…and this is a 
Who's morally pernicious?
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 20, 2007 12:10 PM, by PZ Myers
I read this headline — "Mary Midgley argues that opponents of intelligent design are driving people to accept it" — and my first thought was that surely some editor had mangled the sense of an interview. No one could be that blatantly nonsensical. And then I read the first paragraph and discover that it was an understatement, and that Midgley is much more extreme.
People are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious. When people are asked why they are persuaded by intelligent design, they often say that it's the only alternative to scientific atheism and Darwinism which are pernicious moral doctrines; they see it as the only refuge from this anti-human bloody-mindedness. It's at the level of attitudes to life that these choices are made. And people will think scientists as a whole believe this. As Professor Winston has said, science becomes discredited by this kind of stuff.
Well, yes, I suppose that is true. The peasants are also not going to accept the presence of Jews if they think it is morally pernicious — what decent human being would want to live anywhere near people who drink the blood of Christian babies, after all? They are going to be persuaded to join in the pogroms because they are going to see it as a refuge from subhuman parasitism, and it's an entirely reasonable self-defense made on the level of moral choice. Need I point out that science then becomes discredited by the many Jews present in the field?
We have a couple of ways that we can respond to this kind of nonsense.
Some seem to favor the idea of waving around The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and, while deploring its content, suggesting that this a good reason to ask all Jews to lie low and avoid the spotlight for a while (i.e., permanently). We need to frame science as untainted by the Jews so we can get more people to accept it and to avoid other political obstacles. I have to agree: it certainly would make science more comfortable to anti-semites if we purged the Jews, and I suspect that scientific polling would back me up on that.
I wonder, though, if it might be better to oppose the false claims of the Protocols, rather than allowing the bigotry to limit what we're allowed to say. Maybe we shouldn't flatter the anti-semites by courting their approval. Maybe we should point out that the people who benefit from the pogroms seem to have a vested interest in portraying Jews as evil people, and that the swelling mobs of pitchfork-wielding people isn't a justifiable response. Maybe instead we should undercut those lies by allowing Jews to be more vocal, standing up and revealing that they are good people, that they are our neighbors, our friends, even our relatives, and that they aren't "morally pernicious" at all.
It's even more ridiculous when this reasoning is applied to atheists. We aren't facing death or dispossession for our ideas, but so far only a more subtle discrimination and attitudes like Midgley's. This is exactly the situation in which we should be coming out and demonstrating the falsity of Midgley's assumptions. It seems to me that if anyone is promoting enrollment in Intelligent Design creationism's smear campaign against the taint of atheism in science, it's the people who perpetuate the idea that atheism is morally suspect.
Accepting the critics' claim of the "morally pernicious" status of their target is basically surrendering to a lie. Why does Mary Midgley want to honor a lie?
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
It seems strange that a respected paper like the Independent should publish such cant. Does anyone know who this Mary Midgley is?
Posted by: Heleen | September 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 20, 2007 12:24 PM
PZ,
The "Coming out" link leads to a file not found page.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 20, 2007 12:24 PM
I have only one question: who is Mary Midgley smoking meth with while fucking strangers in airport toilets and evading taxes?
C'mon, you know it's going to come out that she's some sort of problem-gambling Oxy-addict who keeps shaved he-goats in the shed or something like that sooner or later.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 12:27 PM
She sounds as if she thinks it's like choosing candidates in an election. "Well, I quite like the Theory of Evolution and it's use of evidence, but Intelligent Design is taller and easier to understand, so I'll go with that one."
Posted by: Scrofulum | September 20, 2007 12:27 PM
Not too difficult to rip a stupid argument to shreds is it?
The ID defenders seem to have an infinite capacity for obtuseness. I suppose that's a good thing, in the sense that they should be pretty ineffective, as PZ's post demonstrates, but it is really just a symptom of their delusion. The bad news is that all the followers are similarly afflicted and thus see the argument as sensible. Oh, and they will start squealing about Godwin.
