“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.
āAtheismā is a fine word, and Iām happy to describe myself as an atheist.” It is also reassuring to hear you not feel the negativity that Neil DeGrasse Tyson has towards the word atheism.
Sean, I want to add to what I briefly wrote in comment 16: I never expected you to give many details about your views of neuroscience, but given your specialty, I felt let down with your approach along the lines that naturalism versus theism in cosmology is irrelevant because naturalism unequivocally won and the details are boring, so we need to discuss something else. You argued Ad Populum. That might work for some people, but not me.
Great video. Constructive comment:
The story of Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia is a novel way to motivate a discussion of the problems with dualism, and it is a solid point that the atoms in your brain do obey the laws of physics. However, I’m not sure that it’s the best way to get most people to understand why we should reject dualism. (Once one has rejected dualism, this is a good reason to reject contra-causal free will.)
I know you didn’t want to get into too much neuroscience, but I think a brief mention could make the argument much stronger and doesn’t need much introduction. Just about everyone has seen that brain damage can change a person’s thoughts, feelings, memories, and skills. What better evidence is there that the mind is in the brain, and not outside of it? You could fit this into future talks easily.
I would make a video arguing the Case for Solipsism, but I’d just be talking to myself.
“My soul waiteth on the Lord more than the morning watch watcheth for the morning”
Geneva bible, the 1st mass printing, with anti RC commentary
– I’m pleased that QED can describe an atom (but not a molecule?) to x decimal places, and Muller’s ratchet can claim to explain romance, but we are still slaves here, waiting on the dawn.
Sean,
Wipe the sleep out of your eyes.
The real reason for religion is civil conformity. You can’t get that with “naturalism” because the function is to provide that “universal purpose.” Unless the “tribe” is moving in a generally unified direction, it tends towards schism and conflict.
Remember reality is bottom up and the laws of physics, not wishful thinking, apply to society on large scales and the vast majority of people are motivated by rather basic impulses. We are attracted to the beneficial and repelled by the detrimental. Religions are generally tailored to provide conveniently generic doses of fear and hope to large numbers of people. How many people does your vision appeal to and what stick does it use to motivate the slackers?
You might want to be careful with that; ‘rationalist’ has been taken and not necessarily by something you’d like to be associated with. ’empiricist’ might be more what you want. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist for a quick summary.
Sean Carroll’s stand on “naturalism” is little different, in its nature, and, therefore, it illegitimacy, than atheism. It espouses an all econompassing point of view based entirely on absolutely denying what you do not see. Note Sean Carroll’s description of themself as “someone who believes that there is only one realm of reality”. They don’t say they have proof of this, they violate the principles of “science” by denying something simply because they have no proof of it. And it has to be asked, if Sean Carroll professes to live by rules of reason, what is the reason they use to deny that anything else exists?
Sean,
You really needed to explain the language problem, as to why the term “atheist” should be abandoned. Being “against” something, it only continues to reify it. I know you had limited time here.
The other point I wish you had stressed” Under the “naturalistic” umbrella, phenomena like human beliefs in the supernatural, and attributing purpose to random events are explainable areas of study-under naturalism.
Does the north pole, longitude and latitude really exist in material reality? No. They are abstract human constructs that embody imaginary fixed locations that allow us navigate our world. It could be very easily argued that God and religion do much the same thing for human moral navigation. Just as you would not want your imaginary fixed navigational points shifting about frequently since it would make navigation problematic, so those who have imagined aspects of the divine do not like you putzing with their moral compass.
Science has not been a very good exemplar of morality or ethics, because Science is dedicated to finding out how things function and not so much ‘what should you do?’. I find it starkly common in scientific thinking that the ability to do something, anything for that matter, is license to do a thing, and claim such behavior inevitiable in the name of ‘progress’. For a few fine examples consider consider the fine Killer Bee, delightful Eugenics, Biological weapons, Pre natal sexual selection, and most human genetic engineering. Any act seems to be forgiven in the name of curiosity, and self restraint and self control are seen as unsufferable limitations that should be cast off, along with free will… it gets in the way of ‘progress’. I notice that the first thing scientists do after they discover something is try to control it absolutely with little hesitation. What pray tell will scientists do when they claim to have found exactly how the human brain works? Most likely they will set about finding ways to control it as their tenants do not give them reason to pause and consider what they do, only that they can do it.
