…and this is a 
We have made Michael Ruse very sad and very angry. He has an essay up called Why I Think the New Atheists are a [Bloody] Disaster, in which he bemoans the way he has been abused by these brutal atheists, and explains how he thinks these godless scientists are damaging the cause of science and science education. Here's the heart of his pitiful complaint.
Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, likens me to Neville Chamberlain, the pusillanimous appeaser of Hitler at Munich. Jerry Coyne reviewed one of my books (Can a Darwinian be a Christian?) using the Orwellian quote that only an intellectual could believe the nonsense I believe in. And non-stop blogger P. Z. Myers has referred to be as a "clueless gobshite." This invective is all because, although I am not a believer, I do not think that all believers are evil or stupid, and because I do not think that science and religion have to clash. (Of course some science and religion clashes. That is the whole point of the Darwinism-Creationism debate. The matter is whether all science and religion clash, something I deny strongly.)
It's true — I did call him a clueless gobshite. However, the reason is most definitely not what I have highlighted in his comment above, and apparently he was not able to read what I wrote for comprehension — perhaps he was stunned by my invective, and went temporarily blind when he looked at the page, seeing nothing but "clueless gobshite" in 72 point bold blinking text.
No, what has earned him our ire is his weirdly selective criticisms — the way he consistently leans favorably towards creationism, giving the most charitable interpretations of their motives while gently chiding them for their beliefs, and conversely, trying to turn on flamethrower rhetoric at the atheists ('trying', I say, because all he can generate anymore is a confused and intermittent sputter), damning them for their bad philosophy and accusing them of being out to demolish science.
This latest essay is a perfect example. Look at what he does here:
But I think first that these people do a disservice to scholarship. Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.
I don't think there can be any doubt that he has nothing but contempt for the arguments of the "New Atheists", and he is not at all hesitant to say so. They have not met his standards of philosophical scholarship, and it rouses him to the full fury of an offended academic, one who must put these scoundrels in their place. Bad philosophy is a cardinal sin to Michael Ruse, that is the honest and objective basis for his complaints — it couldn't possibly be a lingering belief in belief, or perhaps even some professional jealousy, or that for many years he has been in a comfortable back-patting relationship with the creationists in which he politely disputes their claims, after which Ruse and the creationists mutually congratulate each other on their civility and open-mindedness, and he receives his honoraria.
No, it must be our poor reasoning and slovenly philosophy. But then, how do we explain this?
In the past few years, we have seen the rise and growth of a group that the public sphere has labeled the "new atheists" - people who are aggressively pro-science, especially pro-Darwinism, and violently anti-religion of all kinds, especially Christianity but happy to include Islam and the rest. Actually the arguments are not that "new," but no matter - the publicity has been huge. Distinctive of this group, although well known to anyone who studies religion and the way in which sects divide and proliferate, is the fact that (with the possible exception of the Catholic Church) nothing incurs their wrath than those who are pro-science but who refuse to agree that all and every kind of religious belief is wrong, pernicious, and socially and personally dangerous. Recently, it has been the newly appointed director of the NIH, Francis Collins, who has been incurring their hatred. Given the man's scientific and managerial credentials - completing the HGP under budget and under time for a start - this is deplorable, if understandable since Collins is a devout Christian.
Wait…this makes no sense. He says, "The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist" — has he read The Language of God? Has he even tried to wade into the embarrassingly inane philosophy of Collins' BioLogos website? I mean, seriously, if he is such a paragon of intellectual purity that he is furiously offended at Dawkins' work, why is he not also protesting the grade-school foolishness of Collins' arguments? Why, in all these sniping public essays he's been writing these past few years, does he always find excuses to blister the atheists' hides, while making kindly apologies for or ignoring the greater failings of his creationist and religious friends?
Furthermore, he consistently predicts woe and doom and disaster because those darned atheists are so wrong and stupid and annoying, while never making the same extravagant lamentations about the effects of institutionalized creationism and religion, which has far more public power and influence. Always, the blame falls on those who challenge most strongly the pernicious effects of faiths that defy reason and science.
That's why he gets called a clueless gobshite and a pusillanimous appeaser and a pusher of nonsense. It has nothing to do with not thinking "that all believers are evil or stupid", because I don't think that, and neither do any of these "New Atheists" that I know. In that essay which gave him conniptions, I plainly spelled that out, repeatedly and strongly saying that I think most creationists are victims of a con game, and are neither evil nor stupid. I don't know how he could now quote two words of mine from that post without noting that all the rest of it contradicts his claims about us…except, perhaps, that strange temporary blindness syndrome that fries his occipital lobe at the sight of "clueless gobshite".
We've also repeatedly pointed out that our opposition to Collins is definitely not because he is a Christian, but it seems to be futile to mention that to these apologists. I guess in a world where Catholic priests can be excused for raping children because they are Christians, it's hopeless to expect that the slighter offense of being an irrational proselytizer with a poor understanding of evolution won't be excused for the same reason, that the poor fool is a Christian. It's an interesting defense; apparently no one will ever be able to criticize a Christian nominee for high office ever again, and the safest strategy for those on that kind of career track is to be the wackiest possible Christian you can be.
But otherwise, just look at the rhetoric in his essay: at every opportunity, he uses positive language and generous words for his friends the creationists, and the strongest condemnations for prominent atheists; there is absolutely no question where his loyalties lie. At the same time, he levies no blame and holds to no fault the organized liars for Jesus who promote Intelligent Design creationism…while the atheists are taking the country down the road to disaster, disaster, disaster. Could he possibly, at some point in his fading career and diminishing credibility, take a deep, deep breath and notice who is snuggling up to lawmakers and sneaking creationism into our school boards, who is propagandizing creationism to our teachers, who is throwing buckets of money into press releases and ideological conferences (in which Michael Ruse cheerfully participates) that deny science and promote anti-science?
Ah, probably not. He knows he would have no future in a secular world, and his fortunes right now are too strongly tied to his blithe role as the ever-helpful intermediary to the creationists.
There's more that could be deconstructed in his pathetic whine — Jerry Coyne rips into his claim that atheism damages education. I'm not going to accuse Ruse of being a bloody disaster to progress, though, since he has become a trivial irrelevancy and a rather silly figure who takes pride in standing on a bridge between good science and people who believe Jesus created the dinosaurs, reassuring everyone on the crazy side that it's OK to cuddle up to ignorance.
I guess I have become so accustomed to the anti-atheist hyperbole that I hadn't even noticed something several commenters have pointed out: Ruse calls the "New Atheists" "violently anti-religion". Violently? Really?
Here's all I can say about that.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Jake Barnes | August 15, 2009 12:08 AM
Ah, I love the smell of atheists bashing each other in the morning.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 15, 2009 12:15 AM
Indeed. It clears the air, for at least a moment, of the stench left by Christians burning each other alive for nigh on two thousand years. Rather seeps into the upholstery, that does.
Posted by: Alan Bombria | August 15, 2009 12:15 AM
What is it the kiddies say these days? tl;dr? PZ! This topic was not worth that many words.
Posted by: Diego | August 15, 2009 12:16 AM
I ran into some difficulty earlier this evening when I read about Ruse's article on Coyne's blog. I told my girlfriend about it and she got a flea in her ear over it because she agreed with Ruse. So I got lectured on how I am too condescending and disrespectful towards the religious. Oh well. I still think Ruse can be an arrogant blowhard.
Posted by: Def-Star
|
August 15, 2009 12:19 AM
I especially love how he describes the "New Atheist" as "violently" anti-religious while being "aggressively" pro-science. What an ass.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 15, 2009 12:20 AM
Oh dear, methinks the poor tender soul will not recover from being called a pusillanimous appeaser, gobshite having given him the vapors.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 15, 2009 12:25 AM
Has Ruse ever actually seen what gets written in introductory philosophy courses? I mean, Jesus fuck. Student essays in anything 101 are enough to drive a TA to drink, and the professor to the edible panties, firearms and blow.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 12:25 AM
I always have to laugh when the namees repeat and protest these characterizations, which invariably seem so...apt.
***
OT, but here's another page in need of declericalization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism
Posted by: Dan W | August 15, 2009 12:27 AM
Ah, another accomodationist who thinks all us atheists should be respectful of the ridiculous beliefs of religious people, and that we shouldn't stand up for and take action for things that help atheists. Michael Ruse shows he clearly IS a clueless gobshite.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 15, 2009 12:27 AM
Remember Flo Kennedy's use of the phrase "horizontal hostility"? Also, I'm reminded of that old saw about the Left's circular firing squads. (Which is only half the story. The Right has those too; the only difference is whether they face inward or outward.)
See also: Betty Friedan and the Lavender Menace, Hubert Humphrey in Chicago, etc. SOS. Nasty, though. I'm not sure we ever get used to it.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 15, 2009 12:27 AM
Of course Atheist would be defensive against the religious. It is they who constantly assault. Just look at what's in the books stores these: Religious conservatives accusing liberals and non-believers for degrading the U.S. When in fact it's the religious themselves who spend so much money corrupting our governments and institution to advocate falsehood.
Posted by: Veritas | August 15, 2009 12:37 AM
PZ (remember, I pronounce that Pee-Zed"), I can see why the man is upset. When you turn the rough edge of your tongue upon someone, it's not always pretty. Unfortunately, he also appears to be exactly as described; his various essays are suggesting no harm can be done by creationism, something we know is false.
I agree people have the right to believe, and be duped into believing. I just don't want those people taking it to the school where my (theoretical future) children go. I want them to keep it private. They don't, and so I'll continue to work at it till they do. I think it's the same thing you suggest...just far more...awesomely.
Posted by: Veritas | August 15, 2009 12:40 AM
Hmm. I want to remove the "and be duped into believing" bit from that post. Please consider it gone.
While I'm at it, I'd like to tuck another set of quotation marks in there. You know where they go.
Posted by: AnneH | August 15, 2009 12:41 AM
Organized religion has ALWAYS been a tool used by the powerful to control the people. Keeping the populace ignorant and afraid, and thereby, easy to control and manipulate, is the practical political function of religion.
Religion is also magical thinking, and magical thinking is antithetical to science.
I do think it is possible for someone to be a good scientist and a religious person - the human mind often does compartmentalize conflicting ideas - but they would have to be very disciplined to keep all magic out of their science.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 15, 2009 12:41 AM
He thinks atheists should walk on tip-toe across broken glass. Because? Because that's the natural order for him. Complete bullshit.
PZ didn't link to Collin's site: BioLogos. There's an amazing homoerotic slideshow if you click through the pictures on the front page. Sure... the first one's just a dead fish, but it really takes off from there!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 12:42 AM
It's no wonder that Ruse is upset. PZ called him a "gobshite" right out in the open, on the internet, where anyone with a computer can see it, especially if they google Michael Ruse clueless gobshite. Ruse's mother might see her son described so
accuratelymercilessly. Think of how Mrs. Ruse will suffer to know that PZ Myers thinks her son is a clueless gobshite. How heartless!Posted by: CalGeorge | August 15, 2009 12:45 AM
Michael Ruse, idiot (if he actually said this, I can't find the original article):
"Science is a wonderful thing. It is true evidence that we are more than grubby little primates on a forgotten speck of dust, lost in the vastness of space. If ever there was proof that with our intellects we are made in the image of God, this is it."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/8517
Science exists, therefore God exists!
Wheeeeehaw!
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 15, 2009 12:45 AM
The problem with the man is that he's too tender for his philosophy. Being an atheist is a tough row to hoe, I doubt I'd be able to handle it. There's comfort in knowing there's some great sky daddy out to care for you. It takes courage to face the world on your own.
I believe in God. I also know we are here to face the world on our own. To prosper or fail according to how we handle the challenges the world puts before us.
The contingencies of evolution made us a social species, and a hierarchal species. We like having company. We also like knowing where we stand in society. In any group of people that's been around for any length of time you will find leaders and followers; even groups as small as two. But wise leaders listen to their followers, and take their opinions into account. And the followers let their feelings be known, instead of keeping quiet, while listening to what their leaders have to say.
That in large part is my problem with religion. For religion as an institution is not set up to listen to its followers, and the followers don't really listen to their leaders. No give and take, no discussion of the issues. Religion does not allow its leaders to admit they could be wrong, not on the substantial matters. Nor does religion allow the followers to admit their leaders, and they themselves, could be wrong.
More than correcting errors, science lets you correct errors. Lets you admit you made a mistake and lets you make good on that mistake. Being a creature of errors and blunders, I appreciate the right to admit to error, and to correct my mistakes. That's why I prefer the company of hardcore atheists such as Coyne and Myers, because they are tolerant enough to let me be wrong.
Yes, they are hard on the religious. I say they have cause. Coddling the fool in his foolishness does the fool no good, and encourages him in his folly. One day we may have direct evidence pointing to the existence of God, one day we may have direct evidence pointing to His non-existence. Either may never happen. However it turns out I shall support the curious and the skeptical as we learn about this enormous sphere we dwell in.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 12:47 AM
Never underestimate the power of Templeton Foundation dollars.
I noticed Ruse wrote this:
What, as opposed to the vast majority of Christians and their justification for adhering?
This dodge - that Dawkins doesn't deal with the 'more sophisticated' philosophical arguments for religion - never ceases to irritate me. Yes, the Courtier's Reply rebuts one aspect of it, but it still leaves the problem that philosophical justifications are relevant only to a tiny fraction of Christians.
If they can be considered relevant at all; as far as I can tell, the majority of philosophical apologetics only serve one purpose: to help a particular type of christian cope with the embarrassment caused by the lack of intellectual justification for their religious belief.
'No! It's not just that it makes me feel special; there are really good, well-though-out reasons too! Honest!'
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 15, 2009 12:49 AM
They may be embraced by one fraction, but they're abhorred by another. Theology is book learnin', after all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2009 12:55 AM
has anyone asked Ruse why he was so happy to tour the country giving "debates" with William Dembski a couple years ago?
It was quite the spectacle.
I think, like Mooney, and like Dembski himself, Ruse sees a niche market for the appeasement philosophy.
expect Ruse to write a book about it very soon.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 15, 2009 12:55 AM
Okay, I just want to clarify this for the religious:
Religion is a belief which require faith. Faith is a jump to conclusion. Jumping to a conclusion is not scientific.
And before anyone can pull it off: Evolution is NOT a belief. Nor is ANY science. I don't have faith that we are evolving or have evolved. I CAN say we did evolve base on evidence. Just like I don't have faith that 2+2=4. I know that it does because I can use evidence to prove it.
Secondly, at least I don't have a problem with a person being a Christian. If I did, I wouldn't have many friends. I DO have a problem with people IMPOSING Christianity where it doesn't belong in particularly science and government.
Posted by: el cid | August 15, 2009 12:56 AM
I would concur that Collins' theology is simplistic at best but frankly I've not seen that the average 'new atheist' is more sophisticated. The difference is that I don't see Collins stamping his feet and claiming that atheists are deluded while clearly he is under attack, on this site and via its allies.
Ruse would hold you to the standards you profess to hold, and in my estimation fail to hold. It's the hypocrisy he seems to be criticizing and you can't seem to handle it.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 15, 2009 12:58 AM
Well, if only Mr. Ruse would explain what Dawkins got wrong there might be something to tallk about, but Ruse simply blabbers with absolutely nothing substantial to say.
Since Prof. Dawkins is not nearly as uncivil as I am, I'd just like to inform Mr. Ruse:
"Religion is BULLSHIT!"
There - would Mr. Ruse care to explain what's wrong with that assertion?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2009 1:07 AM
The difference is that I don't see Collins stamping his feet and claiming that atheists are deluded
really?
have you visited his biologos site?
have you actually read his book?
It's the hypocrisy he seems to be criticizing and you can't seem to handle it.
you really don't have a clue what you're on about.
Posted by: Mick | August 15, 2009 1:10 AM
What could a man who is "ashamed to be an atheist" possibly have to say about atheism that is of value? Predictably, nothing at all.
Posted by: Morgan MacLaren | August 15, 2009 1:10 AM
I love the way he says Richard Dawkins would fail any introductory philosophy course when his own article doesn't even make sense.
Posted by: el cid | August 15, 2009 1:11 AM
#25 Ichthyic, I've not read his book but I've looked at his web site. I don't see rampant insults of atheists. Those are found elsewhere from people with the sophistication of Jack Chick tract, meaning something negative given a scale of 1 - 10. But please do show where his website attacks atheists.
Posted by: AnneH | August 15, 2009 1:13 AM
After reading what Jerry Coyne blogged about Ruse, I have to respond to Ruse's argument that discussing atheism in the classroom is the same as teaching religion.
As a teacher, I understand and respect the rule that teachers do not discuss their personal views about religion at all. Doing so is illegal. It is a violation of the First Amendment, since public school teachers are representatives of the government. Even so, a teacher who talks about their faith might be tolerated by their students, since believing in something is the cultural norm.
This tolerance does not apply to atheist teachers. Since atheism is considered abnormal, I know that expressing my atheism in the classroom WILL result in a religious student complaining to school administration. It is the very rare teacher indeed who would state to their students that 'god does not exist.' Doing so is a career-killer.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 15, 2009 1:15 AM
Of course I disagree with him, but I would certainly like to see some specific examples of Dennet's poor quality of argumentation that he refers to.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 1:16 AM
Does Michael Ruse even understand the words "target audience"?Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 1:17 AM
Why does an atheist ('new' or otherwise) need to be 'sophisticated'? It's the lack of belief in gods; nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe in unicorns, either - do I need a 'sophisticated argument' to support that?
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 15, 2009 1:19 AM
"When Hitler attacked Russia, England and America gave aid to Stalin. It was not that they particularly liked Stalin or his system, but they worked on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/fundamentalists.html
Oh, no! He's comparing us to Hitler!
What an asshole.
Posted by: procyon | August 15, 2009 1:21 AM
"If teaching "God exists" is teaching religion - and it is - then why is teaching "God does not exist" not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment. Perhaps indeed teaching Darwinism is implicitly teaching atheism. This is the claim of the new atheists."
Ruse, as a philosopher of science, should know that science doesn't deal in absolutes such as "God doesn't exist", and further, that no one is asking that "God doesn't exist" be taught in public schools, at least no one I have heard or read. What I have heard and read is that gods should simply be left completely out of science classes, that the evidence and facts be taught and that religion remain where it belongs...in churches. He's either muddled or a liar.
Posted by: el cid | August 15, 2009 1:27 AM
#32 You ask, "Why does an atheist ('new' or otherwise) need to be 'sophisticated'?.
I wouldn't say you 'need' any sophistication at all -- until you start criticizing others for their lack of sophistication.
As the term 'new atheist' is rather clearly associated with an activist atheism, that actively criticizes religion of all stripes (at least in the caricature form of 'new atheist') the requirement of being more sophisticated than those you criticize is invoked, at least when your criticism, such as PZ's, is to someones lack of sophistication.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 15, 2009 1:29 AM
@#29
The unfair part is that teachers who do express their relgious views aren't reprimanded for it. I had a teacher in high school who regularly should pro ID and and pro Christian documentry during lunch to the GATE student aswell as the Bio Club student. And he'd go on relgious rants about Muslims and homosexuals. Yet in all the years I spent at high school he wasn't reprimanded it for it. In fact he got a promotion.
We should they allow relgious teachers to voice their opinion but not atheist teachers?
Posted by: defective robot | August 15, 2009 1:33 AM
This is about the third or fourth time I've read this type of argument, the "lack of knowledge of religion and/or philosophy" argument. I still fail to understand it. No matter how deeply one studies religion, the result will be the same: there is no objective proof of the claims. Religion and philosophy do not produce testable hypotheses, so no amount of scholarship in those areas will have any bearing on their scientific refutation. Dawkins' reasoned arguments in The God Delusion are the product of very clear, clever, and careful analysis. No amount of religious study can refute them.
Posted by: yoyo | August 15, 2009 1:33 AM
then why is teaching "God does not exist" not teaching religion?
let's see, if teaching white people are better than black people is rascism then teaching that white people are NOT better than black people is also rascism. Therefore teaching any form of cultural studies that may imply that people of different hues are not better than people of other hues is also rascism?
You are a total moron.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 1:38 AM
OK, this may be somewhat OT, but I have a question for the primary and secondary school teachers.
We all talk about how it's not enough to teach science as a body of knowledge but also necessary to teach both empirical methods and critical thinking. I completely agree with this. But say you're an elementary school teacher and you're instructing students about how to be critical thinkers. A student asks about whether it's appropriate to subject her religious beliefs (or any specific belief) to this. What do you answer?
There may well be a very good and diplomatic response, but I ask because it does sometimes seem to me that stressing critical thinking in the abstract is one thing, but in practical terms this is a tall order for teachers on the ground.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 1:40 AM
el cid sez:
"I wouldn't say you 'need' any sophistication at all -- until you start criticizing others for their lack of sophistication."
Ok, quick check, more/less sophisticated.
Hubble Deep Field or Bronze Age Myth?
Plate Tectonics or Flood Geology?
Evolutionary Theory or Noah's Ark?
LHC or Let There Be Light?
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 1:42 AM
I really don't get this whole need to have sophisticated arguments. Epicurus still kicks arse in the 21st century like he has done for the last ~2400 years, just as Plato is still invoked for the Euthyphro dilemma some 2500 years later.
The difference now is that the science is sufficient that many of the things attributed to God need not be attributed any more. We know about the fundamental nature of reality, and now that shaped ourselves. The old arguments are still valid, it's just that the science gives the possibility to explain so much which was previously attributed to God.
How hard is that to grasp really?
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 15, 2009 1:43 AM
"As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant."
I hate... I fucking HATE when people make this argument.
I'm an atheist because I was never indoctrinated as a kid. As a result I've always been able to see how insane religion is, how it's a fairy tale like all others.
If you come to me claiming that there's an entire miniature city in your navel, I don't need to know the mayor's name or the street layout to know you're a fucking loony.
Posted by: micha-77
|
August 15, 2009 1:43 AM
Another one of these violent so-called "new accommodationists" pushing their aggressive anti-new-atheism and driving people away from True Accomodationism into the arms of non-stop blogger P. Z. Myers !!11!
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 1:49 AM
I'm sure there are a lot of things to criticise about The God Delusion but when will people criticise it for what it is as opposed to what it isn't? The book isn't a sophisticated philosophical triage, so why attack it for it's failure to be one? Surely there's enough wrong with it that it can be attacked on its own merits as opposed to what it isn't.
Posted by: cargocult | August 15, 2009 1:53 AM
Quote from the Good Friar: "But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment. Perhaps indeed teaching Darwinism is implicitly teaching atheism."
Oh, all right, we'll stop teaching Darwinism and start teaching Mendelism (he actually came up with a mechanism that would explain gene inheritance and variation of traits far better than the 'gemmule theory' - and notice that Darwin always called plant evolution "an abominable mystery.")
At least then we can stop ignoring the issue of eugenics in early 20th century American academic and cultural life, or the growth of such policies in 1930's Germany:
"In 1936, Ritter was appointed to head the newly created Eugenic and Population Biological Research Station of the Reich Health Office... In 1941, as conducting research about Gypsies yielded to implementing practical measures against them, Ritter also became chief of the newly created Criminal Biological Institute.."
"The origins of Nazi genocide: from euthanasia to the final solution By Henry Friedlander"
Such theories still pop up from time to time, promoted by people just as misguided as the authors of the Spanish Inquistion - but in the modern era, they hide behind scientific, rather than religious authority:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/page03.html
Don't you think that Darwin himself would repudiate much of what has been done in his name in the 20th century?
P.S. Want to know where the other crazies in Kansas are? The ones who are trying to get the a billion-dollar agricultural biowarfare lab put in to study diseases like foot-and-mouth...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128151806.htm
"Foot-and-mouth Disease Could Cost Kansas Nearly A Billion Dollars"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jul/27/congressional-report-says-choice-kansas-nbaf-was-r/?print
"The Department of Homeland Security relied on a rushed, flawed study to justify its decision to locate a $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens in a tornado-prone section of Kansas..."
Kansas. That's where the crazy people come from, huh?
Posted by: Chayanov | August 15, 2009 1:54 AM
As others have already said, I've long ago grown weary of this tired, old argument that Dawkins (and all other atheists) are only addressing a simplistic caricature of religion that doesn't take into account the incredibly nuanced and complex religious beliefs of the person making the argument.
So please, what are these amazing beliefs of yours? "God is love"? Heard it already. "God is an ineffable force"? Give me a break. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 1:54 AM
"Non-stop blogger" is pretty funny in its betrayal of a certain fear. As opposed to what kind of blogger?
Oh. Wait. Better get writing... :)
Posted by: Monkeyman8 | August 15, 2009 1:56 AM
How can a "man of science" not understand that morons deserve no respect? I have Christian friends, but we're friends cause they're not morons. They understand that any attempt to convert me will be met with, "kindly get stuffed" so we get along just fine have discussions about Christianity and atheism even. Those kinds of discussions are amazingly fun when the person opposite you doesn't have their head up thier ass.
Posted by: pieceofdebri
|
August 15, 2009 2:22 AM
Behead all those who say atheism is a violent ideology!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 2:22 AM
I tried to read this article when it was posted on Richard Dawkins' site. I couldn't get through it. Not because I have a low tolerance for drivel, but because it was choppy to the point of unreadable.
Violently? Violently!?!? Were that statement directed at one of the new atheists in particular, it would be libelous. Since it probably doesn't meet the criteria for defamation (at least in the U.S.), it's just a poorly drafted, run-on sentence.
This sentence is so poorly structured, I had to read it several times before I figured out precisely what nonsense he was promoting.
Let's take it clause by clause, shall we?
Distinctive of this group, although well known to anyone who studies religion and the way in which sects divide and proliferate
What? Something distinguishes the new atheists, although it's well known to people who study sectarianism? What's the clause beginning with "although" doing in there?
Distinctive of this group [ ] is the fact that (with the possible exception of the Catholic Church) nothing incurs their wrath than those who are pro-science but who refuse to agree
Even without the clause, I had to read it a few times before I figured out that what he means is, "No group of people incurs the new atheist's wrath more than those who are pro-science but refuse to agree . . . (with the possible exception of the Catholic Church)."
According to this guy, new atheists are wrathful, hateful and violent. Seriously, dude, knock it off! Your words are an insult to everyone who has experienced genuine wrath, hate and violence at the hands of intolerant bigots.
Fred Phelps' cultists picketing funerals of slain soldiers, telling their mourners they deserve their suffering? Wrathful and hateful. Matthew Sheppard's assailants beating him beyond recognition and tying him to a fence to die? Wrathful, hateful and violent. Lynchings of African Americans by the KKK? Wrathful, hateful and violent. Murdering 3,000+ people by flying a plane into buildings for the glory of god? Wrathful, hateful and violent.
Criticizing your position vis-a-vis science and religion using words that are at worst sophomoric or profane? That, ahem, using words, you nitwit!
Uh, no, it's not deplorable to criticize someone as unfit for one job just because he did another job well. Given Collins' critics' constantly explaining that they were not saying he was unqualified, even extolling his scientific credentials, this article is deplorable.
And he doesn't even mean "understandable." He means "predictable."
Good grief! Before the (appropriately named?) Ruse implores the likes of Dawkins to take an introductory philosophy course, perhaps he could invest some time in an introductory writing and grammar course.
Posted by: F | August 15, 2009 2:30 AM
#23
"Ruse would hold you to the standards you profess to hold, and in my estimation fail to hold. It's the hypocrisy he seems to be criticizing and you can't seem to handle it."
Which standards? How have athiests failed to adhere to their own standards?
What hypocrisy?
How is it atheists have failed to "handle" criticism?
Responding to criticism logically, and with references, is not a failure, even when ignominious appellations are applied to the critic.
Please point out the specific instances of standards-fail hypocrisy.
Posted by: Zachary Voch
|
August 15, 2009 2:32 AM
Despite much pretension to the contrary, the `sophisticated' arguments and defenses thereof hardly deserve the rigor demanded. And yet apparently, anything less than a multivolume treatise on the ontological argument is unsatisfactory, though a simple `wish-thinking nonsense' is usually sufficient. The old objections to the old arguments still hold, and the reformulations of older arguments (such as the Kalam), are usually subject to the same criticisms. Yes, Dawkins could have waited another decade to publish and performed a rigorous historical overview and point-by-point analysis of the hundreds of reformulations of each given argument, but that's dumping another book into a full shelf of similar books.
Sure, if I want to present detailed criticisms, I'll consult infidels.org and works by Carrier or Martin instead of The God Delusion. If I want to halt the Kalam dialectic, I'll address the poor treatment given to infinity by Craig and others without consulting Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins. But The God Delusion and other similar books are written for a popular audience, not students of philosophy. Most Christians are not theologians by trade, nor would I expect all atheists to devote considerable time to counter-apologetics. However, many Christians can summon weak versions of arguments from design or the Cosmological argument, and Dawkins gives enough rigor to treat the sidewalk-encounter and casual cases. Not much rigor, but more than enough for the layman who wants basic answers.
Ruse and other theologians determined to ride Dawkins coat-tails have been a constant annoyance. I only bought The God Delusion after it became all-too-common for arguments to degenerate into rants against Dawkins by my enlightened counterpart. Seriously, this is like treating The Purpose Driven Life as though it were intended to be an advanced theological treatise, and to regularly criticize Rick Warren for his lack of detail or technical apologetics, or criticizing Flatland for failing to give an axiomatic construction of algebraic geometry.
Posted by: Joshua Fisher | August 15, 2009 2:33 AM
Note Ruse's seventh graf, which begins with this bit of boilerplate irrelevance:
We "new atheists" are then advised, by Ruse (and others), to take more compromising stands on religion and evolution simply because we're outnumbered by believers and the scientific illiterati.
Folks like Ruse, you see, are the reeds and we, the stubborn oak trees. When the strong wind produced by creationist mouth-wagging passes o'er us in turn, the Ruses can survive by bowing and yielding to the wind's breaths. But "new atheists" resist and their good message is in danger of being uprooted.
What a crock.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 2:40 AM
defective robot @ 37:
I think that's precisely why it's invoked so often. No matter what we say, it's too easy for them to say simply, "You don't really know what I believe, and you need to study it more." It's akin to the "prove me wrong" tactic. It has a superficial resonance of sensibility, and it can never be successfully answered on its merits.
The only proper response is Chayanov's @ 46: Put up, or shut up. Don't tell me I don't understand what you believe, and leave it at that. Tell me what the fuck it is that you believe, already. And then, since it's all substantively the same as every other faith-based belief, I'll point out why what you told me doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
August 15, 2009 2:40 AM
As a violent atheist ,I am regularly blowing up embassies of governments that refuse to print cartoons disrespecting gods,often attacking medical clinics that refuse to perform abortions and I never miss an opportunity to be rude to the pope.
Posted by: Theron | August 15, 2009 2:40 AM
I just want to say to people who get all worked up about "New Atheists" - would you tell Rosa Parks to go to the back of the bus? Would you tell an abuse victim to stop provoking their abuser? No despised minority ever gained respect by being quiet and polite. The people who tell atheists that what they really need to do is just be nice are guilty of soft bigotry. And what is the difference between soft and hard bigotry? Ultimately, nothing that matters. The result is the same. I've long since had enough of people telling me to be polite.
Posted by: 386sx | August 15, 2009 2:46 AM
I really don't get the ontological argument. If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists?
How come they don't have to show that it is possible for God to exist? And then, even if they do that, then, once they do that, if they can, then how come they don't have to show that if it is possible for God to exist, then God exists?
I don't get it. Oh well.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 2:51 AM
Talk about insightful rhetoric. And Ruse is trying to take the highground there...Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 15, 2009 2:54 AM
Then Michael, son of Ruse saith:
Now, I'm not the smartest fellow here, but even I can spot the straw man, dancing like a grotesque puppet, a fat grin slashed across its features. No atheist is suggesting schools teach that there is no God. They simply want all mentions of God out of the curriculum, which is not the same thing.
My goodness, where do you start?
As Jerry Coyne wickedly notes, by these standards a good religious studies course would violate the First Amendment because any examination of the history of the Bible would specifically refute its divinity. This was, after all, how I lost my own faith.
Again, use of that word 'Darwinism'. Ruse has gone native, hasn't he? However, do the new atheists make such a claim? Certainly they suggest evolution undermines faith and sows doubt, but that's not the same as 'teaching atheism'.
To teach atheism would mean teaching a specific doctrine--the most basic tenet of which is 'there is probably no God'. Indeed atheism does not really go much beyond this, seeing as it is not an ideology with aims, ideals and a comprehensive vision of things. Rather it is a rejection of belief and associated ideologies.
In other words: you cannot teach atheism as you would teach a religion. The doubts sown by evolutionary science cannot be held to be teaching atheism, except maybe within the fever-dreams of the martyr complexed and their fatheist fellow travelers.
No professor professes 'there is probably no God' in the classroom. Not even PZ. They would be fired for doing so. So yet again we have a herky-jerky straw man Charlestoning his way across Ruse's sweaty consciousness. At best we claim that the science undermines biblical literalism and that evolution may do for many Goddists. Which of course is why it is fought against tooth and nail by Ruse's Godly chums.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 2:59 AM
Don't forget to take it one step further, if God is the greatest maximally-possible being, it follows that Jesus was born of a virgin then died on the cross for our sins. Because after all, that's what Christians who use the ontological argument use it to justify. No deist entity, no abstract concept, but the triune deity of the bible.Because the god of the philosophers happens to be the Christian entity worshipped by 2 billion people worldwide...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 3:00 AM
Posted by: Mike Wagner | August 15, 2009 3:02 AM
My roommate often questions my disdain for religion, saying anyone should be free to believe whatever they want. He doesn't quite get that I don't care if someone believes in a purple monkey in the sky. I care if that person is using their belief in a purple monkey in the sky to justify forcing that ridiculous belief on others, through politics, in schools, and directly to children who haven't even had the opportunity to learn to question what they are told.
It seems so long ago but I think at one point I thought like him. I didn't think religion did any real harm, and was completely neutral on the topic.
And then one day I started to think about it. I had never hid my atheism. I hadn't flaunted it either, but I had made specific examples for people who questioned it, and that certainly led to persecution throughout my life (and this in Canada, where we're supposed to be more moderate about such things). And I realized that there are people out there who want to take away my right to be a free, and free-thinking person, just because I don't worship their deity.
And it made me angry. So I started to read more about religion vs. atheism. And I got angrier. But this is not the irrational rage of the unthinking ape. It is the cold, rational anger of someone who has been feeling the effects of the poison for some time, and finally puzzled out what's been making him ill.
I would hope that Mr. Ruse is able to eventually recognize the disconnect which allows the rational and irrational to dance together in his mind, and finally spit out the poison which he seems to swallow with a smile.
Maybe when he finally does, he can join the ranks of the angry atheists, instead of the christian coddlers.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 3:10 AM
Stupid, self-contradictory,...
