Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

Sense and Goodness Without God is an interesting read to a worldview which he describes as his own (Introduction) out of many different versions of Metaphysical Naturalism that could exist. He does a great job overall of presenting his views and reasons why he believes what he believes. He is mainly a philosopher/ historian who is very reasonable and somewhat spiritual and describes himself as a man of faith from experience. He clearly proclaims his passion for philosophy and his firm belief that philosophy is the key to all of human successes and problem solving techniques, which I agree with.He has a tendency of arguing quite a bit with J.P. Moreland on metaethics that does get quite annoying at times because he wastes some space on trying to hit J. P. Moreland instead of further developing his Metaphysical Naturalism defenses, especially his reasons for why we should not accept any of the theistic defenses such as free will as a coherent solution to the supposed problem of evil and the problem of good. He could have elaborated a little more on this. His Goal Theory is a basic idea that I definitely agree with and encourage but can only expect its failure since very few are committed to informing themselves of the facts and processing accordingly to make scrutinized, linear, pure, clear thinking. He also gives a quick lesson on what makes reliable and accurate history and methods for establishing the historicity of any historians from the past.Perhaps it was due to the limited space he had to write, but in terms of his defense of science and the origins of the universe by multiverse theory, he does not do a good job in convincing why there would be many universes coming from black holes and why there actually would be infinite universes. His footnotes for the multiverse are helpful though. His defense of the scientific method is the same usual stuff that is found in some theistic and some atheistic literature. The only problem I see with this defense is that on p. 214-216 he makes it seem like all scientists do experiments and research in a fixed skeptic manner where all scientists begin with skepticism when in reality it usually is with a curious and neutral manner that is neither pessimistic or optimistic though it sometimes is optimistic. Sometimes science is treated as somehow special, in that it feels like only a few can reach the status of scientist, which is absurd. The scientific method has its origin in philosophy. So it is philosophy that is the basis of science and also of life in general too. Carrier, however, argues in this book about philosophy and science as separate and not about the latter arising from the former.I am actually studying to be a Chemical Engineer and for the most part science is just thinking about relationships between stuff in nature. Anyone can be a scientist. In fact, everyone is by definition a scientist (knowledgist) in the same way that everyone is a politician (person of the city) by both by etymological definition. It's just that very few make it a career to live off of. And science is pretty basic and not impossible to do. It may be at times weird, but for the most part it's doable. It really is natural to be a scientist, as if we were made for that. If you can cook anything, then you would be guilty of doing a procedure for an organic chemical reaction(s). Science is really more relaxed and not so strict since we still have a lot to learn and new methods that may be easier to work with may yet be discovered. Also usually people who aren't a part of a field of science treat science as more out there than it really needs to be treated. Luckily Carrier mentions that sciences like zoology, psychology and anything that involves intelligent creatures or is organic is not as clear cut and concrete as the inorganic fields of general chemistry or physics. An example of scientific fluctuations come from medical journals that have a lot of explaining to do for unusual patients and unusual behavior.Carrier does an ok job of linking the mind or soul with the brain as inseparable, but does not mention that the mind has its control over the brain too. He argues that the mind works by chemical reactions in the brain with other stuff too. But in cases of depression, even with medication, the mind seems to override the chemical reactions and so someone can be under medication but still have a depressed mind set.I would agree that the mind and brain work together most of the time, but also the mind seems to be immune to chemical reactions in the brain. You can look at a Scientific American article on the mind-brain relationship through depression at[Please look at comment #1 of this review]If what Carrier says is true, then the depression that is caused by the mind would be eliminated in nearly all cases since if you prevent some reactions from occurring in your brain, that cause a depression sensation, then you would not be depressed or have sad thoughts since those thoughts would be chemically repressed. This does not occur as much as we want. So the mind does look like it is somehow separate from the brain and yet linked as well . This also explains what Carrier argues in p. 328-329 of people in coma are dormant persons not annihilated persons.Also as of yet neuroscientists have not been able to find the part or parts of the brain that constitute our Will to do anything. I have not heard of any findings yet thus I must deny a whole mind-brain link as not true unless evidence proves otherwise. Great attempt though.Here is a simplified Breakdown of the whole book (These are not chapter titles just stuff he discusses... Well some are Chapter titles) :I. IntroductionPhilosophy AwarenessHis AutobiographyII. How We KnowImportance of philosophyLogic and MeaningMethods of Science, History, Reason, ExperienceIII. What There isWorldviewOutline of Metaphysical NaturalismNature and Origin of UniverseDeterminism vs. Freewill (Libertarian)What Everything is Made ofMind / Brain : Origins, Evolution, FunctionsMeaning of LifeHow We Got HereNature of Reason, EmotionIV. What There Isn'tParanormal7 Reasons To Be An AtheistV. Natural MoralitySecular Humanism vs. Christian TheismMetaphysical Naturalistic MoralityVI. BeautyHow We Percieve Beauty in Art and Human LifeVII. Natural PoliticsAn Educated Man's PoliticsRichard Carrier's PoliticsSecular Humanist HeavenVIII. ConclusionBravo for Richard Carrier. Good introduction to those who are new to one of the religions of atheism or are interested in seeing what other options exist or for those who wish to be informed of the diversity of human thought in terms of belief systems and worldviews. I personally thought it was better than David Mill's "Atheist Universe" which is more amateurish.Despite its flaws, it a decent book on Atheology.**Since Carrier talks a little on science and atheism, for a good summary of when modern atheism spawned (17th century, not before), and the relationship it had with science up to this century one can see Oxford and Cambridge's review from the "Investigating Atheism" project under the "Atheism & Science" section online for free.

