Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

Sense and Goodness
without God A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism By Richard Carrier

2005 by Richard Carrier. All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author. First published by AuthorHouse 02/03/05 ISBN: 1-4208-0293-3 (sc) ISBN: 978-1-45205926-6 (e) Library of Congress Control Number: 2004097444 Printed in the United States of America Bloomington, Indiana This book is printed on acid-free paper. Cover Photo: One and Only Oil by Richard C. Carrier

For Jen... My buxom brunette My wellspring of joy My north star of sanity

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

1. What This Is Philosophy is not a word game or hairsplitting contest, nor a grand scheme to rationalize this or that. Philosophy is what we believe, about ourselves, about the universe and our place in it. Philosophy is the Answer to every Big Question, and the ground we stand on when finding answers to every small one. Our values, our morals, our goals, our identities, who we are, where we are, and above all how we know any of these things, it all comes from our philosophy of lifewhether we know it or not. Since this makes philosophy fundamental to everything in our lives, it is odd that people give it so little attention. Philosophers are largely to blame. They have reduced their craft to the very thing it should not be: a jargonized verbal dance around largely useless minutiae. Philosophy is supposed to be the science of explaining to everyone the meaning and implications of what we say and think, aiding us all in understanding ourselves and the world. Yet philosophers have all but abandoned this calling, abandoning their only useful role in society. They have retreated behind ivory walls, talking over the heads of the uninitiated, and doing nothing useful for the everyman. So it is no surprise the general population has lost interest. And when pundits lament a spiritual aimlessness in modern culture, what they see is not the loss of faith in any particular religion, but the divorce of human beings from a devoted exploration of philosophyphilosophy as it should be. That divorce was a serious mistake. Many people call their philosophy a Religion. But that does not excuse them from their responsibility as philosophers. You either have a coherent, sensible, complete philosophy that is well-supported by all the evidence that humans have yet mustered, or you do not. Yet most people cannot even tell you which of those two camps their religion, their philosophy, is in. Hardly anyone has spent a single serious moment exploring their philosophy of life. Far fewer have made any significant effort to get it right. Instead, Religion has become a factory-made commodity, sold off the shelf to the masses, who assume it must be good if it is really old and lots of smarter and better educated people say its a good buy (8 out of 10 experts recommend Christian Brand Salvation!). People think they can just plug such a goodie into their lives, maybe with a few unskilled adjustments of their own, and never have to think about whether it is well-constructed, well-thought-out, or even true. Some people, more creative but no wiser, take a shallow glance around and tear pieces from existing products, or grab whatever pops into their heads, and throw together something of their own, with little in the way of careful investigation or analysis. It would require more than the Luck of the Irish for either approach to succeed. It is the rare bird (and the humble one, who never claims to know more than they do) who can hit upon wisdom without taking more serious care. I have taken a different approach, and wish to recommend it to everyone. My religion is Philosophy Itself. Every hour that devout believers spend praying, reading scripture, attending sermons and masses, I spend reading, thinking, honing my skill at getting at the truth and rooting out error. I imagine by most standards I have been far more devout than your average churchgoer. For I have spent over an hour every day of my life, since I began my teen years, on this serious task of inquiry and reflection. I am no guru. But I have gotten pretty far. Now, nearing middle-age, I have found myself with that coherent, sensible, complete, evidentially well-supported philosophy of life that I had been looking for. Though I know there is a lot I still dont know, and many mistakes yet to be corrected, I am always learning. I have spent a long time pulling pieces together, correcting my errors, backing up from dead ends and starting over, making sense of it all. Now I can actually say I have something to say. I might not be right. I might be only partly on target. But at least I gave it as good a try as anyone could. This book surveys my philosophy of life, my worldview, and explains why I believe it is true. The formal category it falls into is Metaphysical Naturalism, a daunting bit of jargon, not of my choosing, whose meaning will become clear as you read on through this tome. It is essentially an explanation of everything without recourse to anything supernatural, a view that takes reason and science seriously, and expects nothing from you that you cannot judge for yourself. Though I am an atheist, in the basic sense that I do not believe there are any gods, you will find after completing this book that whether God exists or not really doesnt matter all that much. Every component of my philosophy can be arrived at independently, and stands on evidence and reasoning that would not change tomorrow if a god announced himself to the world today. Rather than being a starting assumption, my atheism is but an incidental