He's a confused thinker and a terrible writer.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 15, 2009 3:17 AM
drmab99's persuasive arguments have convinced me of the error of my ways. I am now a Christian.
Now I just need to find message boards to spam and troll, people to hate and threaten.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 3:18 AM
SC, OM:
And meaningless. Psychologically accurate? That's just one of those phrases apologists vomit to seem deep even though they're just muttering gibberish.
Yep. It's the excruciatingly poor writing that takes this already stupid essay, and plunges it to new depths of awful.
Posted by: 386sx | August 15, 2009 3:18 AM
I think the ontological people get their jollies from the fact that in order to refute the ontological argument, one has to take the position that they can prove that it is impossible for God to exist.
But nobody does that though. Because they know they can't prove that kind of a negative. So the ontologicals get their jollies from that and get all happy. And everybody else just yawns. Big whoopy-doo. Get your jollies I guess. Yawn.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 15, 2009 3:18 AM
Americans are religious people. You may not like this fact. But they are.Oooh, ooh! I can play this game!
"Americans are mostly white people. You may not like this fact. But they are."
Posted by: TheVirginian | August 15, 2009 3:22 AM
If I had written a philosophical paper this bad in my (one) college philosophy course, I would justly have gotten an F. (I got an A studying the ancient Greek philosophers mainly, but getting into some medieval ones too).
Ruse uses distorted or false "evidence," attacks straw men, and engages in pointless ad hominems, all of which are cheating for a serious philosopher. Don't attack "clueless gobshite" while using "aggressively pro-science" and "violently anti-religion," both clearly pejorative here. "Darwinism" is another insult, implying that evolution defender have created a cult around Darwin. (Does he think physicists have a cult of Newtonism because they study and promote understanding of gravity?)
The only reason there is any controversy about evolution is because it conflicts with certain religious beliefs.
His (and others') dismissal of Dawkins etc. as not having properly studied theology, philosophy, whatever, always grates because YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW THEOLOGY OR PHILOSOPHY TO GRASP THAT RELIGION IS NONSENSE! I won't waste space on the arguments here. I will simply point out that as religion is clearly a product of the human imagination, whether one is a believer or a cynic who takes advantage of believers, all theology is therefore fantasy. The fact that theologians cannot distinguish fantasy from reality (I assume some are cynics, but most seem to actually believe what they say) is a sign of delusion, not of deep thought. If a philosopher cannot grasp that basic concept (whether he agrees with it or not), he is unworthy of being called a philosopher.
For Ruse's benefit, if he reads this, I will point out that Christianity has a history of extreme aggression against criticism, whether atheistic, non-Christian theistic, or "heretical" theistic, as well as against anything considered to be a violation of God's law. Sophisticated thinkers in the 14th century recognized that Jews did not cause the Black Death; the Christian masses slaughtered Jews by the tens of thousands in a belief that they did. Beliefs can kill. Here are a few modern problems with Christian beliefs:
1) As I've posted before, Christianity is the primary, if not sole, source of racism; the legal discrimination against and enslavement of Africans was because they were pagans; the concept of race was applied later to "explain" why dark-skinned pagans were resistant to conversion and therefore inferior. Most defenses of slavery were based on the Bible, often a literalist or "it's not all literally true but it's still God's word" view. Clergy North and South condemned the Abolitionists as atheists. Secession was promoted through churches in the South, which therefore had the blood of 600,000 Americans on their hands. Christians both carried out and defended segregation, because God created the races to be separate. The civil-rights movement was condemned as a communist (read, atheist) front. It's no coincidence that quite a few religious right leaders were from the South, that some (Falwell) were on record as defending segregation, and that they routinely blamed atheism for all problems, real or imagined.
2) The leaders and members of various right-wing, authoritarian, often-racist movements in pre-World War II Europe were mostly Christians and are on record as blaming atheism for Europe's problems. Hitler and the Nazis, mostly Christians, claimed they wanted to eliminate atheism because of its alleged immoral influence, and they blamed Jews more than any other group for atheism.
3) Government discrimination against homosexuals has no secular base or defenses. It is purely based on religious beliefs, quoting Bible verses. Again, the atheism-hating religious right gins up the hatred of gays and has scared government officials (Clinton, Obama, etc.) into supporting discriminatory policies that blatantly violate the Establishment Clause by putting religious bigotry into law.
4) The various movements to win equal rights for women, from the 19th to the 21st centuries, have always faced a hurricane-strength headwind from Bible-quoting Christians.
So, Mr. Ruse, why should we be nice to a movement with a massive history of bigotry, dishonesty, discrimination and violence? You sound like the people who opposed Abolition because it was too militant, too anti-religion and too upsetting to moderate Emancipationists who opposed slavery but did not want it ended right away. We know who was right and who was wrong then.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 3:24 AM
Jafafa,
That drmab99 types, or links to, the same silly message on every blog it trolls. It even tried to post on my blog, which is read pretty much by me and a select group of real-world friends.
It's quite comical.
Posted by: jennyxyzzy | August 15, 2009 3:27 AM
@Lee B-W:
Well, whilst we're playing the game, how about this one to blow away Ruse's 'unsophisticated' argument.
Ah-hem.
Americans are unsophisticated religiots that would't know the ontological argument from a pile of faeces. You may not like this fact. But they are.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 3:30 AM
TheVirginian @ 74:
Oh, if only the Establishment Clause were interpreted that way by the Supreme Court.
It isn't. :(
Posted by: Hoosier X | August 15, 2009 3:32 AM
Here's my entry:
"Americans are a bunch of fucking dumbasses. You may not like this fact. But they are."
(Am I doing this right?)
Posted by: jennyxyzzy | August 15, 2009 3:34 AM
And whilst I'm criticising the whole 'unsophisticated' thing, can someone explain to me when it became acceptable for soi-disant sophisticated philosophers to use a fallacy to argue their case? Ruse does not address Dawkins argument, he simply seeks to dismiss it on the basis that Dawkins hasn't studied philospohy. That's pure ad-hominem. If Dawkins really is so off-base with his argument, it should be an easy thing for Ruse to dismantle the argument without refering to Dawkins' educational history.
Posted by: Mike Wagner | August 15, 2009 3:34 AM
@TheVirginian,
While I hold no love for Christianity, I find it misplaced to blame racism on it. Classism, maybe.
But slavery has been around since before Christians. And the industrialization of slavery by white men was exploitation of a system that was already in place among non-white men.
People do all kinds of terrible things to each other without religion. Religion just makes it easier to justify it to other believers.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 3:38 AM
Caps-Lock Troll said:
I'm glad we're finally seeing the much-vaunted "sophisticated" arguments for Christianity, as well as a sterling demonstration of Christian love and Christ-likeness. Warms the cockles of the heart, it does.
WRT the aptly-surnamed pusillanimously-appeasing clueless gobshite, I wonder if he would have a similarly benign attitude toward magic? Since it is doubtful that he has any understanding of sophisticated magical philosophy such as the Hermetic tradition or the Goetia, can I assume that he would tell New Skeptics like James Randi or Michael Shermer to shut their pie-holes when it comes to things like homeopathy or channelling?
After all, if a science teacher tells the class about causality, or natural entities behaving according to mathematically-modelable principles--i.e., without acknowledging that magical incantations, spectral beings, sigils and the like can influence reality--does this mean that the science teacher is violating the First Amendment?
Why should the intellectual opponents of Christianity be silenced, and not those of Wicca and Ceremonial Magick? As far as I can tell, he's basically telling us to act as if we live in a Christian theocracy--and we'd better like it. What kind of moebius-strip pretzel-logic does it take to be a theocrat while openly admitting a lack of belief in God?
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 15, 2009 3:41 AM
I prefer:
"Americans are vulnerable to manipulation by their priests. You may not like this fact. But they are."
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 3:42 AM
drmab99 is a cowardly banned troll who's afraid to post while PZ's awake. Don't engage it. PZ will eventually clean up its droppings.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 3:49 AM
KevinC @ 85:
Ridiculous, isn't it? He's essentially saying that if students are likely to infer the non-existence of god from the study of evolution, it should not be taught in public schools. Heh, if the rule is that it violates the First Amendment to teach anything from which a student is likely to infer something religious, we can't teach much of anything at all in public schools. (Which is exactly what many of the devout in the U.S. want -- and end to public schooling because it is secular.)
Ever heard of Normal Bob Smith? He's a New York City--based atheist/humorist who not only responds to all of his hate mail, but takes quotes from them, and puts them in a cartoon called the Sheeples. It's hilarious. And somehow does warm the cockles of the heart. :)
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 15, 2009 3:49 AM
A spambot says:
Reports of our deaths are much exaggerated.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 15, 2009 3:52 AM
Ha ha ha ha! That drmab99 troll just tried to post on my blog again! On a flippin' movie review, no less.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 15, 2009 3:59 AM
I fail to see why i need to be a world-class tailor to see that the emperor has no clothes. I also fail to understand why i can't point and laugh at it.
So Mr Ruse, is drmab99 the sophisticated christian that we are supposed to be arguing against? I'm sure you two could have a lovely chat over tea.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 15, 2009 4:16 AM
And Ruse has fainting fits over our incivility?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 4:17 AM
Is this point really that hard to grasp?One book that sounds fascinating (that I haven't read, but is on my TO GET list) is Guy P Harrison's 50 Reasons People Give For Believing In God. It's not a list of philosophical justifications, rather a list of what reasons everyday people have for believing in God. Unsurprisingly Kalem's Ontological Argument doesn't figure...
It's interesting reading How We Believe by Michael Shermer, where he puts the stats in for why people say they believe and what we perceive of why other people believe. When it comes down to it - design, personally experiencing God, comfort, bible, and faith are the main reasons. Yet when asked why they think others believes, so few think others believe because of design - comfort, being raised to believe and personally experiencing God are why we consider others to believe.
Posted by: TheVirginian | August 15, 2009 4:18 AM
Ruse got my dander up here, so I'll add a couple of comments. First is his nonsense below:
"If teaching "God exists" is teaching religion - and it is - then why is teaching "God does not exist" not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment."
I don't see any of the "new atheists" claiming that schools should teach "God does not exist."
First, atheism and theism are not religions. Religions are belief systems, most of which are theistic. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is anti-religion only in the sense that if one does not believe in a god, one is implicitly rejecting all religions that are based on gods. Likewise, rejecting racism is rejecting Nazism, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. But it's simply a function of rejecting racism. If racism has no basis in history or science, then teaching implicitly anti-racist science or history is not teaching anti-racism. Likewise, teaching implicitly anti-theistic science is not teaching religion, merely science.
But, second, "new atheists" basically are making an argument that evolution implies that there is no "designer," and therefore that all god beliefs that include "design" as a divine function are false. This include all versions of the biblical god, (Several gods, actually, if you treat the scriptures honestly.), as well as pretty much all other religions' gods. That conclusion leaves only some vague, Deist-type beliefs standing, which are pretty much meaningless.
I have not read any books advocating telling classrooms full of impressionable youngsters that evolution equals atheism. The books I've read simply advocate teaching good science in classrooms, while using non-school fora (popular books) to point out the implications of evolution. It's like saying that astronomy's assertion of a 13-billion-year-old universe implies that all claims of a god-designed, small or young universe are false. That's atheism also. Ditto for saying that geology refutes the Bible's 6,000-year-old Earth. Publicly arguing that astronomy and geology refute the biblical god is atheism against that god, but it's not religion to point out that theistic beliefs which deny demonstrable astronomical or geological truths are false.
To put it another way: Is it religion to say that cutting out someone's heart each morning does not cause the sun to rise, despite what the Aztecs believed? No, it's just good science. "New atheists" could write books refuting Aztec beliefs, and these would be anti-religion and anti-Aztec gods by definition, but it's not religion or atheism to teach students that the sun "rises" because of specific physics laws (gravity and inertia). The atheistic and anti-religion aspects of physics are implicit, no matter how many books "new atheists" write against Aztec beliefs.
Ruse has spent too much time with Creationists. They've turned him to the Dark Side of the Anti-Reason Force. If he can't grasp that arguing publicly that evolution implies atheism against specific god beliefs, but does not make evolution a religion or makes teaching evolution a violation of the First Amendment, then he cannot be taken seriously.
Posted by: Zen Druid | August 15, 2009 4:45 AM
"we defecate all over your facebook and blog"
As long as you direct it at your own monitor, I don't believe any atheist would have a problem with that.
Posted by: windy | August 15, 2009 4:47 AM
Kel:
I'm sure there are a lot of things to criticise about The God Delusion but when will people criticise it for what it is as opposed to what it isn't? The book isn't a sophisticated philosophical triage
Maybe you meant 'treatise' but I like the sound of "philosophical triage":
"Why did Dawkins dismiss the ontological argument and the Trinity so quickly in the God Delusion, how could he do that without giving formal arguments against them?"
"You don't understand, he was doing philosophical triage. Those arguments were hopeless from the beginning."
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 4:49 AM
Can I claim it deliberate? ;)Posted by: God | August 15, 2009 4:50 AM
Just to interject a point over the screaming: I do not actually reward those who kill in My name, or those who threaten to kill in My name, or those who commit rape and assault in My name, or those who threaten to commit rape and assault in My name.
Oh, and Nostradamus, embarrassed because the dead keep seeking him out and asking him what he really meant, now goes by the name "de la Fraude".
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 4:52 AM
Kel wrote:
Exactly. The only people who rely on such justifications are the people who need to feel that their belief is an intellectual, rather than an emotional, thing.
I know I'd be embarrassed if I believed in a god; these people are too - but rather than make that final, rational leap and admit to themselves that it's all baloney, they choose to construct elaborate, pseudo-philosophical arguments to try and diminish the cognitive dissonance they experience.
Theists should just be honest and admit that, for the most part, they've got no freaking idea why they believe what they believe, and all the post hoc rationalisation in the world won't change that.
Posted by: Bueller_007
|
August 15, 2009 5:01 AM
Dawkins didn't go after Midgeley because she didn't understand genetics; he went after her because she didn't understand what the fuck a metaphor is.
The infamous Midgeley criticism:
"Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological."
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 15, 2009 5:01 AM
Dear Mister Ruse,
Here is one of the reasons why we atheists are so vocal. It is Godly men saying this to us such as this:
From our perspective, Mister Ruse, you are allying yourselves with folks such as this.
Posted by: shonny | August 15, 2009 5:05 AM
Oh fuck, there's a hole in the fence up at the cuckoo's nest again, and coprophiliac drmab99 has escaped!
Posted by: XD | August 15, 2009 5:08 AM
@ drmab99
Your spam will of course get deleted, but why don't you make a genuine well thought out argument for your position? Something with substance. You can do that can't you? Or is your intellect limited to repeating the same nonsense again and again?
I guess your response will answer that question.
Posted by: Aj | August 15, 2009 5:09 AM
I should dearly like for one of my old profs to have a go marking Ruse's brainfart of an argument.
"With respect to the main claims of Christianity - loving god, fallen nature, Jesus and atonement and salvation - I am pretty atheistic, although some doctrines like original sin seem to me to be accurate psychologically."
But remember kids, it's Richard Dawkins who doesn't know dick about theology.
Though I imagine if "defecate" is the longest word in your vocabulary you might find Ruse convincing.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 15, 2009 5:14 AM
Do you remember your shool days? There would often be a couple of gangs (boys) or cliques (girls) who would dominate the politics of the school yard.
Quite often a member of the 'outer' circle of one gang would 'inform' on them to the other gang. Their excuse would be that they were trying to 'mend bridges' or avoid the teachers becoming involved. In reality they were just trying to become more important in the eyes of others. Instead they just weakened their status even more.
Now there's a clue for a clueless gobshite.
Posted by: Caine | August 15, 2009 5:18 AM
Oh, so because I'm not afraid to say I'm an atheist, I'm violent? Even though just stating I'm an atheist can inspire god fearin' folk to decide I might need a lesson about being an unbeliever? And I'm violent. Right.
Well, Mr. Ruse, god might not be a problem, but his followers certainly are a problem, a big fucking huge one. That would be because 'god', which exists only in people's delusions, is made in their specific image. God hates what they hate. God is fearful of what they fear. God shares their dislikes, their ignorance, their clinging need to hold tight to smoke and shadows.
This isn't remotely sophisticated or philosphical: fuck you and the invisible unicorn you rode in on.
Posted by: windy | August 15, 2009 5:23 AM
Can I claim it deliberate? ;)
We can credit it to you either way!
Posted by: AndrewB | August 15, 2009 5:25 AM
YOU CAN TELL I'M ANGRY BECAUSE I TYPE IN CAPS.
ROAR
-
drmab99 aka Michael Ruse
Posted by: melior
|
August 15, 2009 5:27 AM
Bragging about “expertise in theology” is like bragging about expertise in nosepicking: if you’re referring to your own no one honestly cares; if you mean some one else’s you’ll find it impossible to convince them.
Posted by: mark | August 15, 2009 5:28 AM
You've got to feel sorry for people who are so insecure they have to depend on religion to live in some sort of psychological comfort. Best to ignore them unless they make trouble for others.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | August 15, 2009 5:38 AM
Ruse has been sleeping with the creationists for so long he has picked up all of their fleas.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 15, 2009 5:42 AM
Bit hard to follow the thread with the loons lose.....
I give it a try,
That one struck me as peculiar, since Im also aggressively pro-breathing, pro-not-killing anyone, pro-truth, pro-being-moral, it would seem rather obvious to be pro-science??
What a load of rubbish.But, maybe I quote-mine, lets try another one:
Uhoh ! Strawman alarm !!
Mr Ruse does not seem to have his facts quite right.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 15, 2009 5:43 AM
Veritas wrote:
>I agree people have the right to believe…
Ah, but “right” is a rather slippery term!
Do people have a *legal* right to believe as they wish, without governmental interference and without being subjected to violence by others because of their beliefs?
Sure, at least in the USA and many other countries.
Should they have such a legal right?
I think so, and I imagine most New Atheists do, too.
Do they have a *moral* right to believe anything they wish?
Few people really think so. E.g., is there a moral right to believe that Christians should be fed to the lions, that blacks are subhuman beings, that homosexuals ought to be burned at the stake?
Few Americans – whether Christian or atheist – think that it is morally justifiable to hold such beliefs. (And, if anyone thinks that most fundies think gays should be burned at the stake, no, they really don’t – I know lots of fundies, and I’ve actually quizzed them on this.)
Of course, nowadays when someone says “I have a right to believe ________,” he more often than not really means “I have a right not to have anyone criticize my beliefs.”
That’s the real point at issue in the faitheist/accommodationist vs. New Atheist debate. We’re not really being beastly to the Christians: I know of no atheist who denies the legal right of Christians to hold and publicly argue for their beliefs. Indeed, most atheists I know do not try to socially ostracize Christians or verbally bully Christians on common social occasions. (When New Atheists start physically disrupting Christina weddings, funerals, etc. I will be among the first to complain.)
No, all we are doing is presenting our own views as to why Christianity is false and often leads to evil consequences. Anyone presenting his own beliefs on any controversial issue has to do that sort of thing, at least implicitly.
And, many Christians really do believe our doing that violates their “right” to believe.
I really do not think Michael Ruse is able to grasp this intellectually. But then I have always thought Ruse lacked any significant intellectual ability, long before I knew his view on the current debate.
The prejudice that bright people go into science and those not intelligent enough to hack the math end up in the humanities is not always right.
But, sometimes it is accurate.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 5:44 AM
Troll:
You do realize, don't you, that by claiming to "defecate" on such a massive scale, you're openly admitting that you're full of shit?
Ruse:
Why can't we at least make the Christians impose their totalitarian theocracy before we start acting as if they already have? That way, they've got to be open about their intentions, instead of hiding behind a fig leaf of respect for democracy and freedom of thought while we willingly suppress ourselves so they don't have to. Plus we'd get to fight them before the surrender--and who knows? We could even win!
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 5:51 AM
Why must it be said over and over - don't feed the troll.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 15, 2009 5:52 AM
For someone who criticizes others for poor standards of philosophical scholarship, Ruse is absolutely laughable. Ruse obviously has no standards whatsoever in philosophy if he would admit the Ontological Proof. Aquinas was famous for taking that piece of nonsense and stretching it over hundreds of pages which can be condensed into:
1. God is perfect
2. If something is perfect it must exist, or we will not be talking about it
3. Therefore god exists
The problem of course is that there is no evidence for (1) and there is a lot of evidence against (2). We can indeed imagine degrees of perfection in an object even if we have never seen such an object and have no reason to believe it exists. If I think about a perfect unicorn, does that object need to exist somewhere for me to be able to imagine it? The Ontological Proof is an infantile play on words at best and can only be considered a 'proof' by absolute imbeciles. Thomas Aquinas was one such imbecile; unfortunately he still has a cult following who venerate him as a "great philosopher".
Posted by: advertisinglies | August 15, 2009 5:53 AM
Vague death threats...you stay classy, liar for jesus.
Posted by: shonny | August 15, 2009 5:53 AM
Bragging about expertise in nose picking is claiming expertise in something real, and a Danish science site had an interesting little article about the topic.
Expertise in theology is expertise in delusion as the topic of the expertise is non-existent, so the theologian is really an expert in vacuity.
Posted by: Moggie | August 15, 2009 5:59 AM
#57:
Hey, I like the ontological argument, because it means I'll get a pony! And not just any pony! It is possible to imagine the greatest possible pony. But a pony which I have is better than one which I merely imagine having. Therefore, I'm getting the most awesomest pony ever! Any day now, I'm sure...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 15, 2009 6:04 AM
"As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant."
The ontological argument is mere wordplay. Smoke and mirrors. It is the kind of argument that wouldn't even be built if we hadn't inherited the structures of Greek philosophy, widely based on those of the Greek language (as BL Whorf could have said, there could be no ontological argument in the Hopi culture). I can think of no better example of a naked emperor.
Gene theory is different. It's not a mere combination of concepts. It is based (like all scientific theories) on empirical data and on the criticism of former theories, keeping the strong points of some and overcoming the weaknesses of others. Criticizing it requires a wholly different way of thinking.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 6:08 AM
@ MadScientist #141
Syllogisms are incantatory magick. For example:
1) The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the pinkest conceivable being (PCB).
2) A PCB that exists is more pink than one that doesn't.
3) Therefore, a PCB must exist, by definition.
4) Therefore, *waves magic wand with a flourish* the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Somebody explain to me how this sort of thing qualifies as "sophisticated?" Since this "argument" can be used equally well to conjure The Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich into being, why can't I eat it?
It's fascinating how Ruse (presumably) views himself as an advocate of science, who believes that the torch-wielding mobs of the faithful will ban science education the first chance they get...but somehow he doesn't agree with the "New Atheists" that they're a threat to science.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 15, 2009 6:11 AM
KevinC wrote:
>Why can't we at least make the Christians impose their totalitarian theocracy before we start acting as if they already have?
Kevin, I know this was partly a rhetorical point on your part, but it bears repeating that most Christians, even most fundies, do not really want a “totalitarian theocracy.”
Yes, they want stupid, annoying (and unconstitutional) things like “under God” in the Pledge and “In God We Trust” on the currency.
Yes, they would like to socially intimidate us atheists so that we act as if our lack of religion is a private vice not to be mentioned in public.
And, yes, as Dawkins has emphasize, they subject their children to emotional abuse with fear of hellfire, etc. (I was one of those kids).
But, I have had the chance to talk politics-and-religion with hundreds, maybe thousands, of fundies over the decades. I only recall two who truly wished a “totalitarian theocracy,” and one of those two grew up after he went to seminary and learned a few facts about the Bible (amazing how destructive a bit of knowledge of ancient Greek can be to one’s fundamentalist beliefs!).
Contemporary Christian are bad enough as is. But aspiring Hitlers? No, almost never.
Dave
Posted by: Purple-Turtle | August 15, 2009 6:16 AM
Just out of interest, do I have to wait until next year when I finish my degree in religion and philosophy for Ruse to respect my belief that faith in god/s has no sound intellectual basis, and that he is a blithering fool, as a professional educated opinion that he would therefore be churlish and stupid to dismiss?
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 6:17 AM
Christophe Thill @145:
Actually, I think we wouldn't have the ontological argument if it weren't for the Inquisition. If Aquinas or Anselm had introduced that sort of nonsense in a competitive philosophical and scientific environment where unbelievers could have eviscerated its obvious stupidity, they'd have gotten nowhere.
But, given an environment where one could not argue against it on pain of torture, it got a free ride. By the time critics didn't have to fear the Rack, it had acquired the covering ivy of venerable tradition. Even now it still has some protection from the "spell" Dan Dennett wants to break, and Ruse wants to maintain.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 15, 2009 6:38 AM
I think that the answer to these claims is quite simple.
As Ruse says, "Americans are a religious people". But the majority of them are not anti-science fundamentalists. They are moderates. If they are intelligent (and many of them are), they can understand the interest of a tactical alliance with atheists. Because the latter are here to criticize religion, not to destroy it by violence. They don't want people to stop believing; they want people to be absolutely free to believe or not. In the US, it doesnt seem to be the case: not in the legal sense, but in the sense of everyday life, prejudices and unwritten rules.
The freedom not to believe is the same thing as the freedom to believe what you want, the way you want. That's why believers too have an interest in the separation of church and state. Atheists won't stop them from praying in the privacy of their house or church, but they may protect them against other religious groups who may want to make their own particular brand of prayer mandatory in school.
All this means that atheists are not the enemies of all religious people. They are the enemies of those who consider them as their enemies. For the others, they are opponents on certain matters that concern private opinions, and potential allies on a number of matters of public policy.
I don't think this is an "appeaser" position. On the contrary, I think it goes against it.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 15, 2009 6:48 AM
"BYE PZ - I'll be SEEING YOU SOON, YOU LITTLE FUCKER..."
Well I do believe this is what they call a threat.
A note should be made of this.
Posted by: Jack
|
August 15, 2009 6:53 AM
Whenever one of these idiots starts in with the "you don't know any theology" nonsense, just call them on it. Say, "Okay, explain to me the specific points of theology which you find to be so impressive. I'm listening. I have the time. Any knock-down arguments for the existence of God would be especially appreciated. Go on, son. In your own time. Start whenever you like."
When they fail to comply (and they will), I usually sign off with, "Right. You might want to consider shutting the fuck up about your precious theology when criticising atheists in future"
Posted by: Ferre | August 15, 2009 6:54 AM
Ruse says; "I am pretty atheistic, although some doctrines like original sin seem to me to be accurate psychologically."
I read that as; "I never got rid of the brainwashing religion did when I was a child and can't get rid of that original sin fobia so I justify it by means of philosophical rhetoric"
Posted by: JeffreyD | August 15, 2009 7:33 AM
That Ruse wrote that, "Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course." speaks well of Richard Dawkins and tellingly poor of Ruse. I can never understand why I am supposed to give credence to a Bronze Age myth over a Stone Age myth, or a Jazz Age myth for that matter. I picture people like Ruse standing outside a house in The Netherlands shouting, "The Frank family is upstairs, they are upstairs!" After all, the Nazi occupiers had laid down the law by virtue of conquest and all right thinking people should have cooperated with them, right?
Ciao
Posted by: Louis | August 15, 2009 8:04 AM
Ahhh sophisticated theology. Wherefore art thou, sophisticated theology?
I've read Augustine. I've Read Aquinas. I've read Tillich, Tertullian, Plantinga and others besides. I've not met this mysterious creature "sophisticated theology" yet. Maybe that's because I'm a big, stupid meanie. Maybe not. I've read the bible, the qu'ran, the bhagavad gita etc etc etc, it ain't there either. Where is it?
The classic arguments for the existence of a deity (ontological, teleological etc) were dealt with ages ago. They are mere special pleads at best. Teleology was shot even before Darwin came on the scene, and ontology even before that.
I don't want a debate, that debate has been had and settled as far as I can tell. I want one of Ruse and chums, or one of our really lovely religious chums here to make a case FOR the existence of their deity (or indeed any deity). I want them to be able to do so in a manner that distinguishes their deity from the FSM and the IPU. I want a method to distinguish between two faith claims that doesn't reduce to reason (something no one has ever managed to give me ever) I want clear and unambiguous. Is it really too much to ask?
Now, I suspect that a book of these arguments exists somewhere. I'd be shocked if it didn't. I also suspect it's my own philosophical/theological ignorance that results in me not knowing this book already. So in place of some poor schmo actually typing out the entirety of theological "thought" from then until now, point me to a book. Let's see this grand sophistication. Let the dog see the rabbit.
If the book recommendation has a link to Amazon.co.uk then all the better! ;-)
Louis
P.S. As for Ruse, his "you better suck up to the majority or else" schtick is really old. New crap please!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 8:06 AM
I've made two posts over at Belief.net, where Ruse was whining about those nasty "New Atheists" are disturbing the tranquility of creationists. Both posts have apparently been moderated away.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 8:13 AM
Now, why would the mods over there do that, 'Tis Himself? Surely it's not because they think their faith and your reason are incompatible, right?
Heh, Ruse just got pwned by a Random Quote:
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 15, 2009 8:23 AM
If any argument doesn't deserve a sophisticated refutation it's the ontological argument. It's the philosophical equivalent of a transparent magic trick.
If perfection=existence, then cut out the middleman and you see the argument is an argument from definition.
God is defined as a superhuman being which is perfect (meaning it exists), therefore God exists by definition.
The marzipan at the centre of the sun is in the centre of the sun by definition too, but that doesn't mean it's actually there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 8:25 AM
Kevin,
I've noticed that most atheist blogs have either a light or a non-existent hand in censoring comments. Most goddist websites are moderated or don't allow anyone to comment.
Posted by: XD | August 15, 2009 8:31 AM
The Ontological Argument is a crock of shit; sophistry of the worst kind.
Even if we take Plantigas updated version, it falls at the first hurdle:
"Wholly good"? Why not wholly bad, instead? 'Good' is not better than 'bad', largely because those terms are relative. One person's opinion of what is good will be another person's idea of what is bad.
We can agree that omnipotent and omniscient are superlatives. However, I doubt that believers in invisible friends would like to contemplate a being which had such powers but that didn't necessarily share their idea of what is 'good'. Indeed, if we are positing a supernatural being, we would have to assume (until we had evidence otherwise) that is was amoral.
Sounds almost Lovecraftian.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 8:37 AM
What is this, the sophisticated theology of Bill and Ted? TED: "Dude! God is like, maximally excellent!" *air guitar*
BILL: "I don't know, Ted. If he was, wouldn't he have given us a real TARDIS?"
BOTH: "Whoooaaaah..."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 8:39 AM
I'm sure that among the vast number of philosophers philosophing today there are one or two who aren't just peddling bullshit. But it seems to me that most philosophicers, including Ruse, are indulging themselves in mental masturbation of one sort or another.
Posted by: Ticker | August 15, 2009 8:48 AM
You know, you might just want to file this one under "credible death threats" and see how far this goes when presented to your friendly local police department.
Posted by: Ticker | August 15, 2009 8:57 AM
This, meaning, the now eviscerated comments.
Morning, PZ!
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 15, 2009 9:01 AM
It's a funny thing--all this noise from folk of this stripe about how poor is the "new atheists"' philosophy... and always so few examples...
Funnier still: the general and ongoing failure of every theologian who ever lived at mere logic, honesty, common sense (I'm tempted to throw in style, personal hygiene--but let's not get needlessly cruel... perhaps they're just beyond such Earthly concerns now)... and yet somehow the implication is their 'philosophy' is so elegant...
See, not so much as I've ever noticed. These clowns do philosophy the way organized crime does accounting... creatively, yes, and often with multiple sets of books... but generally anyone interested in getting at what's actually going on finds their work so very much less impressive...
(/Cops are here, boys... come on out... and let's keep those elastic metaphors of yers where we can see 'em...)
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 9:31 AM
Ruse's problem stems from his idea that the battle of ideas between atheists and theists is a gentlemans game discussed over a lunch or dinner. That may have been the reality of the decades preceding the 1960's, when any atheist could have been labeled a communist and anti-American in the U.S.
Ruse has been passed by time and supplanted by the modern atheists. The only base he now has are the people he argued with in the past. They may not love him, but they are familiar. Accomidationism has not created a better environment for science to be a-religious.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 9:42 AM
It's so sad that some people get so delusional; I used to like Ruse, too.
The reason that it is stupid to be mad that "new atheists" don't appreciate the finer points of theological arguments has already been well covered here. Why argue about which kind of saddle is best to use on unicorns? But I'd like to know what Ruse and his ilk would think is an appropriate way to argue atheism, and wonder if he's ever tried. Trying to go after the more complex points about the attributes of God is like trying to whack off the heads of the Hydra. Theologists simply have to do a little morris dance around the atheist, waving handkerchiefs of misdirection as they redefine every point. (And now my mixed metaphor has me thinking of a hydra doing a morris dance, which is a frightening prospect indeed.) Much more effective to cauterize it at the base. (Or trip the dancer). I would honestly like to see an argument against religion as Ruse would structure it, because I am pretty sure it would be incredibly useless.
The recent brouhaha in Iowa shows very clearly that being an accommodationist and being kind and nonconfrontational doesn't work. When an ad as milquetoast as "You are not alone" is considered offensive, there's really no ground left. I wonder what it would take to get the Ruses and Mooneys and Kirshenbaums of the world to understand that.
Posted by: JRQ | August 15, 2009 9:43 AM
Hilarious.
Ruse complains the writings of new atheists would fail an introductory philosophy course.
In fact, most of THEOLOGY would fail an intro philosophy course.
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 9:48 AM
1. Well you are right about the school teacher-atheist part. Raised as a xian in the era when everyone was nominally xian and atheists were rare and considered abnormal, a teacher proclaiming such would have been shocking a few decades ago.
These days, maybe not so much. Xianity has been on the downslide for a while.
2. Today, not so sure atheists would be considered abnormal. Xianity in the US has lost 10% of the population in a few decades, down to 76%. The areligious taken as a whole are around 20% of the population. They rival the RCC and the fundies as a segment of the population. Nothing rare about 60 million people.
Posted by: rimpal | August 15, 2009 9:48 AM
According to Michael Ruse
Religion = Genetics. How can anything other than analytic philosophy be classified as anything but poppycock?
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 9:52 AM
More simply put, if Ruse thinks most "new" atheists aren't doin it rite when it comes to arguing against theism, what is his alternate suggestion? His entire essay is simply "There's no evidence that can change my mind" with a lot more words and a few insults thrown in for good measure. He's as frustrating as M&K in this respect - lobbing mushy criticisms and insults without having any idea what else to do.
Posted by: XD | August 15, 2009 9:56 AM
I've noticed that intellectual lightweights often get distracted from the substance of an argument by its style.Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 9:58 AM
That, I love.
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 10:01 AM
Xianity seems to be on the skids in the USA. By my reckoning, between 1-2 million people are leaving the religion every year. Below is data from fundie sources. They know it.