It's often frustrating for some of the more truth-focused atheists -- who wish to share their enlightenment with others -- that the only atheists many have heard of are those like Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris. Not because these atheists have no merit but because of their popularity, they're thought by many to be the best atheism has to offer in response to the intellectual and emotional arguments of various religions. My first real introduction to any argument, whether emotional or intellectual, for atheism was Christopher Hitchens, as is the case for many. As time has gone on, I consider Hitchens to be one of the better emotional opponents to the Christian and Islamic faiths, though he does offer at least some stimulating intellectual arguments at times as well. Dawkins offers, in my opinion, generally weak arguments outside his field of evolutionary biology, which he I think quite objectively skilled in. Harris has, in my opinion, the strongest intellectual arguments of the three and some interesting emotional arguments as well, though I think overall he's far from atheism's best proponent on either front.I've spent the last five years or so seeking out the ideal opponent to Christianity, since this is the religion I was raised with and have since come to reject on mostly intellectual but some emotional grounds as well.I've come to believe that Christianity's #1 intellectual opponent is none other than: Richard Carrier.If anyone has seen a debate with Carrier or read one of his books, one thing becomes perfectly clear immediately regardless of whether or not you agree with him: he's a nerd. Carrier's mind is practically an encyclopedia of well-researched and well-reasoned information. Carrier has a notable respect for what it means to be a "scholar" or "expert" in any given field and holds himself to this same standard of scholarship. What's also notable about Carrier is that he isn't afraid to take unpopular opinions if he thinks they're true. And if he thinks something is true, one thing you can be guaranteed from him is a well-researched and compelling case for it, regardless of whether or not you'll agree with it.In Sense and Goodness Without God, Carrier provides something essential to every atheist: a positive worldview. Many atheists hope to make the religious give up their faith, not taking into account that it's an incredibly difficult thing to do to give up one's faith in general, but it's especially difficult when you're provided with nothing to really replace it with besides nihilism. In this book, Carrier kills two birds with one stone: he addresses a great many of the most common arguments for the existence of God in cosmology, history and especially philosophy, points out where they fail and explains why Metaphysical Naturalism (MN), as a worldview, provides a better explanation for the fundamental nature of reality with an unmatched simplicity and an approachable writing style for the intelligent layperson.As previously noted, though the philosophical issues discussed in this book are very vast and often complicated, Carrier does a tremendous job of breaking them down to very simple and easily understandable concepts for those of us who aren't academically trained philosophers. He divides the book into chapters and then further divides each chapter into sub-chapters, making everything even more digestible and organized for the reader.I've seen some complains that the book starts too slow. I don't think this criticism is false but I also don't think Carrier should have done anything differently. Carrier wanted to leave his audience making as little in the way of assumptions as possible. He wanted to give them as complete of a worldview as he could muster and sometimes this means you need to sit down and really explain things like what the meaning of words are and how we should generally approach truth and knowledge. This isn't over-thinking things, it's all about providing a basis for the rest of the book. Though I struggled through these chapters myself at times, I couldn't have been more thankful that they were there because it gave me something to fall back on when questions of semantics or epistemology within MN arose.My favorite chapters were the ones on cosmology and how the what we know about the universe makes the most sense under MN, as well as (and especially) Carrier's chapters on morality. So much in the way of pop-apologetics is utterly dismantled in these chapters, in regards to why we should be moral agents, what basis we have to be moral and why being moral makes a difference in our lives and in our society. I found these chapters extremely helpful and practical in my own life as a moral being and reading these chapters made me realize the benefits of morality. I've even already started to apply these principles to my life and have already seen a difference in my personal happiness as a result.I would recommend this book to anyone. It's one of the most comprehensive and devastating cases against Christianity and religion in general that I've ever read and will likely read it several times over the next few years because there's so much excellent information to be absorbed in this book. It's especially essential reading for atheists. My only regret is not reading it sooner.Highly, highly recommended.

