Religion
Related: About this forumThe Case for Naturalism
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.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)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
(82,333 posts)He speaks plainly and matter-of-factly, no pun intended.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Objective facts about the world we live in.
rug
(82,333 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)They say everything changes. I don't see it.
rug
(82,333 posts)an idealist?
He must be researching Plato.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Funny, having worked at two universities I thought I had met quite a few idealistic senior faculty members...
Jim__
(14,094 posts)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
(33,658 posts)the mind is separate from the brain? That the mind can exist outside the brain?
Jim__
(14,094 posts)... 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
(33,658 posts)I didn't ask what you think Carroll is saying. I asked what you think.
Jim__
(14,094 posts)I said what I was trying to say. Read post#6.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...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__
(14,094 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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__
(14,094 posts)It's not possible to discuss a post with people who don't respond to what's actually written in the post.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Jim__
(14,094 posts)... we can't arrive at that conclusion by just thinking about it.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...with what science may eventually be able to explain? Sorry, but that's some majorly flawed logic.
Jim__
(14,094 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)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
(14,860 posts)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__
(14,094 posts)I never said anything like since he can describe atoms, he can describe the brain in equal detail.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)"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__
(14,094 posts)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
(5,963 posts)...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__
(14,094 posts)... with the brain. If his case is stronger today, as he claims it is, he has to be talking about the general case.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)It's much more snappy than the obvious "Your face is ridiculous in itself."
You're right--that isn't even close.
Jim__
(14,094 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)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
(49,533 posts)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
(1,020 posts)not discovered. Is that correct?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)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.