I blame the fundies. When xian becomes synonymous with Liar, Hater, Ignorant, Crazy, and sometimes Killer, who would want to be one?
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 15, 2009 10:05 AM
Procyon @ #34 said,
Yes, even that would be great. But I'd like to mention, however, that the public school calendar caters to xtian and jewish religious holidays and implies; go to church and indoctrinate your family in
religionancient, duplicitious woo.Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 10:05 AM
I think we could have an environmental catastrophe if the accomodationist do not stop clutching at their pearls. There are only so many oysters in the sea, and they do seem to get through their pearls at an alarming rate.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 15, 2009 10:07 AM
Violently? Violently?
The only violence Hitchens does is to his liver.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 10:14 AM
PhysicistDave sez:
"Kevin, I know this was partly a rhetorical point on your part, but it bears repeating that most Christians, even most fundies, do not really want a “totalitarian theocracy.”"
I duno, Dave, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point.
Heaven is the ultimate totalitarian theocracy.
I know that sounds like a cheap shot, but think about it for a moment - any christian that aspires to go to heaven desires to live in just such a totalitarian state.
In christian thought (and, I imagine, many other religions as well), such a place is seen as a good place.
Indeed, a perfect place.
In fact, the only perfect place.
It bears keeping in mind that when a christian is imaginining the most perfect place possible, they are, by definition, thinking of a totalitarian theocracy.
Of course, I have no idea if this impacts on their real-world political views.
But I'm not sure I'm willing to bet the farm on the reverse, either.
Posted by: cyan | August 15, 2009 10:18 AM
I have killfile installed, but somehow the little drummerboy got around it. I haven't yet installed the newest version of it, though; anyone who has: did that newer version deal with the dingbat?
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 10:21 AM
A good example of "sophisticated theological thinking." I'm sure Ruse would say we have to respect and take seriously xian arguments like this one.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 10:23 AM
I just finished reading 'The God Delusion' about two weeks ago. Having been an atheist since I was about thirteen, I didn't read it to be converted. I mostly read it to be familiar with it and to try to understand some people's criticism of it.
It's true Dawkins does not spend pages arguing details of the philosophical arguments; would anyone have read it if he had? As one poster (at least) has already mentioned, does Ruse not understand the concept of target audience? I think Ruse understands the concept very well and is playing a niche for all it is worth. From what I've read of his writings, he seems to be an atheist only in the sense that he recognizes the supernatural elements of the religion of his upbringing to be false; The power of science to predict and progress undeniable.
Yet Ruse also seems to have an emotional need for some part of some familiar religion to be true. He wants, just as many of us would like to have, a balancing of the books at some point. Reward for having done the 'right thing' when it wasn't in our own best interest. Cosmic justice for slights and wrongs we have suffered. Good luck with that, Michael.
Well I'd like some of those things too, but I'm intellectually honest enough to know that a) I probably won't get them and b) if I do, it won't be because I allowed con men to continue their nefarious enterprise.
Posted by: el cid | August 15, 2009 10:24 AM
#96 Caine
As Ruse himself isn't afraid to say he's an atheist your comment is at best puzzling. And rather than mince words about violent, militant or aggressive, recognize the difference between not believing in the christian eucharist and holding mock communions. If you do the latter, don't whine that you are being picked on just because you don't believe.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 10:33 AM
el cid #147
I see. One is a militant atheist if one mocks or is otherwise deprecatory towards religion. Ruse and the other accomodationists are either supportive or neutral towards religion (which is not the same as being supportive or neutral towards deities), so they're good atheists. The the militant atheists, the fundamentalist atheists, the "New Atheists" are those who fail to show respect to religion and sometimes even [gasp] are disrepectful towards religion.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 10:34 AM
el cid@147
Unless you can justify Ruse's use of violent as a description of any new atheist, your comments run the risk of being mock intellectual discourse instead of the real thing.
Since you're unlikely to be able to find any violent action on the part of any new atheist, maybe you'd like to justify the underlying beliefs of transubstation instead.
Posted by: Mr T | August 15, 2009 10:34 AM
People! Come on... can't you see! Unless you immediately cease and desist from dismissing nonsense as nonsense, ontological arguments everywhere will get the vapors! And when this happens, baby Jesus commits genocide and tortures people for eternity! Surely this undermines science! HORRORS!... Okay, I'm calm again.
Well, obviously it is. Like, for sure, because, you know, Michael Ruse just asserted it. "There is no evidence 'God' is a natural object which can be empirically studied." Would that count as "teaching religion"? I'm sure at least some religions claim at least some gods are natural objects which can be empirically studied, while of course others do not. Whatever shall we do? Nonsense in every direction! We'll just have to stop teaching science errr... religion in science classes about how science is not religion! Or not, because this only leads to a contradiction! You will most assuredly not be eaten first, Richard Dawkins!
Whew ... Breathe. Calm.
I say we find ourselves some Supreme Court justices and get them to scribble some jurisprudence about it, or else we may never know the Truth for sure. Someone call Ken Miller, or, better yet: someone friend Kwok on Facebook and get him to call Miller.
I pity the fools.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 10:37 AM
el cid sez:
"And rather than mince words about violent, militant or aggressive, recognize the difference between not believing in the christian eucharist and holding mock communions. If you do the latter, don't whine that you are being picked on just because you don't believe."
Right. And let's also regognize the difference between being made fun of with mock communions and being denied a political voice, or a job, or basic requirements due to professing a lack of faith.
Any believer is more than welcome to mock me as much as he likes. They are not welcome to try to put their god into my government, or my classroom, or make medical decisions based on bronze age myth, or fly airplanes into buildings.
Mr. Ruse, of course, isn't doing that.
But he is saying, in so many words, that we should respect the thought processes of those that are.
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 10:38 AM
That isn't true. It is wishful thinking. It is simply wrong.
The fundie leadership are virtually all Xian Dominionists. They do want a totalitarian theocracy. It is there in black and white in their voluminous writings. Many of them openly hate the USA and want to overthrow the present government system.
Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, Kennedy etc.. are all Dominionists. Robertson's mentor was Rushdooney, the father of modern Xian Dominionism and a murderous psychopath. Read The Wedge document from the DI, which is supported by xian Dom. money. It is right in there. Read Dembski's wacko websites. It is there too in black and white.
Look at what they've done to Texas. The governor, Perry, is even muttering about secession from the USA.
They are opposed by everyone else. Including the majority of other xians.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 10:40 AM
We have a dangerous mission from which you might not come back sane. Volunteers for this? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 10:40 AM
Dr Mab is David Mabus?
That refugee from a psych ward needs his Lithium and a supply of adult nappies.
Posted by: mattmc | August 15, 2009 10:44 AM
Mr. Ruse, While I disagree completely with almost every word in your essay; I find your facial hair to be quite awesome.
Posted by: eidolon | August 15, 2009 11:13 AM
Jesus Christ on a Stick...
Another twit who wants us to play nice and be "Old Atheists". The kind who give a free pass to any and all forms of privilege ceded to the religious. The kind of good people who are willing to stay in the closet and accept second class status.
I have reached what I call the "Popeye point". In those old cartoons, Popeye would say, just before kicking the bad guy's butt, "I had all I can stands 'cause I can't stands no more!" I've had it with the stupid people, so willfully ignorant, who demand special status because of their very special beliefs. Ruse, Mooney and the lot do not seem to realize that we have tried it their way, we did the experiment, and the results are negative.
If religions were a strictly personal matter, would not not a problem. There is a huge problem when in education, employment, and government there is a constant pandering to the religious and constant pressure to push towards a theocratic state.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 15, 2009 11:19 AM
Nowadays Ruse is, um, how shall I put this politely, a couple of cards short of a full deck. Sad, really. I don't have the heart to bash someone who is already punishing himself sufficiently by exposing his condition in public.
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 11:19 AM
There is also a difference between believing in the eucharist and shooting MDs in the head. If xians do the latter, which they do occasionally, they shouldn't whine when we call them "muderous loons and terrorists."
Not that we care if they whine since they are always whining about something. Gays breathing, science in kids' science classes, scientists doing science, Halloween, Harry Potter books, the fact that most of the world believes in Fake Gods, and of course, all the Fake Xians that aren't in their True Xian Cult.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 11:27 AM
eidolon: As a Bugs Bunny fan, I prefer the phrase:
"Of course you realize, this means WAR!"
Posted by: Sara | August 15, 2009 11:27 AM
OH BUT HE DOES. It's, like, he doesn't believe they are adult and/or intelligent enough to take some criticism and survive, and he doesn't believe that they are smart enough to realise they might be wrong about some things, so he too, with the rest of the accommodationists, believes they have to be coddled. If there is any lack of respect or anything anywhere, it's precisely in the accommodationist movement which argues that some people, namely the believers, should NOT be treated like adult intelligent human beings who can be partners in any sort of intellectual enterprise.
Seriously.
Posted by: Mr T | August 15, 2009 11:46 AM
Not it!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 15, 2009 11:47 AM
... perhaps he was stunned by my invective, and went temporarily blind when he looked at the page ...
Temporary blindness is a well-documented effect, but I had not seen any previous reports of an organism being stunned by a release of molluscan ink. Quick, someone get me a grant!
Here's another passage from the same 'graf as the "original sin" inanity quoted by SC @ # 63:
The only rejoinder that seems appropriate is one found occasionally on signs & bumperstickers in Gainesville (home of UF):
Now back to attempt reading the second 'graf (this is going to take a while...).
Posted by: Susan | August 15, 2009 12:03 PM
@ PhysicistDave:
Not as long as they can manage its functional equivalent. If you were a woman seeking an abortion in Kansas, or a gay couple wanting to get married in Utah, you might have a different perspective on how successful the fundies have been at imposing their God's will on everyone else.
Posted by: Lynna | August 15, 2009 12:13 PM
Michael Ruse, please listen carefully to the video that PZ posted in the "Spoof? Or not?" thread. It is not okay.
Religious groups, like those that spawned the alarmingly ignorant girls questioning the poor Hindu girl, give awards for ignorance. Memorizing the parts of the bible, or of the death cult beliefs in hell that apply to one's particular dogma -- those do not count as knowledge. Nor do they count as philosophy or comparative religion. They count as propaganda, as brain-washing, and as a sociologically interesting exercise in control.
There is nothing that atheists have said or done that measures up to the "you're going to hell" fallback for sheer rudeness, for aggression, and for violence.
Michael Ruse may hobnob with the well-educated few who are steeped in philosophy, history of religion, and comparative religion, but Hindu Nationalists, Popes, Ray Comforts, Wendy Wrights and Mitt Romneys of the world, minister to a great mass of humanity with hobbles on their intellect.
There is nothing that atheists have done that measures up to the hobbled minds of True Believers for doing violence to our educational institutions and to our political landscape.
They're nice to Michael, they pay him with money and applause, but they have an agenda that requires them to continually fuck over their own minds, and the minds of others. They are building neurologically damaged brains. What could be more violent?
Posted by: Lynna | August 15, 2009 12:23 PM
I love this line from Ruse:
Chortle. Man, do I hear this argument often. "If you really want to know about [insert religion here] you should read [insert sacred babble here] and pray to [insert god or gods here] to touch your heart."
Well, first of all, it doesn't really help to study a chimera if you're looking for how-does-it-work answers. You can dig down into the details all you want and you'll still come up with cotton candy presented as food.
But, I read all the damned texts and delved anyway. Lots o' bloody cotton candy. Waste of time, time that could have been better spent with a biology or physics text. Reminds me of the Creation Museum folks complaining that PZ and hordes didn't spend enough time there to really understand. Scholarship my ass.
Posted by: Lynna | August 15, 2009 12:26 PM
I'm backing up Susan @163. Here's an example:
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 12:29 PM
I don't agree with all Ruse says (the teaching paragraph is awful), but overall I give him a resounding "BRAVO!!" He is absolutely correct that Dawkins would fail introductory philosophy. It's not that Dawkins is an idiot - it's that he purposefully ignores any existing arguments about the issue in favor of his own.
New atheists have an overwhelming tendency to replace "philosophy" with "whatever I think." They see their worldview as one that cannot be criticized or modified due to its infallibility, and thus they outright ignore the decades of philosophical argument about the nature (or non-nature) of religion versus science. It's as extreme an approach to philosophy as the most fundamentalist Christian has. Christians piss on philosophy and shit out God. New atheists piss on philosophy and shit out arrogance. Pathetic.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 12:37 PM
OK Dildo (err, Bilbo) -
Refute Dawkin's arguments about God, present valid arguments for its existence.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 15, 2009 12:39 PM
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.
I see this criticism of Dawkins a lot from Christian idiots (and from wimps like Michael Ruse who suck up to Christian scum), and I don't get their point. Since when does a person require a detailed knowledge of bullshit to call it "bullshit"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 12:39 PM
Yawn Dildo, you are a boring idjit. You need to learn that all the new atheist is, is one who will not be silenced. Period, end of story. That is your problem. You appear to want atheist to be in the closet. No way Jose. Deal with your problem elsewhere.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 12:47 PM
@Gruesome: Explain the history of philosophical arguments other than Dawkins' and then we'll talk. They can either support or oppose him.
@Nerd: I don't want atheists in the closet. I just want them to have the philosophical background they so loudly proclaim they do.
I'm not the only person to ever make those comments. Neither is Michael Ruse. Ever think there could be some bit of substance behind that argument?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 12:48 PM
You ignore the fact that much of that philosophy purposely ignores science. The nature of religion practised by the overwhelming majority of people makes claims that a deity intervenes in the universe to change events. Whether it is virgin birth, rising from the dead, curing the sick through touch or prayer or any other such claim, any philosophy that ignores the fact we have no evidence at all for such interventions is seriously flawed. There is simply no evidence that there is a god (or gods) that intervenes in the universe.
Ruse and others who contend this conflict does not exist have not offered a way around that problem, other than just pretending it does not exist.
I have seen one attempt, which claims that because miracles happen so infrequently they are not a problem. I am told that the virgin birth of Jesus is one such example. It only happened once, so there is no problem. There are two (at least) problems with this. The first is that it is not claimed a virgin birth happened only once. Sure Christianity only has it happening once, but why should we privilege Christianity ? Other religions make claims for virgin births, so we have way more than one happening. The second is that the argument can be used to get around any lack of evidence. If we allow for virgin births to be compatible with science, why not allow for god creating all species at the same time and faking the fossil record ?
Posted by: TheVirginian | August 15, 2009 12:50 PM
PhysicistDave:
Christianity operated as a totalitarian movement for most of its existence. Further, it's theology is totalitarian, as Jesus purportedly claims kingship over everyone and threatens all nonfollowers with the worst punishments imaginable. This attitude led Jesus' representatives on Earth, theologians and the clergy, to claim similar powers over everyone. [Yes, Michael Ruse, I know I'm simplifying, but this is a short response on a Blog, not a 400-page dissection of Christian beliefs. I have read theology and know what Christians have said on this subject. I do not get any sense that you have done the necessary reading.]
To continue: Christians suppressed all dissent against the state version of Christianity. They also wiped out all non-Christians in Europe, possibly the worst act of genocide in history, and they made a major attempt to impose Christianity on the rest of the world. As late as the 20th century, some popes claimed publicly that all governments should force Catholicism on everyone and suppress non-Catholic systems, particularly Protestantism, which Pius X asserted leads to atheism.
England's American colonies were theocracies, which among other things made it a felony to be an atheist. 19th-century British freethinkers went to prison for publishing works deemed atheistic. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. We know that Christianity has a strong tendency toward totalitarianism.
Just because many conservative Christians today say they don't want a theocracy, just a recognition that this is supposedly a Christian nation based on Christian principles, doesn't mean that - if they get their wish - they won't go further and further until they make the U.S. "Christian" in a factual basis by suppressing everything non-Christian. They've done this repeatedly over the centuries, because of inherent aspects of their theology that drives them to fear and hate dissent. If Ruse had ever actually studied Christian theology and history, he would know this.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 12:51 PM
Try again, Matt. There's another complete suite of philosophical arguments that you seem to be in the dark about.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 12:51 PM
Bilbo,
Since you are demanding other understand the philosophy, I think it is only fair we demand the same of you.
Explain how religion with an interventionist god is compatible with science. Please ensure you account for the lack of any evidence for such an interventionist god.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 12:51 PM
Bilbo,
you weren't by chance, a philosophy major were you?
Posted by: Rick R | August 15, 2009 12:55 PM
Ruse says; "I am pretty atheistic, although some doctrines like original sin seem to me to be accurate psychologically."
Yeah, if you're fucked in the head, and were raised to think you are inherently bad and dirty.
I'll be "Sybil" kind of grooved on the idea of original sin, too.
KevinC- "Somebody explain to me how this sort of thing qualifies as "sophisticated?" Since this "argument" can be used equally well to conjure The Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich into being, why can't I eat it?"
I'm sooo stealing this.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | August 15, 2009 12:57 PM
If Ruse is to be vilified for whining about being called names by PZ Myers, what should happen to all the Pharyngulites here bleating on behalf of the whining Myers over Ruse's much less vitriolic words.
Oh, wait, _you_ are Right and Ruse and any who don't engage in vitriol against not only religion but all religious persons is Wrong and thus anything _you_ do is, ipso facto, Right. I get it. It's easier to recognize having seen it work among the religious right for many years.
From a position outside the radicals on either side of this fracas, the resemblance between the two radicalisms is striking in their means, methods and emotions. Of course, for Myers' fanbase here, by excluding any compromise they can comfort themselves with the belief that anyone not for them in all things is opposed to them in all things and thus can deny the legitimacy of any perspective other than their own. Error has no right, eh.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | August 15, 2009 1:02 PM
Stacey misses the asymmetry. Speaking only for myself here, while Blake Stacey embraces and endorses the metaphorically flamethrowing 'new' atheists, I, a Christian and aggressive evolutionist, consider the use of force over the years against any departures from the Christian orthodoxy of the day to have been evil.
Another asymmetry is that while Ruse uses snarky language of the arguments of Dawkins, Myers, etc, Myers engages in direct vitriolic personal attacks.
But, hey, Myers is on the side of Right and being Right means that all that one does is therefore right. And it works for whipping up the base.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:03 PM
The issue is not really with Ruse's complaints about being called clueless gobshite. It is about Ruse's deliberate misrepresentation of what Myers, Coyne, Dawkins and other had said.
Since your initial premise is so flawed your conclusions cannot therefore be relied upon and must be rejected. Next time it might be better if instead of starting with your conclusions, you started by trying to understand what PZ was actually saying. That way we will not think you an idiot.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:03 PM
E.V.: that's a negative. I'm a scientist, in fact.
Matt: You seem to be taking philosophy, removing it, pulling the pieces you don't like out, and plopping science down in its place. Those are two very different dogs, indeed. If you want to take a strictly empiricist view of philosophy, then fine (and I don't necessarily disagree with you). But what about Popper's arguments about empiricism, or the arguments preceding and even following his? New atheists either seem to be in the dark about these, or overly willing to ignore them wholly. I'm not saying you're wrong - not by a longshot. I'm just saying - as Ruse does - that new atheism purposefully takes a very narrow view of what they call "philosophy." And that's not philosophy ...at least not good philosophy, anyway.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 1:03 PM
Mike from Ottawa, your concern has been noted.
As has your lack of reading comprehension.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 1:04 PM
No, there isn't any substance to those criticisms.
All of Dawkin's arguments boil down to one: Put up or shut up.
There has been no "put up" yet. The "new atheists" just want that shut up bit if you aren't willing to put up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 1:05 PM
Dildo the deluded. If god exists, you should be able to provide conclusive physical evidence for one. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to provide said evidence means that god is only a delusion in peoples minds.
Posted by: G. Shelley
|
August 15, 2009 1:07 PM
The comments that Dawkins would fail an introductory philosophy class are pretty common, but irrelevant as he isn't trying to pass one, so is able to treat the arguments simply and honestly, rather than acting as though they deserve some sort of respect. The treatment he does give is enough to show them for the bogus arguments that they are.
The analogy to people who are not experts in biology talking about it fails, as science, unlike the ontological argument for example, has facts and content, which are required to say anything worthwhile. what additional facts is Ruse proposing would make the argument that "I can think about god, therefore he exists" less vapid and empty?
Posted by: DLC | August 15, 2009 1:08 PM
Save Ruse's Pearls, he's been clutching them so often the string might break. So not only does he expect polite non-confrontation of religious zealotry but he expects us to be courtiers as well? We should become experts in the fine art of haute couture in order to describe the Emperor's nakedness?
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:08 PM
Mike from Ottawa:
Absolutely correct. The parallels between new atheism and religious fundamentalism are indeed striking and, honestly, highly ironic.
Both serve only to whip up a fan base of bigotry with no ability for personal critical analysis.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:09 PM
I am just holding you to the standards you seem to demand of others.
I will ask once more. How can religion, with an interventionist god be compatible with science when science shows us there is no evidence for such an interventionist god ?
I am not sure how I can frame the question any more simply for you.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 1:10 PM
Bilbo, go find an undergrad who has passed your litmus course of Phil 101 and have him/her dispose of the arguments Dawkins makes. You're clearly not up to it or you would have done it by now. I can only assume that you haven't passed the course either.
We do have hundreds or even thousands of philosophy professors teaching the 101 course who have not yet reached a consensus about the existence of god. Maybe there is no consensus to be had as there is in biology, cosmology, chemistry and the rest of the sciences.
I don't think you've even read 'The God Delusion', much less any of the tomes you think destroy its arguments.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 1:11 PM
Funny, I minored in Philosophy.Not to be argumentative but I'm curious, how are you qualified as a scientist? Which discipline/degree? (No, I'm sincere, this isn't an attack)
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 15, 2009 1:12 PM
I noticed that people like bilbo, who think philosophy has any value, are full of shit.
Mike from Ottawa wrote "I, a Christian and aggressive evolutionist"
I was just wondering, Mike from Ottawa, since you accept evolution, and since that means you agree humans are an ape species, and since that means the dead Jeebus was an ape, why do you worship an ape? Are you nuts, stupid, or what? Thanks.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | August 15, 2009 1:12 PM
@ Bilbo # 187
Tu quoque.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:13 PM
I suspect you are right, and Bilbo cannot deal with the arguments. I asked him how he would deal with the problem that an interventionist god does not seem to be compatible with science but he chose to ignore the question. I have asked again, but I not expect an answer. Mostly probably because he can't.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:13 PM
Matt:
Did I say they were compatible?
No. Not remotely.
Nerd:
If you suggest that science should be able to produce (in your words) "divine, not natural" evidence for ANYTHING, you not on;y fail introductory philosophy, but any introductory science class, as well.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 1:14 PM
A pint of beer says bilbo's actually an engineer.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 1:16 PM
Didlo, you just don't get it, do you?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE?
The sophistry you are promoting doesn't cut it. Point to objective evidence.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:16 PM
E.V.,
I'm a practicing evolutionary biologist. And an atheist. No shitting.
Posted by: cargocult | August 15, 2009 1:16 PM
A note on racism: The religious Christian debate on whether the 'savage races' were actually human beings went on for a long time - for example, las Casas argued that the New World natives were men, while other priests said no, they were like horses or dogs or pigs, which had no souls and could thus be mistreated at will. PETA would have something to say about that, as well...
This debate foundered as scientific proof of the unity of homo sapiens grew and grew - and then, what happened is that scientific justifications of racism were promoted - the naturally inferior African, for example, was so not because of some phrase in the Bible, but rather because the shape of the skull was "non-European", indicating "a close relationship to the ape." Indeed, they also produced similar evidence that 'inferior races do not feel pain the same way Europeans do'. PETA would also have something to say about that, to - many 'scientists' claim that mammals do not feel pain the same way humans do, for example.
The fall of religious political authority also created problems for European aristocrats, who could no longer claim the divine right to rule based on special dispensation from God as delivered via the Pope, etc.
Darwin came to their rescue, however - Social Darwinism provided 'scientific proof' that the natural order was indeed the aristocratic order, and that the unwashed masses were clear genetic inferiors to the (ahem) inbred aristocrats. According to Darwinists of the day, hybridization with the lower classes or the savage races would dilute the pure royal blood and introduce unfavorable 'gemmules' to that cloistered gene pool.
In reality, inbreeding leads to a high percentage of recessive genes... and hybridization and outbreeding leads to healthier levels of gene diversity. The racist in your family won't like to hear this, but it is true. The Nazis would be horrified, wouldn't they?
I mean, really - what do you think Darwin's response would have been if you told him that in 2008, a man of mixed African-European genetic heritage would be elected President of the United States? He'd have thought you were barking mad. Of course, the Pope at that time would have said the same thing...
I still think that's hilarious, that we're celebrating the 200th birthday of Darwin, while politely ignoring the fact that he liked to quote Livingstone: "God made the white man, and God made the black man, but the Devil made the half-caste."
Oh, Saint Darwin - truly a man of his times. People of that era had much reason to hide their society's brutality behind a screen of religious and scientific propriety, though - colonialism, genocide and slavery being the main themes of the day.
Authoritarian atheists and religious fundamentalists have quite a bit in common - lots to atone for, or rather, cover up.
Posted by: Eidolon | August 15, 2009 1:18 PM
MfO:
Pointing out that there are serious flaws in the stand taken by Ruse hardly qualifies as "bleating". The responses seem to deal with the problem with the "Can't we just get along?" stance of Ruse.
Since when does saying "enough is enough" qualify as radical? You got facts to back up your position regarding the Go Along to Get Along POV, trot them out. If you have any proof for your interventionist Dog, put it on the table. Any evidence for the soul? Share it with us. You got jack, lad.
Good to see that you are a peace lovin' xian though. So sad that you appear to be in such a distinct minority over the last 2K years. Then again, with Dog on your side "...all that one does is therefore right. And it works for whipping up the base."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 1:18 PM
Spoken like a true con man Dildo the deluded. Science deals with physical reality. It can look at anything, and since deities are not part of the armament, a natural explanation will result. But something like an eternally burning bush would be a interesting study. By the way, I am a professional scientist, and gave you the only level of evidence that will convince me, PZ, and Dawkins of imaginary deities being real. Your lack of evidence is telling me you are a liar and bullshitter, better known as a philosopher. I'm sure you are aware that philosophy without evidence is sophistry, so all god arguments are sophistry without any evidence to back them up. And there never is any.Posted by: Jeeves | August 15, 2009 1:19 PM
Has anyone read Evolution: The First Four Billion Years? I know he edited it (along with E.O. Wilson) and contributed a chapter but is it worth plunking down the cash or does his philosophy get in the way of the science?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 1:22 PM
Bilbo, what would you consider a good philosophical base that atheists should have?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 1:22 PM
I see the cargo cultist is off the deep end again. No evidence for atheists saying anything other than I don't believe in your imaginary deity. Any thing else attributed to them is purely the delusions of a godbot. Which are many.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:25 PM
Ruse did. You gave a big "bravo" to Ruse. In fact if there is anything "new" about "new" atheists, it is the importance that they give to the incompatibility of science and religion. By dismissing the "new" atheist argument as you have done it is reasonable to assume you reject the claims of incompatibility. It is all part of the on-going accomodationist debate. If you are genuinely not an accomodationist then I suspect you have missed most of the debate, in which case it might be better to keep quiet since you will now know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Rick R | August 15, 2009 1:25 PM
cargocult- Might I gently point you to the propaganda piece....er, I mean "documentary" known as "Expelled"?
It has "evolution = atheists = NAZIS!!!!!"
Sounds like it's right up your alley.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 15, 2009 1:26 PM
jennyxyzzy @ # 70: Americans are unsophisticated religiots that would't know the ontological argument from a pile of faeces.
Guilty as charged. Could you please be so kind as to define the difference?
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:26 PM
That statement, my friend, gets to the whole crux of this philosophical argument. And it's one that, from the comments thus far, those on this site know nothing about.
Which proves Ruse's point about new atheists and a lack of philosophical background wonderfully.
The short answer? There are more philosophical arguments about the nature of religion/God than "God exists" and "God doesn't exist." It would do you all some good to explore them....even if it doesn't change your worldview.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:35 PM
Nerd:
More evidence to support Ruse. You have taken philosophy, erased it, and redefined it as science. Which is shitty philosophy. Whether doing so is wrong or right, Ruse was correct.
Posted by: Tuomoh | August 15, 2009 1:35 PM
I think Ruse actually warned atheists. There is certainly atmosphere, which say that only one side of these two are dangerous to science. Religion. If people are religious, then if pro_science -fellows says that their religion is bad, they don't throw their religion in hell and change. No, instead they are hate the science part. (Almost If you can convince rationally a person out of religion, there would not be religious people?)
And USA is democracy. And there is masses of religious people. So if you anger them, there is going to be instant problems. Atheists are not dangerous, so you don't need to keep them tame.
"Bill Dembski and his friends are so nice and Ruse's friends, but they dont help if Ruse is in problem".
But I don't think Ruse see what the motivations of creationist's are. It is not money. It is their religion, partly. But mostly it is about political power. It is actually easy to see, if you don't look creationism just as set of claims. If you look it as sosial_political construction, you see, that it is allways publishing for kids and "normal people". Actually they produce more "books for dummies" than they publish papers. (I don't know any sciences which do that! And anyone other knows either.)
And they are not just waiting the scientific paradigmshift. They are always in court. And what is their system there? What they are after in there? Schoolteaching. From Scopes to Dover. And they are allways softening their way. And that is always after the loss, which say "no, you are never gona go to school with that".
And then they sell their religious principles and say something like:
OK, YEC:s suck, but we are not that. "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." (Dean Kenyon, "Edwards v Aguillard")
So Ruse are actually playing totally creationism_way. I can actually say it is "futuro_creationism".
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 1:36 PM
There is no doubt that the fundie death cultists are authoritarian extremists who want power and money and don't care how they get it. They say so often in their policy documents.
One moderate example is below. Dembski hates "Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism and his full time job is to destroy both of them. These are the foundations of modern Western civilization and the US version. He has become angry and bitter because the majority of the population for some reason likes living in a free, democratic, Hi Tech society.
There are worse. Parsley wants to start of war with the 1.4 billion Moslems and get rid of them. Hagee wants to jumpstart the Apocalypse and have god kill all 6.7 billion people. Dobson and Robertson are xian Dominionists who think Real Xians (their cults of course) should rule.
The fundie leadership isn't hiding anything. It is all in their extensive writings going back a century or two.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:37 PM
Hang on a minute.
Evidence is as you say, the crux of the matter. If an interventionist god existed there would be evidence. We do not find this evidence.
Now I think we really do have to insist you explain this lack of evidence. If you cannot, or will not, we will judge your position to be without merit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 1:38 PM
No Dildo the deluded. I defined god with evidence. Not any popular vote or philosophical wanking. Hard evidence. I have a whole body of peer reviewed evidence. Where is yours? Put up or shut up.Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 1:38 PM
There are more philosophical arguments about the nature of religion/God than "God exists" and "God doesn't exist."
So... God kind of exists? Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant? And keep in mind that there are a few dozen million Christians who would be quite offended if you say the actual answer about God is anything but he exists, is real, and acts in ways to manipulate physical reality on this planet.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 1:41 PM
Bilbo, yet again you don't get the implications of those statements.
The nature of religion is completely and totally irrelevant. It all boils down to the following
1) Religion makes claims of its gods (specifically, in this case, I am speaking of the Abrahamic religions. The others have near zero impact at this point)
2) Religion uses these claims to enforce their will on the public sector
3) There are no evidence for these claims. At all.
The higher philosophical meanings are TOTALLY irrelevant to this impact on the public sphere. They are forcing an imaginary friend and limiting others with that. THAT is what matters. They are impacting the physical sphere and thus need physical evidence to do so.
Again, it all boils down to put up or shut up. If you want to control me, you damn fucking well better give a supportable reason.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 1:41 PM
Dildo Bugger and his hero, Ruse, keep whining about how "Dawkins couldn't pass a basic philosophy class." Now I realize that Ruse is a professional
bullshitterphilosophicizer and so feels miffed that Dawkins had the effrontery to philosophicize without a union card. But so fucking what? Dawkins didn't write The God Delusion for the likes of Ruse. TGD isn't a philosophician tome refuting some minor point that only professional philosophicharacters care about. It was written to show that theism is a mass hallucination and a dangerous one at that.I do actually understand Ruse's complaint. As a professional economist, I get quite annoyed when people make economic statements which just show they're clueless about economics. But there is a major difference between my annoyance and Ruse's. Economics has real world consequences, while philosophicalizing is wanking with an enriched vocabulary.
As for Dildo Bugger's wish that he doesn't want to keep atheists in the closet, he really doesn't. He just wants to keep the vocal ones who make Dildo's religious buddies uncomfortable hidden away. The quiet, decent, respectful atheists like Ruse and Mooney can come out of the closet, as long as they keep quiet and don't upset any of Dildo's buddies.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:42 PM
Matt:
That's exactly my point. What about the decades-old back and forth of well-supported, philosophical arguments for and against strict empiricism in the context of ontology?
It sounds like what you, Nerd, and many new atheists are doing is taking philosophy, ignoring choice parts of it, putting science down in its place, and still try to call it philosophy. Doing so is fine...but don't call yourselves philosophical scholars when it comes to ontological arguments. Doing so is a ruse and, well, supports Ruse.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 1:42 PM
I guess my philosophy minor went to waste, I never made use of it since I just continued as a performer and artist. Before anyone starts dumping on philosophy, remember that Critical Thinking falls under the auspices of philosophy.
Saying "philosophy" is as vague as saying "music". The spectrum of philosophical thought may be fraught with obsolete ideologies since many philosophers were "of their time", but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, there is a great deal of intellectual wealth from philosophers from Spinoza to Foucault and not all of it presupposes a deity.
(Materialism/naturalism are both philosophies of many nontheists/agnostics)
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 1:44 PM
Bilbo I always try to figure out where an antagonist is coming from philosophically. I think we atheists make use of objectivism, subjectivism and pragmatism. Maybe from your view those are simple lines of philosophy, but it works.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 1:45 PM
Dildo, philosophy without evidence is sophistry. All ontological arguments are sophistry. What part of this don't you understand? Mental masturbation is meaningless. Evidence counts.
Posted by: Tulse | August 15, 2009 1:45 PM
Yeah, if it weren't for the doctor assassinations, blowing up buildings, aggressive homophobia and misogyny, and attempts to control governments, they would be very easy to confuse.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:49 PM
What about it ?
I have asked you three times to explain how to reconcile an interventionist god with science, and explain the lack of evidence. You have failed to do so. Your case therefore fails for lack of supporting evidence.
If you want to be taken seriously explain how god(s) can intervene in the universe and not leave any evidence. If the religious are right the rules of the universe are being broken by their god(s) all the time.
