Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - Richard Carrier There is no refutation for the standard proofs of supernatural or magical thinking mumbo jumbo that this book doesn't address. Usually, if you watch a debate on youtube for the proof of God and the person's specific religion all the arguments follow the same six forms: design and teleological, first cause, morality, ontological, purpose of life, and proof of the resurrection. This book leaves no stone unturned and provides a scientific basis and explanation for all supernatural phenomena and the standard proofs of magical thinking. We never appeal to the supernatural anywhere else is life, why make an exception for the unknown?

The author is actually very gentle as he dismantles each argument. The book is really encyclopedic in its presentation, but he lets his arguments flow into the next such that the listener thinks he's listening to one thematically tied together story with an easy to understand narrative and not realizing the encyclopedic nature of the story. He's not really an expert on most of the topics he's discussing but he does a great job in explaining everything, but sometimes he lacks depth.

Science is hard. Religion is easy. Science must always deal with doubt and probabilities. Religion has no doubts. (Scientific) Truth is only a probability. The best we can do is have a 'corresponding theory of truth" and if our theories correspond to reality we use them, when they don't we modify or get better ones. He correctly points out the facts of evolution existed before Darwin and the Theory of Evolution is the model that goes about explaining the data better than any other model before it. Even if the model gets rejected there are still the facts of Evolution. They will always exist.

He does give the listener many interesting ways of thinking about science and religion and can convince any serious listener that the world can be explained with naturalistic means. He makes many insightful points and almost every reader will profit from reading (or listening) to this book. He defines a "hard atheist" as someone who doesn't believe in any of the currently known God(s). Thus not necessarily rejecting all supernatural explanations. I think that's a good way of framing the problem. It's easy to reject all the currently known God(s), but perhaps a good supernatural explanation will come along (something coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory), and moreover will have an iota of data or theory to support it. The theory of atoms came before ever seeing one, but the coiner of the word "quanta" and real developer of the second law of thermodynamics, Ludwig Boltzman, was driven to suicide because his correct ideas were rejected by the establishment. I'm not willing to reject any reasonable theory about a God or a supernatural entity. I just haven't come across a reasonable theory as of yet.

I liked the book and I can recommend it. It's a good book for a religious person who is starting to question non-naturalistic explanations. The only real problem is the author covers everything but he doesn't ever get to cover anything in depth and gives it the nuance that the topic requires. For example, he does talk about the Historicity of the Resurrection and does a good job, but, Bart Ehrman's latest book covers it in much more detail and gives the nuances that's required to understand the real issues. Matter of fact, if I were to recommend one book to help someone deconvert from Christainity it would be to read Bart Ehrman's book, "How Jesus Became God", it can open ones eyes to what it means when someone says "the bible says". Or if someone's faith was tied up in the truth of The Theory of Evolution, I would recommend Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", it gives a complete story on why Evolution Theory is correct and how to think about science.