Dawkins' Atheist Bus

[droid]

Well it's a good name, but I think all parents have to deal with the fact that their children will do things they don't like at some point. Hanging around with strange men, e.g.

Regardless of philosophical positioning, politically I don't think that Chomsky is very far from Mark or HMLT, but even more than that, the quality of their discourse is pretty much equivalent.

Haha. They wish.

 

[waffle]

Would this be the same Chomsky famed for rejecting Po-mo thinking?

He wasn't rejecting pomo thinking, as all the philosophers and theorists he was crudely referring to are CRITICS of postmodernism. A low point in Chomsky's intellectual development, but then, he's not a serious philosopher, but an insightful and committed geopolitical commentator (when he's not still dabbling in analytical linguistics). He even still stubbornly believes in 'American democracy' ...

As an aside, would k-punk identify as Christian? I thought he was on a kind of Spinozan pantheist tip, or is that old news?

It would certainly be new news if it were true. K-punk, like Spinoza, is a materialist. [Spinoza most definitely was not a pantheist, which is a supernatural theism where God 'resides' in nature; Dawkins, on the other hand, is close to being a pantheist, as long as we first assume that God=Dawkins, as he would like].

 

[vimothy]

Haha. They wish.

Possibly. What's with the beatification of Chomsky, anyway? I never got that, despite the relentless barrage of books...

 

[droid]

He wasn't rejecting pomo thinking, as all the philosophers and theorists he was crudely referring to are CRITICS of postmodernism. A low point in Chomsky's intellectual development, but then, he's not a serious philosopher, but an insightful and committed geopolitical commentator (when he's not still dabbling in analytical linguistics). He even still stubbornly believes in 'American democracy' ...

Foucault and Derrida aren't considered to be post modernists in any sense?

Anyway, regardless of the labels, I think we agree on the fundamental point.

 

[droid]

Possibly. What's with the beatification of Chomsky, anyway? I never got that, despite the relentless barrage of books...

Beatification? Defense in the face of repeated glib and uninformed misrepresentations would be more accurate

Try reading one sometime...

 

[vimothy]

Beatification? Defense in the face of repeated glib and uninformed misrepresentations would be more accurate

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that one up.

What about the informed criticisms?

Try reading one sometime...

Yes, the next time I'm loking for insightful geopolitical commentary, I'll do just that.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Not to derail but it's both really isn't it? Observed facts and ideas about how those events occur etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Well my point was that it'd be ludicrous to suggest that evolution does not occur, full stop, since the assortment of plant and animal species extant on earth has clearly changed over time. Literal creationists may argue that extinct species were created and then destroyed by God; the kind you discuss below...

Perhaps a thoughtful theist could argue that for a 'god' time may not be unidirectional so that what would appear from a human perspective to be an evolutionary progression could also be a kind of 'morph' towards a desired end point.

...holds to a position that is not falsifiable (unlike young earth/deluge creationism, which is, and has been, proven incorrect) since this state of affairs is empirically indistinguishable from standard Darwinian evolution. And from a theoretical viewpoint, it seems to have a degree of redundancy: if natural laws of survival ineluctably lead to evolution, what need is there for a god to oversee things?

 

[droid]

What about the informed criticisms?

I haven't seen any on this board. Just sad dismissals from people who've never even read him.

Yes, the next time I'm loking for insightful geopolitical commentary, I'll do just that.

No - please feel free to stick to the heritage foundation for all your unbiased geopolitical needs.

 

[jambo]

...holds to a position that is not falsifiable (unlike young earth/deluge creationism, which is, and has been, proven incorrect) since this state of affairs is empirically indistinguishable from standard Darwinian evolution. And from a theoretical viewpoint, it seems to have a degree of redundancy: if natural laws of survival ineluctably lead to evolution, what need is there for a god to oversee things?

'Need'? Why must there be a need for a given cause, or anything? Sounds a bit teleological to me...

I'm really just offering a place-holder for what a 'theistic' (or even just an alternative to pure linear mechanistic causality) viewpoint might be as I imagine it. It doesn't have to mean an 'overseeing' deity as such either. Actually what I outline above includes the reality of evolution but adds in the idea that it is going somewhere.

As for a theory not being falsifiable, of course that's a fine principle but what it really tells us is whether something can fall under the remit of science or not, that's all. Others may not be so concerned. Why must we insist that this is the absolute measure of what is important or how we can conceive of the world?

Although, it might falsifiable if someone could prove that causality can not work backwards.

Well my point was that it'd be ludicrous to suggest that evolution does not occur, full stop, since the assortment of plant and animal species extant on earth has clearly changed over time.

Well, that's what you see. What you see evidence of, and how you interpret it. This is from a human viewpoint because you and all known scientists and observers are human, we shouldn't obscure that I don't think.