How many make claims that god has healed a loved one ? Well that is a testable claim. If god answers prayers to heal the sick we see difference in outcomes between people prayed for and those not. There is no evidence of any such difference. Prayer makes not the slightest difference to outcome. You need to explain why there is no such evidence.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 1:50 PM
Stop making claims about the allegedly neglected philosophical arguments and make a fucking philosophical argument. Is that so difficult? You'd think if these were the downfall of atheists the theists would be broadcasting them far and wide, but no, they prefer to coyly allude to them. Make one, and I can probably point you to the thread here where it's been discussed over hundreds of comments. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 1:50 PM
Darwin never said that. You are simply lying.
Darwin hated slavery and his extended family spent a lot of time and money trying to abolish it. For his day, he was quite the liberal. His near contemporaries, George Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders. Abraham Lincoln thought blacks inferior but said they should be free anyway.
At the same time the fundie xians were slaveholders who used their bible to justify it. They refused to give up their slaves and fought a bloody war and lost. They opposed intergration and civil rights for minorities up until, well about 1 second ago. Many are still open racists.
If anyone has some explaining to do about their beliefs and racism, it is fundie xians not Darwin.
PS What is the chance that Dildo and cargo cult are the same idiot trolls. Really, there can't be two that stupid on a thread at the same time, can there be.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 1:51 PM
Nerd,
Could you, then, please point me to the peer-reviewed research papers that directly refute the existence of God? Out of a "whole body," there must be a few that state "An important conclusion of our study is "God does not exist." What journals do they publish those in?
Funny...I've never seen a research focus be "disproving theological argument."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 1:51 PM
As I said before, there are some philosophicallites who are worth listening to. It's the mental masturbators like Ruse and Dildo Bugger who give the other 5% of philosophicizers a bad name.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 1:54 PM
PhysicistDave@112:
Whether or not Christian fundies want a totalitarian theocracy, my point was that Michael Ruse is arguing that we atheists should give them one by acting as if it already exists. Dawkins, P.Z. Myers and the other "new atheists" should be silenced, lest the fundies get mad and ban science education. That they can and will do so the moment they realize "New Atheists" think the absence of magic and miracle in the Universe science has shown us is evidence for the absence of magic and miracle is an article of faith Ruse does not question.
Ruse needs to grow a pair. The people who imprisoned Galileo and burned Giordano Bruno at the stake were well aware that faith and science cannot share the same epistemological terrain. I sincerely doubt that their successors would find the idea to be a shocking revelation, should any of them happen to crack open the covers of The God Delusion. Ken Ham presents the choice prominently throughout his Genesis theme park: "Man's reason...or GOD'S WORD!"
So why has Ruse's nightmare not come true? Why have the invincible Christian hordes failed to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming back to the Dark Ages and hang us all from gibbets on the front of their churches? Why didn't they do it back when Laplace told Napoleon, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis [God]"?
Because science and reason are not nearly as weak and helpless, or as unpopular as Ruse fears. Even the Republicans understand the power and value of science well enough to keep DARPA fully funded. This is not to say they won't try to co-opt and corrupt science whenever they get the chance. But abolish it, and turn America into Amishland? No, that's a non-existent bogeyman that would distract us from the real threat to science that fundamentalists and Republicans represent.
Science is a mighty citadel in its own right, and quite defensible if her defenders will only stand on their hind feet, backbones in place, and do the defending. Unlike religion, science can demonstrate the accuracy of its theories. Since religion is not connected to any actual reality, it may be made infinitely plastic whenever it collides with scientific fact. Believers always have easy options of compartmentalizing (separating propositions accepted on faith from those accepted on a scientific basis), re-interpreting their scriptures, and so on. Even Ken Ham surrenders "GOD'S WORD" to "human reason" when it comes to the flat-Earth and sky-dome "firmament" passages in the Bible.
It's much easier to perform such feats of mental gymnastics than to actually try to get the Supreme Court to ban science classes as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Believers know better than to set up such a confrontation, because they know they would lose. They'd be global laughingstocks.
Even when they're at their worst in openly opposing science, the fundies lust after its clout. That's why Hamster and his ilk have spent $27 million to build a playhouse "museum" so they can dress up like real scientists with fossils and robotic dinosaurs and beards and everything. We don't see the scientists at CERN trying to make the Large Hadron Collider look like a church, dressing in fake bishops' robes and so on, in hopes that people will think they're really priests and pastors.
What this means is that deep down, both sides recognize the superior validity of science. Should another battle between science and religion come, the last thing we should do is pretend we're already conquered, as Ruse suggests. Going on 500 years, science has an unbroken winning streak in its confrontations with religion. When Galileo's trial commenced, the Church claimed the entire Universe as its territory, with priests as the arbiters of all truth in Heaven and Earth.
Since then, science has snatched one chunk of reality after another from religion's grasp, advancing as an unstoppable juggernaut until faith is left hiding within the few remaining caverns of ignorance where the "God of the gaps" may still find shelter from the light of inquiry.
With a track record like this, why should advocates of science or "New Atheists" want to adopt Ruse's policy of preemptive surrender? By all means, let us get along with the more sensible believers when we can. Evolution is not synonymous with atheism. Believers can accept evolution and keep their faith without difficulty. St. Augustine warned against Genesis literalism before there was any such thing as a book called "the Bible."
However, until some god or goddess should finally show up and have measurable effects in reality, evolution, like all science is non-theistic.* Sorry Mr. Ruse, that's just the way it is, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Trying to hush Richard Dawkins and hope the believers don't notice this fact is not only cowardly, it's futile. They already know.
*"Non-theistic" is not the same thing as "atheistic." Golf, chess, sailing, macrame' and motorcycle maintenance are all "non-theistic" (no supernatural entities or concepts are necessary or relevant), but not necessarily "atheistic." A believer can do any of these things without losing their faith. Tiger Woods doesn't have to fear for his career should Richard Dawkins mention that angels do not carry golf balls down-range.
Posted by: Tuomo | August 15, 2009 1:54 PM
Sorry, I forget one crucial part in my earlier.
And Why you thinkt they are ready to make those slips? Answer is easy.
1: Childrens don't usually know law. So if even slightest version of creationism is "OK", then there is already bunch of religious teachers (O Yes, "argument of many christians" are now shooting back.) who are ready to ban evolution, or "teaching" it only in it's mockery sense. And who is teaching fully the good old YEC. Their propability to get caught is slim. In religious areas they are most propable cheered as heroes, and childs agree. And in other places there is always chance to say "I don't teach anything like that. I teach only darwi--- evolution and God Jesus our Savior oops critical teach controversy "not natural_law_nor_random generator" -theory, which is totally almost a scientifish. (I live in Finland, where religion is teached in school. But certain parts are forbidden. And 7 religion teacher, which I had have, 4 have overstepper those boundaries. Without any problems.)
2: When they get their foot under the doorsteps, there is always propable to open the door more. So ID is only an part. Read Wedge and you know: You can not teach ID without referring Behe, Dembski and others Discovery Institute's fellas. So this is actually quite relevant document.
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 1:56 PM
Don't believe it. You come across as an uneducated moron with personality problems. Your sole purpose here seems to be to antagonize people to waste a few hours between doses of zyprexa. In other words, a troll.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 1:56 PM
Professional philosophy is permeated with vacuity even its own joke about it. Amateur philosophy such as that of Bilbo even more so. It's telling that he hasn't hired that undergrad yet to show the obvious flaws in Dawkins argument, nor shown how any of the area of philosophy not ground in empiricism have anything at all to say about reality. I've seen this happening so much recently that it appears that philosophy is god's newest gap to hide in.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 1:57 PM
Dildo the deluded, the whole literature, without the need for invoke any deity. Absence of evidence. Which usually means no evidence for something. What part are you having trouble with? God doesn't exist until proper evidence is shown for one Parsimony. Show us your evidence. Or shut up.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 1:57 PM
Bad bilbo, no cookie. You're making the positive claim, you present the proof.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 1:58 PM
As you well know there are no such papers. Of course no one has claimed there is, so stop being an idiot.
However there are papers that examine specific claims for intervention by god(s). We know prayer does not make the slightest difference to health outcomes, despite intercessory prayer being cited as an example god exists.
We know that all species were not created the same time, some 6000 years ago. Again, that is a specific claim made by some for their god.
We know that mammals do not give birth without having been inseminated. And that even if a human did so, the offspring would be female, not male. Lack of a Y chromosome you see.
We know people who are dead do not become undead after three days, or indeed any length of time.
We know all this through scientific research. There is not a shred of evidence for an interventionist god. There would be if one existed.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 2:00 PM
Deism, perchance? An "interventionist God" is not the only philosophical view of God - not by a longshot. You seem to be less upset at true ontology and more upset with fundamentalist Christian faith (as I suspect is the case for the vast majority of new atheists). Again, you're drawing what you call philosophy from a narrow spectrum of the field. And that's exactly what Ruse was saying.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 2:00 PM
KevinC excellent post.
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 15, 2009 2:01 PM
Bilbo @ #171:
So you agree to the equal-and-opposite as well, right?
We don't want theists in the closet. We just want them to have the factual background they so loudly proclaim they do.
Posted by: Norm | August 15, 2009 2:02 PM
Being raised a Quaker, I wonder if Ruse has some lingering nostalgia for religious belief. Similar to what Dennett describes as belief in belief, maybe Ruse's is more like a nostalgia for belief in belief.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 2:02 PM
I'll repeat myself yet again, in stronger language. SO THE FUCK WHAT? That's not the God being invoked to affect public policy.
Posted by: maddogdelta | August 15, 2009 2:04 PM
@Kell, OM #44
Is it true that Ruse also said, in another article, "The God Delusion is a horrible book because there aren't any good recipes for barbecued brisket in it!" That seems like his style, anyway.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 2:06 PM
Dildo doesn't want to acknowledge the atheists biggest claim for no deity. No physical evidence for one. So he heads for the mental masturbation of ontological sophistry to demonize atheists. Guess what deluded one. No evidence for 2000+ years is pretty damning argument. Beat it.
Posted by: Susan | August 15, 2009 2:07 PM
@ Carlie
So... God kind of exists?
Perhaps he means it leaves out the philosophical arguments that more than one god exists?
Posted by: Roel | August 15, 2009 2:07 PM
So, if I understand Mr. Ruse correctly, he thinks teaching science in science class is a violation of the First Amendment because it implies atheism?
Now who would fail an introductory philosophy course?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:07 PM
Dawkins is quite explicit in "The God Delusion" that the arguments in the book do not apply to deism. Dennett makes the same point, as do Coyne and PZ.
Just so you are clear, the arguments against the existence of god that Dawkins et al make are for an interventionist god. They are clear they do NOT apply to deism.What part of that do you not understand ? For you to try and pretend they apply to deism is simply not on. You are wilfully ignoring what they said.
So you still have the question to answer.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 2:08 PM
Dildo Bugger,
We get it. You don't like "New Atheists" upsetting your goddist buddies. You and Ruse want us loudmouths to go back into the closet (and no, asshole, I don't believe you when you pretend that's not your objective). You've made your point, such as it is. Now do us a favor and crawl back under the bridge with the rest of the accomodationist trolls.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 2:08 PM
What an imbecile.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 15, 2009 2:08 PM
I simply must remark...outstanding palaver forthwith.
I score it:
Philosophers (0); Scientist (1)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:12 PM
I think we have an example of someone who rejects the arguments in "The God Delusion" but did not bother actually reading it. Had he done so he would have found several pages in which Dawkins makes the point he is not talking about deism.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 2:12 PM
I don't think Michael Ruse could make a better point about what he said about new atheists and philosophical illiteracy than the above statement does.
This is a common argument of new atheists: pretending that the interventionist God of creationists is the only ontological argument for God or gods. They attack this view and then make the proud claim that any and all ontological argument for god or gods is refuted. They don't know (or simply ignore) the multitude of past ontological argument. Hence displaying a pathetic view of philosophy. And you become about the third person on this post to evidence Ruse's point.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 15, 2009 2:12 PM
@26 KevinC
You write as well as Sam Harris.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 15, 2009 2:14 PM
I meant 226.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:17 PM
Bilbo,
We have caught you out being less than honest. You need address that first.
This is simply a lie: "This is a common argument of new atheists: pretending that the interventionist God of creationists is the only ontological argument for God or gods."
Earlier you claimed Dawkins was including deism in his argument against the existence of god. That was another lie.
Just so you are clear, the arguments Dawkins makes are against an interventionist god. Dawkins states the arguments do not apply, not indeed work, against a non-interventionist god. For you to claim he says otherwise is not going to be tolerated around here. Dawkins he says he has no issue at all with Spinoza's god. Which is another thing you conveniently forgot.
Tell me, have you actually read "The God Delusion" ?
Posted by: overburden | August 15, 2009 2:17 PM
If you don't agree with the content, discredit the author - kill the messenger. Philosophy has no 'standards' per se. It is simply critical observation, a pursuit of wisdom, a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.
Because you don't agree, or fail to comprehend the treatise doesn't equate to authorial failure or incompetence. It simply means you don't get it, or you don't like what is in your face.
The God Delusion was a well reasoned assault on religious phenomena, and it pissed all those off who still possess vestigial allegiance to their un-resolved collective identities. You can suggest you are free from the deluded principles of god worship, and no longer reason by faith alone, but your behavior is the true indication of just how far from the 'holy mob' you have come.
To argue the 'new atheism' is too harsh and the proponents unqualified exposes the still attached umbilical of doubt and equivocation, and the fear to commit.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 2:18 PM
Here's a deal Bilbo, I'll make my respect for the religious proportionate to the number of them who are deists. Are you stupid enough to think that would make any substantial difference? (note - rhetorical question, pretty much answered by your previous postings)
Ruse is not shilling for a bunch of deists, he's demanding we respect any religious claim no matter how nutty. He's doing this by being pals with creationists. If you're the evolutionary biologist you claimed earlier, you know their claims are hogwash.
If you knew anything about Deists, you'd know they aren't concerned with what God wants, how to appease Him and how to get Him to do their bidding. No, clearly it's not Deists that the New Atheists object to, but it's also not Deists that Ruse, Mooney, et al. are trying to protect.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 2:19 PM
bilbo:
E.V.:
THERE it is! The claim that only a GOOD scientist will be a new atheist.
Chalk that one up as more evidence for why new atheism is such an ugly, fucking disgrace. I'm finding that, when pressed, you guys evidence these points quite nicely.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 2:20 PM
Matt Penfold is right. A vague deist god, who someone may believe made the universe and then left, is not a problem for most atheists. Most people with such beliefs don't try to make laws promoting such religions, or claim holy books are scientific. My problem with gods is the interventionist god of the babble. Which the fundies use for laws promoting their religion. And since Yahweh is an interventionist god, he is subject to evidence.
Posted by: Amandave | August 15, 2009 2:22 PM
As a scientist (well, former, since I had to find a way to make a living and apparently science wasn't it) I find all of this discussion about philosophy confusing and, frankly, dull. Either the extraordinary (and extraordinarily ridiculous) claims of all (or one!) of the world's religions can be verified, or they can't. All this gnashing of teeth over logical systems of thought, without any facts to ground them, are a waste of oxygen.
For those of you who have studied quantum mechanics, think about how bizarre and abstract all that linear algebra and matrix operator theory seems. If it didn't perfectly describe the behavior of observable systems, arguing over the right way to construct a Projection Operator would be pretty silly. As it is, it allows us to construct nice machines with which to have this discussion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:23 PM
Bilbo,
Can we chalk you up as a lying arsehole ?
We know you have lied. You slipped up big time with suggesting deism. If you are going to critique arguments it does pay to know what they first.
Do you want to explain that lack of honesty of your part ? Or is that your modus operandi in life ?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 2:24 PM
No, he's making an evidence based assertion. You have yet to contradict any of our claims. All of your posts are consistent with an uneducated moron.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 2:25 PM
Dildo the delusional liar. No evidence on your part, just attitude and illogical thinking on your part. Your philosophy is a lie and you know it. You have nothing. Present your evidence.Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 2:27 PM
Would a better ontological argument be put forward if the basic premise started with "there is no supernatural being"?
Posted by: 386sx | August 15, 2009 2:27 PM
This is a common argument of new atheists: pretending that the interventionist God of creationists is the only ontological argument for God or gods. They attack this view and then make the proud claim that any and all ontological argument for god or gods is refuted.
I think there might be some confusion about what an ontological argument is. An ontological argument would be an argument about what is necessary for a God to exist.
And that would be... just thinking about God. If you can think about God, then that's all it takes for a God to exist. That's a far cry from the interventionist God of creationists.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:29 PM
It is just wishful thinking. If I really want god to exist he must exist. The idea that it can lead to any conclusions about reality is laughable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 2:32 PM
Then every fictional character thought up by all the authors over the years is real. Such a strong argument...Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 2:33 PM
I think the above points, some made by different persons, evidence an important point that we can all agree on. New atheism is less of a well-argued worldview and more of a reactionary response to fundamentalist Christianity and its attempts to apply belief to the political and scientific spheres (i.e. creationism). (And yes, Matt, I have read Dawkins).
But I still think that Ruse makes a valid point in saying that new atheism is NOT a well-rounded output of ontological arguments. As a philosopher, he has some validity in taking the position that it has indeed not been well thought-out given the context of past ontology. As to whether or not it harms science: I don't think there's enough evidence to support either side yet. New atheism is simply reactionary and, honestly, may do some potential good. But, as with any reflex response, people tend to take it a bit far. Hence why I called it an "ugly, fucking disgrace" above.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 2:35 PM
Biblo for all your talk of deism, I have doubts that you can define the philosophy or belief.
Posted by: 386sx | August 15, 2009 2:36 PM
It is just wishful thinking. If I really want god to exist he must exist. The idea that it can lead to any conclusions about reality is laughable.
Exactly. But to some people it is not laughable.
bilbo just seemed confused about what an ontological argument is. An interventionist God of creationists would be an evidenced based God. Miracle evidence, intervention evidence, Bible evidence, etc. But an ontological God is a wishful thinking kind of a God.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | August 15, 2009 2:38 PM
@ Nerd, # 262
I can hear Bilbo now...
"THERE! YOU SEE? YOUR STUPID MINDS! STUPID! STUPID! That the sort of sophomoric argument that the NEEEEEEW Atheists would make! It only proves Ruse's point that you don't know ANYTHING about philosophy!!!"
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 2:38 PM
Again, bilbo, put up. You're decrying the derision given to the creationist, interventionist, fundamentalist god that characterizes most of Christianity in favor of a kind gently wafting god that doesn't actually do anything or have any effect. So, where's the proof for that god, and what would you consider to be a good argument against it?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 2:39 PM
Dildo is still deluded. He just hates us, and will do or say anything to convince himself he is right. Not exactly a moral stance on his part.
Posted by: rhmc | August 15, 2009 2:39 PM
and the hobbit still cannot grasp the questions.
Posted by: Pareidolius | August 15, 2009 2:41 PM
EV@217, I like your Music/Philosophy analogy, so in that vein I'll quote the great philosopher Knopfler:
Posted by: Amos | August 15, 2009 2:41 PM
So, bilbo thinks we're a disgrace because we don't have a raging hate-on for deists. I'm starting to think I really don't care what bilbo thinks...
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 2:44 PM
Look, you idiot, we don't really care particularly if people are deists, because a deistic god - as opposed to the god of the theists - is not believed to intervene in the natural world. This isn't a "Gotcha!" moment for you - it's what atheists have said explicitly. However, you have no good reason to believe in such a deity. If you think you do, present it.
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 2:49 PM
And how many nationally known court cases has PZ Myers participated in to keep creationism out of the public schools? Of course this just makes Ruse's behavior all the more bizarre. Whoever mentioned templeton dollars is right. Follow the money.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 2:49 PM
I see this has predictably moved to the "call bilbo names" stage. Typical.
No one has challenged it yet, so I'll say it again:
"New atheism is less of a well-argued worldview and more of a reactionary response to fundamentalist Christianity and its attempts to apply belief to the political and scientific spheres (i.e. creationism)."
As with all knee-jerk reactions, new atheists can take it too far, as in people like PZ attacking the credentials of every theist who happens to get a high-ranking position in science (jealousy, perhaps?).
OR by deciding that only the "good" scientists will be new atheists, as in Coyne's extraordinarily religion-esque crusade against scientists who are not, or E.V.'s earlier response that I, simply because I disagree with new atheism, couldn't POSSIBLY be a practicing biologist.
New atheism is reactionary. And like all reactionary responses, it has the inherent danger of believing that it is the one righteous path of action. Ruse is pointing this out.
Ruse is right.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 2:50 PM
I never cared what accomodationists like dildo think. Their premises are wrong. They are just noisy, so they to be treated with noise of our own. Only ours is more rational.Posted by: Edward Lark
|
August 15, 2009 2:51 PM
@ bilbo
The problem with your argument - as with those who try to make this argument - is that virtually no self-professed Christians or other religious believers - whether fundamentalist or not - ascribe to a deistic philosophy in regard to their religious belief.
It is not wrong to argue that a very limited, completely non-interventionist flavor of supernatural deity would not necessarily be in conflict with scientific knowledge, but the problem is that such an argument completely misses the fucking point.
The atheist and the deist have nothing to argue about because their view as to the process of existence are essentially the same. However, most believers want to argue for an interventionist deity, but at the same time want to exclude their empirical claims from critique and testing. It is not a problem of not understanding their philosophical background, it is a problem that their philosophy is delusional and they simply don't like that fact pointed out.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:52 PM
If you have read Dawkins care to say why you lied about his position on deism ? If you read the book you can hardly claim ignorance.
Face it, you got caught lying. Still you are not alone in misrepresenting Dawkins. M & K did so as well, when claimed Dawkins says there is no god. They clearly have as much trouble remembering the book as you do. Ruse also misrepresents Dawkins.
You still have not explained how an interventionist god can be compatible with science. Ruse holds it can, and you seem to be his self-appointed spokesman. You started lying but put that behind you and tell us.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 2:52 PM
*waits*
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 2:53 PM
Atheism, new or old isn't a worldview. To some extent it is a reaction to fundamentalist religious claims, though not exclusively Christian claims. It's not a reaction to deists. It's not even much of a reaction to moderate Christians.
As has been repeated ad nauseum, if the claims made by New Atheists are false, demonstrate it. If you can't, then do what you want the New Atheists to do.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 2:53 PM
Biblo,
ALL "new atheism" is is: "put up or shut up" with respect to god(s). That's it. Nothing less, nothing more. Not complicated to grasp at all. We're just more vocal about the "shut up" part if you aren't willing to "put up"
Posted by: Tulse | August 15, 2009 2:55 PM
To the extent that "New Atheism" is anything other than not believing in the supernatural, it is a well-argued counter to the claim for the existence of the gods in which the vast majority of people believe. The arguments made are not intended to counter deism, because, as you imply above, deism has no real impact on the public sphere. Yes, the concerns of the "New Atheists" are around the public influence that religion has, but you are wrong that their position is not well-argued.
Again, you are confusing what is meant by "ontological" (as someone once said, "I don't believe that word means what you think it means"). Generally the "New Atheists" don't attack religious belief through ontological (counter-)arguments, but through empiricism. An ontological argument may claim that a god or gods must exist, but there is no empirical evidence for such entities, so the most the religious could argue for is a deist god or gods. And let's face it, practically no religious person is a deist (and I'd argue that it is questionable whether deism would actually count as "religion" as we usually define it).
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 2:58 PM
Bilbo
Do you intend apologising for lying in saying Dawkins' arguments against the existence of god includes deism ? Or do you stand by the claim, even though we know it to be false ?
It is all very well you complaining about being called names, but you did bring it on yourself. You lied.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 3:02 PM
New atheism is not trying to return us to the staus quo of the past fifty years, if anything Ruse is the reactionary as demonstrated by his essay.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 3:05 PM
Check that attribution again, Bilbo. I wasn't the person who posted that.Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 3:08 PM
Check post #228.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 3:12 PM
To pick up on what Edward Lark has said, Dawkins in his books makes it clear he understands the arguments for deism. However he took a pragmatic line and decided to address the nature of god as actually worshipped. The overwhelming majority of religious people do not subscribe to deism but embrace an interventionist god. Dawkins also says he is unsure of the extent to which deism should be considered a religion, as in practice those embracing it seem to be more interested in how to live a good life.
As for the ontological proof of god, I thought philosophy had moved on from calming the nature of reality could be determined by reason alone. If there are still philosophers who are stuck with an Aristotelian view of how the nature of reality can be determined then the discipline is in trouble. It is all very well to conclude that a god must exist via reason, but that is not evidence that such a god does exist. When what you theorise comes up against reality, it is reality that will win.
Posted by: 386sx | August 15, 2009 3:13 PM
An interventionist God of creationists would be an evidenced based God. Miracle evidence, intervention evidence, Bible evidence, etc. But an ontological God is a wishful thinking kind of a God.
Actually I should say "argument" instead of "God". They can both be the same God. A creationist could very well use an ontological argument as like a "backup" argument or something.
We don't really know what it means to "exist". Or what is necessary for "existence". We don't know everything that is everywhere, or what "everywhere" even is. We don't have omniscient knowledge. We can't definitively prove a negative like "God does not exist". So some theologians take that ball and run with it for all she's worth. Perfectly natural.
Posted by: Rick R | August 15, 2009 3:15 PM
KevinC, I'm sensing a Molly in your future...
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 3:21 PM
I understand the point you are making in the second clause of the second sentence above and I only speak for myself, not all the new atheists. The interventionist god of the creationists is the one that is being forced into schools. It is the only one that is a problem. I am content to deal with only that one and no other. Religionists of all stripes are free to believe as long as they leave science class alone. However, I am still an atheist and would be overjoyed if all religion died of anemia from lack of followers. So I ask the following in reply to your statement: "They don't know (or simply ignore) the multitude of past ontological argument. Hence displaying a pathetic view of philosophy."Is it not a coincidence that, as science has become the preeminent tool for the examination of physical reality, philosophy has been abandoned for that purpose. Philosophical arguments, however good their adherents might think them, are still only arguments.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 3:23 PM
Bilbo wrote:
And this is a thick & juicy slab of USDA Grade-A Prime pseudo-philosophy you and your ilk love to sit in the Matrix and chew on, telling yourselves that it's delicious. It's a ridiculous intellectual shell-game we can see through easily.
Never bother to examine a folly--ask only what it accomplishes. The way this particular folly works is to use the word "God" as a mighty-morphin' silly-putty term that can mean anything and nothing and be changed at will.
"God" can be a schizophrenic three-fold Invisible Magic Person who is his own father and sacrificed himself to himself in order to create a loophole in a rule he made up himself...or an Islamic Invisible Magic Person who faked the aforementioned crucifixion, but gave his favorite spokesman a ride to Heaven on a winged horse...or a non-interventionist Deist Invisible Magic Person who merely pressed the button on his Big Bang Box and left the Cosmos to evolve on its own...or an impersonal "Ground of Being" like Brahmin or the Tao...or a Monad, or an Anima Mundi, or a Triple Goddess, or something with a lot of X's, T's, and L's in its name that won't keep the Universe running unless somebody rips the beating hearts out of people's chests in its honor.
*catches breath* "God" is all things to all men and women, and none. Jell-O, meet wall. Somebody hand me a nail.
Naturally, no set of arguments tailored to debunk one concept of "God" will necessarily refute all the other, incompatible ones. For theists and their faitheist fellow travelers to notice this, shape-shift their amorphous "God"-word to mean something else and say, "Ha! Your arguments don't apply to this God! We win!" is dishonest. "Just because you went through Loch Ness with sonar and found no Plesiosaurs doesn't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist! Cryptozoology FTW!"
Confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought. So long as "God" is employed as an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of connotations with no actual meaning, it's an unintelligible cognitive blank. Prove that Unie doesn't exist. What's a Unie, you ask? I ain't tellin'. Therefore, Unie exists. Now give me political power and a tenth of your income.
"New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins generally argue against a particular concept of god/God, the Invisible Magic Person. So far, you have not offered a rebuttal to their arguments against this sort of "god," or offered any arguments in favor of such a "god." Emitting noxious, opaque intellectual flatulence about other "god"-concepts that aren't at issue does not even address, much less refute, the "New Atheists'" arguments.
Come on, Baggins, let's see what you've got. Just one impressive, sophisticated philosophical argument for any sort of relevant god--that is, a god whose existence is distinguishable from its non-existence here in Scenario Universe, and one with a meaningful definition. Dazzle us with your scintillating, much-vaunted philosophical prowess.
If you continue with your "I've got super powers. I just don't wanna show you!" playground diabologic wankery, we'll just point and laugh.
------
And to those who complimented my previous posts, thanks. :)
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 15, 2009 3:28 PM
"New atheism is less of a well-argued worldview and more of a reactionary response to fundamentalist Christianity and its attempts to apply belief to the political and scientific spheres (i.e. creationism)."
And as such, it's a damned valuable and noble effort. And until someone can say that the new atheists are in any way wrong in their arguments, or have committed any kind of abuses, then it will continue to be a noble and worthwhile effort, regardless of what Uncle Toms like Ruse think. The deism and non-interventionalist god issues are red herrings. What's the point of arguing over an ineffable cosmic muffin?
Posted by: mijnheer | August 15, 2009 3:30 PM
The ontological argument cannot be refuted by a reductio ad absurdum about how a perfect unicorn must exist, since existence is not intrinsic to the concept of a unicorn as such. But, arguably, existence is intrinsic to the concept of a being who is perfect in every possible way. The ontological argument may be invalid (I think it is), but what's wrong with it is not clear at first (or even second) glance. Philosophy is about thinking clearly, which is why the ontological argument has intrigued philosophers and students for hundreds of years.
@84: "Atheism is a lack of belief."
No, not as generally understood. Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief of lack.
@168: "Refute Dawkin's [sic] arguments about God, present valid arguments for its existence."
Since Dawkins claims to show that the probability of the existence of any Creator (not just the Abrahamic God) is exceedingly small (though not zero), one does not have to present valid arguments for a Creator's existence in order to refute Dawkins' arguments about a Creator. One simply has to show that Dawkins' claim about the degree of probability is unsound. Although I can find no good arguments for a Creator's existence (and therefore don't believe in one), I think that in arguing that a Creator's existence is exceedingly improbable, Dawkins commits the fallacy of "begging the question" -- i.e., assuming as part of his argument something that needs to be demonstrated. In particular, Dawkins' probability argument is based on the laws and logic of this universe. But insofar as a hypothesized Creator transcends the laws and logic of this universe (and indeed created these laws and logic in the first place), Dawkins cannot legitimately invoke such laws and logic to evaluate the probability of a Creator's existence.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 3:33 PM
I see this has predictably moved to the "call bilbo names" stage. Typical.
I didn't call you names, yet you completely ignored the questions I asked. Typical.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 15, 2009 3:36 PM
@mijnheer:
By your definition of atheist, Dawkins is an agnostic. Is that the conclusion you wish to draw?
The only way science can "prove" anything is by exhaustion, so therefore you conclude god exists? All Dawkins says is to use the Null Hypothesis. That's it. Until there's evidence, there's no reason to add complications.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 3:39 PM
Never mind that Bilbo has disgraced his honored namesake with his vile attitude from day one by never really getting to the point until today, and then it seemed he didn't have a point after all...Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 3:40 PM
The ontological argument was created with the premise of an all powerful god, is this considered clear thinking through circular logic?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 3:44 PM
Circular logic in a god proof? I thought that was a requirement. Posit god to prove god.Posted by: R. Schauer | August 15, 2009 3:45 PM
KevinC @ #290
Blows the lid off!
I now score it:
Philosophers (0); Scientist (aka, new atheist) (2)
Smoggy,
you're conspicuous by your absence. Nursing a hang-over from celebrating that Molly? Can't believe you're missing this.
-R
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 3:49 PM
No. It. Is. Not. It is a RECOGNITION of lack. I don't have to believe in a lack of evidence. I only have to recognize it. This is the same dishonest hack that all creobots use. Make all people believers in order to make them all equivalently arbitrary. Try again.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 3:50 PM
mijnheer@292 wrote:
So, all you have to do to conjure something into existence is declare that it's perfect in every possible way? Right. The Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich is perfect in every possible way. Therefore existence is intrinsic to it, and it is, in fact, a Necessary Sandwich.
Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich! I invoke you!!!
Hmm, no thunderclap, no sandwich. Maybe you need to question your premise that a philosopher can conjure God into existence by uttering the right sort of syllogism.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 3:52 PM
Bilbo you made a valiant try at attacking "new" atheism, but you put forth only agenda and no persuasive arguments.
KevinC, again you posted with excellence.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 15, 2009 4:00 PM
Only a philosopher would be tempted to imagine (though the better ones are aware that the temptation has to be resisted) that empirical facts about the universe can possibly be established by purely logical arguments. Picking apart various versions of the ontological argument may be an amusing game but it's a waste of time because, right from the get-go, such arguments are the wrong kind of thing to do at all; which is all one really needs to know about them.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 4:05 PM
But damnit, Steve! I want my sandwich! And then I was gonna summon the Perfect (and therefore, Necessary) Glass of Bourbon! And you had to go and spoil it all.
Thanks a lot! *grumblegrumble*
Posted by: mijnheer | August 15, 2009 4:05 PM
KevinC: Read what I wrote. Existence is not intrinsic to the concept of a unicorn (or sandwich) as such. Professional philosophers are not stupid. There's a reason they teach and discuss the ontological argument, whether or not they accept it.
Dornier Pfeil: So I was wrong to assume that you BELIEVE that God does not exist? I was wrong to assume that you BELIEVE there is a lack of evidence for God's existence? Sorry about that.
Posted by: James Brown | August 15, 2009 4:13 PM
I gave up trying to respond to the orginal post of Belief Net (what a screwed organization for a web site) so I thought I would post it here:
======================================
You say:
“Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.”
I cannot agree with you that Dawkins ‘knows nothing’ about religion. In fact he seems remarkably well informed on the subject. I understand that this is a subjective view point and I admit that he knows much more than me and but possibly less than you. But the point is just how much knowledge of subject do you need before you can claim that it is simply wrong.
I’m reminded of PZ Myers posting about Dawkins and the Emperor’s New Clothes “…His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.”
Just how much training in the nuances’ of religion do you have to have before you can see the dangling genitalia?
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 4:17 PM
Matt, my invocation of deism was not to imply the Dawkins does not understand it and/or didn't mention it in TGD. I brought it up because you stated that the only way to prove god's existence was to provide evidence of an interventionary God. I countered by stating that an interventionary God is not the only philosophical or thological concept of God. Somehow this got construed into my challenging of Dawkins. I was not. I was challenging you.
KevinC, you have a great argument....if I had been trying to prove the existence of a interventionist God all along. But I wasn't. You said:
Again, my goal isn't to offer a "rebuttal." It is instead to state that, in a quest to eradicate fundamentalist Christianity, some (but not all) new atheists extrapolate that particular theology to all religion, although, clearly, that is not the case. That is the fallacy committed here, in a philosophical sense.