Posted by: afterthought | September 20, 2007 12:30 PM
I don't quite get how they can claim that atheism is pernicious. I hear that fairly regularly, that atheists have no more code, no regard for life, etc. But quite the contrary seems to be the logical state for me. A religious person, who believes that there is paradise awaiting for good people who die, should be more likely to kill than an atheist who believes nothing but death, and a cold grave, await you. Even an agnostic, who hasn't enough evidence to decide, strikes me as someone who values life more than a Christian (or other denomination). Horrible things have been done in the name of religion, honestly the same can't be said for atheist or agnosticism. The perpetrators of these acts may have been atheists, or agnostics, but they didn't commit them in the name of either. The same can't be said of Christian Crusaders, or islamic Jihadists, etc.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 20, 2007 12:31 PM
For many people, these are not simply ideas - they are badges of group membership. Clinging to a mantra re an article of faith serves not as a concept for the religious, so much as shibboleth to distinguish in-group from out-group. Primate politics is wired into our thinking, which is why critical thinking is so important (and so uncommon).
Posted by: carey | September 20, 2007 12:32 PM
Silly PZ -- how are we to make common cause with the anti-Semites if the "New Pro-Jewish Noise Machine" argues for a place for Judaism in science? There are a lot of social problems that anti-Semites can help us solve if we just join with them and keep quiet about the Jews in science. Don't you know anything about framing? If not, I can refer you to an expert...
Posted by: Tulse | September 20, 2007 12:35 PM
For many people, these are not simply ideas - they are badges of group membership. Clinging to a mantra re an article of faith serves not as a concept for the religious, so much as shibboleth to distinguish in-group from out-group. Primate politics is wired into our thinking, which is why critical thinking is so important (and so uncommon).
Posted by: carey | September 20, 2007 12:37 PM
These are the kind of tardfaces that think a blank page promotes atheism.
Posted by: Rasputin | September 20, 2007 12:39 PM
This crazy broad bashed Dawkins "Selfish Gene" over thirty years ago and obviously hasn't learned anything since. They are having a good laugh over at richarddawkins.com about this as well.
Posted by: Steve P | September 20, 2007 12:46 PM
I don't quite understand how scientific facts can be morally pernicious, anyway. How does a system in the universe or on the planet functioning in a natural manner affect anyone's morality at all?
Posted by: jenni | September 20, 2007 12:52 PM
I have this radical idea that one way to stop this is to point out that scientific atheism isn't the only alternative. Indeed, I have an even more radical thesis that most of the people who think in the way Midgley describes have a strong commitment to Christianity. I would even go as far as apostasy in suggesting that if one wants to defend science, then it might be easier to show that it doesn't have to conflict with Christianity.
If you do it nicely, you might help break the atheism=evil myth as well.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 20, 2007 12:54 PM
Posted by: Stanton | September 20, 2007 12:56 PM
Okay, let's correct some major confusions on this thread: (1) Mary Midgley is not a creationist, not even of the ID subspecies. (2) She is not some out-of-left-field nobody, but is a widely read and respected philosopher. (3) She is not herself a religious believer, although she does have an unfortunate tendency to embrace ideas and emotions that seem "deep and mysterious" that all-too-frequently infects professional philosophers, which I see as nothing more than rank mysticism. (4) She has in the past said some very sensible, interesting, and worthwhile things - even about science.
That said, the excerpt from her new screed quoted by The Independent is COMPLETE DRIVEL. I'd say it contains the worst arguments I'd ever seen - if it actually contained any arguments. Instead, as far as I can see it contains all and only cheap rhetoric rather than any actual rigorous reasoning and evidence. What a load of bollocks!
I will admit that there's something to her position that Dawkins' hyper-competitive panadaptationist perspective on evolution has a certain political subtext, its success or failure to explain natural phenomena is the only criterion by which it can be judged good or bad science, not its political implications or its rhetorical content! My judgment is that the "selfish gene" approach to understanding natural selection is bad science because it does fail to explain many important phemonena - although of course there are also lots of phenomena it does account for quite well. But that judgment MUST BE separate from the potential political and rhetorical uses to which the theory can be (and sometimes has been) put. Moreover, Dawkins himself has explicitly and repeatedly rejected those political and rhetorical appeals as the rank nonsense they are, and is quicker than anyone else to point out the naturalistic fallacy inherent in taking the brutal necessities of natural selection as any kind of moral compass.