As for Atheism, well….The fact that the universe is intelligible is the first assumption that must be made for any science or logic to be possible, and direct evidence that random chaos does not seem to be the governing principle of the universe. With an intelligble universe as a given (please don’t be silly and say you can make a logical argument inside of an unintelligble universe) It would be wise to consider that we have only been looking about for a very short time, and in that short time humanity has created countless imaginary universes in our stories, myths,fictions, and religions. With engineering and science we have created our own indoor worlds that keep us more safe and comfortable than most of the surface of our planet can. Given how much we have created in such a short time… How can you be so blithely certain that no one came long before us doing much the same thing..and given enough time …on a far grander scale?
Christian: That’s where the evidence comes into play. How can we be sure that no one created all the things we see? There’s no evidence for it. Everywhere we’ve looked, all we see are natural processes and physical reality. Now, you might argue that this provides no certainty, but without evidence, everything is equally certain – the argument for a higher intelligence creator of any kind with no evidence is as credible as the argument for a divine unicorn that imagined the universe while reclining in a seven-dimensional lounge chair.
Kristoffer,
Why would a spiritual absolute/source be a “higher intelligence?”
What if the motivating factor is primal awareness, engaging physical complexity? Biology functions by compartmentalizing awareness and then reconnecting it in increasingly complex formulations. What if there is an underlaying continuum of awareness? If biological life and conscious awareness are distinct phenomena, that is a potentially unnecessary dualism. If biology is inherently aware, it would explain the implacable tenacity of elemental life.
Dear Prof. Carrol,
As a pro-Naturalism individual – I was proud to listen to you as “my” advocate.
Many thanks for taking the time and effort to fight our intellectual battles.
I listened to most of the debate and thought that it was sad to hear articulate and intelligent pro-God spokespersons, try to fight the losing battle of defending God’s – obviously diminishing (to put it mildly) – “role” in the Natural world.
In this context, it was pathetic to hear them use Scientific discoveries as “confirmations” of theological claims.
Your own – time did not begin in the big-bang – work, is a good example of the shaky nature of this methodology of theirs.
Were they to limit themselves to psychological claims regarding the God idea as a potential consolation for some people, they might have created a rationally defendable position.
I loved listening to your opening speech. You are eloquent and your points are well made and logical. I agree with you about nearly everything as far as religion is concerned. That’s right- nearly. I consider myself a spiritual person, and in the system of beliefs I have developed over the course of my life and through my experiences I have found that science and spirituality CAN in fact be integrated harmoniously. It’s large organized religions that tend to be mutually exclusive with science, to their obvious detriment.
Dare I say, oh my god…
NOW we can talk friendly-like. š
Just wanted to comment on Josh, and what he referred to when he said one can’t disprove reincarnation. I would agree in this sense. If it hasn’t been proven in the first place, what’s the need or possibility of disproving?
Is this not all just repackaged meat? “Naturalism” is just repackaged atheism the way “intelligent design” is just repackaged creationism.
dallas mccooy writes:
“If it hasnāt been proven in the first place, whatās the need or possibility of disproving?”
I agree, dallas. The question is, in my mind, how does one routinize this point so that the thoughtful individual sees it to be as reasonable as the routine dismissal of a flat earth? That kind of debunking of the supernatural would allow the debate to move beyond “equal footing” fora and into the realm of mainstream versus fringe… which is to what belief in the supernatural should be relegated.
Dallas, I think the flaw in what the Dali Lama said was that reincarnation is not a valid hypothesis. For a statement to be a legitamate scientific idea, or indeed to have any fact-based discourse at all, the idea must be falsifiable.
No one can disprove reincarnation or god, but they certainly can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the All-Knowing, All-Seeing Unicorn-in-the-Sky either. In a sense, those things are equally valid conclusions, which is to say none of them are.
“Is this not all just repackaged meat? āNaturalismā is just repackaged atheism the way āintelligent designā is just repackaged creationism.”
Nope. Atheists don’t believe in gods, but that does not entail atheists must not believe in other supernatural things. Naturalism is more all-encompassing in that sense, though this is a fairly technical point since most atheists are naturalists. Still, gods are only a subset of the things which don’t exist if naturalism is true. If it is, there are also no demons, ghosts, souls, Earth-spirits, a Star Wars-like Force, magical or psychic powers, or any other supernatural entity or property. One might argue all of those things require a kind of “god,” but many will disagree with the terminology and claim they’re not really like a minor deity simply because they think they have a soul, magical powers, or whatever.
