![\"\"](\"https:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/_niPwTW3rBbU\/SPyTiY4hfAI\/AAAAAAAABV8\/k5ngqDq3HO4\/s1600-h\/Debate.jpg\")
<\/a>Recently UU blogger Will Shetterly<\/a> pointed readers to a fascinating quote from \u201cTwo logical fallacies that we must avoid\u201d by Satoshi Kanazawa<\/a>, reprinted from his Psychology Today<\/span> blog the Scientific Fundamentalist. (So, I\u2019m reflecting on a reflection of a reflection. Don\u2019t you love how we really are so interdependent?)<\/p>\n
The <\/span>naturalistic fallacy<\/span>, which was coined by the English philosopher George Edward Moore in the early 20th century though first identified much earlier by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the leap from <\/span>is<\/span> to <\/span>ought<\/span> \u2013 that is, the tendency to believe that what is natural is good; that what <\/span>is, <\/span>ought to be. For example, one might commit the error of the naturalist fallacy and say, \u201cBecause people are genetically different and endowed with different innate abilities and talents, they<\/span> ought<\/span> to be treated differently.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The <\/span>moralistic fallacy<\/span>, coined by the Harvard microbiologist Bernard Davis in the 1970s, is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. It refers to the leap from <\/span>ought<\/span> to <\/span>is<\/span>, the claim that the way things should be is the way they are. This is the tendency to believe that what is good is natural; that what <\/span>ought to be, <\/span>is. For example, one might commit the error of the moralistic fallacy and say, \u201cBecause everybody <\/span>ought<\/span> to be treated equally, there <\/span>are<\/span> no innate genetic differences between people.\u201d The science writer extraordinaire Matt Ridley calls it the reverse naturalistic fallacy.<\/span><\/p>\n Now these fallacies should be a concern for both spiritual liberals and conservatives, but the focus of my spirituality is at the liberal end of the spectrum. And I believe at our best we aspire to live in the world that is and to work for a world that can be. I call this \u201cnaturalistic spirituality.\u201d<\/p>\n I believe Kanazawa eloquently summarizes the primary dangers facing any naturalistic spirituality, the two horns, as it were, by which, if we\u2019re not careful, we\u2019ll get gored. And therefore two fallacies about which religious liberals need to be particularly careful. The one error is thinking the way things are, are the way things are supposed to be. The other, of course, is confusing our ideals for what actually is.<\/p>\n Starting with that first point. The late Patrick Moynihan famously observed how \u201cEveryone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.\u201d Admittedly facts are slippery things. But, as we engage the world with both rigor and humility, I\u2019m confident we can get a good enough sense of that \u201cwhat is.\u201d<\/p>\n With that what is, antinomianism, the inclination to say with \u201ctrue knowledge\u201d everything goes, is perhaps the danger for spiritual liberals. But, I\u2019m inclined to think our greater danger is in fact that second fallacy. When we assert any vision of a better world is the only way things should turn out, we tumble headlong down some steep stairs.<\/p>\n It is being possessed by the demon of certainty. And the spiritual liberal can fall for that demon as easily as the spiritual conservative. We need to be very careful about confusing what we hope for with what \u201cis.\u201d Bad premise, bad outcome. Almost always\u2026<\/p>\n My take away here is that once again we\u2019re called to genuine humility, to a profound not-knowing. Here be magic. Here we find ourselves invited into a world of many possibilities.<\/p>\n And it is a glorious place.<\/p>\n I really believe.<\/p>\n Recently UU blogger Will Shetterly pointed readers to a fascinating quote from \u201cTwo logical fallacies that we must avoid\u201d by Satoshi Kanazawa, reprinted from his Psychology Today blog the Scientific Fundamentalist. (So, I\u2019m reflecting on a reflection of a reflection. Don\u2019t you love how we really are so interdependent?) The naturalistic fallacy, which was coined […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":120,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/33904114-9211057948745448771?l=monkeymindonline.blogspot.com\")