Dawkins' Atheist Bus

[3 Body No Problem]

I admit to not finding this debate very interesting. However, I am intrigued as to why the PoMo echo chamber is so fixated on Dawkin's atheism. What's the deal?

Because the party has declared that "we", i.e. the party, now do religion (to further the revolution by hoovering up ressentment that expresses itself religiously, e.g. the Kaida).

And the party is always right ... (and it controls a few nice lectureships at nice universities...)

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Sure, many of the most important Greek philosophers were atheists, after all.

That's not what I mean. The more enlightened would probably always have understood the fictional nature of religion. What I meant is that common people, the masses were unlikely to be uniformly religious, in the sense of having a coherent socially stable set of professes beliefs. How could they? The communication tools to produce this uniformity were lacking. Only when they appeared, in the form of the printing press, was it possible for religeous beliefs to be socially coherent. Comparative uniformity professed beliefs is one of the dimensions in which I think religion is a modern phenomenon.

Another dimension is is the de-differentialtion of religion and politics that we've been seeing in the last few hunderd years. In the past it was for example common for people to change religion wholesale, when their ruler did so. This would seem completely anathema to a modern religionist.

 

[Mr. Tea]

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.

Ahh, I see, fair enough. Yeah, pretty stupid indeed.

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.

No, that's cool, I understand the difference between these 'gods' - the fact that there's only one kind of atheism obviously doesn't mean there can't be different kinds of theism, after all.

 

[Mr. Tea]

OK, that "trying" was unnecessarily arsey, sorry about that. Looking back on your posts it seems you're interested mainly in discussing ideas about teleology, falsifiability and broader issues of scientific vs. religious epistemology.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

That question was already addressed in previous posts above

I do not see a discussion of this question, even upon rereading this thread. Can you please point me to a concrete posting?

Dawkins' own famous images - the blind watchmaker, the selfish gene - both imply some degree of purposive intent (the emphasis in the blind watchmaker ought to have been on the blindness rather than the watchmaking; the gene has neither a self nor interests which it pursues, only an idiotic program which it follows).

This is the problem: it's not an idiotic program, it's an incredibly sophisticated program. And such sophisticated programs are often called "intentional". Intent is a word to designate such sophisticated programs that start out with a representation of a final goal towards which a mechanism approximates in certain environments. And it's not just genes that do this. Autopilots are another example.

Unfortunately, the positivisation of the idea of natural selection isn't merely a rhetorical error, but something that has had theoretical consequences. Witness, for instance, the most ludicrous claims of evolutionary psychology,

This is disingenuous on two counts: (1) it confuses certain accounts of evolution with a controversial distinct research field (evolutionary psychology, aka sociobiology); not everyone who uses teleological abbreviations when talking about genetics, is in favour of evolutionary psychology. (2) it misrepresents evolutionary psychology by looking at its fringes. I think you will not find many who are interested in evo psych who would maintain that:

which maintain that <b>practically every human behaviour</b> can be accounted for in terms of a natural selection held to operate like some ultra-efficient teleological sorting system, ensuring that every single trait serves some evolutionary function.

At its best evo psych is a research field that seeks to investigate the ways and degrees in which human behaviour has genetic foundations. Seems pretty legitimate to me. While it is true that some of its practicioneers, especially at the inception of the field, hold positions such as those you criticised, you'll find that many are of more nuanced opinions

Nietzsche's "Parable Of The Madman": not the religious believers, who are perfectly aware of the traumatic implications of the death of God

Have you considered the possibility that it is the Nietzschean linear narrative from a past where human lives were organised nicely in reference to gods to the current chaos where this is no longer the case that is historically inaccurate?

In the midst of economic crisis, imperialist wars, catastrophicinequality, et caetera,

Oh yeah, I forgot, never in human history was life as bad as it is now, never did people live so short, never did so few have access to schooling, universal healthcare and pensions, never did the poor have so few TVs, cars and ...

 

[jambo]

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

Why what's going to happen? Divine retribution?

I would have hoped it is clear that the meaning of what I am saying there is that I am offering that I think there can be other ways to conceive of and interpret the world, even if it is just other names for the same phenomena. Perhaps this is clarified by what I said directly below.

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?

So maybe that gets closer to the crux of something. It could be that partly what I was replying to in your posts is what I see as a bias on our part that you are either not willing to acknowledge for rhetorical reasons or are perhaps not aware of. I don't mean to throw stones because I know that none of us are entirely immune to this but I think we can try to be in discussions such as this, that would be my ideal anyway.