Posted by: G Felis | September 20, 2007 12:57 PM
The article at RichardDawkins.net:
Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer
Posted by: MH | September 20, 2007 1:03 PM
If you do it nicely, you might help break the atheism=evil myth as well.
No, Bob, you misunderstand. Atheism=evil by definition for these folks. You're talking as though the evidence that this is not the case will somehow persuade the religious from their preconceived notions. We have ample evidence that no amount of evidence will do this on any front, why should we assume it will work in this case?
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Wise up, chumps. Natural selection means using something that others are not.
You have been schooled.
Posted by: Comstock | September 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Midgley is a philosophy professor, I think. Writes a lot on animals and ethics. Haven't read much of it, but she seems sane and the work has a good reputation, I think. Let me offer a bit of a defense here, at least on some points. (Know that hte defense is half-hearted, in this sense--it is meant to stimulate my own thought, and maybe yours, and is not something I would defend to the hilt.)
She's right that in the public's mind (or a big part of that 'mind'), evolution and Darwin have always meant immorality. The Scopes Trial illustrates a lot of that, and I only undersood it after I realized that WJ Bryan was making a moral point--albeit a mistaken one--and not a scientific one. I had always encountered this politician, WJ Bryan, in history, and I LIKED him. As a similar godless liberal, you too I htink would have voted for him over the Republican competition. Then I knew of this 'other' guy, WJ Bryan, who was the dolt in the Scopes Trial. I'm not sure I even knew they were the same guy for some time. But they are, and Bryan was truly afraid of the Social Darwinists, as I would have been, too. They WERE scary.
The point that might have been made then (and probably was) was that scientists then didn't do enough to clarify that good ol' Darwinism (and evolution) did NOT imply it's extension to the moral realm. And that point would have, I think, been well-taken.
I think the situation is similar now--replace Social Darwinism with evolutionary psychology, and, in hte public's mind, or in Sam Brownback's mind, the situation is still really scary. Now, I know, I REALLY know, that SD'ism and EP are not equivalent, but it IS a tough point to see sometimes.
So if Midgley's point is just, "Be really careful, and very specific here, and try to clarify these issues," ok, point well-taken.
WJ Bryan wasn't stupid, he wasn't the buffoon portrayed in Inherit the Wind. Some of these people aren't stupid, either. He was confused about an issue, and it is US who have to clarify things for his modern counterparts.
Brad
Posted by: Brad | September 20, 2007 1:12 PM
By means of reality's well-known liberal ( = morally pernicious) bias?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 20, 2007 1:13 PM
Midgley is a philosophy professor, I think. Writes a lot on animals and ethics. Haven't read much of it, but she seems sane and the work has a good reputation, I think. Let me offer a bit of a defense here, at least on some points. (Know that hte defense is half-hearted, in this sense--it is meant to stimulate my own thought, and maybe yours, and is not something I would defend to the hilt.)
She's right that in the public's mind (or a big part of that 'mind'), evolution and Darwin have always meant immorality. The Scopes Trial illustrates a lot of that, and I only undersood it after I realized that WJ Bryan was making a moral point--albeit a mistaken one--and not a scientific one. I had always encountered this politician, WJ Bryan, in history, and I LIKED him. As a similar godless liberal, you too I htink would have voted for him over the Republican competition. Then I knew of this 'other' guy, WJ Bryan, who was the dolt in the Scopes Trial. I'm not sure I even knew they were the same guy for some time. But they are, and Bryan was truly afraid of the Social Darwinists, as I would have been, too. They WERE scary.
The point that might have been made then (and probably was) was that scientists then didn't do enough to clarify that good ol' Darwinism (and evolution) did NOT imply it's extension to the moral realm. And that point would have, I think, been well-taken.
I think the situation is similar now--replace Social Darwinism with evolutionary psychology, and, in hte public's mind, or in Sam Brownback's mind, the situation is still really scary. Now, I know, I REALLY know, that SD'ism and EP are not equivalent, but it IS a tough point to see sometimes.
So if Midgley's point is just, "Be really careful, and very specific here, and try to clarify these issues," ok, point well-taken.
