The Case for Naturalism

[rug]

by Sean Carroll
May 7th, 2012 9:03 AM

“Atheism” is a fine word, and I’m happy to describe myself as an atheist. God is an idea that has consequences, and those consequences don’t accord with the world we experience any better than countless other ideas we’ve given up on. But given a choice I would always describe myself first as a “naturalist” — someone who believes that there is only one realm of reality, the material world, which obeys natural laws, and that we human beings are part of it. “Atheism” is ultimately about rejecting a certain idea, while “naturalism” is about a positive acceptance of a comprehensive worldview. Naturalists have a lot more work to do than simply rejecting God; they bear the responsibility of understanding how to live a meaningful life in a universe without built-in purpose.

Which is why I devoted my opening statement at “The Great Debate” a few weeks ago to presenting the positive case for naturalism, rather than just arguing against the idea of God. And I tried to do so in terms that would be comprehensible to people who disagreed with me — at least that was the goal, you can judge for yourself whether I actually succeeded.

So here I’ve excerpted that opening ten-minute statement from the two-hour debate I had with Michael Shermer, Dinesh D’Souza, and Ian Hutchinson. I figure there must be people out there who might possibly be willing to watch a ten-minute video (or watch for one minute before changing the channel) but who wouldn’t even press “play” on the full version. This is the best I can do in ten minutes to sum up the progress in human understanding that has led us to reject the supernatural and accept that the natural world is all there is. And I did manage to work in Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia.

I am curious as to how the pitch goes over (given the constraints of time and the medium), so constructive criticism is appreciated.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/05/07/the-case-for-naturalism/

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He is the author of a graduate-level textbook, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity, as well as a set of Teaching Company lectures on dark matter and dark energy. His latest book, From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, explores the relationship between entropy, cosmology, and the arrow of time. Here are some of his favorite blog posts, home page, and email: carroll [at] cosmicvariance.com .

He has a point. At least it's a concept that has meaning on its own merit.

[cbayer]

1. I can't watch the video (being throttled by Verizon, but that's a different story), but

I like what he has to say here.

Those that take a positive position rather than the null position are offering some very interesting perspectives in these difficult days. There is much to relate to here.

I still object to the whole idea of labels when it comes to religion, though. Not everyone has to be something. Many just sit at the different tables and sample. At least that is what I do.

[rug]

3. It's a good video (10:39).

He speaks plainly and matter-of-factly, no pun intended.

[cleanhippie]

2. The idea of Naturalism has one thing that religions do not have.

Objective facts about the world we live in.

[rug]

4. What do you think about his preference for the term Naturalism?

[darkstar3]

5. Another idealist with a desire for superiority, painting atheism as a negative in order to get to it

They say everything changes. I don't see it.

[rug]

9. A Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology,

an idealist?

He must be researching Plato.

[darkstar3]

15. That position negates the possibility of one being an idealist?

Funny, having worked at two universities I thought I had met quite a few idealistic senior faculty members...

[Jim__]

6. Sean Carroll could use his own Princess Elizabeth.

At about 3 minutes and 40 seconds into the video, he begins to talk about Cartesian dualism and he brings up the correspondence between Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia and Descartes, particularly the part where she asks Descartes, how does the immaterial soul act causally upon the body. Carroll points out that Descartes never came up with a reliable, believable response to this objection. True enough. He then goes on to claim that the objection is even stronger today. Our bodies and brains are made of atoms and that the laws of physics governing atoms are completely understood. If you put atom in a certain set of circumstances and tell him (Sean) those circumstances, he will tell you what that atom is going to do.

OK, based on that claim, if someone describes the human brain to Sean Carroll, he should be able to tell us how the mind arises. But he can't. He really can't tell us anymore about how the human mind arises than Descartes could. He seems to believe that if Descartes couldn't answer the princess, that somehow redounds to an advantage for physicalism; but it doesn't.

[edhopper]

7. Are you trying to say

the mind is separate from the brain? That the mind can exist outside the brain?

[Jim__]

10. I am saying that Sean Carroll claims that if we put an atom into any set of circumstances, ...

... he can tell us what it will do.

He cannot tell us - at this point, no one can - how mental properties arise from atoms.

He also told us that we are not smart enough to get true knowledge of the world by just thinking about it. I agree. By his own words, if he doesn't have empirical evidence, he can't make the claim.

[edhopper]

17. So you don't want to answer my question

I didn't ask what you think Carroll is saying. I asked what you think.

[Jim__]

18. No, you didn't ask what I think. You asked what I was trying to say.

I said what I was trying to say. Read post#6.