I find the insistence that everything must always and only be evaluated and considered through a reductive 'scientific' framework can start to resemble a sort of fundamentalism. Also I think that the often accompanying recourse to blustery 'common sense' and 'well come on now' isms when it's pointed out that cold hard logic does indeed tell us that all we have is the evidence of our (human) senses and our ideas about what that might mean, and our names for these ideas, is an intellectually dishonest stance. Which is it, logic or 'common sense'?

 

[vimothy]

Because the party has declared that "we", i.e. the party now do religion (to further the revolution by hoovering up ressentment that expresses itself religiously, e.g. the Kaida).

...which, in it's own way, is quite a weird development.

 

[jambo]

OK, that "trying" was unnecessarily arsey, sorry about that. Looking back on your posts it seems you're interested mainly in discussing ideas about teleology, falsifiability and broader issues of scientific vs. religious epistemology.

Yeah basically, I think so, something like that.

It's possible I've just been a little bit arsey too so maybe we're quits.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I find the insistence that everything must always and only be evaluated and considered through a reductive 'scientific' framework can start to resemble a sort of fundamentalism. Also I think that the often accompanying recourse to blustery 'common sense' and 'well come on now' isms when it's pointed out that cold hard logic does indeed tell us that all we have is the evidence of our (human) senses and our ideas about what that might mean, and our names for these ideas, is an intellectually dishonest stance. Which is it, logic or 'common sense'?

Well if you're trying to gather facts about what the world is and how it works, and attempting to use those facts as pointers to hypotheses or theories of the laws of nature, I'd say it's pretty clear that the scientific framework is the best way to proceed (if a scientific framework is indeed the same thing as a 'scientific' one). Further, I don't think such a framework must be necessarily reductive: it can sometimes be very useful to have a reductive viewpoint, while in other circumstances it pays to be more holistic, if that word can be rescued from the dolphins-and-crystals brigade.

 

[vimothy]

Have you considered the possibility that it is the Nietzschean linear narrative from a past where human lives were organised nicely in reference to gods to the current chaos where this is no longer the case that is historically inaccurate?

Ouch!

 

[waffle]

I do not see a discussion of this question, even upon rereading this thread. Can you please point me to a concrete posting?

What is the question? Point. Concrete. Posting.

This is the problem: it's not an idiotic program, it's an incredibly sophisticated program.

The idiocy is not an evaluation of the relative complexity or sophistication of the code/program, but of its blindness, its lack of agency, as with Derivative Trading Systems, Sub-Prime Mortage Processing Systems, and Sarah Palin rallies

And such sophisticated programs are often called "intentional". Intent is a word to designate such sophisticated programs that start out with a representation of a final goal

Genetic code does not have a 'goal', unless you wish to re-subscribe to teleology once again. That's a retrospective purposive illusion.

towards which a mechanism approximates in certain environments. And it's not just genes that do this. Autopilots are another example.

I'm happy for all our brave, swashbuckling auto-pilots, though lament all those little 'failed' robots that insist on crashing into the very same wall over and over again.

At its best evo psych is a research field that sees to investigate the ways and degrees in which human behaviour has genetic foundations.

What's it called 'evolutionary psychology' for, then, and not, say, evolutionary/genetic human biology (or biosocial engineering)? And aren't you depoliticizing here somewhat? ["No, it's not the debilitating social anxiety resulting from having lost his job, from having no say in his socio-economic environment, it's a chemical inbalance in his BRAIN and all we gotta do is find the rogue gene that's responsible, the little bugger, and that other one that's causing him to get strange ideas about his boss' offshore bank accounts, and yeah his sexual orientation too ..."]. BF Skinner is wetting himself.

Seems pretty legitimate to me. While it is true that some of its practicioneers, especially at the inception of the field, hold such positions, you'll find that many are of more nuanced opinions

That's very reassuring. We can all sleep soundly tonight.

Have you considered the possibility that it is the Nietzschean linear narrative from a past where human lives were organised nicely in reference to gods to the current chaos where this is no longer the case that is historically inaccurate?

I have, funnily enough. And, you know, sorry to have to break it to you like this, but it's complete nonsense. Have you ever heard of capitalism? And it's eagerness (oops, sorry, blind and alien artificial intelligence programming system) to obliterate or deterritorialize any social structure, existing tradition, practice, ritual, it happens to encounter on its path of Universal Exchange Value Equivalence and Commodification?

Oh yeah, I forgot, never in human history was life as bad as it is now, never did people live so short, never did so few have access to schooling, universal healthcare and pensions, never did the poor have so few TVs, cars and ...