Literal creationists may argue that extinct species were created and then destroyed by God; the kind you discuss below...

Yeah they probably would but it's this kind of stupid shit that has me trying to help the poor buggers out.

 

[jambo]

It would certainly be new news if it were true. K-punk, like Spinoza, is a materialist. [Spinoza most definitely was not a pantheist, which is a supernatural theism where God 'resides' in nature; Dawkins, on the other hand, is close to being a pantheist, as long as we first assume that God=Dawkins, as he would like].

I think it depends on how you define material, and of course, pantheism. To me this is pure pantheism. God is nature = god is all. Which includes us, which is nice. And it obviously has a strong cybernetic component.

to think of Spinoza as a covert atheist is to repeat the same mistakes his contemporary religious critics made (and to reiterate their insult). Spinoza’s God is beyond even indifference, gloriously, desolately without interests of any kind. Intellectual love of God is effectively an identification with the cosmos as BwO.

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003767.html

Would it be terribly controversial to say that this strongly suggests that the BwO, is pretty much a rephrasing of these older concepts designed to cleverly get around the baggage and prejudice that has accrued with reference to them?

 

[waffle]

This just goes to show your own ignorance of the subject under discussion, and the basic concepts of science in general.

Would that be a theory or an (empirical) fact?

There is no such thing as "THE theory of evolution";

The 'nit-picking' metaphor needs updating: sub-atomic-picking?

evolution is *not* a theory, it is an empirical (yes, that nasty word again I'm afraid!) fact.

Darwin found his theory in a cave, just as it was mutating into a tea leaf.

You're coming dangerous close to the 'just-a-theory' fallacy beloved by creationists.

I am not. That is what you systematically do in your relativist, deflationary "that's just your opinion' posts, ad infinitum. Evolutionary theory is both rationalist and materialist, whereas we can agree on the status of the other. [BTW, there is no shortage of Christian fundamentalists who claim to be 'scientific empiricists', who imagine they can factually 'prove' the existence of such fanciful ideations as Noah's Ark, The Garden of Eden, and so on, much like ghost-hunters, etc. Whatever would they do if they were really to 'find' such fiictions? It would be the end of the world for them, the end of their Faith. Some of them occasionally do hear voices [God's plan] and see images of Jesus in cloud formations, sucumb to psychosis, and go forth and murder their family (usually about once a week in the US), the foreclosed symbolic returning in the real].

Once upon a time there were dinosaurs and no people; now there are people but no dinosaurs. Ergo, evolution has occurred, and is still occurring.

That's fascinating, Miss Moneypenny.

Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a *theory* of evolution, and is by far the best one that's so far been put forward.

It isn't actually, on it's own, as it concentrates on phenotypes, on observable traits; it is only when it is combined with genetics, with genotypes, random genetic mutation and genetic inheritance, that we arrive at the more comprehensive modern theory/("theories") of evolution.

 

[vimothy]

I haven't seen any on this board. Just sad dismissals from people who've never even read him.

Well, I don't know about them. Not sure how they could have avoided reading Chomsky in any case. He is ubiquitous.

And really, I wasn't thinking of criticisms by people on this board, but never mind.

No - please feel free to stick to the heritage foundation for all your unbiased geopolitical needs.

Nah, when I'm rushing to conflate my prejudices, I normally go to CFR. They rule the world, don't ya know.

 

[Mr. Tea]

'Need'? Why must there be a need for a given cause, or anything? Sounds a bit teleological to me...

I say 'need' because an effect has a conceptual need for a cause. I don't think this is teleological, any more than it's 'teleological' that if I drop a wine glass on a hard floor it's 'bound' to shatter. If it's well known that cause A leads to effect B, there's no need to go looking for an additional cause A' that also leads to B, is there? Unless the existence of A' is a necessary part of your worldview because you've inherited a system of superstitions that is culturally and psychologically important to you, which of course religion is to many people.

I'm really just offering a place-holder for what a 'theistic' (or even just an alternative to pure linear mechanistic causality) viewpoint might be as I imagine it.

How about a non-linear mechanistic causality? Or a quantum-deterministic causality? I'd caution you against chucking around terms like this willy-nilly...

It doesn't have to mean an 'overseeing' deity as such either. Actually what I outline above includes the reality of evolution but adds in the idea that it is going somewhere.

OK, so we're back to teleology...is this what you think drives evolution? I think it's been amply demonstrated elsewhere in this thread that it's certainly not what Dawkins thinks.

Well, that's what you see. What you see evidence of, and how you interpret it. This is from a human viewpoint because you and all known scientists and observers are human, we shouldn't obscure that I don't think.

Yes, I can see it because I don't stick my fingers in my ears and start humming loudly to myself whenever someone mentions Australopithecus afarensis. The evidence is there, if people want to ignore it then that's up to them but they have no right to expect to be taken seriously if they do.

