One of the characteristics of this mindset is the belief that certain things are known which are really not known. These are the "well, of course everyone knows" things that we are all just supposed to assume, like good little secularists.
Here is Carroll explaining one of the things that, of course, everyone knows:
Over the last four hundred or so years, human beings have achieved something truly amazing: we understand the basic rules governing the operation of the world around us. Everything we see in our everyday lives is simply a combination of three particles — protons, neutrons, and electrons — interacting through three forces — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. That is it; there are no other forms of matter needed to describe what we see, and no other forces that affect how they interact in any noticeable way. And we know what those interactions are, and how they work. Of course there are plenty of things we don’t know — there are additional elementary particles, dark matter and dark energy, mysteries of quantum gravity, and so on. But none of those is relevant to our everyday lives (unless you happen to be a professional physicist). As far as our immediate world is concerned, we know what the rules are. A staggeringly impressive accomplishment, that somehow remains uncommunicated to the overwhelming majority of educated human beings.Carroll thinks he knows "what the rules are." And by "rules," we assume (given what he says later in the post) he is referring to what are popularly known as the "Laws of Nature." But there is a serious question whether he actually does. In fact, it's a live question whether anyone does.
Carroll seems to be confusing the idea of knowing that something is with the idea of knowing what something is. It would indeed be a staggeringly impressive accomplishment if he did know what they were, but, in fact, he doesn't. He can show us the effects of these Laws of Nature, but he cannot tell us what they are. Are they prescriptive entities of some kind that issue commands? If so, then what exactly is the ontological status of these "laws"? And how is his view effectively different from a belief in some kind of god?
Or are they simply a collection of descriptive observations of the past behavior of certain things under certain circumstances. If so, then can anything worthy of the name "law" really be said to exist at all? And what logical force can they possibly exercise (as David Hume pointed out) for predicting the future?
People like Carroll want to be able to rid themselves of any metaphysical baggage, but as soon as they try to explain their own position, they are faced with either engaging in metaphysics or repudiating the rational foundations of their own position.