It will take me a while to digest and consider for myself everything that Richard Carrier has to say in this book. It is a comprehensive, coherent, thoughtful, informed and interesting worldview of the universe and philosophy of life. It is deliberately constructed in opposition to supernatural philosophies like theism, in the attempt to show that a naturalistic, atheistic philosophy is not only intellectually valid but valuable as a living creed. A powerful rebuttal to the millennia of prejudice of religions against the life lived without faith in the supernatural.

I have just finished reading the book from cover to cover for the first time, and can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who really wants to get their teeth into Naturalistic philosophy.Carrier builds a complete world view which he calls 'Metaphysical Naturalism' from the ground up - literally. He begins by justifying seemingly simple ideas such as 'The Meaning of Words', 'Reason', 'Logic' and 'Scientific Method' and progressively builds on these firm foundations with careful reason based on firm evidence.I cannot think of any aspect of life (or death) which Carrier does not explain at least briefly. The book is also quite long, so I have little doubt he was forced to restrict himself to limited space on each topic. However, he provides a vast selection of recommendations for further reading on every single topic he covers, so in any cases where the reader might feel he didn't cover something in enough detail for their liking, he suggests where to look. This is also his method for citing his references, so the reader knows where he has drawn most of his information from, and where to find out more.The only section I found a little weak was his section on politics, which contained a few (minor) ideas/comments he didn't justify very well. But that's a very small section, politics is complicated, and he mostly writes from a US-centric view (unlike the rest of the book) which is not familiar to me. So I don't think it's important enough to mark the book down at all. It is quite possibly my own ignorance of American politics which is at fault here rather than Carrier's reasoning.My only other 'criticism' would be that it is not easy reading - at least parts of it aren't. This is necessary, but it does mean I would not recommend the book to everyone:It is intended as a functional book, and I have reviewed it as such. It is suited to those who genuinely want to explore ideas on Naturalist philosophy and how well such a world view fits the world we see around us.It is NOT not a book which seeks to merely entertain the reader, or to attack religion. While it does have a few doses of humour, and theism is occasionally shown to be ridiculous (though always with thorough justification), that is not the purpose or focus of the book; it contains far more in the way of rigorous logical and philosophical analysis in support of its conclusions. Some parts are a little difficult to follow, and may require some re-reading and 'digesting'.On that basis, I would not recommend it as a book to give/recommend to someone who is thoroughly convinced Naturalism is wrong, in the hopes it might convert them. Not because I find the content to be in error, but because I doubt such people would stick with it and read the whole book properly. Only someone truly open-minded to Naturalism would be prepared to read it in the way it needs to be read; with care, focus, and reasoning faculties fully engaged. There are certainly sections you might show someone and suggest they read, but if your goal is to teach people about Naturalism I think a better approach would be to thoroughly digest the book yourself and let it support any discussions you might have with non-Naturalists.What I would thoroughly recommend it for is arming yourself with strong arguments supporting a Naturalistic world view. It is also great for anyone who is essentially Naturalistic but still has questions or doubts about certain aspects of Naturalism, such as free will, why we have emotions (and what they are), where we get morals from (and what they are!) and so on. All these topics are covered in detail and thoroughly supported by rigorous argument and reason applied to the observed evidence.Another great way to use the book is as a reference book. If someone poses a challenge to Naturalism you cannot answer, chances are there's an answer in the book, and if not there will be answers in the further reading recommendations. This makes it an excellent springboard for expanding and nourishing your world view and knowledge in general.I am positive I will be dipping into this book for years to come.All in all, this is a thoroughly well thought out and thought-provoking book which every serious Naturalist should read, even though it takes some dedication and effort to do so. It's a little slow and tough going to begin with, but ultimately this pays off because it provides the foundations upon which later sections build.

This book was great. It was extemely comprehensive and covered just about every aspect of Carrier's worldview from creation, morals, even art and goes about showing how everything within "Metaphysical Naturalism" is supported by scientific evidence. My only negavtive cririsism was it took a while to get going and some of the work on cosmology was a bit beyond the basic and required some effort to get through (which is why it lost a star).Everything else though was spot on, and while it is not possible to disprove the exstence of god directly he proved that this worldview which rejects and has no need of a god, to be entirely correct and rational. I might agree with elements of his politics but still, read it you may be enlightened.

Carrier's message is hard to be glean as it is hidden behind a patina of arogance and narcissism. Very hard to take him seriously after touting how smart he is for not being force fed religion and turning out to be an atheist.