WJ Bryan wasn't stupid, he wasn't the buffoon portrayed in Inherit the Wind. Some of these people aren't stupid, either. He was confused about an issue, and it is US who have to clarify things for his modern counterparts.
Brad
Posted by: Brad | September 20, 2007 1:14 PM
I hope you're happy... you've ruined the Comic Sans MS font for me PZ. =p
Posted by: mike | September 20, 2007 1:15 PM
By means of reality's well-known liberal ( = morally pernicious) bias?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 20, 2007 1:16 PM
I guess what I don't understand is why it is "evolutionists'" fault. Who say that if you aren't a creationist, you must be an immoral atheist? Oh, wait. Creationists say that.
Posted by: Courtney | September 20, 2007 1:17 PM
I had a sinking feeling when I read the title of the article, and it was sadly proved to be correct. Really, every time anyone goes down the tired old "atheists cannot be moral" road - especially as the entire reason for moving away from the 'new atheist' strategy - it invalidates basically everything they have to say.
I mean, really - we're going to make headway with the people who think that atheism=evil by shutting up? We're what's driving them toward ID? Really? Seems to me that if they think that being secular is equivalent to being evil, they're pretty much all primed for ID's bullshit anyway, and it's the 'atheism=evil' crap that we need to challenge, not sit back and let them wallow in their own ignorance.
Posted by: Micah | September 20, 2007 1:20 PM
After The God Delusion came out she published a review in New Scientist which would have shamed a first year philosophy student with its blatant use of strawman arguments against it.
It would seem from that alone that she has little regard for the hoi polloi and their reasoning skills, also no sense of professional shame. I think she is one of those who deplore the whole impoltieness of breaking the taboo over criticising religion and thinks that such discussions should be left to professionals like her whilst sitting secure in ivory tower studies.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | September 20, 2007 1:23 PM
"I hope you're happy... you've ruined the Comic Sans MS font for me PZ."
Someone had to. Think of it as tough love.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 20, 2007 1:29 PM
Nope, it means that the others have inherited a trait that prevents them from having as many surviving fertile offspring as you in the current environment.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 20, 2007 1:30 PM
AlanWCan -
Actually, I'm not. Read the rest of my argument is the important bit - we can argue for science more effectively by side-stepping the atheism=evil problem.
But being nice whilst we're making our arguments won't harm.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 20, 2007 1:35 PM
Good God, even if what Mary says in the first paragraph is true, why does she blame Dawkins instead of the ranting liars at the DI? It's certainly not Dawkins who says that Darwin is responsible for Hitler.
Here's some more egregious swill, interspersed with comments:
Yeah yeah, of course Dawkins doesn't say that, but then we don't agree with Darwin that acquired traits are inherited either (except epigenetically). She seems to agree with IDists that ours is the church of Darwinism, and if Dawkins deviates from whatever Darwin wrote, then he is wrong.
You haven't even read anything by Dawkins, have you Midgely? You're coming awfully close to IDism when you just make things up like that.
Why are you reducing "the debate" to that level? BTW, there's no debate, not with non-ignorant and non-stupid people. And the only reason Dawkins speaks of the competition in evolution is because that's the way it works, including where co-operation also operates. One of Dawkins's points is that co-operation can come out of competition.
Besides, it's absurd for her to be claiming that Dawkins is pushing economics into science, when at least in America that ought to be a selling point. The creo churches are pushing red-in-tooth-and-claw economics, not Dawkins.
Why yes, it was wrong for our founding fathers to set up a secular gov't to keep the perfidy of religion at bay. There was no Inquisition, Old Testament genocides, or Salem witch hunts.
Where'd this woman ever get a degree?
So, is Marxism causing many problems today? Focus, Mary, focus. Of course ideologies are used for ill much like religions, but the staying power of religion manages to influence the development of ideology. Hegel's quasi-religious claptrap had a lot to do with the magical belief in dialectical materialism getting a foothold.
Let's see, you were going to explain why ID arose, since it doesn't compete with science, weren't you? What happened, did you nod off into your little dream world again?
Um, sources? You know, I'd have thought you understood the need for evidence, but so far I have seen exactly none.
Where's the evidence that they can't be settled in the lab?