Here you seem to think that I'm arguing God exists. Wrong on ALL counts. And a typical new atheist tactic....use theist as an insult.
Tulse, you said
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 4:20 PM
mijnheer,
Why exactly does one have to believe in reality. Do I have to believe in one plus one equals two for one plus one to actually equal two?
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 4:23 PM
mijnheer,
On second reading of your comment I realized that I read it to fast and took you to be sarcastic. If you weren't I beg your pardon.
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 15, 2009 4:25 PM
yep pz is right.I couldent agree more. those faithisists REALLY annoying.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 4:33 PM
Attributing the creation of the universe to an entity that imposes no divine intervention is alright, nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't imply any more meaning than the idea that no deity exists. An intervening god/spirit and an eternal life after death is the premise of all Abrahamic religious thought. If this claim is made, empirical evidence must support it otherwise it is simply wishful thinking.
Most of my friends are believers. I've lost a few friends recently because I have been open that I am a nontheist. I didn't go on some atheist rant about religion. I simply stated that I am unable to believe in the supernatural without some form of evidence other than anecdote. They started to proselytize, I stopped them, they left. I never start theological discussions or arguments. I remove myself from zealous Christian friends when the "prayer conquers all" starts. If I can't leave, I try to change the subject or distract them. When that fails, I ask them to change the subject and if they ask why I tell them as tactfully as possible that I do not want to be held hostage by their ideology anymore than I want to be held hostage by misbehaved children or people who feel they can contribute their opinions aloud during a movie.
I try to be very tactful and courteous in person. I try to disarm everyone with humor, though I can handle myself verbally and physically enough to be unafraid of confrontation. I have found that some people welcome confrontation and even seek it out. I have been known to follow the golden rule: you're nice - I'm nice, you're an ass - I'm a 6'2" gorilla with a 50" chest.
I won't strike first and may even forgive the first slap but after that, it's on.
On the web, the discourse is hyperbolic and chock full of outrageous posturing. I should have used a different approach to Tom Fool, but i was tired and was just mirroring the ridiculous bluster he entered with. Reason, ridicule and humor work better.
There has to be a point where those who've hammered a point into the ground (and are not the blog owner) must agree to disagree or leave. Making oneself persona non grata undermines any future viable point one wants to make. The rejection of ones argument becomes emotionally motivated. We don't listen because he/she (not specifically you) become the sniveling nosepicker who who is prone to hysterical petulant outbursts with a running martyrdom theme; he/she has become a permanent punching bag whether or not they offer anything of value unless they change their tone and tactics.
It's alright to disagree. Many of us disagree with each other. I really admire Knockgoats but I've (respectfully) disagreed with some of his points. SC as well( she's formidable and a hoot) and shock of shocks, I've even disagreed with PZ on a matter or two. It's his blog and I empathize with much of what he stands for so I don't attack and besides, his level of expertise is above mine on most of the topics here. This is not the only blog I read but it is the one blog I tend to comment on with any regularity because I feel such an affinity with so many of the other posters.
The accommodationists resemblance to Uncle Tom-like behavior against vocal atheists is a deeply psychological response which would be great for someone to study. A similar response I can relate anecdotally: I dated a girl who was a lapsed Catholic. We started a conversation about priests - whether they should be allowed to marry. This innocuous conversation blew up into the biggest fight we had, with a complete meltdown from her against the thought of priests being allowed to marry. She was impervious to reason or logic. In her words, it was "just wrong".
I had a similar blow up debate with a nonobservant Jewish friend over kosher laws/foods.
Cognitive dissonance, what a concept.
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 15, 2009 4:38 PM
oops. i meant those faithisists can get really annoying
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 15, 2009 4:41 PM
oops. i meant that faithisists are really annoying.I forgot the are.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 15, 2009 4:43 PM
Ah, but existence is intrinsic to the concept of a unicorn sandwich. Particularly one with caramelized onions, sautéed mushrooms and BBQ sauce.
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 15, 2009 4:45 PM
huh? it posted twice!
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 4:49 PM
Rev BDC adds bacon to his unicorn sandwiches, along with raw sweet onions sliced to the thinness of butterfly wings.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 4:52 PM
You completely undermine your message with your breathtaking and outrageous hypocrisy, in addition to your disingenuous hand-waving and equivocation that has already been pointed out.
That's a bad hobbit, there.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 4:54 PM
mijnheer@304:
Professional stage magicians aren't stupid either, but that doesn't mean they can really saw a lady in half and put her together again. Read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about just any sandwich. I was talking about the Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich. Now, a Sandwich that does not exist can hardly be perfect. So, by definition, the Sandwich must exist, just as your maximally perfect being must exist.
To get around this, you have to resort to special pleading. "Oh, no no no, Syllogism Magick doesn't work for Perfect Unicorns or Perfect Philly Cheese Sandwiches. It only works for a Perfect Invisible Magic Person, because that's, like, different. You know, the same way it's wrong for a human leader to commit genocide, but Perfectly Moral(tm) for God to commit genocide. Or how everything complex needs a Designer, except God. Or how the Universe must have been fine-tuned for human beings because no other sort of Universe could support intelligent life--well, except for the supernatural ream where God lived before the Big Bang, which isn't anything like a material Universe at all, but that doesn't mean there's more than one sort of place that can support intelligent life."
"God" has this nifty Unlimited Mulligans Card that makes him exempt from all demands of evidence, logic, and consistency. How did he (of course it's a "he," because the ontology-wankers are really talking about Yahweh--or Allah if they're Muslim--but they're not honest enough to admit that at the outset) get it? By pure philosophical fiat.
Hmmm, since philosophers can conjure an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Deity into being with Syllogism Magick, but not a Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich, maybe there's some kind of inverse power law, where it's easier to create something incalculably vast and complex like an infinite intelligence, than something smaller and less complex, like a sandwich.
So maybe I need to expand my horizons a little.
*Ahem*
Perfect Atheist Woman! I invoke you!!!
Hey! It worked! Woohooo!!! Kinda lousy aim on my part, since she ended up in Romania and married to somebody else. Oh well, practice makes perfect! Except that perfection is tied to intrinsic existence, so how could 'perfect' be 'made'... Argh. Head. Hurt.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 5:06 PM
Hi, bilbo.
In an earlier thread, I had asked for the three major differences between "New Atheists" and "atheists you find annoying". I didn't get an answer then.
I assume it is too much to hope for an answer now.
Secondly, you have stated that 'new atheists' believe that the only good scientist is an atheist. I don't believe this.
Am I a 'new atheist'? Perhaps you should give us your definition of this term, we're not really sure what you mean by it.
Lastly, you seem to treat with contempt any requests that you provide evidence for an interventionist deity, as that is not the only type of deity suggested by philosophy.
Fair enough.
Please provide any evidence for a non-interventionist deity as suggested by philosophy. If such evidence cannot be obtained, please explain how such a being is relevant.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 5:09 PM
KevinC:
How interesting to see how when philosophers make ontological arguments AGAINST the existence of god they rarely engage in oversimplification, hyperbole, or projection.
More blind-faced philosophical dumbassitude from the new atheists. Chalk another one up for Michael Ruse.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2009 5:09 PM
bilbo, you STILL haven't given any sort of example of what you think a good argument against theism IS. All you're doing is criticizing without offering any alternatives.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 5:11 PM
Bilbo, so "New Atheist" books that aren't intended to critique Deism don't succeed in critiquing Deism. And? Is an auto repair manual that doesn't tell you how to sequence DNA a failure as an auto repair manual?
We're still waiting for that brilliant philosophical argument. If you don't even want to address the same subject the "New Atheist" books discuss, don't claim that you've exposed their flaws.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 5:11 PM
Says you. Who died and made you a unicornologists?
The unicorn that passeth all understanding does indeed have existence as an intrinsic concept (and, arguably, pinkness and invisibility as well).
Of course, as I keep pointing out, strictly mundane unicorns can exist and have existed, and probably do exist: Any horned animal that either loses one of a pair, or have their horn-buds joined and centered while young, is a mundane unicorn, by mundane definition.
Only in the same way that existence is intrinsic to the concept of the unicorn that passeth all understanding.
It's intriguing in the way that all paradoxical nonsense and word games are intriguing. Many mature adults find much that intrigues in Escher's art, and Lewis Carroll's writings for children, and similar brain twisters.
But that which intrigues has no bearing on its validity.
Posted by: esmith4102 | August 15, 2009 5:13 PM
Michael Ruse is as equal in his implicit acknowledgment of evolution as is his silent criticisms in support of the illogical tactics of creationism. His argument becomes not one of substance, but of form. One that insists on the “please and thank yous” of polite conversation while intellectually ignoring the compelling urgency of empirical evidence and logical consistency.
He has fallen into the post modernist trap of equating each side as coequals, peers with different “points of view”and behaving like squabbling adolescents - neither right and neither wrong. This is exactly the kind of thinking we need a lot less of in the early dawn of the twenty-first century.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 5:13 PM
Dildo has no evidence, except his attitude, and he knows it. Way to convince empiricists with no evidence Dildo. You are a proven liar so your word means nothing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 5:14 PM
bilbo,
Where can I find such creatures as ontological arguments against the existence of god? Why exactly would such things be necessary since there isn't a god to disprove?
Posted by: raven | August 15, 2009 5:15 PM
This is the same troll that got a persecution complex when people pointed out that he was a dumb troll.
I'd ask what type of personality disorder he was diagnosed with but these types never give straight answers.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 5:16 PM
Easy. There are no differences. The whole point of new atheists is to be annoying, as it is purely a reactionary tactic. Nothing more.
From what I've seen today, not even many 'new atheists' can agree on that.
Again you replace "philosophy" with "empiricism," and in doing so display a complete ignorance of the full spectrum of ontological argument you claim to know enough of to speak out against. Another point for Ruse.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 5:18 PM
More blind-faced disingenuous hypocrisy from the bad hobbit. Chalk another one up for the New Atheists.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 5:27 PM
Dildo, until you show the ontological argument, specious as it will be, you have nothing but bad attitude, which will be refuted with bad attitude on our part. We can't hear you until you stop lying to yourself. Only then, can you quit lying to us. We know that. You're too stupid to figure that out.
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 5:27 PM
Bilbo wrote:
No, Baggins, you're misunderstanding me. I'm engaging in mockery, which is all the blind-faced philosophical dumbassitude thus far presented by you chaps on this thread merits. Still waiting for your display of philosophical brilliance. Bring it if ya got it.
How so? Ruse's argument is that "New Atheists" should shut up and cower before believers, so their religious masters won't go to the Supreme Court and have science education banned as a violation of the Establishment Clause. What does that have to do with ontological arguments, or Deism?
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 5:28 PM
Did I say an empirically-based argument against theism is wrong? Absolutely not. It's a damn good one...and I even said as much earlier.
The point I'm making is that new atheists have a certain naivete about ontological arguments for God in thinking that theistic ones are all that exist...or that there are no philosophical arguments against empiricism. Not all do this, of course, but it appears the norm.
Above all, new atheists don't frame philosophical arguments in, well, philosophy, and instead pretend that a whole history of ontologically-based arguments about whether or not God exists simply don't exist. It's a cheap approach to reasoning and exemplifies the knee-jerk nature of new atheism.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 5:28 PM
Bilbo so far all I'm getting is you don't like "new" atheists. You've brought up the idea of ontological arguments which only reinforce belief in a believer and prove nothing. The atheists may be reactionist when dealing with creationists, but it is not reactionary which supports the status quo.
Other than Ruse being right and all critics are wrong, you have done nothing to bolster his or your argument.
What is your argument Bilbo?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 5:31 PM
Dildo, do you think nobody has ever tried the ontological argument on us before? You are only about the tenth this last year alone. All failed. All such arguments don't hold water. We know that, but you can't admit that.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 5:32 PM
bilbo sez:
"Easy. There are no differences. The whole point of new atheists is to be annoying, as it is purely a reactionary tactic. Nothing more."
Excellent. So, the definitive way to determine if someone is a 'new atheist', according to you, is to ask you?
But how can we tell who is and who isn't when you're not around to guide us?
Also, by that definition, anyone who had any motive other than being annoying to you would not be a new atheist, yes?
and:
"From what I've seen today, not even many 'new atheists' can agree on that."
Okay, that's an answer to some question, but not to the one I asked you.
Try again, please.
and lastly:
"Again you replace "philosophy" with "empiricism," and in doing so display a complete ignorance of the full spectrum of ontological argument you claim to know enough of to speak out against. Another point for Ruse."
(in response to my question about how explaining how a non-interventionist deity could be relevant)
So, you would say that discussions of the relevance of a deity that *did* intervene are scientific rather than philosophical, yes?
And, according to what you just said, discussions of a deity that did *not* intervene would also be 'empiricism' rather than 'philosophy', yes?
So, what then *are* the attributes of a deity that is discourse for philosophy?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 5:33 PM
Since your whole point is to be annoying, and you have claimed to be an atheist, it follows that you too are a New Atheist. You're just a bad-tempered, foul-mouthed hypocrite to boot.
Again you fail to even give a hint of this so-called "full spectrum of ontological argument you claim to know enough of to speak out for". Another point against you.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 5:33 PM
Did you just say ontology only REINFORCES belief? Ha! A piss-poor knowledge of philosophy you have.
For the nine-hundredth time - that's the point of Ruse's that I agree with. As a group, new atheists don't know much philosophy. Thanks for backing that up.
Posted by: Bobber | August 15, 2009 5:36 PM
That's fucking genius with language, man. : D
Posted by: mijnheer | August 15, 2009 5:37 PM
KevinC: You write, "I wasn't talking about just any sandwich. I was talking about the Perfect Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich. Now, a Sandwich that does not exist can hardly be perfect. So, by definition, the Sandwich must exist, just as your maximally perfect being must exist."
Assuming that existence is a positive attribute, an existing sandwich would indeed be a better (more perfect) THING than a non-existing one. But it would not be a better (more perfect) SANDWICH. That's why I added "as such" to "unicorn (or sandwich)". Existence would add nothing to the concept of the perfect sandwich as sandwich. And unicorns aren't any less unicorns if they are purely imaginary. Anselm, who originated the ontological argument, dealt with your kind of objection (with regard to whether a perfect island must exist) back in the eleventh century.
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 5:37 PM
And again, it doesn't matter what the "full spectrum of ontological argument" is. Philosophical masturbation is still philosophical masturbation.
And is there something that is actually wrong with reactionary tactics. Religionists can react to the whole of the enlightenment, humanist, and scientific revolutions with acerbic vitriol and even violence. But let the 'new atheists' call them on it and we are the morally disapprobate ones. If only to ensure the religionists voices are not the only ones heard the new atheists are valuable.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 5:38 PM
A simple question, Owlmirror:
What does ontology say about the nature of empiricism? I'll even give you more: what does Popper say of empiricism, particularly science? Someone argued parsimony against me earlier. That should oblige them.
Despite trying to get someone in the group to cough it up all day, no one has yet to do it. Instead, they only offer the predictable theological argument of Christianity instead. Again, this proves Ruse's point that new atheists know a scant little ontology.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 5:40 PM
Bilbo it is not a poor understanding of an ontological argument, I recognize you are making an ontological argument using Ruse as a replacement for god to bolster what you see as a point of truth. So far you have misrepresented philosophy. So you only got backup in your mind, not in reality.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 5:41 PM
Dildo, what makes you think we give a shit what you think? Especially one who cannot present a cogent argument. That is your problem, you know your argument will fail. So you can't present it. Ergo the attitude. We have your number as a liar and bullshitter. You must work hard to change that perception.
Posted by: Roel | August 15, 2009 5:48 PM
#317
Way to go, KevinC! I'm impressed!
Posted by: Eidolon | August 15, 2009 5:57 PM
Bilbo boy...
Seems as if whenever someone tries to pin you down for some evidence for your Dog, you cry foul and like the pod people in "Body Snatchers" you point and cry..Empiricism! Empiricism! Now, seeing as how how this is a science blog and most folks here are into the science thing, this should not be news to you. What has been said by most posts I believe would fall along the line of William James' position:
"...the empirically observed "directly apprehended universe, requires no extraneous trans-empirical connective support", by which he meant to rule out the perception that there can be any value added by seeking supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. (Wiki)
As one prof of mine put it "If you don't have observations and data, you have opinions. We all know just how valuable those are." So if you arrive at your Dog via reason and intuition, you're apt to get unfavorable replies.Science via pure reason is not in vogue any more. Has not been for a few hundred centuries now.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 15, 2009 5:58 PM
He could tell us, sure, but then he'd have to kill us, or face retribution from the League Of Self-Satisfied Philosophical Wankers.
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | August 15, 2009 6:04 PM
He claims to be scientist. Does he use pure reason in his lab?
Posted by: Mr Ash
|
August 15, 2009 6:11 PM
[blockquote]What does ontology say about the nature of empiricism? I'll even give you more: what does Popper say of empiricism, particularly science? Someone argued parsimony against me earlier. That should oblige them.[/blockquote]
How about you tell us rather than trying to get people to admit they are unfamiliar with some particular minutia.
More, why don't you tell us why it matters. The ontological argument is empty, the perfect example of why the courtier's reply is valid.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 6:17 PM
New Atheists don't know philosophy? I'll have you know that I went to high school with Phil O'Sophy. One of the advantages of going to a Catholic school is I got to know a bunch of Italians and Irish.
What difference does it make if we know all of Aquinas' arguments in the original Latin or not? We can tell the emperor is naked. We see the dangly bits between his legs, we see the hair on his back, we see his rosy red rectum. So what if we can't tell if he suffers from hemorrhoids or not?
Posted by: Tulse | August 15, 2009 6:28 PM
No, but you seem to keep missing the point. Ontological arguments alone don't get you the kind of god that 99.9% of the religious population actually worships. The kinds of gods believers actually care about intervene in the natural world. For such gods, lack of empirical evidence is sufficient to rule out their existence (as much as science rules out anything).
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 15, 2009 6:36 PM
But for the fact that the above sentiment has been echoed by several people in the thread I'd feel completely confident that the main argument (the subject of the chapter "why God almost certainly does not exist") Dawkins makes DOES apply to deism.
What am I missing?
Posted by: KevinC | August 15, 2009 6:46 PM
mijnheer@338
OK, so a philosopher can't conjure an island, but s/he can conjure an omnipotent Creator of universes. Cool trick! Take that Chris Angel!
What if a Christian philosopher like Anselm uses the ontological argument, and an Islamic philosopher does the same, while a Minoan philosopher had done so in 1300 B.C.E.. Does this mean that Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit exists and Allah exists and Atna Potnia exists, or is there some reason that only Catholic philosophers get to play?
One more try: Can either of you mighty philosophers demonstrate that the ontological argument is more than just the intellectual equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat?
Eidolon@344:
I dunno, I think he's probably more like a Dalek. "EM-PIR-I-CISM! EM-PIR-I-CISM!
EM-PIR-I-CISMMMMMM!!!"
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 15, 2009 6:50 PM
Owlmirror @ # 316: That's a bad hobbit, there.
Everybody keeps assuming that "bilbo" is a bad Tolkeinesque ring-thief, which is unfair to small people with big hairy feet everywhere.
There's at least as much evidence (argumentativeness, sweeping generalizations, obnoxiousness, etc) that he's a bad politician, even if not a "master of scathing filibuster" (though more evidently "unfit to sit with honest, upright men").
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 7:18 PM
I suspect that Bilbo's motivation is an emotional one. I don't doubt he's an atheist, but I suspect that his wife, or someone in his family, or a very close friend, is a firm believer in Christianity. And this person is offended by the forthrightness and [justified in my mind] abrasiveness of the today's vocal atheists.
And he is reacting just like anyone will react to protect the people they care about. But it's a good illustration of how humans think - in this case, Bilbo is just like a Christian in that he's attempting to use the same post-hoc rationalisations - i.e. intellectual (philosophical) defences for something believed in emotional - as they do.
Is this what psychologists call 'transference'?
Anyway, Bilbo aside, if those who believe in an interventionist god were genuine in wanting to meet non-believers in any gods half way, they'd be doing what non-believers do: admitting that there's a possibility that the non-interventionist, deist god (that is the only kind of god philosophical arguments support) exists and they are ready to be shown they are wrong.
I don't believe I've ever heard a Christian - either fundamentalist or liberal, cafeteria - admit to holding this position.
Posted by: Roger | August 15, 2009 7:19 PM
Dear Bilbo, if you have any proof of the existence of a deity, you are more than welcome to share that proof with us.
Posted by: Nibien | August 15, 2009 7:25 PM
Ugh, as someone who's one philosophy (and a few GE) classes away from getting my (self-admittedly, nearly worthless)B.A. degree in philosophy I can proudly state: Bilbo cannot have taken a single upper division philosophy course with all this terrible rhetoric.
Not to mention the majority of his points are moot.
Personally, outside philosophy courses, I've met no Christians in person who understand even the most basic philosophical arguments for (or against) Christianity. To create a double-standard and force every atheist to be seeped into philosophical discourse is absurd. Perhaps Bilbo actually believe that Xeno's Paradox actually did stop things from moving until someone figured out how to answer it and thus saving the world from his philosophical question that had rendered it motionless. While, yes, it would be ideal for more people to be more educated in the arguments, the idea that they must do so to expect actual evidence for their claims is absurd.
The major difference, however, is the average atheist should have a better understanding of empirical data and the scientific method because he lacks a dogma which is fundamentally opposed to it.
Furthermore, the ontological arguments for God have not been a major player in the most modern philosophical arguments which further leads me to believe Bilbo has only taken introductory history of philosophy type courses. Yes, there are still various arguments going around for it, but the last '(in)famous' philosopher I know offhand that really went for it was Plantinga in the 70's. Last I recall he's focusing on his 'properly basic' epistemology and his argument against naturally (I could be mistaken, it's been a few years.)
Regardless, the fact that he's defending one of the most fundamentally problematic types of arguments for a god rather than one of the more interesting and reasonable ones, is rather telling.
Posted by: 386sx | August 15, 2009 7:40 PM
Plantinga has a pretty easy time with proving God, but he kinda has problems with proving evolution though. I guess some things are harder to prove than other things, I guess.
Posted by: Ciaphas | August 15, 2009 7:50 PM
My thinking about the ontological argument tends to run like this this:
1) It is possible to conceive of a refutation of the ontological argument that is greater than any other argument.
2) An argument that exists is greater than an argument that does not.
3) Therefore the greatest refutation of the ontological argument exists.
4) Therefore the ontological argument is wrong.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 7:51 PM
Alles, was sich sagen lässt, das lässt sich klar sagen. Was sich nicht klar sagen lässt, darüber muss man schweigen.
Many things, none of which support the existence of an interventionist God or the scientific utility of a noninterventionist God.
I agree that the most parsimonious inference is that you are an equivocating, disingenuous, foul-mouthed, goalpost-shifting hypocrite and a fraud. All very bad hobbits.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 8:09 PM
I am not sure how tall this particular bilbo is, but I am certain that he is petty. He may or may not have big hairy feet, but he does have a big hairy ego.
He may not be a politician, but he has been both scathing and filibustering (in the more general sense of blathering on and on and evading any substantive argument), so we agreed that he is a bad whatever he is.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 8:12 PM
I can't speak for anyone else here, but my own problem with philosophy with no evidential backing is that it is not really all that useful, as far as I can tell.
One could, I imagine, have a deep and philosophical discussion about the exact hue of the IPU, or the type of sauce gracing the FSM, but at the end of the day, neither of these discussions have told you much outside of the psychology of the arguers.
And, I guess that some of us who are trying to see things in the light of actual evidence on this little mudball we've got just find that a bit of a waste of time and talented brain cells.
I don't have any objection to it per se, and hope that folks who make a living at it find it fulfilling, I really do.
I just hope that those engaged in non-evidential discussions understand that those who actually work with things that are verifiable (as much as anything can be) might not take them all that seriously. Especially when they start talking about things existing and not existing. And 'proving' that thing exist or don't exist by stringing words together in a particular order.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 15, 2009 8:18 PM
mijnheer
Why not? I know if I'm going to eat a sandwich, I'd prefer to have one of the ones that exist. They taste better.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 15, 2009 8:26 PM
mijnheer,
But a unicorn is a being, by definition. How can there be properties which are intrinsic to the concept of a general being, but not to the concept of a unicorn? Or an island, for that matter?
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 15, 2009 8:30 PM
Re #357
That's just beautiful. And to think I was present at the public unveiling of the soon-to-be famous "Ciaphas' refutation"--coming soon to basic texts near you...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 8:31 PM
I've been thinking about this - I was at the gym between my last comment and now - it just reminds me of exactly how pointed and accurate The Courtier's Reply criticism is.
The tailors are jumping up and down, demanding that we rebut every single argument they've made for how cloth can both exists and be invisible and untouchable, how the universe can't exist without invisible, untouchable cloth, and how if we can conceive of perfect invisible, untouchable cloth therefore it must exist.
Which prompts us to say: 'okay, fine; let's say we accept that it's possible for invisible, untouchable cloth to exist - now all you have to do is find a way to convince us that it is this invisible, untouchable cloth, rather than the alternative, i.e. nothing at all, which is now draped over the emperors withered genitals.'
'But until you can, stop complaining when we mockingly point out that it's obvious why the empress spends more time with the stableboys than with him.'
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | August 15, 2009 8:42 PM
Bilbo keeps carping that new atheists aren't good philosophers. Is that also supposed to hold for new atheist Anthony Grayling?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 8:42 PM
386sx #356
I've read Plantinga. His proof of God is by assertion.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | August 15, 2009 8:45 PM
@ Wowbagger #364:
I think you just won the thread.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 8:56 PM
Circular reasoning. Posit god, ergo god exists. Not good enough for me.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 8:57 PM
Jerry Coyne wrote:
It's the typical religious (or faitheist) double-standard. All atheists must have extensive philosophical training and provide thorough rebuttal for every single apologetic raised by the religious in order to justify their non-belief in gods - or they're just being crude and ignorant and disrespectful and unsophisticated. Oh, and militant, angry and 'new'.
Believers, on the other hand, get a free pass; they aren't required to know anything more than to tick the box next to 'Christian' on a census form, say 'Merry Christmas' rather than 'Happy Holidays', know that atheists are awful people, and thank God when you win an award in the entertainment industry.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 9:06 PM
Jerry Coyne, thanks for the intro to Anthony Grayling.
Posted by: mijnheer | August 15, 2009 9:15 PM
Anton Mates: Are you saying that our concept of unicorns necessarily includes the attribute of really existing? How about Harry Potter? Can you only think of him as actually existing?
KevinC asks, "What if a Christian philosopher like Anselm uses the ontological argument, and an Islamic philosopher does the same, while a Minoan philosopher had done so in 1300 B.C.E.. Does this mean that Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit exists and Allah exists and Atna Potnia exists, or is there some reason that only Catholic philosophers get to play?"
Good question. The answer is that the ontological argument is not about whether the Christian God or the Islamic God or the Spaghetti Monster or a god with any specific qualities we might name exists. It's about whether the being who is perfect in every way exists. We don't have to specify these perfections or even claim to know much about them. We can admit that we may be wrong about various ones -- e.g., perhaps the inclination to help little old ladies across the street is bad rather than good. Perhaps having X-ray vision is bad rather than good. It's irrelevant to the logic of the argument. What the ontological argument claims to show is that the being who is perfect in every way (whatever those ways may be) does exist. And yes, the ontological argument does pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's what's so brilliant about it. I believe it's wrong -- but it's brilliant, and people who don't think so probably don't understand it properly. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years."
One thing we do agree on, KevinC: that perfect atheist woman does exist. When I invoked her, I had better luck than you did. Excuse me now, she wants me to get off the computer....
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 9:37 PM
I agree that prestidigitation is brilliant, and intriguing, and fascinating. But it's also a trick. You are being fooled by appearances.
The ontological argument is a trick that tries to fool people into thinking that definitional games can affect reality.
I remember one of the last times that the ontological was brought up, it was pointed out that Gödel had created his own version of it. I note that he did not try to convert anyone with it; it is hardly unassailable.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 9:49 PM
Neiben:
I wasn't "defending" that argument. I was simply trying to get SOMEONE to exhibit a knowledge of "philosophy" that goes beyond arguments for a Christian, interventionist God. This whole argument began as a challenge (from Michael Ruse) that new atheists, as a norm, as piss-poor at philosophy, despite pretending to make broad, intellectual arguments within it. The fact that it took nearly 200 posts for a single person to give me something other than typical arguments for a Christian God proves Ruse's point. New atheism is an uneducated (outside of science, at least) knee-jerk reaction to fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing more, and in reality, much, much less.
Dornier:
Another assumption that, because I'm willing to mention something other than science, I'm a bad scientist. Typical bullshit from your type.
Jerry Coyne:
I have said multiple times today that I don't imply that every single new atheist is a piss-poor philosopher. I said it's more the norm than the exception. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop twisting words and applying piss-poor logic in addition to piss-poor philosophy. You're a smart guy, and you can do better.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 9:51 PM
Neiben:
I wasn't "defending" that argument. I was simply trying to get SOMEONE to exhibit a knowledge of "philosophy" that goes beyond arguments for a Christian, interventionist God. This whole argument began as a challenge (from Michael Ruse) that new atheists, as a norm, as piss-poor at philosophy, despite pretending to make broad, intellectual arguments within it. The fact that it took nearly 200 posts for a single person to give me something other than typical arguments for a Christian God proves Ruse's point. New atheism is an uneducated (outside of science, at least) knee-jerk reaction to fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing more, and in reality, much, much less.
Dornier:
Another assumption that, because I'm willing to mention something other than science, I'm a bad scientist. Typical bullshit from your type.
Jerry Coyne:
I have said multiple times today that I don't imply that every single new atheist is a piss-poor philosopher. I said it's more the norm than the exception. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop twisting words and applying piss-poor logic in addition to piss-poor philosophy. You're a smart guy, and you can do better.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 9:54 PM
My apologies. No clue how that posted twice.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 9:55 PM
Yawn, still nothing from Dildo but attitude. He needs a lesson on getting to a point without being a turd. Here's a start Dildo, you aren't even in the top 100 of those who blog here. You are very dumb, if you think philosophy is anything other than mental masturbation, and need to improve your game, such as it is.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 9:57 PM
C'mon Nerd, a guy/gal who makes it a purpose to use attitude is going to get on someone for using attitude?
Geezus.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 9:57 PM
Bilbo, one last try, are you talking about ontology?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 10:01 PM
Bilbo, put up your ontological argument, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science. Either you have evidence or don't. And if you don't, you shut up. And still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. That means you have nothing but attitude. So shut up.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 10:03 PM
Drat.
My post at #334 isn't philosophical enough for bilbo to answer.
But that's ok, because according to him, I'm not a 'new atheist', and therefore not really his target audience.
So, I suppose this is futile, but,
bilbo sez:
"This whole argument began as a challenge (from Michael Ruse) that new atheists, as a norm, as piss-poor at philosophy, despite pretending to make broad, intellectual arguments within it."
and:
"I have said multiple times today that I don't imply that every single new atheist is a piss-poor philosopher. I said it's more the norm than the exception."
So, let me get this straight. New atheists are bad at philosophy, except when they aren't, and they all claim to be good at philosophy, except I can't really show you where they claim that, but as a group, they are poor at philosophy, when you compare them to....
um...
Gotcha.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 10:04 PM
Who cares what quality the "new atheists" are when it comes to philosophy? Any questions to do with reality are scientific questions. Does philosophy give some special insight into the universe that measuring the universe and then thinking about it does not?
Now I like philosophy, I appreciate critical thinking. But why should any scientist leave a question like "was Jesus born of a virgin" or "did Jesus conquer death" or "is there an interventionist god" do philosophy when they are clearly scientific questions?
This is not to say everything is a scientific question or that what is a scientific question can currently be answered, but really when the claims of theists all around the world directly contradict what is said in science (this goes beyond creationism, and into the fundamental nature of science itself) why wouldn't scientists speak up? They aren't philosophical questions, they are scientific ones.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 10:10 PM
Jeff,
All incivility aside, my original goal in commenting on this post was to highlight the point Michael Ruse made about new atheists working with philosophical issues largely outside the context of the philosophical arguments they're debating. I wasn't saying they were wrong, NOR was I trying to somehow prove the existence of God (although, somehow, several thought I was).
As a response, I largely got the sentiment of "you're an idiot. we're great philosophers." To gauge this, I asked those on the blog today to present their knowledge of philosophical arguments for or against the existence of ANY God (surely all these great atheist philosophers are well-versed in the flaws of many ontological arguments, as well as past conflicts between empiricism and non-empiricism, right?). Wrong. All I got in response (FOR 200 POSTS!!) was the same rote argument about Christianity - never framed in philosophical arguments, never anything more than talking-point phrases. I didn't claim they were wrong about evidence against the existence of a Christian God - I challenged a knowledge of philosophy. The vast majority were unable to provide anything more than even my "superficial knowledge of philosophical issues," as one poster put it. I'd say that back up Michael Ruse's point very nicely.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 10:16 PM
The problem is you've never given a reason why this is so important. Who, besides you and your hero Ruse, gives a rat's ass about some obtuse bit of philosophicing? Certainly the vast majority of goddists don't, a fact which has been pointed out to you many times.
What's your opinion on the concept of people as utility maximizers versus contextual decision processors? Very hot subject in economic marketing circles these days. What's that? You don't know what a utility maximizer or a contextual decision are? What an ignoramus you are. I'll bet pretty well all "Old Atheists" are as ignorant as you about this vital topic.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 10:16 PM
Anri,
No, no, and no. Jerry pretended that because he new one good new atheist philosopher, my argument was wrong. that might work if my argument was that there were no good new atheist philosophers, but it wasn't. I said it was simply the norm for them to be largely in the dark. Now stop framing argument.
Nerd,
You just called me a theist. Apparently in addition to being a smartass you also cannot comprehend the words "I am an atheist."
Now please go fuck off, and quietly.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 10:20 PM
Bilbo wrote:
Liar. Well, partly; you have, justifiably, been called an idiot.
What you 'got' is that atheists, on the whole, don't consider the philosophical arguments for the existence of gods to be compelling, or even relevant. The only way you could conceivably retain the impression that you have - which is the one you started with, days ago - is by ignoring all the posts which demonstrated otherwise.
We're not saying that we've all got good arguments against philosophical justifications for god; we're saying that we don't need them because we're perfectly able to smell bullshit, even when someone sprays perfume in the air in front of us.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 10:22 PM
Bilbo,
Can you please outline what philosophy you feel an atheist should hold? I am confused by what it is exactly you are wanting
Are you arguing that only ontological arguments have merit in a dialog with theists? Is it that atheists must converse with theists in the lingua franca of ontology?
