I love my bias!
Love it! Love it! Love it!
I never miss a chance to give my presuppositions a warm hug!
If you’re going to think about stuff, you gotta start with an assumption.
Sean Carroll is a guy who thinks about stuff.
He thinks about physics, cosmology, astrophysics…
…and religion.
Of course, everybody thinks about religion.
Not everyone talks about their religion.
You can watch the above video to get a glimpse of Carroll’s religious convictions.
He outlines some of his biases:
- Life could exist in many different forms
- What looks like design isn’t actually design
- There is a multiverse
- Life is insignificant
- God is hard to find
- God should send a universally understandable message to mankind
- Sacred texts should tell us science facts
I applaud Dr. Carroll’s courage.
Many scientists are reluctant to speak on topics that lack clear definition.
Carroll asserts (several times) that theism is not well defined.
That doesn’t stop him from speaking boldly about the various inadequacies of theism!
For him, it is sufficient to define theism as ‘not naturalism’.
Then Carroll gives his own presuppositions a warm hug.
He’s just like me!
A man of faith!
Imagine if all Christians were so bold!
Imagine if all theists could express their faith so eloquently.
Imagine if all scientists could admit their faith so unashamedly.
Kudos to Sean Carroll.
He’s biased.
He thinks about stuff.
He states his beliefs.
Theists and atheists can learn from his example.
22 Responses
Whoa, whoa, whoa… You mean Sean Carroll is assuming naturalism!?! I thought naturalism was the conclusion, not the assumption? Tildeb needs to give Mr. Carroll a lecture about assuming the conclusion!
Also, I do love Carroll’s attempt to make conclusions on theism, (which “isn’t well-defined”). To paraphrase, “let’s conclude something from a topic that I don’t ( and can’t) know much about.”
That’s how religion works! Carroll is doing the best he can, like all the rest of us.
At least Sean has the guts to say something.
I do have to give him credit for touching the topics of an infinite God and infinite universe(s). Questions will always arise when we can only use our finite brains and limited understanding to discuss these infinite issues. My conclusion “no matter what we assume, naturalism or theism, we are left with unanswered questions”- Matthew Cross, 2017.
Bingo.
…and then Carroll can explain to Tildeb how theories and hypotheses work…
Aha! But hypotheses are based on observations! We can see that objects fall down at a certain rate of acceleration and velocity, what observations do you have for your God?
Haha
Am I doing good?
If you’re trying to support Theism, then, yes. 🙂
Crap, I must be doing this wrong.
What can you observe that makes you go, “huh, there might be a God”?
Miracles? It can’t be miracles, all “miracles” have a natural explanation! (That is not a naturalistic assumption!)
Free will? It can’t be free will, we all follow a determined path! ( So, you’ll believe whatever you will, and this discussion doesn’t matter- unless it was determined after a certain number of my persuasive attempts that you’d choose to not follow your God.)
Morality? All morality is relative. Which is why religions like Christianity that indoctrinate their people into following absolute morality is evil! ( Well, evil to me, but good for you. But I guess you had no choice in the matter, it was determined for you to believe what you do- unless you choose otherwise).
Which is it?
Sorry, Matt, but if you’re trying to channel Tildeb, your answers are WAY too short, and your words are too monosyllabic. You need to make it sound very impressive, until one actually dives in and tries to make sense of it.
In the meantime, just add AT LEAST 4,176 more words. 🙂
But, I got the contradictory sentences down, right?
Yeah, okay, points for that. 😉
@Matthew
In that case, would you offer a well-defined conclusion on Theism?
Carroll is the one who said Theism isn’t well-defined.
Everyone else on the planet is pretty clear that Theism is the belief in some God.
Sorry … your Avatar looks just like Mrs Mcmom… I’ll wait ’til the real Matthew turns up.
My blog. I respond to the questions I’m interested in responding to.
Matthew is trying to make his comment sound like Tildeb. I’m sure he’ll be with you in a moment.
Oops. Guess he’s not interested. Lol.
In that case, I would not.
Fair enough …
Of course, in other cases, I might.
You can’t get a well defined conclusion on a topic that you assumed “isn’t well-defined”.
Title of this post was originally “Debunking Debunked”… But I changed it.
Been using the word “debunked” in your google searches again?
lol. I didn’t catch that!