More importantly, so what if they can't be answered at the present time? "Belief" without sufficient evidence is fine if people just want to hang their hat onto a belief without evidence. But don't confuse the importance of how real answers are found with the fact that many people want fake answers, whether or not real answers have been found.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 20, 2007 1:35 PM
Yes, how dare we subtly and insidiously try to sneak some of our decent moral standards onto these immoral and amoral theists. :-D
Posted by: SEF | September 20, 2007 1:37 PM
Actually, Inherit the Wind was far kinder to William Jennings Bryan (fictionalized as "Matthew Harrison Brady") than was, say, H. L. Mencken at the time of the Scopes Trial. It portrays him as a populist hero whose greatest sin is the dogmatism which grew in his old age. He and the Clarence Darrow character ("Henry Drummond") were close friends and allies, and can still enjoy a civil chat on a summer's evening, although their differing notions of progress divided their ideas. Drummond criticizes Brady for incuriosity, but after his death, delivers a quiet eulogy: "A giant once lived in that body. . . but Matt Brady got lost, because he looked for God too high up, and too far away."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 20, 2007 1:42 PM
IIRC, she's pushing 90. Really not the mental image I needed.
Posted by: MartinM | September 20, 2007 1:42 PM
don't feel bad, it was bound to happen sooner or later. in fact, you might well consider it a favor.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | September 20, 2007 1:43 PM
For a philopsher Mary Midgley's thinking is as wooly as sheep's fleece.
Scientific fact cannot be morally pernicious, fact is fact (reality) and morally neutral. The morality part is where people decide to do go with it.
"As Professor Winston has said, science becomes discredited by this kind of stuff"
Give me a break - the point at which scientists stop evaluating evidence and coming up with suitable conclusions, they will stop being scientists.
People are very clever at dealing with contradiction. They will accept science (or at least its benefits in terms of technology) and continue to believe in myths and fairy tales, even when these are contradicted by science. However, if their life dpends on it (do you want this modern medicine based on evolution) they will go for the medicine and still believe in creationsim.
We do need to realize that science is morality-free. Science has no values and passes no value judgements. It takes being a human being to do that.
Posted by: sailor | September 20, 2007 1:43 PM
opponents of intelligent design are driving people to accept it.
Yes, shutting up about it has been so successful. Welcome to the party Mary, you're only twenty years late.
Posted by: Bob L | September 20, 2007 1:48 PM
Like Halloween. Pernicious n' shit.
Posted by: John Danley | September 20, 2007 1:48 PM
I guess I haven't figured out how ID is the only alternative to moral decline - there are are lots of alternative beliefs in religion (and within Christianity, for that matter), and otherwise which do not require opposition to evolution. (I would think that the presence of civil societies in places untouched by ID might be a clue that ID is not required to inhibit moral decline.) The basis for ID seems to be a bad interpretation of the Bible driven by people hoping that their dishonesty and persistence in such will give them the right to control the followers of the religion they claim to share - it would seem that support of ID rather than opposition to it would be the "moral decline" position. If that were not enough, the behavior of US leaders who claim to be guided by the same morals that undergird ID might be a clue that that perhaps the dichotomy expressed by Ms. Midgley is a false one.
Posted by: Hap | September 20, 2007 1:51 PM
I think it needs to be pointed out that "Because My Invisible Sky Friend Said So" (BMISFSS) is not a safe foundation for a moral code. BMISFSS can be used to defend moral behavior, sure. But it is easily and often adapted to defend morally bankrupt behavior. BMISFSS is simple servitude, and assumes that one's commanding officer will take responsibility for the moral consequences of actions.
We've decided that "because my commanding officer said so" is not sufficient to excuse culpability in the event of a war crime. We should push this same rationale into the realm of morality. It's NOT acceptable to act immorally and use the BMISFSS defense.
Atheism, or at least the decoupling of metaphysics and ethics, is the only moral approach to the ethical question because it actually allows assessment of morality according to an objective criterion rather than argument from authority.
Posted by: JDP | September 20, 2007 1:55 PM
"2) She is not some out-of-left-field nobody, but is a widely read and respected philosopher."