Yeah they probably would but it's this kind of stupid shit that has me trying to help the poor buggers out.

What's the "stupid shit" here - the bus ad? You can call it smug, inflammatory or unhelpful if you like, but it's a whole let less stupid than insisting the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Moses walked T. rex. And let's not forget that creationism is, in the bigger picture, by no means one of the most socially destructive effects that religion is having, even in an officially secular country like the UK - look at how often it's used as a pretext for racism, homophobia and misogyny, censorious bullying, terrorism, 'honour killings', social evils and violent crime of many divers kinds...

 

[Slothrop]

And let's not forget that creationism is, in the bigger picture, by no means one of the most socially destructive effects that religion is having, even in an officially secular country like the UK - look at how often it's used as a pretext for racism, homophobia and misogyny, censorious bullying, terrorism, 'honour killings', social evils and violent crime of many divers kinds...

Not to mention christian rock.

 

[jambo]

Mr. Tea I'm rather surprised at quite how thoroughly you seem to have missed the point of everything I was saying, and indeed the spirit in which it was said.

I shall try and respond properly to all those points though and endeavour not be offended or give offence in the process.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Mr. Tea I'm rather surprised at quite how thoroughly you seem to have missed the point of everything I was saying, and indeed the spirit in which it was said.

I shall try and respond properly to all those points though and endeavour not be offended or give offence in the process.

I'm certainly not offended, but I think you're right that I can't really see what you're trying to say - are you giving a kind of devil's-advocated defence of creationism, or at least teleology?

 

[jambo]

Not exactly. I'm not 'trying' to say something. I thought what I said was quite clear and I'm not sure I want to get into a point-by-point back and forth really, which of course quickly becomes tedious and more or less indecipherable for all concerned, although I will reply because I think it's worth a go.

 

[jambo]

I say 'need' because an effect has a conceptual need for a cause. I don't think this is teleological, any more than it's 'teleological' that if I drop a wine glass on a hard floor it's 'bound' to shatter. If it's well known that cause A leads to effect B, there's no need to go looking for an additional cause A' that also leads to B, is there? Unless the existence of A' is a necessary part of your worldview because you've inherited a system of superstitions that is culturally and psychologically important to you, which of course religion is to many people.

You said this:

And from a theoretical viewpoint, it seems to have a degree of redundancy: if natural laws of survival ineluctably lead to evolution, what need is there for a god to oversee things?'

I just thought it was a bit funny/ironic (note the wink) how the language you used echoed what be called a teleological position. (It could be said that) something might be the case despite there being no need for it. I mean why not? Actually isn't that what most atheists believe about everything?

 

[waffle]

I think it depends on how you define material, and of course, pantheism. To me this is pure pantheism. God is nature = god is all. Which includes us, which is nice. And it obviously has a strong cybernetic component.

The term 'Pantheism' invariably tends to confuse, as it implies that God is some kind of dispersed spiritual/supernatural sentience (a naturalistic pantheism would be closer to Spinoza's theology, but is still unsatisfactory). Rather, Spinoza was a materialist because of the radical immanence of his thought; for him, Nature, or God, is Substance, which is eternal or nontemporal/outside of time (ie Spinoza is a monist), two attributes of which are thought (Naturing Nature, or abstract matter: the abstract maps, the code or virtual machines that determine or run the physical world; they are what nature employes to 'produce' physical objects and reality) and extension (Natured Nature, the physical or natural transient objects themselves, what is normally taken to be 'nature'). God's thoughts, for Spinoza, are what we might otherwise loosely call 'natural laws' while what God does is what the world is [there is no contingency or free will in Spinoza's world, they are illusory: all that happens necessarily happens, as God's mind (the 'essence' of nature, a vast labyrinth of cause and effect) is a complete (abstract) map of everything that occurs, past, present, and future.

Would it be terribly controversial to say that this strongly suggests that the BwO, is pretty much a rephrasing of these older concepts designed to cleverly get around the baggage and prejudice that has accrued with reference to them?

I shouldn't think so: Deleuze did, after all, call Spinoza "the prince of philosophers" and not out of any regard for monarchy.

 

[jambo]

What's the "stupid shit" here - the bus ad?

No the stupid shit I was referring to is the creationist line about how 'god' planted the fossils there or whatever. Any self respecting theologian should be able to come up with something better than that. But you were totally wrong about the conception of a 'god' that I was describing.

Perhaps a thoughtful theist could argue that for a 'god' time may not be unidirectional so that what would appear from a human perspective to be an evolutionary progression could also be a kind of 'morph' towards a desired end point.

You know, it's just an idea, but the implication here is of a procession towards an end point (the direction of time being irrelevant to this god) where the in between stages are what we witness as evolutionary process. Not the same as an interventionist god or one that goes around killing off species or burying fossils.