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

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Mon May 7, 2012, 12:46 PM May 2012

The Case for Naturalism [View all]



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.
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Case for Naturalism [View all] rug May 2012 OP
I can't watch the video (being throttled by Verizon, but that's a different story), but cbayer May 2012 #1
It's a good video (10:39). rug May 2012 #3
The idea of Naturalism has one thing that religions do not have. cleanhippie May 2012 #2
What do you think about his preference for the term Naturalism? rug May 2012 #4
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
That position negates the possibility of one being an idealist? darkstar3 May 2012 #15
Sean Carroll could use his own Princess Elizabeth. Jim__ May 2012 #6
Are you trying to say edhopper May 2012 #7
I am saying that Sean Carroll claims that if we put an atom into any set of circumstances, ... Jim__ May 2012 #10
So you don't want to answer my question edhopper May 2012 #17
No, you didn't ask what I think. You asked what I was trying to say. Jim__ May 2012 #18
Given that so far you have claimed that every reply to... eqfan592 May 2012 #20
Nowhere in this subthread did I say anyone misinterpreted my original post. Jim__ May 2012 #22
Posts 13, 18 and 19 would disagree with you. eqfan592 May 2012 #25
Posts 13 and 19 are not in *this* subthread; and post 18 is not about my original post. Jim__ May 2012 #26
They are subthreads of your original post. (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #29
The whole is greater than the parts. rug May 2012 #8
That may be true. But based on Carroll's own words ... Jim__ May 2012 #11
So you're saying that the "animal spirits" of Descartes are on equal footing... eqfan592 May 2012 #12
No. That's not what I said. Jim__ May 2012 #13
No, he's saying that he believes we must allow for a god of the gaps. trotsky May 2012 #14
Your entire second paragraph is ridiculous on its face. laconicsax May 2012 #16
Your post is ridiculous on its face. Jim__ May 2012 #19
From your post: eqfan592 May 2012 #21
The sentence states it is "based on that claim". Jim__ May 2012 #23
Just because you say it is based on that claim... eqfan592 May 2012 #24
He is responding to Elizabeth's objection that she doesn't understand how the mind communicates ... Jim__ May 2012 #27
*sigh* (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #30
Nice comeback. laconicsax May 2012 #34
No it isn't. Jim__ May 2012 #36
"[S]omeone who believes that there is only one realm of reality, LTX May 2012 #28
Natural laws are just our own tools of thinking. trotsky May 2012 #31
So in your view, mathematics is invented, LTX May 2012 #32
You're gonna need to lay down some definitions before I walk into that trap. n/t trotsky May 2012 #33
I don't think it's a trap. LTX May 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Case for Naturalism»Reply #0