Naturalism.org

In denying the existence of God, atheism gets half the story right about the supernatural. The other half is about us, not God, and to complete the story is to adopt a consistent, thorough-going naturalism, a worldview based on a commitment to rational explanation and evidence. Naturalism says there’s a single natural world, the one science shows us, not a world divided up into the categorically natural vs. supernatural. Most atheists consider themselves naturalists in this sense, and indeed atheism is an expression or offshoot of naturalism.

Pierre Laplace didn't do science any favors when he let Napoleon provoke him.

After reading the French mathematician's opus on celestial mechanics -- the movements of planets -- the emperor asked him why the treatise, unlike the work of Isaac Newton, made no mention of God. Laplace reportedly replied, in a huff, that he had no need of that hypothesis.

Key propositions

• Science generates the natural-supernatural distinction, it doesn’t presume it.
• The supernatural is just that which can’t play a role in scientific explanations.
• Kansas is powerless to change scientific practice to incorporate supernaturalism.

Hurricane Katrina Highlights Poverty Concerns

The Atlantic storm season officially ended November 30 [2006], but the concerns about poverty highlighted by hurricane Katrina are still very much with us.[1] Why did it take a natural disaster to draw attention to the poor of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast? How many of those made homeless will join the ranks of the permanently dispossessed?

Introduction

Comment on Henry Stapp's Quantum Interactive Dualism

In the aftermath of the 2004 election, Democrats are being enjoined to get religion.  Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, deplores the liberal disdain of spirituality, and says that Democrats should foster a “religious/spiritual left.”[1]  Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times suggests that Democrats “rebrand” themselves as faith-friendly, otherwise the party will never reclaim its majority status.[2]   

“The great specter of brain science is that it will demonstrate that we are merely conscious organic machines, that all our experience and behavior originate in the brain.”[1]

Some ideas, it is thought, are inherently dangerous. Some pose a threat because they are false, and by misleading us, encourage destructive behavior. Others are dangerous because although true, they might have dire consequences for those who fall under their sway. An example of the former is the belief that human beings are not a significant contributor to global warming, and that therefore there’s nothing we can or need do to avert a climate disaster over the next century.