I am not aware of many who respect her very poor understanding of what evolution is. She certainly has not understood Dawkins' message in "The Selfish Gene" which may explain why her criticisms of it are so silly.
If other philosophers consider Midgeley to be a leading light in their field then philosophy has a real problem.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 20, 2007 2:00 PM
At least homos can't marry.
Posted by: Caucasian Jesus | September 20, 2007 2:01 PM
It's all a typo; she meant to say "vermicious," not "pernicious."
Posted by: Adam Lipkin | September 20, 2007 2:01 PM
We aren't facing death or dispossession for our ideas,
not correct.
don't forget the story about the woman and her family that were forced to move from their neighborhood because of discrimination against atheists.
wasn't that the documented incident that started that ridiculous panel of religiosos talking about how that family "deserved it because they should have laid low". didn't you, PZ, even have a thread on that very thing a few months back?
we don't want to think it has gone that far, but really, it's been that way for quite some time.
atheists ARE being dispossessed, and have been for some time.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 20, 2007 2:02 PM
It's all a typo; she meant to say "vermicious," not "pernicious."
Not delicious?
Mmmmmmm. Atheism.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 20, 2007 2:07 PM
I must confess I am confused by your position. In the past, I got the impression that you felt that your self-declared status as 'godless liberal' arose naturally from your work as a scientist, and attempts to show that science and religious beliefs can co-exist are at best fundamentally misguided.
This, I suspect, is what Midgley was referring to. If one feels one has only two options - godless liberal scientist or meaningful fundamentalist - then those who find the former option unattractive will indeed feel driven to the latter. This is why some of us are so passionate about emphasizing that science requires methodological naturalism but not metaphysical naturalism. For instance, I absolutely accept that a physical analysis of Atterberg's Symphony No.2 in terms of vibrations and frequencies could be wholly accurate and complete in terms of physics. But I do not feel this requires me to deny that the Symphony in question can be viewed from another legitimate perspective and considered beautiful.
Either science implies atheism, as you seem to claim, in which case Midgley is right that your arguments drive people to the opposite extreme; or there is a genuine middle ground, in which case I would suggest that your opposition to those who seek to stake out such middle ground (such as the clergy letter project) is misguided.
Posted by: James McGrath | September 20, 2007 2:07 PM
FYI
The Guardian Profile
Saturday January 13, 2001
-----------------------------------
Mary [Midgley], Mary, quite contrary
A fiercely combative philosopher, she wrote her first book in her 50s after she raised her family. Now 81, she is our foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension' and a staunch defender of religion - although she doesn't believe in God
Mary Midgley, aged 81, may be the most frightening philosopher in the country: the one before whom it is least pleasant to appear a fool. One moment she sits by her fire in Newcastle like a round-cheeked tabby cat; the next she is deploying a savage Oxonian precision of language to dissect some error as a cat dissects a living mouse.
________________
Since this was written in 2001, she'd now be 87.
Posted by: DrA | September 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Since the number 6 has some woo attached to it in christian mythology, I think the christians should have their own morally upright math. In other words, since 6 is morally pernicious, then clearly 3+3=7 for christians.
Posted by: Boosterz | September 20, 2007 2:15 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 20, 2007 2:19 PM
With friends like Midgely, who needs enemies?
Meanwhile, things are heating up here in Texas. The Texas SBOE has spent the last two weeks figuring out how to skew the science standards process so they can dumb them down. They seem to reason, if every student is made stupid, no child is left behind, right?
There are questions science cannot, yet, answer. That's a urine-poor excuse to fail to ask the questions and seek answers, though. Midgely's view is driving people to insane asylums and early graves. Given the alternative, evolution science is the rational choice.
Of course, she's not much on being rational, it appears.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | September 20, 2007 2:23 PM
What makes it a different perspective? Whatever it is you perceive to be beautiful in those vibrations cannot be decoupled from them. One can't reproduce the vibrations without the beauty. The latter is dependent upon the former.
That different people have different notions of beauty doesn't change that, of course.
Posted by: MartinM | September 20, 2007 2:25 PM
For those interested, here is one of Midgley's articles from RIP (Royal Instit. of Phil.) that "rips" Dawkins:
Gene-juggling by Mary Midgley
and of course, Dr. D's response:
In Defence of Selfish Genes by R. Dawkins
Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 2:28 PM
If the facts are shown to be hostile to our society's moral code, then we need to get ourselves a new moral code.