Would you then demand that theists who argue for God in the public forum be immersed in genetics, biology, anthropology, chemistry & astrophysics?
If not then you are defining theism as the normative base. Think carefully about those implications and how that pertains to your claims of being an atheist.
Posted by: bilbo | August 15, 2009 10:24 PM
TisHimself:
Because if you're going to be an atheist (definition: a lack of belief in God OR GODS), you'd damn well better be versed in arguments from theology outside of what fundamentalist Christians believe...especially if you're going to dispute them. Otherwise, you're just a piddling, reactionary fuck who's taking up the garb to combat fundamentalist Christianity and its political/social implications. That's indeed a noble cause, but if it's all you're basing atheism on, you haven't given it a shit's thought.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 10:24 PM
The first part of this statement is correct. You, Dildo Bugger, are an idiot. The second part is strong evidence of your idiocy. We do not claim to be great philosophicers. What we claim is that most philosophicizing is just so much bovine feces and it makes little or no difference to normal people (i.e., non-philosophicating folks) what some ivory tower philosophiciator bobloviates about.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 15, 2009 10:24 PM
Bilbo,
Do you perchance know what Einstein said about philosophy? Since I am not a pretentious twat, I will tell you: He said that it was like making castles out of ice cream--beautiful, but you look back in more detail later and there's nothing there. And it was precisely the sort of bullshit we get from Plantinga and the xtian apologetics of Pascal et al. to which he was referring.
The ancient Greeks knew the difference between philosophy and sophistry. Xtian apologists seem to prefer the latter.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 10:27 PM
If you are an atheist, bilbo, please let us know, in detail, which devastating philosophical argument you use to overcome the ontological arguments for the existence of gods.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 10:27 PM
Dildo, we know these arguments are call "apologetics". They do need to apologize for the eau de feces smell of their sophistry. Another lie for you.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 10:28 PM
bilbo,
I never claim to be a philosopher. I'm not even a scientist, but the point I make as a "new atheist" is that the positions put by theists are those in the scientific realm. Claims about us having a soul, that the mind is dualistic, that morality comes from the gods, that one needs god to have meaning, where we came from, how we are built, etc. To me, the Euthyphro Dilemma is all well and good for explaining away the theist notion of morality, but evolutionary biology and psychology investigating the phenomenon is going to tell us far more than engaging in philosophical arguments.
Thus science does impede on philosophy, how can one say anything about the nature of man these days without an evolutionary basis? How can one talk about the universe as a whole without looking towards quantum mechanics or special relativity? What science has told us about life, the universe and everything has radically altered who we are and how we view ourselves in this universe. The philosophical arguments may not be different, but it's hard to see that now we live in a 13.7 billion year old universe where our planet orbits 1 of ~1023 stars, we are one of millions of different creatures alive today out of billions that ever were, and our function has been shaped by a process of reproduction with modification, that the bronze age gods we cling to should still be regarded as anything but anachronistic absurdities.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 10:38 PM
When the likes of Plantinga claims that demons are part of the errors in childhood development, is this not a scientific question? When Plantinga claims that evolution means that one's set of beliefs are unreliable because evolution selects for behaviour not beliefs, is this not a scientific question? When William Lane Craig claims that God through faith has personally revealed himself is that not a scientific question? When people trump out the teleological argument, is that not a scientific question?
This is not to say that any of them have scientific answers (though I believe the teleological argument does) but that they are questions that make claims about reality, and thus need to fit in with what we know about the universe. Surely when someone claims that Jesus was "born of a virgin" then scientists and especially biologists would get affronted by such extraordinary claims.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 15, 2009 10:40 PM
Oh, bullshit. If you're going to be an atheist, all you need is a lack of belief in God(s).
Are you versed in every single theistic philosophical argument? Do you know the kenotic argument, or Plantinga's response to theodicy? Do you have any response to strict apophatic theology?
You have no argument that supports why this profound knowledge even matters.
It is indeed true that you are just a piddling reactionary fuck.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 15, 2009 10:43 PM
Ah, it's becoming clear to me now.
An atheist needs to be qualified to point out that there is neither evidence nor compelling argument for any kind of interventionist god?
I'm guessing that Bilbo spent a lot of time and energy, doing the hard work: learning philosophy and getting himself to the point where he could rationally decide that he didn't believe in gods anymore. He'd been rewarded for his scholarship.
However, what's pissing Bilbo of is that we aren't all like him. He feels that his atheism is justified because he earned it and that anyone who hasn't got the book-learning behind them doesn't deserve to point out that they can just look at the claims made by the religious and see through them.
He's like Salieri with Mozart. Those unschooled atheists are the enfants terrible, the gifted prodigies who can do everything he can without really even thinking about it.
Which is just sad.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 10:44 PM
Bilbo, philosophy underlies the sciences whether or not we define those philosophies on a daily basis or even within the context of each argument. Ruse is couching his argument from the idea that the "new" atheists have no philosophy, which I disagree with.
And frankly when Ruse and you make use of ontological argument for said claim of no philosophy, a red herring is being tossed out to the audience.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 10:45 PM
Why the fuck should I care? Do you honestly think Kent Hovind, with his PhD issued from a split level ranch college with four "faculty" members (including the bookkeeper), is cognizant of Aquinas's proofs of god? Do you think that Billy Joe Jim Bob Haggerty from the Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb Bible Chapel And Trailer Park has even heard of Anselm? Those are the people that the "New Atheists" like me have to deal with. Assholes like you and Ruse can argue with the Right Reverend James FitzHugh-Dougherty STD DD, because he's not the one screaming to have evilution tossed out of public school and creationism taught in its place.
As it happens, I can and have discussed theology with genuine theologians and philosophy with accredited philosophizers. I've been able to tell both sets that what they're pushing professionally is bovine feces and, you know what, except for a couple of really pretentious assholes (folks like you), they agreed with me. But they're not the ones trying to turn my country into a fundamentalist evangelical theocracy. The people who have that goal in mind are the enemy and they don't fucking care that Augustine of Hippo used neo-platonism to formulate his concept of original sin.
You can play nice with some Episcopalian theologian all you want. I get to deal with keeping Ken Ham's lies out of the local school system.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2009 10:53 PM
Bilbo, why must you keep lying? I can't recall anyone here claiming that atheists, new or old, are particularly adept at philosophy. You, on the other hand, continually claim that they are so poor at it, they must have missed something. Well what is it? tell us what Dennet and Grayling have been hiding all this time. Educate us. That you haven't and continue to bloviate is despicable. We can practically do speed of light experiments the way you move the goalposts. You're creating irrelevant deadends of side issues at a pace that makes fractals look simple. I have no other choice but to conclude that you are a waste of food.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 10:53 PM
Or that he simply doesn't believe them worthy of mention. Give some examples and explain why he or anyone should care about them.
Wrong.
How do you know this? Which philosophical arguments are you talking about? I've never heard anyone here other than philosophers claim philosophical expertise. People have, however, discussed numerous philosophical arguments. Again, which do you have in mind? Dawkins and others should only be chastised for ignoring arguments that are at all relevant, substantial, and good; otherwise, ignoring them is of course reasonable and acceptable, just as it is for doctors to ignore the vast majority of ancient medical beliefs.
You're saying "You're not philosophers!" People are responding "No, most of us aren't, and we really don't see the need. What specific arguments are we not contending with that we should be - that would make a difference?" You're hearing "No - we're great philosophers!"
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 11:08 PM
bildo sez:
"No, no, and no. Jerry pretended that because he new one good new atheist philosopher, my argument was wrong. that might work if my argument was that there were no good new atheist philosophers, but it wasn't. I said it was simply the norm for them to be largely in the dark."
Again, as compared with who?
Do you feel that the average christian, or moslem, or hindu is better informed philosophically than the average 'new atheist'?
Are there more religious philosophers than atheist philosophers? Sure, there are more religious people than atheists.
Do you believe that philosophers are more likely to be atheists than non-philosophers?
I myself have no idea, perhaps you know.
and:
"Now stop framing argument."
I'm not really sure what this means, but you ignored my earlier post, so I am merely working to find what you believe and how to get you to describe it.
Wowbagger sez:
"However, what's pissing Bilbo of is that we aren't all like him. He feels that his atheism is justified because he earned it and that anyone who hasn't got the book-learning behind them doesn't deserve to point out that they can just look at the claims made by the religious and see through them.
He's like Salieri with Mozart. Those unschooled atheists are the enfants terrible, the gifted prodigies who can do everything he can without really even thinking about it."
I dunno, it seems more like the anti-choice women who are getting abortions. *Their* abortions are fully moral, the result of deep and serious questioning, much faith, and long wrestling with the essence of morality. But those women over there, the pro-choicers getting abortions, they're sluts.
Maybe I'm reaching with that, but it just sounded familiar.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 11:11 PM
I actually think that is a good point, we should be well versed in every fundamentalist argument. Hell, it's why I decided to learn about evolution. Then again, the only people I seeing using philosophical arguments are people using them as a foil to hide what they truly believe and why. There is no philosophical argument that demonstrates the existence of any particular deity, or any deity at all for that matter. All arguments seem to be abstract, diffuse arguments that use the word God out of convenience. They then replace the word God with the triune deity of the bible, which is something different again entirely.
Do I need to disprove the ontological argument in order to do that? I think not. The ontological argument doesn't mean that Jesus died for my sins or that the Koran is God's final word written by the prophet Muhammad or that all in the universe is essence of Brahman. Why do we need to counter the systematic dishonesty of pretending that philosophy proves the theist notion of God?
Posted by: Joshua Fisher | August 15, 2009 11:13 PM
Ruse's (and now bilbo's) is just the "outnumbered" argument I mentioned way up in #53.
(1) "Americans are religious people" and the new atheists are the anomaly.
(2) So, they should regard themselves as such and play nice.
(1) There's a lot of philosophy going back a long time about belief that most new atheists don't know about.
(2) So, new atheists should sit quiet until they make peace with it all.
I don't have a problem with the (1)'s above. They're probably true. I do have a problem, however, with all this Number Two.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 11:13 PM
Others have addressed this silly claim above, but I'll add that you really need to be aware that theists believe in an interventionist god with specific features. Not just fundamentalists. Theists. Stop presenting this as though all believers were either fundamentalists or deists.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 11:15 PM
A reactionary is one who wants to return to the "status quo", the "new" atheists are not reactionaries. Ruse thinks the best way to argue with fundamentalists is over lunch and dinner, that is status quo as he has outlined in his article. I remember having school prayer in grammar school and I for one do not think accomidationism will fight a return to public school prayer for my grandchildren. Playing point counter point may have worked during the sixties for Ruse, but there is a new generation of atheists that have moved beyond Ruses small goals. I am indebted for his accomplishments in those bygone years, but I will not be sidelined as an atheist in my society as he was.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 11:20 PM
Yes, bilbo is very J/Therion-like, with philosophy substituted for physics.
Posted by: consonum
|
August 15, 2009 11:28 PM
A have a couple questions that I did not see answered completely. Forgive me if they have, and for any subsequent ignorance on my part. (There will surely be a lot of it.)
There seems to be a trend here, in this conversational thread at least, that denigrates philosophy, as a discipline in general, for being useless. This is because it is not based upon empirical evidence and does not provide any pragmatic benefits with whatever it is that comes out of its maw.
1a. Couldn't this criticism be extended to other humanities as well as the arts and letters just the same? What makes philosophy so specially-deserving of this contempt?
1b. Could someone perhaps provide examples of some of this vacuous philosophy found in contemporary journals or the popular press or what-have-you?
I thought there was a second question, but I either cannot recall what it was or I'm deluding myself and there never was one (clearly I would be a wonderful philosopher)! In any case, I appreciate the forthcoming replies and the subsequent learning experience.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 15, 2009 11:39 PM
I think the misconception is that philosophy is denigrated around here, it isn't. What is attacked is people using philosophy in place of empiricism for empirical questions.
I personally like philosophy, but when you see people bring the TAG or the Ontological argument as if that proves that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, people are going to rebel against it. It's easy to misuse philosophy (as Ruse is accusing Dawkins of) and when people do that constantly it's going to draw ire.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 11:41 PM
There is no such trend, either on this thread or on this blog. People here in my experience (at least most of them) do not hold philosophy in contempt, or consider all philosophy to be useless. (I and others were recently recommending books by Camus, and many of us have recommended other philosophical works in the past; there are also philosophers who comment here.) Every time the subject of philosophical arguments for God comes up, someone appears to suggest what you're suggesting, but it's not the case.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 15, 2009 11:42 PM
consonum you could probably state it better and more fully that sciences are based on ontology which is composed of philosophies that include cosmology and epistemology.
Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2009 11:44 PM
consonum asks:
"Couldn't this criticism be extended to other humanities as well as the arts and letters just the same? What makes philosophy so specially-deserving of this contempt?"
Actually, I have been mulling over this point, so I can give you my take on it, such as it is.
The brief answer is that Dali didn't think that painting elephants with 20 meter legs actually gave elephants 20 meter legs. Nor did he try to claim that because he had painted them, they existed somewhere.
I believe that the purpose and benefit of the Arts is to stimulate emotions and provoke thought, induce a different way of looking at things. Philosophy, when it divorces itself from any connection with the real world (as non-evidence-based philosophy by definition does) can have the same benefit.
One reason philosophers get such a ribbing here is that they often seem to be saying that because they can string together words in a given way, they have shown something exists (or does not exist) regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof).
That's how magic works, it's abracadabra.
Or, rather, how magic doesn't work.
If a philosophy is willing to say 'I have an interesting idea that I can't prove, but it's fun to think about.' I imagine we'd be a lot easier on it.
That is, after all, the basic type of religion we have no quarrel with, really - 'I believe god exists, and believe because it gives me comfort. Of course, I can't prove anything.'
Just my 2 Inf.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 15, 2009 11:47 PM
Consonum, I think you would find most of us would agree that an education should be well rounded. I've taken courses in English, anthropology, geology, and mathematics that have nothing directly to do with my degree. My only direct philosophy exposure was reading a Sartre novel to a blind student in the dorm. I fulfilled the degree requirements for my college. No hatred for philosophy.
After I started posting here, we would get posters who think philosophy is very meaningful, and the rest of us are ignorant geese who should listen to them. But, they kept making holes in their logic you could drive a semi through, and never, ever, presented any evidence. The argument was the thing, not whether it was real or not. The first thing I always do with an idea is give it a reality check. So the philosophers gave themselves a bad name with arrogance, and their sophist arguments. Note Bilbo's arrogance.
If you want to look up scholarly published philosophy, I recommend going to Google Scholar, and type in something like "Ontological Argument" into the search engine. Up will pop scholars publishing on that topic.
Posted by: consonum
|
August 15, 2009 11:48 PM
I had assumed that this was the case, but I wanted to ask to make sure since some of the language used seemed to be broadly dismissove of the whole discipline; I did not mean to sound as accusatory as I did, however. Sorry.
Posted by: E.V. | August 15, 2009 11:52 PM
I think the denigration was centered on theistic philosophy, principally ontological arguments that form the basis for the argument for the existence of God. Since philosophy encompasses larger concepts beyond that (naturalism, materialism, empiricism, etc.), I think it was easier to offer up philosophy as narrowly defined, instead of confining the argument to ontology and teleology and the resulting tautology .
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 15, 2009 11:54 PM
The philosophicites tend to be more pretentious than any other field. Are there problems with other liberal arts fields? You better believe it. Economics certainly has its vagueness and ideological disputes abound. However, for sheer "I'm right and you're a idiot because you don't agree with me over some minor point nobody but us has even considered" pigheadness, philosophy is the clear leader.
Postmodernism is a good example of vacuous inanity passing as philosophy.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 16, 2009 12:00 AM
No problem, consonum. Sorry if I sounded annoyed.
As for the vacuous:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/alvin_plantinga_gives_philosop.php
Posted by: heliobates | August 16, 2009 12:13 AM
Damn staircase wit.
As for riding the coat tails, etc.
Posted by: heliobates | August 16, 2009 12:15 AM
Oops. Wrong thread. Move along, people.
Posted by: 386sx | August 16, 2009 12:21 AM
That Plantinga, he's pretty good. He can prove God, and he can disprove evolution too. If he were a scientist, he would probably discover a lot of cool neato stuff.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 16, 2009 12:26 AM
mijnheer ,
Nope. I'm saying that if a being which exists is more perfect than one which does not, then a perfect unicorn would possess the attribute of really existing, and so would a perfect Harry Potter. Because unicorns and Harry Potter are, well, beings. Conversely, if in some sense a unicorn is "supposed" to be imaginary, and a real-world one would be defective, then you've shown that existence is not, in general, a necessary ingredient for perfection. That opens you up to, for instance, Gasking's parody of the argument where he claims that the best God is a nonexistent one.
But in fact, I don't think any concept necessarily includes the attribute of really existing. I don't think that's an intrinsic attribute a concept can have; your or my concept of unicorns would not suddenly change if, unbeknownst to us, a mad surgeon assembled a living unicorn in his lab.
Well, sure we do. Otherwise we don't know whether such a being is even logically consistent. It may be as meaningless as "the largest prime number," in which case the question of its empirical existence is moot.
The very notion of perfection implies that a) all of the "positive attributes" being judged have an attainable upper bound and b) all of these upper bounds are attainable simultaneously. That's a very strong claim, and until it's supported in some way, the entire rest of the argument is irrelevant. I don't think one can even assert with confidence that the concept of the perfect being exists based on the ontological argument, any more than the concept of the largest prime number exists; there's just a set of verbal statements which refer to such a being, and a few hazy intuitions to go with them.
As C.S. Lewis said, nonsense remains nonsense even if we talk it about God.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 3:43 AM
No, what you did was lie what about what Dawkins and others were saying. Your criticism that they only deal with an interventionist god was pathetic, because Dawkins never claimed to do be doing anything other than. I know you tried claiming he did, but you were lying.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 3:50 AM
The part of the book where Dawkins makes it clear the book is not about deism and the arguments within it do not apply to deism is would seem.
Just so you are clear. Dawkins in "The God Delusional" discusses the god that is typically worshipped. An interventionist god, not one who does not do anything.
Why do so many people seem have miss this point ?
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 4:05 AM
Anri wrote to me (# 146):
>>PhysicistDave sez:
>>[Dave]"Kevin, I know this was partly a rhetorical point on your part, but it bears repeating that most Christians, even most fundies, do not really want a “totalitarian theocracy.”"
>[Anri] I duno, Dave, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point.
>Heaven is the ultimate totalitarian theocracy.
Sure, you have a point: I think there are a lot of things wrong with Christianity -- morally, politically, philosophically, scientifically, and, even, theologically (if any sort of God does exist, I imagine He is a bit peeved at how He is presented by the Christians!).
Nonetheless, for most Christians, even most fundies, Christianity is only part of their world-view, and we need to recognize this.
For example, I’ve talked to numerous fundies who were venting about homosexuality, and I’ve stopped them to ask what they really want to do about gays. Do they want to execute them? Imprison them? Prevent them from holding a job?
The answer to all such questions has always been “No.” In the end, the strongest response that I usually get is that the fundies just wish to hear less about gays in the mass media.
We could argue about whether that is a sensible view or not: personally, I think there was a time when there was too little discussion about homosexuality, but I think that some issues such as gay marriage have now become forms of entertainment for both the political left and right that enable them to avoid the real questions: how do we arrange that gays are treated fairly in terms of inheritance, familial rights, etc.
In any case, Christians are not just Christians: they are also Americans (or Italians or Frenchmen or whatever). And, most of all, they are human beings.
Even when their Christianity would seem logically to impel them to some ridiculously evil view, often their natural social feelings, their broader cultural experiences, or just their simple humanity, saves the day.
Yeah, I get irritated when they tell us that all of us non-Christians deserve to go to Hell, and if they took that view to its logical conclusion, I think they might well advocate a literal Hell here on earth.
Fortunately, most contemporary Christians, even fundies, are not that logically consistent. Most of them are reasonably decent, fairly tolerant human beings who hold some remarkably foolish, and obviously false, beliefs in the area of religion.
Dave
Posted by: KevinC | August 16, 2009 4:05 AM
Can anyone cite a major discovery about Universe or human beings made by philosophers, using philosophical (not scientific) methodology, any time in the last 100 years? And I'm not talking about a new fashionable fad argument, but a real discovery, comparable to something like "we are closely related to chimpanzees" or "consciousness is seated in the brain."
Posted by: windy | August 16, 2009 4:23 AM
Why the derision? I think it's a legitimate question. The definition of the "God hypothesis" could be read as excluding deism, and Dawkins has some good things to say about deists, but OTOH he says later on:
I suggest that even a non-interventionist, NOMA God, though less violent and clumsy than an Abrahamic God, is still, when you look at him fair and square, a scientific hypothesis
Dawkins says that he is mostly concerned with Christianity and an interventionist God, but maybe it's an exaggeration to say that he did not intend his arguments to apply to the deist god at all?
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | August 16, 2009 4:33 AM
bilbo wrote @ Comment #384:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, and that new atheists are "in the dark" with respect to philosophy.
OK? All new atheists are bad philosophers. Just terrible. Couldn't philosophize their way out of a paper bag.
Does that in any way whatsoever negate the absence of evidence for god? The god I refer to here can be your traditional Judeo-Christian interventionist god, your fuck-if-I-care-universal-creation-drive-by deist god, your multi-armed elephant-headed god, your meatball-eyed noodly-appendage god, and every other conceivable or inconceivable being in between.
Where's the fucking evidence?
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 4:40 AM
Windy (#424) wrote:
>Dawkins says that he is mostly concerned with Christianity and an interventionist God, but maybe it's an exaggeration to say that he did not intend his arguments to apply to the deist god at all?
I think Dawkins was quite clear that he did indeed intend *some* of his arguments to apply also against deism.
For example, consider his argument that the only mechanism known that explains the existence of complex entities is natural selection. That is indeed an argument against most forms of deism (is there any form of deism whose god arose via natural selection?).
On the other hand, many of his arguments apply solely against Christianity.
That is a general point of logic: the more specific a hypothesis is, the more possibilities there are for refuting it. Christianity is more specific than deism, and so has more possible arguments against it.
Dave
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 4:50 AM
[quote]Why the derision? I think it's a legitimate question. The definition of the "God hypothesis" could be read as excluding deism, and Dawkins has some good things to say about deists, but OTOH he says later on:[/quote]
Sorry, but you will have to point the derision to me.
[quote]Dawkins says that he is mostly concerned with Christianity and an interventionist God, but maybe it's an exaggeration to say that he did not intend his arguments to apply to the deist god at all?[/quote]
He does not develop the argument against deism at all it is quite clear that the main target of his argument in an interventionist god.
Again I have to ask why people cannot seem to understand this. I suspect they are either too lazy, or too cheap, to buy the book and read it for themselves.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 5:08 AM
Susan (# 163) wrote to me:
>>[Dave}it bears repeating that most Christians, even most fundies, do not really want a “totalitarian theocracy.”
>[Susan]Not as long as they can manage its functional equivalent. If you were a woman seeking an abortion in Kansas, or a gay couple wanting to get married in Utah, you might have a different perspective on how successful the fundies have been at imposing their God's will on everyone else.
Susan, I honestly don’t think it would change my perspective.
I was in college when Roe v. Wade was decided: I thought then and I think now that the substance of the decision was basically correct (although, as usual, the High Court used some slightly convoluted legal reasoning to get where it decided to go).
I think that to force a woman to carry a fetus against her will is a violation of her natural rights, a form of involuntary servitude, in a sense slavery.
But, that is a separate issue from whether the opposing view is “totalitarian.”
I think that the anti-abortion laws prior to 1973 were wrong. I do not think they were “totalitarian.”
“Totalitarian” implies a systematic, pervasive, all-encompassing assault on the liberties of the people.
America in 1972, pre-Roe- v. Wade, had many things wrong with it: I do not think that all of those things add up to “totalitarianism.”
A similar point holds for “gay marriage.” Personally, I have found it absurd since I was a child that government “licenses” any form of marriage. Marriage is a private contract between two individuals, and I see no reason for government to “license” private contracts of any sort.
In any case, I of course recognize that injustices are being done against gays with regard to inheritance, familial rights, etc. and those injustices should be rectified (I have found that many fundies, even politically conservative ones, agree with that, by the way).
But those injustices, real as they are, do not rise to the level of pervasiveness to count as “totalitarian.”
And, again, if you actually talk to a lot of fundies as I have, I think you may find that even on these “hot-button” issues, they are often a bit more nuanced than one might expect.
These folks are human beings: misguided and confused in some respects, to be sure. But very few of them, in my experience, are really Hitler wannabees.
Dave
Posted by: windy | August 16, 2009 5:09 AM
Obviously he didn't say that - presumably he means that the ontological argument is not generally a reason for why people come to believe in God, but a rationalization which is used to reinforce belief. You should maybe not complain about "piss poor knowledge of philosophy" if you think that 'the ontological argument' equals 'ontology'? We're not dissing ontology, the "ontological argument" is an insult to ontology.
You seem to have a penchant for misrepresentation - early on you twisted Nerd's request for:
into this:He didn't say the evidence itself had to be divine. And by the way, we keep hearing the same thing from Mooney and others, but has anyone provided the PHILOSOPHICAL justification for why this is impossible?
If Christianity were true, but doubting Thomas had been a scientist, are you claiming that Jesus would have been suddenly incapable of showing him physical evidence? Maybe scientists have magical God-blocking powers, like iron chariots!
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 5:23 AM
KevinC (# 114) wrote:
>Actually, I think we wouldn't have the ontological argument if it weren't for the Inquisition. If Aquinas or Anselm had introduced that sort of nonsense in a competitive philosophical and scientific environment where unbelievers could have eviscerated its obvious stupidity, they'd have gotten nowhere.
Kevin, as I recall, Aquinas did *not* defend the ontological argument (a cursory googling confirms this). Ol’ St. Tom made many mistakes, but not this one.
From what I know, even most philosophers and most Christians historically have seen that the ontological argument is obviously wrong. The main debate seems to have been over why it is obviously wrong.
Dave
Posted by: windy | August 16, 2009 5:30 AM
Matt P:
Er, I have it right here, and I still have to agree with Marc. Also you seem to be moving the goalposts from 'Dawkins makes it clear that his arguments don't concern deism' to 'Dawkins doesn't develop the argument against deism'- that's irrelevant if some of the arguments apply to both. What's the big deal anyway?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 5:38 AM
I would have thought the fact you cannot reason things into reality would be enough. Aristotle thought it was possible to use reason alone to understand reality, but philosophy has moved on since then. The ontological argument is just a specific form of the idea that reality can be determined by reason alone. Quite why it continues to be given special status escapes me.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 5:48 AM
Windy, I am at a loss to work out what you on about ?
Dawkins in his book is primarily concerned with discussing the existence (or not) of an interventionist god. He mentions deism, and makes it clear that the arguments in the book are not aimed at deism. He does, as you say, mention he has issues with deism but he does not develop them in the book.
So both "Dawkins makes it clear that his arguments don't concern deism" and "Dawkins doesn't develop the argument against deism" can be, and in fact, correct statements with regards to the book.
You, like Abian and Bilbo seem to have read a different book to the rest of us.
You ask "What's the big deal anyway?". Well how about people honestly representing what Dawkins says in the book rather than lying about what it says (as per Bilbo) or just not understanding it (as per you).
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 6:00 AM
Bilbo (#387( wrote:
> Because if you're going to be an atheist (definition: a lack of belief in God OR GODS), you'd damn well better be versed in arguments from theology outside of what fundamentalist Christians believe...especially if you're going to dispute them.
Well, personally, I do have an unhealthy obsession with Christian theology, and particularly the various supposed proofs of the existence of God, that has afflicted me for many decades.
So, I’ve read high-brow stuff by Swinburne, Grisez, et al, middle-brow stuff by C. S. Lewis Chesterton, etc. and even the real gutter stuff (e.g., Josh McDowell). (I have, however, never been able to stomach Plantinga in more than tiny bites.)
But, after a point, one can reasonably assume that it is the *other* side’s responsibility to put their best stuff on the front shelf, rather than my responsibility to spend my life reading every single writing by some deluded Christian, in the vain hope that I will finally find the little-known and less-remembered proof that God exists.
And, indeed, it is a reasonable conclusion that if Christians themselves have so much trouble agreeing on the proof that God exists, just maybe no such proof is out there.
More broadly, it really is often possible to decisively and correctly conclude that some field of intellectual endeavour is nonsense without knowing all its inner details.
I cannot cast a horoscope, but, yes, I do indeed know that astrology is nonsense.
Dave
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
PhysicistDave wrote:
Yeah, that's how I look at it as well. If this logic held true then all the religious need do to permanently render their beliefs immune from criticism is have one person, somewhere, continually writing slightly different variations on apologetics - so they can claim that critics aren't 'up' with the latest 'findings' and therefore can't be considered knowledgeable enough to comment.
I posted something to this extent over at Mooney & Kirshenbaum's blog. No doubt you'll be shocked to hear it has yet to be responded to - with anything of substance at least.
Posted by: PhysicistDavedh | August 16, 2009 7:05 AM
raven wrote to me:
>>[Dave]Kevin, I know this was partly a rhetorical point on your part, but it bears repeating that most Christians, even most fundies, do not really want a “totalitarian theocracy.
>[raven]That isn't true. It is wishful thinking. It is simply wrong.
>The fundie leadership are virtually all Xian Dominionists. They do want a totalitarian theocracy. It is there in black and white in their voluminous writings. Many of them openly hate the USA and want to overthrow the present government system.
.>Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, Kennedy etc.. are all Dominionists. Robertson's mentor was Rushdooney, the father of modern Xian Dominionism and a murderous psychopath.
raven, I know about the Dominionists – for various obscure reasons, I have been following the career of Rushdoony’s son-in-law for many years.
But, at least in my experience, most fundies out in the real world do not know or care about Dominionism.
I know the Dominionists have managed to get a lot of attention for themselves (even from some academics): Rushdoony’s son-in-law has a fascination with modern marketing techniques.
But I have found very few fundies out in the real world (or even in Internet forums) who share their views.
Dave
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 7:15 AM
TheVirginian (# 173) wrote to me:
> Christianity operated as a totalitarian movement for most of its existence. Further, it's theology is totalitarian, as Jesus purportedly claims kingship over everyone and threatens all nonfollowers with the worst punishments imaginable. This attitude led Jesus' representatives on Earth, theologians and the clergy, to claim similar powers over everyone.
[snip]
> To continue: Christians suppressed all dissent against the state version of Christianity. They also wiped out all non-Christians in Europe, possibly the worst act of genocide in history, and they made a major attempt to impose Christianity on the rest of the world.
I know.
And, yes, I agree that Christianity does have within it certain features that make it possible for it to support a totalitarian system.
But, Christianity is contradictory: it has other features (e.g., the Golden Rule) which push in the opposite direction.
More importantly, Christians are (like most people) often inconsistent.
Most of the Christians I have known simply do not advocate a “totalitarian theocracy.” Maybe they would if they were entirely logical (I’ve said as much to some of them), but most of them, fortunately, don’t.
I know a lot of these people well enough to be confident they are truly revealing to me their political views (partly because they reveal those views even when they know I strongly disagree).
Yes, if the USA became a fully fundie country, they might forget all about Jefferson et al. (I know a lot of fundies who honestly admire Jefferson, and for the right reasons) and return to the evil ways Christianity followed in past centuries.
But for reasons KevinC has pointed out, that is not going to happen: modern life, and the amenities that even fundies love, depend on science. Christianity is dying; in the long run it is doomed.
The old-time religion is certainly still a nuisance, especially here in the USA.
But it is not a long-term threat. It is doomed.
Dave
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Matt Penfold wrote to me:
>>[Dave]
>[Matt]I would have thought the fact you cannot reason things into reality would be enough. Aristotle thought it was possible to use reason alone to understand reality, but philosophy has moved on since then.
I think that is probably a bit unfair to Aristotle, who was a pretty empirical guy, especially in biology.
Of course, he got many details wrong, but his broad teleological approach and his substance/form metaphysics were not crazy given what he knew at the time.
They just turned out to be wrong when we got more knowledge about the natural world.
I think it was actually later philosophers, including many (by no means all!) of the “analytic philosophers” of the twentieth century who thought that armchair musings about language could tell us something about the real world.
I think part of the dispute between most of us and our pal Bilbo is that he is unwilling to consider the possibility that the hypothesis that “philosophizing” is a means of gaining knowledge about reality is a hypothesis that has now been disproven.
That of course does not mean that all philosophers are wrong about everything, but it does mean that well-educated people do not have to take the “discipline” of philosophy as such seriously.
As a discipline aimed at achieving an understanding of reality, philosophy has failed, just as the discipline of phrenology has failed, the discipline of astrology has failed, etc.
It is hard for some people to admit that some intellectual disciplines, as a whole, have failed to live up to their promises.
Dave
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 16, 2009 7:38 AM
I've got to say my take on The God Delusion is one similar to Matt Penfold's. I may be wrong in this, but it seems that Dawkins went after the kinds of deitistic entities that permeate through our society today. And what's wrong with doing such a thing?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 8:10 AM
PhysicistDave,
I take your points on board. I was, I think, I little off in citing Aristotle.
I do not think I would be quite as harsh on philosophy as you are. However I think we would both agree the useful parts of philosophy will be those that take reality into account. Moral and ethical philosophy are not without worth for example.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 16, 2009 8:18 AM
PhysicistDave, would it be a true statement that the philosophies of Pythagorus, Socrates and Plato were used to retard the development of the physical sciences?
Posted by: Ken | August 16, 2009 8:35 AM
Philosophy is a fun subject and I would recommend it to anyone who likes to kick ideas around. Most of the great philosophers of the past could at least write, and their reputation is preserved by their being wrong in interesting ways. The history of Christian doctrine is not without interest, in part because it can be fascinating to see how "eternal verities" change over time and evolve in reaction to philosophy. I have been reading around this subject for years, and it remains a source of wonder to me whenever theists on the Internet refer to the sophisticated arguments they have at their disposal, without ever quite being able to bring themselves to actually bring them out into the open. It would seem that there must be secret meetings where these arguments are rehearsed but participants are sworn never to repeat them where an atheist might come across them. The best response I know of to the repeated claims that one should read Aquinas and Duns Scotus is to actually do so. Believe me that if you laugh when they are wheeled out for rhetorical effect you are probably not laughing loud enough. They were both clearly very smart, but trapped inside their world and their times could only vainly spin their wheels in their attempts to make sense of things, forced instead to address questions like "do demons feel sorrow?".
Posted by: Josh
|
August 16, 2009 8:50 AM
Why? Why can we not simply dispute arguments from theology on evidentiary grounds? Would you argue that I cannot dispute arguments from mythology on evidentiary grounds? What is the real difference? That recent philosophy has spent more energy on theology?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 16, 2009 9:00 AM
Bilbo must be very busy, doing all that research and argumentation over all those things he doesn't believe in.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 16, 2009 9:06 AM
I wonder if he has concluded there is no Santa yet. Or maybe the fact he gets Christmas presents is evidence that Santa does exist, at least for Bilbo.
