Topic: Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: Why We Should Care. I will talk in plain terms how to win the culture war through greater attention to worldview theory. We should all study the philosophy of naturalism because every element is interrelated and stands in direct opposition to supernatural worldviews used to attack us and make our society dysfunctional, yet on every point naturalism is obviously correct. This is a weapon you need to know how to use in order to win the culture war. Otherwise you are going to be outgunned by the Christian elite and their mindless flock, who are aware of this weapon's importance and are already very good at using it. You should be too. Come see why--and how.
Is there anything in this talk that isn't in Sense and Goodness? If so, publishing the material from this talk into an article (for Free Inquiry, for example) or on your blog would be yet another way to help win the culture.
ReplyDeleteOr at least, that's my two cents.
My book already serves that function. The talk only works interactively, as a live discussion. It won't suit as an article (although I may one day adapt an article from it). Essentially it makes the case for buying the book and/or doing what it does as far as building, testing, and using a complete, coherent worldview in public discourse. Plus its fun.
ReplyDeleteDr. Carrier, do you have any plans to update Sense and Goodness Without God, perhaps for its 10th anniversary? Though I can't really think of anything that needs revision off the top of my head, you might.
ReplyDeleteI have a large file for a second edition, including a long list of typos and misphrases, an enormous list of "new works" on the topics of the bibliographies (i.e. I would need to update those bibliographies to mention the latest and best), a few minor errors (nothing philosophically significant), and a handful of books I may have to "respond" to (i.e. that criticize positions I took, but not my arguments for them specifically). But incorporating all that would be a major project, for very little gain, so it's not likely to ever top my list of priorities. Unless something huge really changes.
ReplyDeleteApart from that eventuality, I'm more likely to write a thinner, snappier, more introductory book on naturalism, than to revise SAG. Likewise possibly books treating the specific six parts separately in greater and more updated detail (which would then do all the actual work of a "second edition"), or refining my other noted arguments regarding naturalism (e.g. improving and updating my extensive online critiques of Reppert, Rea, Steiner, Howell, etc.). But that's all pie in the sky right now. I have a huge list of must-dos before I ever get to that, which will keep me busy for years.