Unfortunately, people who think that things like 'ethics' are devoid of objective meaning don't care about the facts, they care about what people say - and if the facts interfere with people repeating the arbitrary dogmas the critics want them to say, well then - abolish the facts!
Posted by: Caledonian | September 20, 2007 2:34 PM
Mary Midgley is pretty fully described here. The excerpt which I recall from way back (and which hasn't been retracted to date):
Posted by: thwaite | September 20, 2007 2:40 PM
MartinM @#34:
For some reason, I assumed she was a member of the moral majority (à la Haggard, Craig et al.) rather than an elderly philosopher.
I know, I know, most of you can't believe that I can jump to conclusions and run off at the mouth, but it can happen. And you were here to witness it.
I case you read this, sorry Mary.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 2:41 PM
(Hmm, have another go at the link: Mary Midgley )
Posted by: thwaite | September 20, 2007 2:44 PM
Quoting Caledonian:
Except that divine command ("Because My Invisible Sky Friend Says So") morality is [i]not[/i] a moral code. BMISFSS does not state anything about the morality of an action, and most people who invoke BMISFSS are not concerned with the actual morality of their actions, but rather whether or not their actions will get them, personally, into Heaven.
If any "morality" is based on utter selfishness without concern for the ethical status of an action, it's Christian BMISFSS "morality." It's about time that someone said so.
Posted by: JDP | September 20, 2007 2:45 PM
Richard Dawkins posted today that Midgley has admitted she didn't even read his book, "The Selfish Gene" when she wrote that blistering article (see my previous post) attacking it. So much for her honesty. Grim...sad...pathetic.
Source: Dawkins' post at www.richarddawkins.net (click)
Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 2:46 PM
Music is supernatural? Wow, I didn't know that.
Posted by: windy | September 20, 2007 2:47 PM
Oh man, my HTML skills are failing. I totally put that italics in bulletin board tags. Clearly my atheistic bias is preventing my from seeing the truth, which is obviously that God designed the universe with hypertext markup language protocols.
Posted by: JDP | September 20, 2007 2:49 PM
If you need a God in order to understand that harming deliberately and gratuitously other people is Bad, then you have a very serious problem. Nay, we all have a very serious problem.
Posted by: Dídac | September 20, 2007 2:54 PM
Richard Dawkins posted today that Midgley has admitted she didn't even read his book, "The Selfish Gene" when she wrote that blistering article (see my previous post) attacking it. So much for her honesty. Grim...sad...pathetic.
Source: Dawkins' post at www.richarddawkins.net (click)
Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 2:56 PM
Wow, it's sort of sad the way she misunderstood The Selfish Gene. I would think she'd learn from that blunder that she wasn't quite fit for a public platform discussing biology, and that it's probably a good idea to read Dawkins' works before sticking her foot in her mouth in attempted critique.
In this new article, she's again displaying her naive view of evolution and of contemporary theories of evolution (including Dawkins' own position). However, to her defense, she does not at all support attitudes like "scientific atheism"="morally pernicious." She merely discusses the challenge that such an attitude poses to the public perception of science and reality. And she's right about that, even if she directs the blame in what's mostly the wrong direction.
Regarding biology, you really need to stop, Midgley. It's pretty embarassing when philosophers and critical theorists talk over their own heads about things they don't understand (see also Searle, for example). It makes one think less of philosophers in general.
A couple of posts have mentioned that this lady has done some good writing at some point. Would anyone more familiar than I with her work care to defend her? As far as I can tell, she's an example of someone unwilling to correct her own scientific ignorance, yet has made a career out of writing about science.
Posted by: Spaulding | September 20, 2007 3:47 PM
Quick! Name a genocide committed in the name of monetarist ideology!
The Neo-Keynesian Massacre?
The Great Money Supply Famine?
The War to Reinstate the Gold Standard?
None of these ring a bell?
Posted by: inkadu | September 20, 2007 3:55 PM
Also, black women need to stop having babies. It reinforces the stereotype.