We can all play around with the statistics [like, more children are currently starving and/or diseased than at any time in recorded history?] But I suppose we can follow all those currently popular adverts that play on inversion to engender feverish consumer anxiety (eg the "Turn off your mobile phone!" phone ad or the "Dirt is GOOD" washing powder ad or "the poor are sacred, don't touch them" etc. I mean, they must never have studied any psychology, these multi-billion multinational corporations!!) and conclude "Things Go Better With Global Economic Depression, With Unhinged Nuclear Powers, With Lovely Runaway Global Warming, With the Slashing of Poverty and Disease Prevention Programs and With more Coca Cola". But it's okay, not to worry, OUR GENES HAVE A PLAN!!!

 

[jambo]

Well if you're trying to gather facts about what the world is and how it works, and attempting to use those facts as pointers to hypotheses or theories of the laws of nature, I'd say it's pretty clear that the scientific framework is the best way to proceed

Those would be (currently implicit) scientific aims and approaches though, so it's still the same thing.

It's like saying if you are trying to produce a fruit flavoured frozen dairy desert then the strawberry ice-cream framework would be a good way to proceed.

Are these the only things that human beings are interested in or aiming for?

Does science as it is generally constituted always fulfil a role as the only and best approach in all things and to all ends?

 

[vimothy]

The Empire Never Ended

 

[jambo]

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.

Isn't this pretty much what most scientists find themselves doing when confronted with subjective human experience and consciousness and existence and all that awkward stuff?

I know it's a bit of a boring truism but the scientific approach, useful and effective as it is, has so far managed to do very little, if anything, to explain or account for much at all about those very fundamental things beyond a most superficial level, really.

As for religions these vary wildly of course so it's not much use to speak of a religious viewpoint as a whole, but some are quite upfront about not being able to explain everything, and others aim instead to provide workable contingencies. Some practitioners would claim these work very well. Do we need to argue with them? Perhaps we can learn something about that.

One thing that interests me along these lines is that if you consider the universe and the beings in it from a cybernetic perspective then you can see how the way experience is interpreted actually has a profound effect on the experience itself. And quality and type of experience is certainly important to most people, even scientists.

 

[jambo]

The Empire Never Ended

 

[Mr. Tea]

Those would be (currently implicit) scientific aims and approaches though, so it's still the same thing.

It's like saying if you are trying to produce a fruit flavoured frozen dairy desert then the strawberry ice-cream framework would be a good way to proceed.

Are these the only things that human beings are interested in or aiming for?

Does science as it is generally constituted always fulfil a role as the only and best approach in all things and to all ends?

Well, I guess I wouldn't try to apply a rigorous scientific method to the analysis of, say, poetry for example. But if I were a researcher trying to investigate the relationship between the emotions invoked by different kinds of poetry and the areas of the brain where activity occurs when those emotions are subjectively experienced, it would probably be quite a good idea.

Science - by which I mean natural science - isn't going to tell you how to solve an economic crisis or how to deal with 'rogue states' or what to do about violent crime, because that's not what it's for. But solely within the field of questions that science can attempt to answer, I think it's the best thing we have going. Better than blind faith, mysticism, astrology, homeopathy and so on, for sure.

 

[vimothy]

I haven't seen any on this board.

Here's one, BTW -- Brad DeLong, My Very, Very Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky: Khmer Rouge, Faurisson, Milosevic

 

[Mr. Tea]

Isn't this pretty much what most scientists find themselves doing when confronted with subjective human experience and consciousness and existence and all that awkward stuff?

Well I daresay a physicist, chemist or astronomer would consider consciousness to be rather outside their field of expertise, but to a neurologist, a cognitive psychologist or a theoretical computer scientist, it might be their main area of research. Likewise cosmologists, in as much as they're trying to understand where the universe came from and ultimately why it even exists at all, are studying nothing if not existence itself.

 

[droid]

Wow. The best you can do is a polemic which mainly concentrates on 30 year old misrepresentations. I suppose I should be grateful you didnt link to Ollie 'I love cluster bombs' Kamm and his devastating Amazon book reviews...

Heres a rejoinder to DeLongs diatribe:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10098

Hitchens' defense of Chomsky on Cambodia and Faurisson:

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm

BTW - I would suggest you start a Chomsky thread if you want to continue with this. Its well off topic here.

 

[jambo]

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.

Sure, not to get into needlessly quibbling over terms but that would of course be referred to by some as a pantheistic position, as you acknowledge. At any rate that's pretty much what I understand and meant when I used the term, specifically wrt what k-punk has written on the subject. I don't really think there necessarily has to be a difference between the idea that god is all and that of a radical immanence, unless we are just being snooty about terms and imagining that if a fellow doesn't immediately outline at exhaustive length every last nuance of a concept then he/she must of course be a barbarian crudely imagining the presence of a little man inside a rock or something. There isn't always time for that.

It is a really nice conception though, very elegant. My own feeling is that it's probably not the whole story. I'm not sure we're in a position to really get a handle on what that might be.