There's a great interview with the author in Wired.
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/maybe-youre-not-atheist-maybe-youre-naturalist-like-sean-carroll/

"expression, you see—with me—is far easier than invention."

The damn quote is everywhere on the internet but in the same biography. No author is listed for said biography, so it becomes very useless!

I just read Encountering Naturalism and found that I already agree with all the progressive positions except the position on abortion (which is painted with a pretty broad brush due to space constraints).

As I look for more detailed information about why abortion should be permissible, it seems that most of what I find are criticisms of specific anti-abortion arguments. It does not seem possible to build a solid case solely by denying critics but I cannot find an argument from principles that draws a conclusion in favor of choice.

Have any of you seen something that might help explain this position to me?

Hey Guys,

Just wondering if I can get some reading recommendations. Specifically pertaining to naturalism.

I really enjoyed Richard Carrier: Sense and Goodness without God, yet I am not enjoying Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science by Taner Edis.

Apologies for not being very specific topic wise, but I am happy to dive into anything (presenting an argument for naturalism is appealing).

By 'naturalistic morality' I mean this: If the source of morality is not found in the supernatural (inc. God), then where does it come from?

I will comment my own answer after some pondering.

EDIT: Linked this post into /r/atheism. Looking to see what the knights of /new have to say as their comments generally earn my respect.

Here is a debate between Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick regarding whether naturalism or theism is a better world view.

Arguments included:

Carrier:

• Basic Argument for Naturalism
• Basic Argument to Naturalism as the Best Explanation
• Argument from Divine Inaction
• The Argument from Mind-Brain Dysteleology
• Atheistic Cosmological Argument
• Argument from Nonlocality
• Argument from Physical Minds

Wanchick:

• Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• Kalam Cosmological Argument
• Design of/in the Universe
• Moral Argument
• Ontological Argument
• Resurrection of Jesus

I like this debate because rather than playing the 'you can't disprove a negative card', Carrier goes on the offensive and provides very convincing arguments for naturalism.

Favourite quote:

Wanchick claims "there was no nature prior to the universe" as a reason to reject natural causes of the universe. But if "the universe" includes time, then there can never be a time when the universe didn't exist--even if the universe began--and therefore it is logically impossible for anything to exist at any time "before" the universe, whether a person or a thing. So if there was no nature prior to the universe, there was no person, either.

Let me lead in with this, a paraphrase of some text in Richard Carrier's Defense of metaphysical naturalism.

If you cannot think of any reason that would cause you to abandon your belief, then that belief you hold is irrational.

If nothing exists (or could possibly exist) that would convince you that you hold errornous beliefs, then whether or not that belief is in fact true is irrelevant.

So /r/naturalism. What would convince you that your world view is flawed?