PZ -- I want you to fertilize my eggs.
Posted by: inkadu | September 20, 2007 3:58 PM
Inkadu:
How about the "Second Iraq War?" Most (all?) of the colonial wars of the 19th century?
Marxists will be happy to argue, rather persuasively, that many military conflicts have capitalist economic roots.
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | September 20, 2007 3:59 PM
Inkadu you have it absolutely right. Just look up the history of the British East India Company for a very good example. Or the behaviour of the railway companies as they drove the metal roads across the continental US.
The British navy drove their captains in the 18th and 19th centuries by allowing them to sell and keep most of the profits from captured enemy vessels. If that is not capitalism driving warfare I don't know what is.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | September 20, 2007 4:12 PM
That Independent piece read like someone had whimsically glued a load of sentences together. It has a very low circulation, it's terribly underfunded (although it has some gems like Robert Fisk) and is pretty crap, even by the UK's low journalistic standards.
Posted by: lunartalks | September 20, 2007 4:19 PM
It was bad enough for her to write a review of The Selfish Gene without having actually read it--and it was worse still for her to get it so very, very wrong.
But it's now twenty-eight years later and she apparently still hasn't read the book--or even the Wikipedia article on it, for that matter. Can we take up a collection to mail her one? Please? Or maybe just a postcard reading "it's the selfish gene, not the selfish individual"?
Nearly three decades of procrastination! I'm astonished that she has the chutzpah to peddle the same lies (at this point, they're no longer mistakes) she did over a quarter-century ago, and I'm very, very disappointed that anyone could be foolish enough to publish her screed.
Posted by: grendelkhan | September 20, 2007 4:32 PM
"For instance, I absolutely accept that a physical analysis of Atterberg's Symphony No.2 in terms of vibrations and frequencies could be wholly accurate and complete in terms of physics. But I do not feel this requires me to deny that the Symphony in question can be viewed from another legitimate perspective and considered beautiful."
Sorry, but there is no reason to believe that your other "legitimate perspective" and your sense of aesthetic and what you find beautiful is somehow detached from methodological naturalism and science. It is perfectly legitimate for fields of science such as psychology and neuroscience to ask why a human being feels a particular way. This is precisely why many of us reject NOMA and the idea that somehow science and religion occupy different spheres of knowledge that don't interact -- religionists make claims that clearly have empirical consequences all the time, so it cannot be said science has no say (e.g. prayer works, zygotes have souls and souls are the source of our consciousness despite the fact zygotes have no consciousness, etc.).
Posted by: AL | September 20, 2007 4:39 PM
Wait. Anti-human? How is it possible for secular humanists to be anti-human at the same time?
Posted by: Warren | September 20, 2007 4:42 PM
I should point out that these people weren't actually employed by the British; they were more like independent contractors. Like independent contractors do, they eventually slipped their bonds and began attacking any ships in sight, their proud traditions falling to pieces in the more well-known years of out-and-out piracy.
Posted by: grendelkhan | September 20, 2007 4:42 PM
James McGrath wrote
The "middle ground" is compartmentalization. Can you believe in both God and evolution? Yes. The two can be reconciled. As Michael Shermer put it, "You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate, logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence."
But is evolution indicative of a disembodied Intelligence called God? No. If you follow evolution to its natural conclusion, no God. Just as when you follow chemistry to its natural conclusion, no Life Force.
So science implies atheism to those who take God as a hypothesis about reality. It does not imply atheism to those who see the question of whether God exists or not as a moral issue, instead of a factual one. Morals based on what, though? On facts. Otherwise, theism is nothing more than humanism imbued with poetry and metaphor.
So we atheists are supposed to push the idea that it's a good thing to compartmentalize God into "a matter of faith?" A moral issue? When "having faith in God" means being open, loving, sensitive, and caring about others? And then they notice we have no faith in God? Cut our own throats, why don't we?
That "middle ground" isn't going to work for us. That's the area where people insist that believing in God isn't like believing in a science theory, it's like believing in beauty, love, and the value of kindness. It's about being open to wonder and possibility. Right. So much for respecting the position of atheism, then.
Posted by: Sastra | September 20, 2007 4:55 PM