I wouldn’t classify myself as a naturalist, because I do think that the supernatural realm is possible even though I don’t see any evidence of it. Though, I suppose if we proved the supernatural existed then it would be totally compatible with naturalism; we’d just start calling it “natural”.
Anyways, I think Sean Carroll does an excellent job making a 10-minute case for naturalism. I don’t think he is claiming, with certainty, that nothing else exists or that science is the only method by which we can obtain any sort of knowledge, but rather making the claim that naturalism does the best job of explaining our world. Watch the video and let me know what you think.
Very interesting talk. I can see hope in an atheist that I have not seen in most other debates. He has found a purpose for living by creating it himself, which is really the only way to find meaning in a future that is not based on fate. Unfortunately, many who do not find a purpose and lose that same hope, end up committing suicide. If that is the process of natural selection, it seems very wasteful (I find the more intelligent a person is the more likely they are to suffer some form of mental disturbance or disorder).
I also think he presents the debate between science and religion in a way that shows religion trying to discredit science. In reality, evolutionists are trying to fit science into evolution and creationists are trying to fit creation into science. Everyone may be trying to prove a theory by attempting to disprove it, but like he said, we come into it with our own bias. The reason why issues like gravity are not debated is because rational thinking people can accept that either God set that law in motion, or he didn’t. Either God exists and does nothing, set some things in motion, controls most things, controls everything, or doesn’t exist at all. I think it would be naive however to believe that there is a God and not believe that he set the laws we study in science in motion.
I also find it interesting that we think we understand what causes death in biology, but we have yet to figure out what causes life. We can manipulate cells and molecules and atoms pretty well to reproduce or replicate certain things, but we have yet to be able to shake a bag of ingredients and get life. We can grow a baby in a test tube, but we still need the sperm and egg to do so. We can layer cells onto a “dead” organ and bring it back to life, but we still need already living cells to layer the empty shell. We also have yet to explain in science where everything comes from (the ultimate origin of the universe). It is very naive to think that humans grasp all levels of perception when it has only been recently that we have learned about sonar, radar, and the various waves that have always been around, but gone mostly undetected. There are many things that our brain and senses do not detect or understand that many other animals do. A supernatural realm may be no more than a level of perception or dimension that humans are incapable of perceiving. Our brains have a hard enough time remembering specific details let alone perceiving all the details.
I think it is pointless to debate about whether there is or isn’t a God. There is not a scientific experiment that can set out into the universe to prove there is not a God up there, just as there is not an experiment to prove that God does exist. If God doesn’t exist, the jerk who invented him has created a big rift in humanity. If God does exist, it is very frustrating that he has quit revealing himself in the same way that our ancestors have recorded in long years past.