conclusion from applying my worldview to the current state of evidence. If I should ever become convinced a god does exist after all, most likely very little adjustment of the philosophy I defend here would be needed. Even so, since most people assume God is the answer to every deep question, the same concerns always come up. If God does not exist, then what does? Is there good and evil? Should we even care? How do we know whats true anyway? And can we make any sense of this universe? Can we even make sense of our own lives? Answering questions like these is essentially what this book is about. I build and defend a complete worldview by covering every fundamental subjectfrom knowledge to art, from metaphysics to morality, from theology to politics. Along the way I discuss free will, the nature of the universe, the meaning of life, and much more. At every step of the way I use sound reason and scientific evidence to argue that there is probably only a physical, natural world without gods or spirits, but that we can still live a life of love, meaning, and joy. So the conclusion of this book is not negative. Nature is all there is. But life is still good. This book aims to show how Metaphysical Naturalism satisfies all our concernsabout existence, meaning, right and wrongwithout need of any gods or mystical secrets. I have attempted to write this work with the average college-level reader in mind, and not just for specialists. I avoided using any language you wont find in a half-decent dictionary, unless I explain a words meaning myself. My vocabulary and mode of expression is as colloquial as the subject permits, though my style is a bit old-school. I do not assume the reader knows anything about philosophy, or any more about anything that a quality high school education wouldnt teach an attentive student. I use no footnotes or endnotes, but I often back up my claims by referring readers to the relevant literature that presents the supporting evidence, in bibliographies placed at the end of their respective chapters or sections. For all readers, I ask that my work be approached with the same intellectual charity you would expect from anyone else. First and foremost, this book describes and defends only one kind of Metaphysical Naturalismthere are many other varieties, and mine should not be confused with them. But more generally, ordinary language is necessarily ambiguous and open to many different interpretations. If what I say anywhere in this book appears to contradict, directly or indirectly, something else I say here, the principle of interpretive charity should be applied: assume you are misreading the meaning of what I said in each or either case. Whatever interpretation would eliminate the contradiction and produce agreement is probably correct. So you are encouraged in every problem that may trouble you to find that interpretation. If all attempts at this fail, and you cannot but see a contradiction remaining, you should write to me about this at once, for the manner of my expression may need expansion or correction in a future edition to remove the difficulty, or I might really have goofed up and need to correct a mistake. I am most easily found by email ( naturalism@secular.org ) but any regular mail sent to my publisher will eventually find my door. On the other hand, if what I say appears to contradict, even indirectly, something someone else says, whose work I otherwise cite or recommend, you should take my meaning as the one I intend, and not add to it what others have added to the same or similar ideas. In short, do not attribute to me beliefs I do not declare, especially those that are not compatible with what I do assert. Yet if such an outside declaration can be interpreted in a way that is compatible with all I say, you may take that as conforming to my belief system, as I would probably endorse it. In contrast, if you find any case where something I write is factually false , or in need of qualification, as established by repeated, confirmed, empirical investigation by relevant experts, something that has enough evidential support to persuade the vast majority of a profession that it is true, then please inform me of that, too. For my philosophy, or at least my presentation of it here, will then stand in need of revision, and I hold nothing so dear as the desire to correct my mistakes and get things rightin short, to grow and improve myself and my beliefs. Though the writing of this work was a private passion, it would not have been possible without a great number of people who affected my life in important ways. My mother and fatherMonica and Haland my wife Jennifer, were most important of all. The Internet Infidels were also instrumental in helping to complete the latest phase of my intellectual development, especially Jeff Lowder and many affiliated colleagues: Evan Fales, Victor Stenger, Keith Augustine, Dan Barker, just to name a few, who also gave advice about improving this work specifically. My education, especially my skill as a writer, researcher and critical thinker, would not have been what it is without the tutelage of Drs. David Keightley and William Harris, to name only my most important teachers, in terms of time spent and effect on my abilities. I must also thank Bob Scott, who should go down in history as the best boss anyone could have. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the now-dead men whose philosophical genius has most impressed me. Though their names are too numerous to list, the Honor Roll would run from Lao Tzu to Hsn Tzu, and from Epicurus and Seneca, on to David Hume, A. J. Ayer, and Bertrand Russell. I hope their best ideas live on in me.