Moving Naturalism Forward

I'm a Naturalist - not a naturist!

I have two main philosophical worldviews: Naturalism & Humanism. (world view: "a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world*")

Naturalism is "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted*"

(I think of atheism as a conviction rather than a worldview. I prefer 'conviction' to 'belief' because for me 'belief' has religious undertones, Although in English Law 'belief', as in 'religion and belief', refers specifically to a non-religious belief.)

Naturalism is a worldview that covers morality - Sam Harris makes the case that morality can be based on science.

*Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edition) 

h/t Neil Davies (April 2014) at Swindon Humanists for reminding me about the 'Moving Naturalism Forward' conference back in October 2012.

Attendees included Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, Dan Dennett, Alex Rosenberg, Jerry Coyne, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Massimo Pigliucci, Steven Weinberg.

Discussions were about: Naturalism, Morality, Meaning, Purpose, Epistemology, reductionism, Consciousness, Evolution, Determinism, Free will.

source: http://preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/video.html

The Atheism Tapes Online

Hi all

This is my first blog so forgive me if it strange things appear. This will be due to my incompetence as a blogger and not cosmic forces, I promise!

The Atheism Tapes Online....



The Atheism Tapes is a 2005 BBC television documentary series presented by Jonathan Miller. The material that makes up the series was originally filmed for another, more general series, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, but was too in-depth for inclusion. Instead, the BBC agreed to create The Atheism Tapes as a supplementary series of six programmes, each consisting of an extended interview with one contributor.

Google Video hosts these but they aren't broken up into 10 minute segments which is how you will find them on you tube so they are far easier to watch. Google video don't seem to have Dan Dennets section though so they are from you tube.

Denys Turner
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4655574614978358368


Colin McGinn
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7853929164413117774


Richard Dawkins
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-886041562474199609


Steven Weinberg
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260129385438753065&total=32...


Arthur Miller
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6439076214112083310&q=atheis



Dan Dennet Part 1 and 2 but I think the end may be missing! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7808994367554658088 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2202981393229181329


Jonathan Miller Interviewed. Whilst on the subject, this an interview Jonathan did after his TV Documentary 'A Breif History of Disbelief'.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2202981393229181329



If any one finds the full version of Mr Dennets interview anywhere, please let me know.

Question to Weinberg: On Believing in Multiple Universes and Religious Faith

Question to Weinberg: On Believing in Multiple Universes and Religious Faith

Gingerich: Steve, here’s a final question for you. You completely reject any notion of a divine designer, but on what basis beyond faith can you justify the idea of multiple universes being more valid?

Weinberg: Oh, I thought I had answered that but I would be happy to say it again. I don’t maintain that that idea (multiple Universes) is true. I mean, that is a possibility that has emerged and it remains a possibility. When I become convinced of its truth, it will be because the equations of physics that unify the various forces - quantum mechanics, relativity, all that - have that as a consequence. It won’t be an act of faith. It will be a deduction from laws which we, unfortunately, at present don’t know. Now you may say that it is an act of faith because we will not be able to observe these other Big Bangs, or these other terms in the wave function. But that’s the fate that science has been in for a long time. We don’t really observe quarks and we never will see the track of a quark. And yet we believe in quarks because the theories that have quarks in them work. And in the same way, if we come to that - and we have not yet come to that - we will believe in these other Big Bangs or these other terms in the wave function because the theories in which they appear work.

Is the Universe Fine Tuned? by Steven Weinberg

Now, it doesn't settle the matter for me to say that we cannot see the hand of a designer in what we know about the fundamental principles of science. It might be that, although these principles do not refer explicitly to life, much less human life, they are nevertheless craftily designed to bring it about.