Posted by: Anri | August 16, 2009 9:08 AM
Dave sez:
"Yeah, I get irritated when they tell us that all of us non-Christians deserve to go to Hell, and if they took that view to its logical conclusion, I think they might well advocate a literal Hell here on earth.
Fortunately, most contemporary Christians, even fundies, are not that logically consistent. Most of them are reasonably decent, fairly tolerant human beings who hold some remarkably foolish, and obviously false, beliefs in the area of religion."
Well, yes, of course.
I was merely making the point that a christian, if they hold to their beliefs as set out in their go-to book, do and must advocate, and yearn for, totalitarian rule.
In the real world, the vast majority of christians realize that living under such a ruler would be terrible, and an assault upon their basic rights and so forth.
But in believing this, they are denying the central premise of their religion - that is, that there is a rightful totalitarian ruler of the universe.
It seems to me that if you accept that tenet, you cannot accept the concept of humans having rights, and if you deny it, you are denying the 'rightful' place of god.
My thought is certainly inconsistent on various matters, and I hope I would never claim otherwise, but then I don't believe that I've been given cosmic secrets by the almighty. I hope that contradictions within my thoughts are pointed out to me when I make them, so (even if I choose not to abandon them), I am at least aware of them.
Of course most religious people are essentially good - or at least not essentially evil. But this is in spite of their faith, generally speaking, not because of it.
And we, and they, and the entire world should be reminded of that whenever possible.
Posted by: Kristine | August 16, 2009 9:12 AM
I dare Michael Ruse to say that my questions to him at the CFI conference were not rational, logical, and well worded. He should have answered it instead of giving me glares long after I sat down. Holy crap, that man is arrogant and does not like to be challenged.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 16, 2009 9:27 AM
Kristine,
Thanks for linking to your post (I also enjoyed your movie list - "Through sick and sin!" ;)).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 16, 2009 10:02 AM
He's a philosophicizer. Arrogance is one of the benefits of teaching from the ivory tower.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 16, 2009 10:21 AM
Anri #446
Rushdoony and his followers do yearn for totalitarian rule.
"Dissolve man's self-government, and you make a totalitarian authority over him a social necessity." J.R. Rushdoony Law & Liberty, p. 18
"One faith, one law, and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state, and it has worked towards reducing society to anarchy." J.R. Rushdoony The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 100
"...death penalty be used to punish those guilty of apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, sodomy or homosexuality, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and in the case of women, unchastity before marriage. Non-capital crimes would be sanctioned with whipping, indentured servitude or slavery." Steven J. Wilkins Reconstructing Christianity, p. 5
Posted by: kiki | August 16, 2009 10:36 AM
Philosophy is good for asking interesting questions about why things are the way they are and "what it all means", but if you have to resort to using it to prove that something actually exists - because all the scientific evidence, not to mention the evidence of your own eyes and ears, suggests otherwise - chances are, it doesn't exist.
I believe it's called reaching.
Posted by: Carlie | August 16, 2009 11:12 AM
I did some reading up on ontological arguments last night, since I've never taken a philosophy class. I learned something very important: Crocoducks do indeed exist, since a Ray Comfort thought of them.
That pretty much sums it up, right?
Posted by: Carlie | August 16, 2009 11:25 AM
Shoot, that should have been "since Ray Comfort thought of them". I changed the sentence and orphaned the article.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 16, 2009 11:48 AM
(Sorry that I can't leave this thread alone)
Bilbo, are you saying that only the atheistic philosophers such as Ruse (and possibly yourself) are the only people competent enough to argue for and about atheism against the creationists?
Bilbo does your argument finally get winnowed down to leaving it to the adult thinking philosophers? Somehow this sounds very elitist and condescending.
Posted by: Roger | August 16, 2009 12:45 PM
Bilbo prattled:
"Because if you're going to be an atheist (definition: a lack of belief in God OR GODS), you'd damn well better be versed in arguments from theology outside of what fundamentalist Christians believe...especially if you're going to dispute them. Otherwise, you're just a piddling, reactionary fuck who's taking up the garb to combat fundamentalist Christianity and its political/social implications. That's indeed a noble cause, but if it's all you're basing atheism on, you haven't given it a shit's thought."
Really. Essentially, Bilbo is arguing that those of us who do not find the mere assertion of the existence of god/s must somehow learn *all* the arguments for the existence of god/s. Let's us an analogy: I come up to Bilbo and tell him that Superman exists. He says, "Rubbish!" I then proceed to chastise *him* because *he* doesn't know all the arguments that we in the Superman faith community use to justify our belief in the existence of Kal-El of Krypton. Nevermind that *I've* made the positive assertion and, according to philosophical/logical arguments that Bilbo appears to love so much, the burden of proof rests with the person making the positive assertion.
So, all you atheists who simply say, "You say god/s exist; show me the proof," you had better get to school and learn what *every* religion believes about their particular deities! And you had better get a PhD in philosophy, or else some random fucktard on the Internet won't talk to you!
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 1:06 PM
@206
Win.
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 1:23 PM
There and Back Again, by Bilbo:
My
goddogobnoxious cat!Put down the bong!
Nobody here gives a rat's patootie about philosophical arguments for gods. I could waste some time right now coming up with a non-falsifiable god, but let me be lazy and refer to the IPU so you know where I'm going with this.
IPU or any other non-falsifiable god has no bearing on science and how it is done whatsoever. Hence we put it on "IGNORE".
If you want to move a god from IGNORE to INVESTIGATE, you will need to provide ... (drumroll please) ... EVIDENCE.
Go impress a philosophy prof with your pretty, impractical arguments. While you're at it, share a beer and discuss the impossibility of ever disproving the solipcistic hypothesis. Good times.
What I gather from you is that you seem to think we're uneducated or unsophisticated because we get on with our lives rather than wasting time delving deeply into philosophy. If it doesn't enhance one's life, why bother? I can stop with Epicurus right now.
You clearly are into Popper; Popperites are convinced that Popper is very important, whether they think he's right or very, very wrong. Meanwhile, 20th century physics got on just fine thanks to clever experiments and new mathematical methods without any intervention from Popper whatsoever. I don't recall any equation in modern physics called "Popper's equation". Maybe Popper makes you feel better if Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sends you into a deep depression. I don't know. Perhaps you can enlighten us, rather than falling back on calling us ignorant.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 1:41 PM
@215 (Tis Himself)
I laughed so hard I snorted. Now my friends are looking at me funny and avoiding me. I blame you.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 1:56 PM
For those of you who have studied quantum mechanics, think about how bizarre and abstract all that linear algebra and matrix operator theory seems. If it didn't perfectly describe the behavior of observable systems, arguing over the right way to construct a Projection Operator would be pretty silly. As it is, it allows us to construct nice machines with which to have this discussion.
I'm with you. Not only is Quantum weird, it's REALLY weird.
Did philosophy lead us to any of it? No. Unless you still count natural philosophy, ie science, as philosophy, even though they had parted ways centuries before.
Our brains are adapted to the classical domain. All philosophy reflects OUR BRAINS. Quantum does NOT reflect our brains but hey, we're practical enough to accept the results of our experiments and come up with a semi-logical set of rules so we can describe what it is we see, even though it fundamentally doesn't make any sense to us with our simian brains.
Philosophy does not present any new information. It can only react to what science discovers. Maybe it helps us live a better life, maybe it's the humanities ancillary to medical science and evolutionary biology and what-the-hell the hard sciences as well. I'll be generous and grant it that.
But don't come here and tell me I have to give a serious hearing to semantics, which is all the ontological argument is. Any grade-schooler can tell you about their invisible friend who hides whenever you try to look for her; you don't need a philosophy degree for that. Seriously!
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 5:19 PM
Matt Penfold wrote to me:
>I do not think I would be quite as harsh on philosophy as you are. However I think we would both agree the useful parts of philosophy will be those that take reality into account. Moral and ethical philosophy are not without worth for example.
Sure.
I actually admire numerous philosophers: e.g., among the classical philosophers, Aristotle and Locke; among those recently deceased, Ernest Gellner; among our contemporaries, Michael Redhead and Colin McGinn (whom I actually know personally via the Web).
But none of the guys I just mentioned claimed that philosophy trumps natural science; all of them did what they could to inform themselves of the best results of natural science as it existed in their day.
My complaint is simply with the view that philosophy is a coherent discipline that has consensus results that all of us must honor. That is not what it is. There is no consensus to speak of among philosophers. There is no philosophical method that Aristotle, Hegel, Camus, Whitehead, Moore, Feyerabend, Redhead, and Gellner would all agree on.
And there is no reason at all to think that philosophy trumps science.
As a coherent discipline that promised to arrive at knowledge about reality and that is entitled to automatic respect, philosophy has failed.
Some individual philosophers are, nonetheless, bright guys whose insights are worth listening to. But it is not their status as “philosophers” that entitles them to that respect. It is the fact that, as individuals, they actually are honest, bright, thoughtful guys who really have tried to learn anything relevant to the issues they address, including science.
Many, many philosophers do not share those traits, and so those guys do not deserve respect.
Bilbo kept lambasting all of us for being ignorant of “philosophy.” That was foolish and pointless (and untrue). If he had had any real point to make, he should have told us of those particular philosophers whose valid points he thought we were ignoring and *why* he thought their points were valid.
Then there could have been an informative discussion. But, I don’t think Bilbo really wanted that.
Dave
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 16, 2009 5:27 PM
Bilbo kept lambasting all of us for being ignorant of "philosophy." That was foolish and pointless (and untrue). If he had had any real point to make, he should have told us of those particular philosophers whose valid points he thought we were ignoring and *why* he thought their points were valid.
well said.
It's what basically allows one to recognize trolling vs debate.
...and dildo was doing nothing but trolling with stinky bait.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 16, 2009 5:33 PM
And many of us were responding in kind. After all, it took him a week or so to get to his point. I think most of us get to our points in a post or two.Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 16, 2009 5:48 PM
Anri wrote to me:
> I was merely making the point that a christian, if they hold to their beliefs as set out in their go-to book, do and must advocate, and yearn for, totalitarian rule.
>In the real world, the vast majority of christians realize that living under such a ruler would be terrible, and an assault upon their basic rights and so forth.
>But in believing this, they are denying the central premise of their religion - that is, that there is a rightful totalitarian ruler of the universe.
[snip]
>Of course most religious people are essentially good - or at least not essentially evil. But this is in spite of their faith, generally speaking, not because of it.
>And we, and they, and the entire world should be reminded of that whenever possible.
Agreed.
I am all for reminding Christians of the potential (and, historically, all too often, actual) evil consequences of their beliefs.
But, I also think we need to remind ourselves (and I explicitly include myself here – I do tend to forget this on occasion) that, as you say, “most religious people are essentially good - or at least not essentially evil.”
Incidentally, I should state explicitly that I recognize that KevinC was not falling into the trap I am criticizing here in his initial post that I responded to: I merely took his use of the phrase “totalitarian theocracy” to go off on a bit of a tangent myself. He was making a different point. I am in fact in broad agreement with what Kevin has posted on this thread.
Dave
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 16, 2009 6:09 PM
I'm going to fight my corner on this one. The central argument of the God Delusion is
This doesn't apply to a deist god how?
The deist God is surely an example of a designer hypothesis right?
Posted by: PhysicisDave | August 16, 2009 6:24 PM
JeffFlyingV wrote to me:
>PhysicistDave, would it be a true statement that the philosophies of Pythagorus, Socrates and Plato were used to retard the development of the physical sciences?
Well… perhaps. I don’t think I know enough about the relevant history to reach any firm conclusion. Pythagoras was such a shadowy figure, that I am not sure anyone can reach a firm conclusion in his case.
I am willing to cut Socrates, Plato et al. some slack in a way I am not willing to do for Bilbo or Ruse simply because the Greeks came so early in the enterprise of trying to rationally, systematically make sense of the world.
Way back then, who really knew what method would work?
The Greeks made the breakthrough discovery that the axiomatic method, basically a form of “armchair” reasoning, could achieve wonderful results in mathematics. Perhaps, a similar method would work in understanding the physical world, the nature of human beings, etc.
We know that has not panned out. What has worked in understanding nature is a combination of mathematics with empiricism, guided by a broadly mechanistic way of thinking.
I’m doubtful that I myself would have seen that a priori: in fact, I rather enjoy the “armchair” mode of thinking -- nice and relaxing, you know. But, outside of math, it has not worked.
I think Bilbo knows that, and I think he is a being a wee bit disingenuous in demanding that we pore over Schmuckelhauser’s commentary on Eigenstadt’s remarks directed to Kant’s understanding of Aquinas’ critique of Anselm’s ontological argument before we dare comment on the truth of Christianity.
That kind of “study other people’s words” approach to learning about reality has proven fruitless. The “go out and measure something” approach has worked magnificently. Too bad – relaxing in the library is so much easier than doing actual experiments.
Dave
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 7:04 PM
@292
Disagree.
Really? How do you know that?
Look, dijnheer, what does 'perfect' mean? You could write a whole thesis on that and you'd still be wrong, because it's a matter of human opinion. This "a priori" approach is bogus because the human brain, the instrument with which we are attempting to reason, is a lump of "a posteriori" matter. Give it up. You are chasing your own tail.
It all boils down to a suspicion that words, which are constructs of the human mind, have a magic power to make themselves manifest. But no. It is human hands that make them manifest. This superstition appears in the Bible when Yahweh speaks the world into existence.
The ontological argument is idiotic and was thought so by Anselm's contemporaries. It relies on semantic curiosities of the languages in which it was expressed. It reminds me of Plato's idiotic discourse on "pure forms" where he talks about some sort of metaphysical table. Only a man who only spoke one language could make that argument with a straight face.
Well, it's very unclear if your thinking is muddied: for example, you think there is such a thing as "perfect" and "imperfect" outside of some sort of narrowly defined mathematical or technical terminology.
Philosophy is about thinking clearly, which is why the ontological argument has intrigued philosophers and students for hundreds of years.
Aww, isn't that nice. Keeps them off the streets, I hear.
It's funny, I keep hearing about phil. majors that moved over to sciences. Maybe because thinking hard about issues and only ever arriving on a highly contingent opinion is not as much fun as doing experiments and knowing something for reals.
IMO, philosophy was invented by the Greeks because scientific experimentation was considered blasphemous. (The greatest of their philosophers, Socrates, admitted that he had dabbled in natural philosophy in his youth, before moving on to more politically acceptable territory.) Philosophy took on an ancillary role when experimental sciences took over. It has helped us think about how we do science and made us humans better scientists, but it doesn't tell us anything new about the world per se. That's what observation and experiment are for.
Posted by: KevinC | August 16, 2009 7:04 PM
Mijnheer@ 371:
If the maker of an ontological argument cannot specify what they mean by their alleged perfect being, their concept of "perfect being" has no referent. It's a cognitive blank, like the perfect Unie. This cognitive blank is the philosophical equivalent of the stage magician's concealing handkerchief (see below).
You do have to specify the perfections if you want to legitimately claim the perfect entity exists. To be is to be something, as opposed to something else. Even an electron with all its non-local wave-particle quantum weirdness has a certain rest-mass, charge, and spin. Try writing a paper for a physics journal claiming to have discovered a new particle--while saying that its charge, rest-mass, spin, and other properties do not need to be specified and see how far that gets you.
That's only the first part of the trick, what goes on before the big reveal. The "sophisticated theologian" will make long and complicated arguments for the ontological existence of their "perfect being" (sometimes complete with physics-envy pseudo-equations), keeping it a generic mental blank, a Schrodinger's God that can be anything and everything. Then, after flummoxing their audience with their "sophistication" and plenty of Courtier-style harrumphing, they will usually say something like:
"And this Perfect Being [First Cause/Prime Mover/Absolute Universal Principle/Whatever] we call God." That's the flourish at the end, where the cognitive blank is transformed into the specific god the masdebater is arguing for. Ta-daaaa! God exists! Now, will you make your keyboard an altar and invite Jesus into your heart today?
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, the whole game counts on the fact that the word "God" can be morphed to mean literally anything at all. Once the victims can be persuaded to agree that the shape-shifting generic somethingorother might exist, or at least that they can't think of any arguments against it (and how could they--it's a goalpost with wheels and jet engines), he pulls the "Presto!" and re-invests the hitherto blanked "God"-word with the common cultural meaning: the Christian God, Muslim God, whatever.
It's the same thing done by Intelligent Design. They make all their complicated and scientific-sounding arguments from "conservation of information" or the complexity of bacterial flagella or cosmic "fine-tuning," whatever, to get people to accept the idea of a Designer. They don't often talk about who their Designer is supposed to be in public (at least pre-Dover), because they're banking on people "getting it" in a "wink wink, snap snap, grin grin, know what I mean, know what I mean" sense.
The singular, and the capital D does it for us, since we've all grown up immersed in a monotheistic culture. It would be interesting to see if IDiots would be willing to have ID taught in classrooms with the proviso that all materials must refer to the Designers, plural.
Well, OK, "brilliant" in the sense of "Wow, that's a pretty clever con" or "nice magic trick!" It's not brilliant in the sense of "what an amazing discovery!" like evolution by natural selection, the discovery of radioactivity, or relativity. It's great for hoodwinking people into thinking that theology has a venerable philosophical tradition behind it that people like Dawkins must tremble before in respect, and convincing the rubes that maybe the wizards in the high tower really have spoken God into being. Increasing our understanding of reality? Not so much.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 7:26 PM
@KevinC
Hmm, no thunderclap, no sandwich. Maybe you need to question your premise that a philosopher can conjure God into existence by uttering the right sort of syllogism.
I LOL'ed. Keep 'em coming, man. :D
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 7:32 PM
@304 dein Herr
Can't speak for anyone else, but I CONCLUDED that I should stop WASTING MY TIME WORRYING about that for which there was NO EVIDENCE.
Similar to the way nobody wastes their time calculating the force of ether wind anymore.
Whether I BELIEVE it or not is irrelevant! That's the beauty part of it!
Posted by: KevinC | August 16, 2009 7:35 PM
Bilbo @387:
No, all that's really necessary is skill at critical thinking (including the ability to identify logical fallacies and diabological trickery) and a basic grasp of reality. Let the theologian clearly state their zinger argument, and we'll address it. If they merely mutter mysteriously and harrumph about a vastly powerful incantation--er, argument for God concealed within some musty medieval illuminated manuscript, we have every epistomological right to dismiss their grumblings as the Courtiers' Replies they are. Let them become versed in their own arguments well enough to present them cogently.
We're coming up on 500 posts, and still you have yet to present a single example of the mighty arsenal of arguments theologians and philosophers present of which we are woefully ignorant, so that we can see how our alleged ignorance can lead us to defeat.
Have you have conducted any in-depth study of medieval bestiaries or ancient accounts and of dragons? Probably not. But somehow I doubt that you would feel you should, before you can dispute the existence of the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. Have you made a thorough study of R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz' two-volume magnum opus The Temple of Man, or the writings of Iamblichus? Then you are in no position to dispute the existence of the Gods and Goddesses of Egypt, or the efficacy of Hermetic magick.
Burden of proof. Occam's lightsaber. Give us something that can get past those obstacles, and we'll talk. Until then, you're just engaging in the Courtier's Reply. The Emperor's withered naughty bits are still dangling in public, and we can still point and laugh.
Posted by: KevinC | August 16, 2009 7:57 PM
WRT Dawkins vs. Deism, I think Dawkins' arguments are applicable to any Deistic god that is supposed to be an eternally-existent Invisible Magic Person of any sort. For example, the Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument. If it is so that we cannot expect a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747, then even more complex entities like Universe-creating Invisible Magic Persons can't "just appear" either.
Thanks to discoveries like evolution by natural selection and emergent order, we can now see that complexity arises from simplicity. A complex entity like a personal God of any sort must (by this argument) have some sort of evolutionary origin by which it arises from ultimately simple beginnings.
As social animals whose first important awareness is of persons (Mommy, Daddy, the other members of the family/tribe) we tend to think of persons as primary, and prior to non-personal existence. We look at the world through human-colored glasses. The common question, "If there's no God, then who created the Universe?" is an example of the unconscious assumption that the most obvious starting point is a "who." "Magical thinking" is simply the assumption that Universe will respond to us socially, i.e., to things like words, bribes (sacrifices), offers of obedience and appeasement, or (as in some ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic magical spells) commands and threats.
Over the last few hundred years, science has dragged us kicking and screaming into the awareness that virtually all of Universe is not personal, and cannot be dealt with using our toolkit of social behaviors that works so well in a human environment. To deal with it effectively, we must use the new-found tools of science and technology.
Posted by: Carlie | August 16, 2009 8:08 PM
It all boils down to a suspicion that words, which are constructs of the human mind, have a magic power to make themselves manifest.
Which is a quite common literary theme.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 10:58 PM
@331 bilbo
Whoa, back up. That's the first time you've mentioned it in this thread. At message 331.
Maybe you need to make yourself clearer from the get-go, instead of making mysterious posts and then wondering why you get baited.
Oh, and sorry to burst your bubble, but I think most high school graduates even in the soggy ole US of A are familiar with the concept of solipcism.
(My cynical side says you are being coy because deep down you know that if you enumerate this knowledge you claim everyone else lacks you're going to get torn into by posters who are quite familiar with it, and that would trash your little superiority pose. But that's my cynical side, best not to listen to it too much.)
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 11:05 PM
@338
Re: Anselm
Just because he addressed the objection does not mean he was convincing. Just as Kant addressed objections to the categorical imperative, but I did not find him convincing, either.
Re: 11th century
Just because some philosophy is old does not mean it is correct, profound, worth wasting anyone's time on, etc. Also.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 11:10 PM
@340 Bilbo
So when it comes down to it, your basic thrust is: I know philosophy, that makes me profound?
Name-dropping but not actually engaging the questions at hand makes you look like an idiot, btw. And it's funny for someone so obsessed with the problems of empiricism that you have yet to mention David Hume. Huh.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 11:20 PM
@352
Wow, that photo looks like a textbook example of
inbreedingthe master race.Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 12:01 AM
Aristotle thought it was possible to use reason alone to understand reality, but philosophy has moved on since then.
And Aristotle had religious, er, political reasons for believing so. In that time and place, making experiments was considered an affront to the gods. Probably because it would make the gods look non-existent rather than simply stupid.
Apparently some experimentation on humans was okay, though, because healers were not only tolerated--they were often deified posthumously. (I don't know if they allowed human dissection, although in the Renaissance this 'forbidden knowledge' was considered essential to the visual arts, and the Greeks were pretty good at that. Maybe some Greek scholar can clarify)
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 2:19 AM
Sara (# 160) wrote:
> If there is any lack of respect or anything anywhere, it's precisely in the accommodationist movement which argues that some people, namely the believers, should NOT be treated like adult intelligent human beings who can be partners in any sort of intellectual enterprise.
That is, I think, an absolutely central point that got lost in the little Bilbo sideshow.
Ruse and his fellow accomoodationists are being incredibly, insultingly condescending towards Christians.
If a scientist disagrees with some other scientist’s pet theory, no one urges him to shut up because he might hurt the feelings of the other scientist. No one urges critics of Obama’s health-care proposal to silence themselves because any criticism might upset the emotional equanimity of poor Mr. Obama.
We assume that President Obama, scientists, etc. are grown-ups who are able to deal with the fact that other people will often disagree with their views.
The faitheists/accommodationists make the opposite assumption about Christians: i.e., even though Christians have loudly, publicly, and insistently made statements that many of us think are obviously and provably false (not to mention personally insulting to us), we should refrain from saying so loudly, publicly, and insistently, because it might hurt the feelings of the precious little Christians.
That is infantilizing the Christians, treating adult human beings as if they were helpless babies.
I suppose there is another interpretation: I sometimes think the only real motive of the faitheists/accomodationists is that they believe Christians can be tricked into funding their pet projects (in biology, cosmology, etc.) whose ultimate implications are to invalidate Christianity, but only so long as we do not let the Christians in on the ultimate implications of such work.
In the end, that may amount to much the same thing. Again, Christians are being treated as people who cannot be trusted to hear the truth, as little children who must be shielded from reality.
I disagree strongly with Christianity, but I actually like, and in many ways respect, most of the Christians I know.
And, that is one of the most important reasons that I do not hide from those Christians whom I know personally the fact that I think their religious views are wrong and at variance with science.
I respect them too much to deceive them.
They deserve to know the truth, or at least to hear my honest opinion as to what is true.
I of course do not (and can not) insist that they discuss the issue of religion if they choose not to do so. But, precisely because I do respect them as human beings, I do not falsely pretend that I respect their religious views.
The faitheists/accommodationists are no friends of the Christians: they are simply condescending to the Christians and refusing to treat them with the respect due to adult human beings.
Dave
Posted by: John Morales | August 17, 2009 2:40 AM
PhysicistDave @478, hear, hear!
That's a molly-worthy comment (even though that very point has been made in the past).
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 2:46 AM
I finally had a chance to post the following brief reply to Mr. Ruse over on beliefnet; it will be interesting to see if the “blog owner” chooses to “approve” it. I strove for the same tone that Ruse used towards Dawkins, but I fear that I lack the ability to be quite as rude, insulting, and condescending as Ruse is himself.
---
Michael Ruse wrote:
>Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course.
That is a rather bluntly frank statement to make about an academic colleague!
But, since, you clearly want to pursue that sort of frank discussion, may I be equally frank?
As a scientist myself (Ph.D. in physics from Stanford), I would not consider it a negative if someone were too intelligent to pass your introductory class in philosophy.
To be quite frank, as a scientist, I have noticed that more than a few scientists consider the discipline of philosophy to have an intellectual standing only slightly higher than the disciplines of phrenology or astrology.
You and your colleagues have had well over two thousand years to establish your bona fides as a discipline able to produce truth or insight into the nature of reality.
You have failed.
I find you intellectually unimpressive.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 17, 2009 3:02 AM
I think philosophy can be good as a kind of mental exercise; however, to try and use it to end arguments over things like whether gods for whom we have no evidence do or don't exist is patently useless.
And I don't just mean 'no evidence' in the sense that they aren't testable, either. People use the characteristics or qualities or tendencies of the gods they are arguing for in their arguments - where do they get the information about these gods and what they can't or can't do? As far as I'm concerned if they can't provide a source for their claims then they're pure conjecture, and can't be used as the basis for an argument.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 3:04 AM
Thanks, John, though of course I was just elaborating on Sara's point.
Dave
Posted by: Rorschach | August 17, 2009 3:09 AM
I think philosophy needs to be seen in its historic context, it was pretty much the only way of trying to make sense of the world 2000 years ago.
And while that has obviously changed with the emergence of science and the scientific method, that doesnt mean that philosophy can not have a useful function these days in attempting to answer questions regrding man's existence,the meaning of life, logic etc.
Just as long as we dont try to use it for things it is not equipped to deal with anymore, like answering questions about the physical reality of the world we live in.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 17, 2009 4:41 AM
Dunno whether he thought it was possible to do so, but Aristotle certainly didn't try to understand reality by reason alone. He did tons of observational and experimental work, alongside his armchair stuff.
Posted by: Drosera | August 17, 2009 6:23 AM
On the value of philosophy...
One of the problems I used to have when following philosophy courses was that no clear distinction was made between what I would call crackpot philosophy and real deep thought. It was all treated as if it was equally worthwhile. I remember that I even had to study the philosophy of Lenin and Stalin. It was like mixing up astrology and astronomy.
Nevertheless, I think philosophy still has its place. Why is mathematics so effective in describing the physical world? In which sense of the word ‘existence’ does the number Pi exist? What is ‘nothing’? What does ‘supernatural’ mean? These, and many others, are in my opinion valid and interesting questions belonging to the realm of philosophy.
On the other hand, ontological proofs of the existence of god(s) decidedly fall within the category of crackpot philosophy, as far as I am concerned. These proofs are demonstrably wrong and therefore as meaningless as any argument that purports to show that 1 = 2. The name Plantinga comes to mind (can’t help it). Sophisticated nonsense is still nonsense.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 7:15 AM
Rorshcach wrote:
> I think philosophy needs to be seen in its historic context, it was pretty much the only way of trying to make sense of the world 2000 years ago.
Indeed. In fact, they did not separate out what we would call science from what we would call philosophy. In modern terms, Aristotle was a logician, a scientist, a philosopher, a political scientist, etc.
You also wrote:
> And while that has obviously changed with the emergence of science and the scientific method, that doesnt mean that philosophy can not have a useful function these days in attempting to answer questions regrding man's existence,the meaning of life, logic etc.
Can you give any concrete examples of philosophy as a discipline actually having a “useful function” in that respect?
Philosophers disagree so much among themselves that anyone can find some one philosopher with whom he or she agrees on some point.
But is there any generally established, consensus result within the discipline of philosophy that you find of value?
I cannot think of any.
Dave
Posted by: windy | August 17, 2009 7:35 AM
They can be, but I don't think the first one actually IS correct, and you have not given any evidence (like quotes from the book) to support it.
How nice. Did you take a page from Bilbo's book of argumatation? If someone disagrees with you, they must be too lazy to have read the book, or if they have read it, they must not have understood it. Well, do you understand this:
The deist God, often associated with the Founding Fathers, is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible. Unfortunately it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did. In any of its forms the God Hypothesis is unnecessary. The God Hypothesis is also very close to being ruled out by the laws of probability. I shall come to that in Chapter 4...
I.e., the deist God is a form of the God hypothesis. Some of the arguments in the book can't help but apply to the deist God, as Marc Abian said, even if the deist God was not what the book focused on AND NOBODY HAS ARGUED THAT IT DID. But this is a minor point, and I think it was much better to NOT explicitly exclude the deist God from a consideration of the God hypothesis.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 7:35 AM
Drosera wrote:
> Nevertheless, I think philosophy still has its place. Why is mathematics so effective in describing the physical world? In which sense of the word ‘existence’ does the number Pi exist? What is ‘nothing’? What does ‘supernatural’ mean? These, and many others, are in my opinion valid and interesting questions belonging to the realm of philosophy.
Yeah, but a bright ten-year-old can come up with questions even more profound than that:
“Why am I me instead of someone else?”
“Why is it now instead of some other time?”
and the Big Daddy of them all:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
At least, I used to wonder about such things when I was ten!
Questions are cheap.
Answers are hard.
What have philosophers as a profession done to advance understanding of such questions?
Has philosophy as a discipline made any progress in dealing with such questions in the last two thousand years?
Progress in mathematics (Dedekind cuts, Cauchy sequences, etc.), for example, has helped advanced the understanding of the nature of pi. But what has philosophy achieved?
Ruse berates “New Atheists” for their supposed ignorance of philosophy (although, quite frankly, in his stuff that I have read in the past, it seemed to me that he was the one with an awesome ignorance of the historical record of philosophy – Ruse is not terribly bright).
Where’s the beef?
What is the concrete knowledge that Ruse thinks Dawkins and PZ lack but that philosophers possess and which is relevant to the question of God’s existence?
I’ve read Dawkins and I have also read a lot of “serious” philosophers on this issue (Swinburne and Grisez, for example).
Ruse is a faker.
He is relying on the fact that most people have not read any of his colleagues’ work in this area to fake them out.
He’s the same as any two-bit con artist: rely on the ignorance and sense of trust of the marks in order to pull off the con.
But it does not work with those of us who have actually read many of his colleagues in this field.
Dave
Posted by: Drosera | August 17, 2009 9:39 AM
PhysicistDave @488,
All I tried to do is to give some examples of interesting questions that would fall under the heading of philosophy.
That philosophers have so far failed miserably at answering such questions is another matter. I think that on that issue, and on the value of Ruse's opinion, we fully agree.
I have just read Ruse’s pathetic essay. He boasts that he was a “full-time philosophy prof” since he was twenty five. It hardly shows. Arguing from authority appears to be the only trick in his book. If we are to believe him he spent most of his career fighting creationists, yet he has kind things to say about people like Bill Dembski, who relentlessly poison the well of knowledge. I don’t think creationists have much to fear from such an opponent. He even uses their pet word ‘Darwinism’ to refer to the Theory of Evolution.
Ruse: “We have got to show them that Darwinism is their friend not their enemy.”
No prof. Ruse, we have got to show them that they should learn to think. We have got to show them that things can be true even if you don’t like it. We have got to show them that their Bible is a plagiarized piece of fantasy that has no authority. We have got to show them that science is not a religion. We have got to show them that the Creation Museum is a disgrace to the title of museum. We have got to show them that lying for Jesus is still lying. Above all, we have got to show them that atheism is not a belief.
Posted by: astrounit | August 17, 2009 10:19 AM
Ruse: "...I do not think that science and religion have to clash."
Fine. Dandy. "Think" whatever pleases you.
To paraphrase Galileo:
"Nevertheless, they clash".
Posted by: astrounit | August 17, 2009 1:31 PM
Ruse: "Of course some science and religion clashes. That is the whole point of the Darwinism-Creationism debate. The matter is whether all science and religion clash, something I deny strongly."
Ah, a remedial qualifier complete with a worthy distinction: only PARTS clash.
Ah.
So profound in so many partial ways...
So, it's clear. It should be evident to everyone that Mr. Ruse is fully capable of supplying partial explanations for the partial clash, and partial justifications for his partial premise, that the Darwinism-Creationism debate PART is not rooted in the science and religion debate WHOLE.
One is only left to wonder how his denial can acheive any part of the wholesome strength he claims.
The late fashion critic par excellance Mr. Blackwell had nothing on Mr. Ruse on the determination of clash, and how nature so vulgularly exhibits herself with the contrasting reds and greens of vibrant contest that set the teeth of people of proper taste and etiquite so on edge.
Mr. Ruse would have us adopt the perceptual filters of compromise to camouflage all the gaudy unseemliness we all encounter in life, much as the appropriately sprinkled nosegay was employed in yesteryear to distract and protect the nostrils of emminently refined men and women from the stench of reality.
Of course, one cannot go through life being too finnicky. After all, one is all too frequently exposed to explicitly unsavoury displays of gausherie. Mr. Blackwell, a man of emminent taste, nevertheless knew how to capitalize on the existence of stench: shit unavoidably happens and there are plenty of fans to spread it about. And Mr. Blackwell supplied himself to help fight off the very worst excesses.
Mr. Ruse, on the other hand, will have us entertain the notion that the fans have an entirety of justifications for existing, no matter how preposterous their garb, while detractors who are sick and tired of the smell are permitted only partial liberties at saying so.
Of course, he may always rest assured with his conviction that only the parts - as anyone is perfectly free to identify them willy nilly - are responsible for the whole problem.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 17, 2009 2:18 PM
It's a late contribution to the discussion, but I think it needs to be said: Dawkins's treatment of philosophy in THE GOD DELUSION is at times annoyingly careless and superficial; but it doesn't in the end make much of a difference.