[eqfan592]

20. Given that so far you have claimed that every reply to...

...your post was a misinterpretation of what you wrote, you may want to consider clarifying your position instead of ignoring the situation with "that's not what I said" posts.

[Jim__]

22. Nowhere in this subthread did I say anyone misinterpreted my original post.

[eqfan592]

25. Posts 13, 18 and 19 would disagree with you.

If people are drawing the wrong conclusions from your post, prompting you to repeat that "it is not what you said," then you are saying that the person has misinterpreted your original post.

[Jim__]

26. Posts 13 and 19 are not in *this* subthread; and post 18 is not about my original post.

It's not possible to discuss a post with people who don't respond to what's actually written in the post.

[eqfan592]

29. They are subthreads of your original post. (nt)

[rug]

8. The whole is greater than the parts.

[Jim__]

11. That may be true. But based on Carroll's own words ...

... we can't arrive at that conclusion by just thinking about it.

[eqfan592]

12. So you're saying that the "animal spirits" of Descartes are on equal footing...

...with what science may eventually be able to explain? Sorry, but that's some majorly flawed logic.

[Jim__]

13. No. That's not what I said.

[trotsky]

14. No, he's saying that he believes we must allow for a god of the gaps.

And when we can explain how the mind arises from the brain (just like we've learned to explain innumerable Bill O'Reilly "you can't explain that" phenomena up to this point), he'll just shift the goalposts to something else.

[laconicsax]

16. Your entire second paragraph is ridiculous on its face.

You're trying to dismiss Carroll's argument based on something he never claimed. Your 'since he can describe atoms, he can describe the brain in equal detail' claim is so preposterous that I can't tell if you're actually being serious.

[Jim__]

19. Your post is ridiculous on its face.

I never said anything like since he can describe atoms, he can describe the brain in equal detail.

[eqfan592]

21. From your post:

"OK, based on that claim, if someone describes the human brain to Sean Carroll, he should be able to tell us how the mind arises."

This statement is similar to and as equally ridiculous on its face as "since he can describe atoms, he can describe the brain in equal detail." If you honestly don't think this is the case, then you may be well served in clarifying your position.

[Jim__]

23. The sentence states it is "based on that claim".

He then goes on to claim that the objection is even stronger today. Our bodies and brains are made of atoms and that the laws of physics governing atoms are completely understood. If you put atom in a certain set of circumstances and tell him (Sean) those circumstances, he will tell you what that atom is going to do.

Carroll claims that if he is given the circumstances that the atom is in (he is explicitly talking about atoms in molecules, in cells, in our brains and bodies), he can tell us what the atom will do. If the mind is created by the brain, then Carroll is claiming that based on a description of the brain, he can tell us how the mind arises from it.

[eqfan592]

24. Just because you say it is based on that claim...

...doesn't make it so. Being able to tell what a single element in a superstructure is going to do under any given circumstance does not necessary mean you are going to be able to tell what the superstructure is going to do at all times under any given circumstance.

[Jim__]

27. He is responding to Elizabeth's objection that she doesn't understand how the mind communicates ...

... with the brain. If his case is stronger today, as he claims it is, he has to be talking about the general case.

[eqfan592]

30. *sigh* (nt)

[laconicsax]

34. Nice comeback.

It's much more snappy than the obvious "Your face is ridiculous in itself."

OK, based on [his ability to describe the behavior of atoms], if someone describes the human brain to Sean Carroll, he should be able to tell us how the mind arises.

You're right--that isn't even close.

[Jim__]

36. No it isn't.

[LTX]

28. "[S]omeone who believes that there is only one realm of reality,

the material world, which obeys natural laws . . . ." But of course, natural laws are not themselves material, so reality necessarily has has more than one realm.

[trotsky]

31. Natural laws are just our own tools of thinking.

They aren't a realm unto themselves. If humans disappeared tomorrow, so would the concept of a "natural law." Another "realm" should exist regardless of whether humans are around to think about it, right?

[LTX]

32. So in your view, mathematics is invented,

not discovered. Is that correct?

[trotsky]

33. You're gonna need to lay down some definitions before I walk into that trap. n/t

[LTX]

35. I don't think it's a trap.

It's an enduring question. One that has puzzled philosophers and mathematicians for a very long time. It is an enduring question precisely because of its implications on the nature and "materiality" of reality. I don't know the answer, and I don't think anyone has satisfactorily provided one.

Indeed, irrespective of the answer, exactly what mathematics is impacts the very nature of reality. It is, to borrow a phrase, unreasonably effective, and the lack of a mathematics particle seems irrelevant to its persistent appearance as a reflective image of, and indeed manipulator of, material reality. In short, if it's not reality, it gives a darn good imitation of it.