Some physicists have argued that certain constants of nature have values that seem to have been mysteriously fine-tuned to just the values that allow for the possibility of life, in a way that could only be explained by the intervention of a designer with some special concern for life. I am not impressed with these supposed instances of fine-tuning. For instance, one of the most frequently quoted examples of fine-tuning has to do with the energy of a certain excited state of the carbon nucleus. The build-up in stars of elements necessary for life, like carbon and oxygen, depends on the carbon nucleus having an excited state at an energy within a narrow range, where in fact just such a state is found. The reason that it has to have this energy is to provide a way for carbon nuclei be formed in stars in collisions of helium nuclei with unstable beryllium nuclei, which is a necessary step in the build-up of all elements heavier than helium. But recent calculations show that, as has been long expected, without any fine tuning of the constants of nature one would in any case expect the carbon nucleus to have a state like an unstable molecule, consisting of a helium nucleus and a beryllium nucleus, which would naturally have an energy close to the values necessary for the synthesis of carbon and heavier elements.

There is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known as the cosmological constant. It could have any value, but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large - much too large to allow matter to clump together in the early universe, which is the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. It's too early to tell if this is a real problem, or if there is some fundamental principle that explains why the cosmological constant must be this small.

But even if there is no such principle, recent developments in cosmology offer the possibility of an explanation why the measured values of the cosmological constant and other physical constants are favorable for the appearance of intelligent life. Sidney Coleman has shown how quantum mechanical effects can lead to a picture of the wave function of the universe in which the wave function is the sum of many different terms, each term corresponding to a big (or little) bang in which what we call the constants of nature take all possible values. Also, as you have heard here from Alan Guth, in the `chaotic inflation' theories of Andre Linde and others our big bang is supposed to be just one episode in a much larger universe in which big bangs go off all the time, each with different values of the fundamental constants.

In any such picture, in which the universe contains many parts with different values for what we call the constants of nature, there would be no difficulty in understanding why these constants take values favorable to intelligent life. There would be a vast number of big bangs in which the constants of nature take values unfavorable for life, and much fewer where life is possible. You don't have to invoke a benevolent designer to explain why we are in one of the parts of the universe where life is possible. In all the other parts of the universe there is no one to raise the question.

To conclude that the constants of nature have been fine-tuned by a benevolent designer is like saying “Isn't it wonderful that God put us here on earth, where there's water and air and the surface gravity and temperature are so comfortable, rather than some horrid place, like Mercury or Pluto.” Where else in the solar system but on earth could we have evolved?

Reasoning like this is called “anthropic.” Sometimes it just amounts to an assertion that the laws of nature are what they are so that we can exist, without further explanation. This seems to me to be little more than mystical mumbo-jumbo. On the other hand, if there really is a large number of worlds in which some constant takes different values, then the anthropic explanation of why in our world it takes values favorable for life is just common sense, like explaining why we live on the earth rather than Mercury or Pluto. The actual value of the cosmological constant, recently measured by observations of the motion of distant supernovas, is about what you would expect from this sort of argument; it is just about small enough to prevent it from interfering with the formation of galaxies and so on. But we don't yet know enough about physics to tell whether there are different parts of the universe in which what are usually called the constants of physics really do take different values. This is not a hopeless question; we will be able to answer it when we know more about the quantum theory of gravitation than we do now.

The Persistent Questions: Why?

reposted from: met-library.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

The Persistent Questions: Why?

I have to admit that, even physicists go as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question “why?” Why this theory, rather than some other theory? For example, why is the world described by quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is the one part of our present physics that is likely to survive in any future theory, but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate.

But religious theories of design have the same problem. Either you mean something definite by a God, a designer, or you don't. If you don't, then what are we talking about? If you do mean something definite by “God” or “design,” if for instance you believe in a God who is jealous, or loving, or intelligent, or whimsical, then you still must confront the question “why?” Your faith can leave you with no explanation why the universe is governed by that sort of God, rather than some other sort of God.

In this respect, it seems to me that physics is in a better position to give us a partly satisfying explanation of the world than religion can ever be, because although physicists won't be able to explain why the laws of nature are what they are and not something completely different, at least we may be able to explain why they are not slightly different. For instance, no one has been able to think of a logically consistent alternative to quantum mechanics that is only slightly different. Once you start trying to make small changes in quantum mechanics, you get into theories with negative probabilities or other logical absurdities. When you combine quantum mechanics with relativity its logical fragility increases. You find that unless you arrange the theory in just the right way you get nonsense, like effects preceding causes, or infinite probabilities. Religious theories, on the other hand, seem to be infinitely flexible, with nothing to prevent the invention of deities of any conceivable sort.