Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Case for Naturalism [View all]
by Sean Carroll
May 7th, 2012 9:03 AM
Atheism is a fine word, and Im happy to describe myself as an atheist. God is an idea that has consequences, and those consequences dont accord with the world we experience any better than countless other ideas weve 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 Ive excerpted that opening ten-minute statement from the two-hour debate I had with Michael Shermer, Dinesh DSouza, 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 wouldnt 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.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I can't watch the video (being throttled by Verizon, but that's a different story), but
cbayer
May 2012
#1
Another idealist with a desire for superiority, painting atheism as a negative in order to get to it
darkstar3
May 2012
#5
A Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology,
rug
May 2012
#9
I am saying that Sean Carroll claims that if we put an atom into any set of circumstances, ...
Jim__
May 2012
#10
Posts 13 and 19 are not in *this* subthread; and post 18 is not about my original post.
Jim__
May 2012
#26
So you're saying that the "animal spirits" of Descartes are on equal footing...
eqfan592
May 2012
#12
He is responding to Elizabeth's objection that she doesn't understand how the mind communicates ...
Jim__
May 2012
#27
You're gonna need to lay down some definitions before I walk into that trap. n/t
trotsky
May 2012
#33