By contrast, there’s no substantial difference between creationism and intelligent design: all the different flavors of each involve a creator deity of some sort. Also, naturalists aren’t trying to hide their obvious atheism behind a veil of obscurantist rhetoric, whereas creationists/”cdesign proponentists” are, in order to avoid issues of church/state separation in the education system.
Note H.’s insistence on referring to the name of God beginning with a lowercase “g”. The community of God haters do this frequently if not regularly, all but compulsively. It’s like they can’t help themselves. Of course, they will weasel around it, saying that “god” is a term for any arbitrary deity, but, then, you refer to “a god” or “the god”. God, used alone, represents the name of a specific individual. And, yet, quisling God haters will bleat that they don’t recognize God as an individual and, therefore, are not required to capitalize His name. And, yet, H. capitalizes “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and “All-Knowing, All-Seeing Unicorn-in-the-Sky”! A demonstration of the hypocrisy, if not outright deceit, that is so common, if not universal, among the God haters. In fact, the God haters are literally that, haters of God. They know God exists. They despise the fact that He won’t give them every craven thing they demand and He rewards decency. They deliberately write His name uncapitalized not out of intellectual principle, buy only out of spite.
Your uplifting concluding remarks — that we create meaning in a universe that has none built in — worked for me. For a while.
I was almost convinced that, as an atheist, when I am good it is, in a sense, *more* moral than someone who does good “only” because they’re told to. But this meaning and this interpretation really seems to hinge on me *freely choosing* to do good. So it seems to depend on me having free will. And Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia might say about that: “Who does the choosing?”
What meaning is there in creating lives worth living if we couldn’t have done otherwise, because we don’t have free will? These are my honest questions struggling with this, not rhetorical flourishes.
Sean:
“…naturalism is about a positive acceptance of a comprehensive worldview.”
Indeed, and many thanks for making a good succinct non-confrontational case for it, which as you properly points out starts with a rational commitment to empiricism as the basis for reliable knowledge. Bravo!
As you suggest, worldview naturalism can successfully compete with supernatural worldviews as the basis for a meaningful, engaged life. It answers all the questions dualistic religions traditionally address, but without wishful thinking and in the context of the amazing great story of science. What’s not to like?
My take on naturalism as a comprehensive worldview is at http://www.naturalism.org/systematizing_naturalism.htm
Again, thanks for this!
Sean, I’m a big fan, a former philosophy teacher and current physics student.
I’m thrilled to hear you acknowledge something that folks like Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins can’t seem to acknowledge: religion (and, I would add, philosophy, and literature) has purposes that are not causal-explanatory. These purposes are psychological and sociological. A naturalistic worldview should have no trouble accommodating these non-explanatory activities and their associated modes of discourse, as long as that discourse doesn’t stray (fundamentalist-like) into the area of causal explanation.
But your remarks about naturalists undertaking the goal of living meaningfully in a world without built-in purpose strike me as off-base, in somewhat the same way as the folks who think of religion as failed causal explanation. Because here too there seems to be a blind spot about the humanitiesā¦as if philosophers and poets and others hadn’t already been working on this for a very long timeā¦as if scientists were somehow in a better position to analyze meaning (that is, meanings in the psychological, sociological and aesthetic realms) than those whose job it is (I’m harkening back to your remarks) to analyze those kinds of meaning.
Here’s the evidence that what a brilliant physicist says, off the top of his head, about human satisfaction and meaning, may turn out to be crude when compared to the analyses of humanities professionals: your insistence that the only available meanings are those that the individual creates on her own. Clearly you are only thinking of a contrast with meanings that are “built in” because of the physical design of a deity-created world. You are not thinking of the ways in which meaning depends, instead, on outside influences from the social world (the example of falling in love, from your talk, is really a counter-example: my feelings aren’t merely a projection onto the beloved, but are drawn out of me by her). Nor are you thinking of meanings whose production involves responses to the natural world (not causal-explanatory responses, but aesthetic and ethical responses).
I’ve already taken up too much of your time, so I’ll end with a reading recommendation: “All Things Shining” by Dreyfus & Kelly. They explain in great detail why there is a perfectly naturalistic way to understand meaning as response to things and people, maybe even “the universe”, and not as nihilistic projection in which all meanings are equally valid (which is not something you’ve implied, but which follows quickly from the “projection” model).
Curious Sean, what do you think about the UFO phenomena?