for instance, by limiting it to assenting to the values our founders described. While I think a patriot is one who does love the founding of his country, I think there can be room for criticism or dissent. Also, it encompasses more than just that - especially since many nations have been founded on different grounds.

I do think there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism, but it's nuanced. To understand that, I'd like to point to the American founding. A nation is "a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country." (via The American Heritage Dictionary)

Justice demands us to love our country and be grateful to it. But, as we saw in early America, a unified people can fall apart. By the time of our founding, we were in many ways a separate nation, which is how our founders justified their separation.

In today's episode, I want to talk more about the marriage of object and subject in the human person, and what that means.

We experience the objective world and we have a subjective lens. In order to understand that, we must remember what I discussed in the last two episodes on objective reality and our subjective experience. We have bodies that are objects in the world, but we also have a mind and soul that allows us to relate to one another, think abstractly, communicate ideas, and create art.

It is possible to influence the world around us. Here are some of the ways we do that. We can:

This doesn't mean we can dictate everything around us. The laws of nature are beyond our control, although we can use them to our advantage. There are many things we cannot change or influence, and there are some that we have some sway over, but many are out of our control. That is something many subjectivists cannot admit: that our  feelings about the world don't necessarily change it.

Related episodes: 

147. Book Review | Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands by Roger Scruton

124. Our Pornographic Culture

What is Objective Reality?

What is Subjective Reality?

Last week, I discussed objective reality and why we can trust our intuitions that the world around us is there. And, we can come to know things about the world, even if limited. Today, I want to discuss subjective reality, or personal experience. This will help us see why just looking at the world outside doesn't work for us as people. Before I get into subjective vs objective, I want to also define what I mean by subjective.

This is part of my series diving into the issue our society has reconciling truth and experience. I recommend you go back and check out the first one if you're interested.

Full show notes here:

What is Subjective Reality?