For example: in a very quick treatment of the teleological argument, he conflates Aquinas's Fifth Way with Paley's watch argument, though they're by no means identical (Aquinas argues back, not from the finely adapted structures of living things, but from the apparently goal-directed behavior of natural things (llving or not isn't specified) to something with goals--namely God).
Also, tempting as it's been for me, too, from time to time, you don't adequately dispose of Christian efforts to explain evil by saying "You bastard" to a Christian making one of those efforts. Offensive propositions, after all, are sometimes true.
But it really doesn't matter. All these philosophical arguments have been answered adequately (and I think mostly flat-out refuted) by atheist philosphophers such as Antony Flew, John Mackie, & Colin McGinn.
So, though it's true that you won't learn anything from Dawkins about the latest elaborations of the ontological argument, you have Mackie very capably dealing with one of Alvin Plantinga's versions of it in THE MIRACLE OF THEISM. I'd add to that an interesting remark from McGinn's autobiography (which I hope I'm not mangling too badly; I'm relying on memory): he wasn't convinced that existence was NOT a predicate, as other critics of the ontological argument maintained; but he didn't believe all the same that conceiving of something is sufficient to entail its existence. That sounds completely right to me: we have no evidence or reason whatsoever to believe that merely conceiving of something as perfect entails its existence; until we do, the ontological argument in all its varieties ought to be retired.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 6:01 PM
Drosera wrote to me:
>All I tried to do is to give some examples of interesting questions that would fall under the heading of philosophy.
>That philosophers have so far failed miserably at answering such questions is another matter. I think that on that issue, and on the value of Ruse's opinion, we fully agree.
Yeah, I think our views are largely in agreement, and I should have acknowledged that in my earlier post.
Sorry.
However, I do think we may have one significant point on which we differ.
We agree of course that the questions you and I both listed are commonly considered “philosophical” questions, are commonly discussed in “philosophy” departments at universities, etc.
My point is that I am not convinced that there is actually a coherent intellectual discipline of “philosophy” that is present in the “philosophy” departments or that has had any success in dealing with “philosophical” questions.
Ruse wants us to respect “philosophy” and acknowledge Dawkins’ lack of competence in “philosophy.”
I don’t think there is a real discipline of philosophy in which Ruse (or anyone else) possesses competence. There are some individual philosophers (McGinn, Gellner et al., but certainly not Ruse!) who have intelligent, interesting things to say, but those things are not part of the generally accepted contents of a coherent discipline called “philosophy” (in particular, the majority of philosophers od not accept many of the intelligent things McGinn, Gellner, et al. have to say: as far as I can tell, there is no significant principle or proposition generally acknowledged by philosophers).
Ruse’s main trick is to use a version of the “Courtier’s Reply”: he want us to extend to him the professional courtesy of acknowledging that he is an established professional in a recognized intellectual discipline and that we owe him and his discipline the same respect that he extends to science and scientists.
We should resist that moral equivalency.
Philosophy and theology per se no more deserve respect than post-modernism, phrenology, or astrology.
Again, that does not mean all philosophers are idiots (only the majority). But, those philosophers or theologians (and there may actually be one or two honest theologians in the world!) who deserve respect deserve it not out of professional courtesy that recognizes their status as "philosophers", but simply because they are indeed, as individuals, bright, thoughtful, honest human beings.
Ruse, of course, is not.
All the best,
Dave
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | August 17, 2009 6:04 PM
Just one obvious point: Richard Dawkins is not a scholar on religion and it would be naive (at best) to read his book The God Delusion as if it were a scholarly work on religion. For that, one would look to anthropologists or philosophers or the like. Dawkins' work was a polemic and should be read as a polemic. And, no offense to PZ Myers either, but I don't come here to read scholarly work on religion.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 6:21 PM
Aaron Baker wrote:
>For example: in a very quick treatment of the teleological argument, he [Dawkins] conflates Aquinas's Fifth Way with Paley's watch argument, though they're by no means identical
If you’re correct about that (I do not have a copy of “The God Delusion” at hand), that is indeed an error of scholarship (or at least proofreading) on Dawkins’ part, and Ruse should have pointed it out explicitly.
Alas, I get the impression (not just from Ruse’s essay under discussion but from what I have followed over the years of his career) that scholarship is not much of a concern to Michael Ruse. Long before I knew Mike’s view on “New Atheists,” I had realized he was not a good guy.
You also wrote:
>All these philosophical arguments have been answered adequately (and I think mostly flat-out refuted) by atheist philosphophers such as Antony Flew, John Mackie, & Colin McGinn.
In the interests of full disclosure, we should add that Mackie wrote a remarkably stupid and ill-informed paper on the theory of relativity.
I agree, however, that most of Mackie’s work is intelligent and thoughtful.
McGinn is of course great (I know him personally via the ‘Net).
Dave
Posted by: AC | August 17, 2009 6:39 PM
The idea that a "perfect being" came before everything else not only is without evidence - it flies in the face of all evidence we have regarding beings! Not to mention that perfection is meaningless without a referent; e.g., the environment of an organism.
Platonism is just too damn seductive to thinking apes. :\
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 6:17 AM
Dave,
Maybe there could be something like a general theory on how to make valid arguments. This would be very similar to logic, of course, which is really a branch of mathematics. But in the broader, philosophical perspective, this theory would demonstrate for example the fallacies of arguing from authority (prof. Ruse's specialty), the courtier’s reply, the argument from personal incredulity, etc.
I fully realize that this theory could turn out to be something like a Trojan horse, in that it will show that much of philosophy as taught at universities is nothing but an abominable abuse of language.
AC,
Not to mention the requirement that this being is supposed to look like us. That is how Plantinga deduces the existence of the Christian God, as a corollary to the ontological argument. Step 1: the ontological argument proves that there is a god. Step 2: the Bible says that we were created in his image. Step 3. We can only hold true beliefs if we were indeed created in his image. Step 4. We do hold true beliefs. QED.
That is sophisticated theological philosophy for you. It really isn’t getting any better than that (If some readers know better arguments I will be happy to see them; a bunch of links to books by C. S. Lewis will not do).
Now, let’s look again in slow motion:
Step 1. The proof actually fails.
Step 2. Argument from authority.
Step 3. False; our evolved mind enables us to distinguish truths from falsehoods.
Step 4. But we also hold many false beliefs. We don’t know a priori which beliefs are true and which are false, except perhaps for very simple statements like 2 > 1. For most of our beliefs we literally have to find out their truth status, they are not god-given eternal truths.
This kind of philosophy should really be banned from legitimate universities, if philosophy departments want to be taken seriously. Or are there universities where they hire mathematicians who continuously produce pseudo-proofs of false theorems?
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 18, 2009 6:56 AM
Step 1: the ontological argument proves that there is a god.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: profit!!!
I'm terribly sorry. I couldn't help myself.
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 8:23 AM
Forbidden Snowflake,
That's close enough. I give you a B+.
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | August 18, 2009 8:24 AM
Dear Drosera,
What, exactly, is an "abominable abuse of language?" How does one empirically show such an "abominable abuse of language?"
As is well known, in formal logic, a logical answer can of course be empirically wrong. The hobby-horse of "logic" perdures.
Personally, I have found the work of Edward Casey, Charles Taylor, and Mark Johnson (all contemporary philosophers) to be useful and insightful.
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 9:11 AM
Dear Tyrone,
Do I really need to give examples that demonstrate that it is possible to write grammatically correct sentences that don't mean a thing? Okay, just two:
God is love. (popular saying)
Ethics is transcendental. (Wittgenstein)
These are what I would call examples of abominable abuse of language, each in a different way.
The philosophical literature is full of similar utterances, as you are no doubt aware.
There is of course no general procedure to determine whether or not any particular sentence is of this kind, otherwise we wouldn't need philosophers.
I'll check out the authors that you mentioned, thanks.
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | August 18, 2009 9:26 AM
Drosera,
Not to state the obvious, but the use of language has much more to do than with "referential" meaning. Here one thinks of the work of C.S. Peirce (but also Austin as well) on the pragmatic and indexical uses of language. Language is not mere reference, nor should it be reduced to mere reference. Much linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics have been concerned with the indexical uses of language. Malinowski early on pointed to the phatic use of language ('How are you?' is typically used phatically to acknowledge another person's copresence). Here one thinks also of Roman Jakobson's work as well. Here too one can read Charles Taylor on "meaning" in language (Johnson's work on metaphor is well known).
If we were to think of abuses of language as abuses of reference, Dawkins' own "selfish gene" might be a good example (it is after all a metaphor and literally false, genes have no intentionality). We should not reduce meaning to "literal" meaning (clearly because much language use is not literal at all, but metaphorical and indexical).
When Peter O'toole says, "God is love" in the movie 'The Ruling Class,' I think it highly meaningful (if not overly referential). Language, of course, has meaning (in a multifaceted sense) in context and only in context (there is no linguistic meaning outside context, hence semantics must be a subfield of pragmatics).
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 18, 2009 9:45 AM
PhysicistDave wrote:
"Ruse’s main trick is to use a version of the “Courtier’s Reply”: he want us to extend to him the professional courtesy of acknowledging that he is an established professional in a recognized intellectual discipline and that we owe him and his discipline the same respect that he extends to science and scientists.
We should resist that moral equivalency.
Philosophy and theology per se no more deserve respect than post-modernism, phrenology, or astrology."
I completely disagree about the low status you're according philosophy (I should add, though, that on the subject of philosophy I'm just an interested layperson; I'm a simple lawyer now, and when I was an academic I was an ancient historian). Philosophy has the value, per se, of helping us to recognize just what problems are intractable, and to define those problems with a greater degree of precision than we otherwise would. That may be a largely negative value, but in my view it's emphatically deserving of respect.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 18, 2009 10:29 AM
In the spirit of Michael Ruse getting uppity over the New Atheists' lack of philosophical insight, I just ordered some Nietzsche and Hume. Will that be enough for you Ruse? Will it fucker?!?
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 10:31 AM
Tyrone,
I didn't say or suggest that language should only be used referentially, it just so happened that I gave two examples where this was the case.
I object to the phrase 'God is love' because I don't see 'love' as something that is capable of creating a universe, which is suggested by equating it with 'god.' Therefore, to me this sentence is absurd, quite apart from the question if the word 'god' has any meaning. People who use this phrase usually don't intend it metaphorically. For them the equation of 'god' with 'love' endows the latter with entirely new properties; it now becomes a benign energy that conveys some kind of creative force. That is exactly what I call abuse of language: because it is grammatically correct to say that god is love, and because we think we know something about god, we thereby infuse the word love with a new meaning. This is quite literally the magic of language, and a very treacherous aspect of it. Religion could probably not exist without this magic.
You are of course correct to point out that context is all-important. One can imagine a biblical figure who is punished by god in horrible ways and then says: "God is love." That would be an ironical use of the phrase; it would acquire a meaning wholly different from the one I criticized, for it would actually mean something like "God is a terrible monster for punishing me like this."
But we are getting hopelessly OT, I fear.
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | August 18, 2009 1:09 PM
You'd actually have to do empirical research on your claims about how "god is love" is used. And since we cannot read minds, but only have the uses of languages, metalinguistic commentary, reactions to the uses of language, and hence too metapragmatic commentary, I find it problematic to speculate too much about such internal states. For some, "god is love" may be no more referential than the daily greeting of "how are you." It may merely be a phatic communion (to borrow from Malinowski). Or it may index a particular stance as against someone else. These are empirical questions.
As someone who works with speakers and their languages (and has a phd and everything), I have a hard time following your "magic" argument. Everytime we use language, we infuse it with "new meaning". Lanugage use, because it is context dependent, also means that "meaning" (in the multifaceted, indexical and iconic sense as well as referential) is always emergent, and certainly not invariant.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 18, 2009 1:30 PM
Actually, from 1 John 4:8 / 1 John 4:16
(ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν / o theos agape estin)
Just sayin'.
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | August 18, 2009 1:46 PM
And, as Owlmirror points out (much thanks), it also indexes specific biblical passages as well, again this is outside (by degrees) of any referential usage.
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 4:06 PM
Thanks, Owlmirror. So, ‘God is love’ is a quote from the Bible. That perfectly illustrates one of my points, which is that religion thrives on the abuse of language, in particular its magical aspect, in the sense of conjuring up the appearance of things that do not and can not exist. Consider John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
What on earth does that mean? Well, nothing on this earth, obviously. I maintain that it is an abuse of language. It is easy to say that ‘the word became flesh,’ but actually impossible for this to happen.
Tyron, I realize that people use language in many different ways, often very inexactly, and that they make up meanings all the time. But that is precisely the problem: when philosophers and theologists use language to discuss abstract concepts, how can we be sure that the very use of language does not ‘create’ concepts that only exist because certain combinations of words are grammatical, while others are not? What did Heidegger mean with “das Nichts nichtet”? Does it mean anything at all? It can't even be translated in English. Does it at least mean the same thing to you as to Heidegger? Do you deny even the possibility that it is an instance of the abuse of language?
On a related note, I suspect that the appeal of religious texts lies to a considerable extent in the often obscure (though not necessarily nonsensical) language used. Let me give a pseudo-random example:
“But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” [John 2: 24-25; King James version]
This sounds very profound, doesn’t it? But apparently the original Greek said nothing more than this:
“But Jesus knew what was in their hearts, and he would not let them have power over him. No one had to tell him what people were like. He already knew.” [John 2: 24-25; contemporary English version]
No wonder that many orthodox Christians prefer the King James version. It requires so much more effort to comprehend, that it must be closer to the word of god. And if reasonably straightforward things are already expressed in such convoluted ways, how much ‘deeper’ must the real absurdities appear to the average reader!
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | August 18, 2009 4:33 PM
The history of biblical translations, and the indexical relations that were being constructed through lexical choices is an interesting topic. That the King James bible was done in the service of the monarchy has often been noted, and translations reflected that influence.
Certainly, I would not deny that languages are incommensurate. Translations across languages are always exuberant and deficient (see here Alton Becker). I've made a bit of a career making that point. The linguistic anthropologist would point out that what seems at issue is to take our ways of categorizing the world as in anyway natural. That we use an adjective for colors, as against using a verb. That we have verbs and nouns in our language (English), but that other languages do not have verbs and nouns (Salish). That we have count nouns and mass nouns, but that we are not overly concerned with shape classifications in nouns (and do we add such shape classifications to the noun or to the verb?).
I am still not sure what you mean by an abuse of language. Languages do not merely code an external reality, rather they are selective in such coding, and since languages acquire meanings through use, there is always slippage between any two speakers of putatively the same language. This is what von Humboldt meant, I think, when he claimed that all communication is also at the same time miscommunication. Language use always allows for creative acts of imagination.
But here again, when Dawkins claims a "selfish gene" should we not call this an abuse of language because it suggests that genes have intentions? That the metaphor both obscures and enlightens? As language users we all use language; inexactly, exactly, those are characterizations that seem based on aesthetics (if you are talking of people with speech pathologies, that is a different topic).
"In the beginning was the word," makes perfect sense to me and here I hear echoes of N. Scott Momaday's novel House Made of Dawn where he is discussing Navajo beliefs about the world. The preacher points out that Christians got the first part right, in the beginning was the word, but like white people always do, they couldn't let well enough alone and they had to add something else on, "god" and that messed it all up.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 18, 2009 5:34 PM
tyrone slothrop wrote:
>Not to state the obvious, but the use of language has much more to do than with "referential" meaning. Here one thinks of the work of C.S. Peirce (but also Austin as well) on the pragmatic and indexical uses of language.
Yes, the primary use of language is to deceive, manipulate, and control other human beings, a skill that philosophy majors are especially good at!
Really, Ty, a lot of us know all about performative utterances, Wittgensteinian language games, and all the rest; indeed, ordinary people understand that stuff, even though they may not know the academic jargon.
That does not change the point Drosera and I and others are making here: an awful lot of people, most certainly including Mikey Ruse, try to abuse language to excuse and cover up ignorance and lies.
Dave
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 5:41 PM
Tyron,
Metaphors may have their use as means to clarify, or to refer to, complicated subjects. Take the metaphor ‘selfish gene.’ If Dawkins would have proposed that this should be taken literally, that is, not as a metaphor, but as an expression of the character of a gene, then this would have been an abuse of language. We know that (most) genes are nothing but strings of DNA. To call a gene selfish would be as absurd as calling it arrogant. But if we carefully observe how a gene is reproduced, then it can look as if a gene is selfish; it does not seem to ‘care’ (another metaphor) about the fate of the organism of which it is part. As long as this metaphorical use is made evident, and as long as it serves a purpose, I would not call it an abuse of language.
But unlike you, I can not make sense of an expression such as “In the beginning was the word.” I really see no way to extract any meaning from it. Perhaps you can somehow clarify in which way you make sense of it.
You say, languages do not merely code an external reality. Of course, but that is not under debate. However, when language is used to make grammatically correct but otherwise impossible or meaningless constructs that are subsequently treated as if they refer to some external reality (e.g. when the phrase ‘the word became flesh’ is quoted as if it actually happened), then I feel justified to speak of an abuse of language.
Perhaps one way to empirically determine such abuse would be to replace the sentence under discussion with one which expresses the same construct in greater detail. My guess is that this would always be possible with properly used language, while it would lead to problems with cases of abused language. When we do this for instance with ‘the word became flesh,’ we get stuck almost immediately, because I can think of no way to describe in more detail how this is supposed to have happened (did the letter ‘A’ morph into a torso with legs?). On the other hand, the term ‘selfish gene’ can be expanded readily in great detail, as I did in the first paragraph, but only when taken metaphorically, not when taken literally.
I hope I have been able to make myself clear. Time for me to log off now.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 18, 2009 6:03 PM
Aaron Baker wrote to me:
> I completely disagree about the low status you're according philosophy…
Oh, au contraire, I think that philosophy has quite a high status! Become a philosophy professor, and you get to make a half-way decent salary and spend your days chatting with your pals about silly irrelevancies, hanging at the library, and intimidating young students.
Not a bid gig, if you have the stomach for it.
And, in many sectors of our society, the ability to babble on semi-coherently about Hegel, Schopenhauer, et al. (Germans work best – Hume and Locke are less useful) can be very useful indeed in increasing your status, even if you are not actually a philosophy professor.
No, I acknowledge the status of philosophy, just as I recognize the status of the Pope or Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts, all guys with much higher status (and money!) than me.
You also wrote:
> Philosophy has the value, per se, of helping us to recognize just what problems are intractable, and to define those problems with a greater degree of precision than we otherwise would. That may be a largely negative value, but in my view it's emphatically deserving of respect.
Hmmmm…. I think that all of us agree that what you have said is indeed true of some individual “philosophers.” Some guys, who are bright, honest, and insightful manage to get themselves a gig in philosophy and do good : you and I have mentioned Mackie (despite his horrible essay on relativity!) and Colin McGinn, for example.
However, that is not Mikey Ruse’s point. Mike lambasts Dawkins (and, at least by implication, PZ and all of us) not because we are specifically ignorant of Mackie or McGinn (which many of us are not) but because we are insufficiently sophisticated in theology and philosophy as such.
We are of course indeed unsophisticated in those disciplines taken as wholes: I doubt anyone here is fully up to speed on processual theology, for example.
The point under dispute is whether this is a fair rap: are theology and philosophy taken as wholes legitimate disciplines that deserve study and understanding?
No, they are not.
Read through a half-dozen introductory (or advanced) philosophy texts chosen at random.
You will not come out knowing much more about the nature of reality than when you started: indeed, if you take the books seriously, you may come out knowing less.
And, the truth is, most philosophers more or less recognize this: philosophy consists largely of one philosopher showing why pretty much all of his predecessors and colleagues are wrong on the subject he is discussing.
I merely suggest we accept their own professional evaluation of their colleagues: most philosophers are indeed wrong on almost everything.
Dave
P.S. The late Aussie philosopher, David Stove, who of course was wrong on most things (e.g., evolution), has some wonderfully humorous essays on all this in his book “The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies.”
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 18, 2009 6:41 PM
Does it being used on me by multiple people count as research?Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 18, 2009 6:44 PM
Drosera wrote:
> Consider John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
>What on earth does that mean? Well, nothing on this earth, obviously.
Oh, it’s quite clear what it means:
“Please drop your money in the collection plate, and don’t hold back!”
Dave
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 18, 2009 8:30 PM
PhysicistDave:
Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I should have. I wasn't talking about the actual status enjoyed by philosophers; I was taking issue with your putting philosophy on a par with phrenology or astrology (I meant the status you apparently think philosophy should have).
I'll reiterate that I'm not the best person to defend philosophy (as I'm just an amateur); I think Brian Leiter, for example, could probably defend what he does for a living much more cogently than I could.
But here goes: though I would agree that insofar as philosophers (non-empiricists at any event) have tried to build this or that elaborate metaphysical system, they've failed pretty spectacularly. But even the failures of philosophy have been useful in spelling out just what is problematic about our assumptions regarding ourselves and the world we appear to inhabit. I wasn't convinced by the metaphysics in Spinoza's ETHICS; but his attack on anthropomorphic conceptions of God was eye-opening, to put it mildly. Not just conceiving God in human form, but thinking of God as a king, or a father, or that the world is here for the benefit of human beings--all this gets tossed aside as the rankest superstition. I felt that I did know more after reading him.
Turning from a rationalist like Spinoza to a skeptical empiricist like Hume, I certainly don't think I'm dealing with something on a level with phrenology. But I think I've said enough for today.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 18, 2009 8:49 PM
Bilbo and Aaron Baker complain that we's iggerant about philosopicalizings. Let's look at David Hume's Fundamental Axioms of Religion:
1. These Axioms are True. This is the Prime Axiom of the axiom sets of all religions, and of course always a handy one to have if you wish to be able to derive the truth of your beliefs from your principle axioms.
2. God exists, is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient.
3
. God has kindly revealed by various prophetic means this set of Axioms, which are axiomatically True (see Axiom 1), Complete (omniscient), Mandatory (omnipotent), and Good (omnineficient).
4.
4. All other (possibly competing) sets of Axioms are False, except maybe ones that are later revealed by God, presuming that we don't have as an Axiom the following Axiom:
5. These Axioms are Complete. Except where they're not.
6. If you fail to accept these Axioms in your deepest heart of hearts you are a Bad Person. This will be known by the omniscient God, who will then omnipote cast you inu into an eternity of Eternal Torment out of the goodness of His (intentional emphasis on masculine humanthrorphism) omnibenefineence at some uns unspecified point after your miserable death.
7. Now, let's get down to important things, like tithing, obeying the priesthood, how to pray and where, and just how infallible the priesthood really is when conveying divinely inspired interpretations of these Axioms to the less Holy.
Add whatever you like, and it is provably true, see the Prime Axiom. Handy ones to add promise Eternal Bliss to those who adopt the Axioms without question (the only way they or any other set of axioms can be adopted, of course) to complement the axiom of Eternal Torment to those who question the slightest one, especially the Prime Axiom.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 18, 2009 9:13 PM
'Tis Himself wrote:
"Bilbo and Aaron Baker complain that we's iggerant about philosopicalizings," followed by a bunch of stuff that has no logical relation to anything I said (and definitely no connection with David Hume).
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. I've said (correctly) that Dawkins is a little cavalier in his treatment of traditional arguments for the existence of God; I've also said this doesn't much matter, since in my opinion those arguments are adequately addressed by others.
I've defended philosophy as actually having value (without saying anything in favor of theology).
How much clearer can I be?
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 18, 2009 9:20 PM
Also, are you unaware that Hume thoroughly trashed the argument from design almost a hundred years before Darwin? That he was a skeptic, possibly an atheist?
"Iggerant" indeed.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 19, 2009 1:35 AM
Aaron Baker wrote to me:
>Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I should have. I wasn't talking about the actual status enjoyed by philosophers; I was taking issue with your putting philosophy on a par with phrenology or astrology (I meant the status you apparently think philosophy should have).
Aaron, I’m not quite that clueless: I did understand your point. But, I think my point was a fair response: the only “status” philosophy as a discipline has comes from bamboozling the public.
You also wrote:
>But here goes: though I would agree that insofar as philosophers (non-empiricists at any event) have tried to build this or that elaborate metaphysical system, they've failed pretty spectacularly.
Well, yeah. And, you could make a similar point about phrenology, astrology, etc.
You also wrote:
>But even the failures of philosophy have been useful in spelling out just what is problematic about our assumptions regarding ourselves and the world we appear to inhabit.
Well…. yeah. But, again, I suppose the failures of astrology and phreonology teach us something too. Pointing to the value of some discipline as consisting of its rather spectacular failures… well, that is certainly an original way to argue for the discipline’s value!
Where I might differ from your statement is that I don’t think most ordinary humans are as goofy as most philosophers: you referred to “our assumptions regarding ourselves and the world we appear to inhabit.” I don’t think they are “our” assumptions: I have certainly never been tempted to make “assumptions” as goofy as Hegel’s!
You also wrote:
> Turning from a rationalist like Spinoza to a skeptical empiricist like Hume, I certainly don't think I'm dealing with something on a level with phrenology.
Agreed.
I cheerfully concede that some philosophers – Hume, Locke, Mackie, McGinn, etc. – are as sane or saner than the average man on the street.
It has never been my claim that all people identified as “philosophers” are loons or frauds. It is simply my claim that the “discipline” of philosophy, taken as a whole, has no coherent truths to offer. Locke, Hume, Mackie, and McGinn, you know, have never managed to get the stuff they have gotten right accepted by most of the philosophical community.
This is very different from science.
Physics has many verified and testable truths that nearly all physicists accept as being basically true. That is not true in philosophy.
This thread is about Michael Ruse, and Ruse was arguing that Dawkins et al. are louses not because there are one or two philosophers they should have read but didn’t but because of their general lack of expertise in the discipline of philosophy per se.
Now, if Dawkins were utterly ignorant of Locke and Hume (I don’t think he is), I agree that this would be a shortcoming of his. But Ruse did not bother to say that.
No, Ruse was trying oneupmanship against Dawkins by pointing out, surely correctly, that Dawkins is not conversant with the discipline of philosophy as a whole.
And, my point is that this is something to be proud of, just as I am proud that I never wasted my time “learning” to cast a horoscope or “learning” the inner secrets of homeopathy.
Most philosophy is fraudulent nonsesne, and it is not a shortcoming to refuse to waste one’s valuable time “learning” such nonsense.
Ruse’s attempt to claim otherwise makes him no better than a two-bit con artist.
Again, I have said over and over again in my posts above that, of course, a few guys known as “philosophers” wrote sensible stuff worth reading. My claim is simply that the “discipline” of philosophy taken as a whole -- i.e., the ideas that have predominated in that discipline, that are generally accepted or respected by members of that discipline, etc. – does not have value.
That is a meaningful and significant statement, and indeed the opposite is clearly true of the natural sciences – i.e., the ideas that have predominated in that discipline, that are generally accepted or respected by members of that discipline, etc. are of very great value indeed in natural science.
We are too tolerant. Too many of us are fearful of saying openly that certain intellectual disciplines are far more filled with lies and fraud than with any significant truths.
Ruse is playing on that reluctance. I think it is time to call out the old gobshite and most members of his profession as the con artists that they are.
Dave
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 19, 2009 3:02 AM
PhysicistDave, next time a Molly thread comes up remind me of your existence. Fully agree with sentiment like this:
Shermer talks about this in Why People Believe Weird Things, his contention is that practices like psychic powers fail the most basic question "does it work?" If the answer is no, then there is no need to delve deeper into it. If schools of thought in philosophy cannot give insight into the way the world works, why delve deep into them? That is to say, what reason should I support ontological reasoning? I can think of countless examples showing the validity of science as a tool for understanding, what is there to suggest I should be familiar with ontology?Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 3:30 AM
Kel,
Ontology (information science)? ;)
More seriously, if you've ever called someone on a category error, you've used an ontological argument.
Fundamentally, philosophy is just rigorous thinking; for example, science, logic, ethics and politics all are disciplines that originated in philosophy.
Alas, it's relatively easy for a layman (such as I) to distinguish between pseudo-science and science, but rather more difficult to distinguish between pseudo-philosophy and philosophy.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 19, 2009 3:38 AM
Should I clarify that I'm talking about ontology in determining what exists? ;)
I take your point though John
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 19, 2009 4:03 AM
John Morales wrote:
> Fundamentally, philosophy is just rigorous thinking; for example, science, logic, ethics and politics all are disciplines that originated in philosophy.
Yeah. In a way what has happened is that anything that actually made sense was spun off as an independent discipline, so that what was left to still be called “philosophy” is the stuff that no one could really make good sense of.
In some sense, to compare contemporary “philosophers” to, say, seventeenth-century philosophers is therefore a category error: Descartes, Leibniz, or Locke was not “just” a philosopher in the sense that we now use the word “philosopher.”
And, indeed, the good stuff from Descartes and Leibniz – coordinate geometry and calculus – is not ignored at all by modern scientists. It’s just that we put it in the discipline of math, not “philosophy.”
But of course that does not get Ruse off the hook. If we want to use “philosopher” in the old sense, so that “natural philosophy” (AKA science) counts as “philosophy,” then Dawkins, PZ, and I are enormously better philosophers than Ruse is, since we know enormously more about the truly fruitful, well-established parts of “philosophy” (i.e., science) than he does.
Ruse wants to dis us because we have limited interest in those parts of “philosophy” (in the old sense) that have proven rather worthless.
That’s not a winning strategy for Ruse, unless his hope is simply to appeal to the know-nothings (I think that is indeed his hope – as shown by the fact that he has kinder words for that towering genius Duane T. Gish than for Richard Dawkins!).
Dave
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 4:30 AM
PhysicistDave @524, you've put it much better than I think I could have, and I'm almost entirely in agreement with your (insightful) comment.
Where we perhaps differ is that I consider there are aspects of philosophy that remain useful; for example, epistemology (theory of knowledge).
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 19, 2009 6:17 AM
John Morales wrote to me:
> Where we perhaps differ is that I consider there are aspects of philosophy that remain useful; for example, epistemology (theory of knowledge).
Oh, I’m not trying to a priori rule out the possibility of useful philosophical knowledge. I actually do kind of like philosophy myself, and, as a theoretical physicist, I have a certain fondness for armchair theorizing.
I’m just noting that philosophy in the modern sense does not have many positive, generally-accepted results to present, and I therefore find it rather inappropriate of Ruse to dis Dawkins and the rest of us for not knowing enough philosophy (I suspect also that a lot of us “New Atheists” know a lot more philosophy than Ruse realizes, but that we just see no need to fill what we write with irrelevancies).
I agree with you that epistemology raises some important questions – Goodman’s “grue” paradox has started bugging me again, recently. However, I’m not sure that epistemology has arrived at too many “useful” answers, to use your word. If you can suggest some references that show useful results in epistemology, I’d be interested in them.
Dave
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 6:56 AM
Dave, I'm not learned enough to point you towards any specific references.
Perhaps you can find something useful starting from the Wikipedia entry on epistemology, in the section titled Practical applications (though I don't see
philosophy of science* or jurisprudence there, which I think are other practical uses of epistemology).
The low-lying fruit have probably already been picked... :)
Seriously though, even without ongoing new results or insights, the extant amount of knowledge about this topic is of great significance and a serious discipline.
--
* To which the grue paradox is applicable.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 19, 2009 9:50 AM
"Aaron, I’m not quite that clueless: I did understand your point."
An occupational disease: my profession makes me prone to over-explaining. No offense was meant.
I guess what I'd say in response is that once you get past philosophy's heroic age of system building, you're left with a set of tools that are still useful in defining the problems of something (like ethics) that can't be resolved with the methods of science (or history, for that matter). Some of the comments here (not yours, necessarily) seem, btw, to imply that the issues addressed by philosophy are trivial or silly. Ethics would be a good counter-example.
I'd just add that the great system-builders of philosophy (like, say, Aristotle, or Spinoza, or Kant) have more of value to tell us (even if you don't buy the system) than any phrenologist. I don't think it works (or at least it doesn't work uniformly) to say that, well, what they did that was good was logic (Aristotle), math (Descartes), and so on. Aristotle, after all, in addition to being the greatest scientist and logician of Antiquity, was also a brilliant ethicist.
A further thought: science (and history, anthropology, and sociology) can contribute something of value to the discussion of ethical problems, but I doubt that anyone will conclude that ethical problems are thereby "solved" in the way that a problem in applied physics can be. The study of ethics lays out pretty precisely why ethical problems are resistant to such solutions.
Posted by: Drosera | August 19, 2009 1:37 PM
Tyrone,
I just noticed that in my last two post I managed to misspel your name. Sorry for that, it was not on purpose.
Time to dig up my old copy of Gravity's Rainbow and reread it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 19, 2009 5:59 PM
Aaron Baker,
What I was doing in #517 was mangling Hume. You see, I know something about philosophicalizing, having taken several courses in philosophics and having done a fair bit of reading on various forms of philosophology. What I've learned about philosophictry is that 95% (± 4%) is pure, unadulterated bovine feces (or in the vulgate, bullshit).
There may be one or two philosopicizers who don't peddle bullshit, but Michael Ruse and Alan Plantinga aren't in this select group.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 19, 2009 6:00 PM
Aaron wrote to me:
>I guess what I'd say in response is that once you get past philosophy's heroic age of system building, you're left with a set of tools that are still useful in defining the problems of something (like ethics) that can't be resolved with the methods of science (or history, for that matter)
Well… that has simply not been my experience, and I think Mike Ruse is a good example of why.
I’ve read at some length in philosophical ethics, and I find almost all of it useless. See, e.g., my review of Si Blackburn’s “Being Good” on amazon.com for a more long-winded discussion.
It seems to me that the “tools” used by philosophers, such as Blackburn, lead to less credible results than the common sense approach of, say, Oprah Winfrey or Pope Benedict XVI (and I am not that much of a fan of either Oprah or Benny XVI – though the Pope does look okay compared to Falwell or Pat Robertson!).
This is not the first time that I have had this discussion with various folks about the value of philosophy, and it always ends up with the other side saying, “Well, but philosophy has produced some good stuff” without ever giving any specific examples of that good stuff.
We all know that I could easily give solid, convincing examples of strong, interesting, valid results attained in mathematics, history, biology, etc.
Throughout this discussion, no one has been able to give a single example of a result attained by philosophy that is generally accepted among philosophers, that is convincing to reasonable, intelligent people, and that is novel and important.
That is incredibly telling.
The same conclusion applies to your point about the “set of tools that are still useful in defining the problems of something (like ethics).” I know all about those tools such as the deontological vs. teleological distinction, the categorical imperative, the greatest good of the greatest number, etc.
I have seen them put to many poor uses, but never any good use.
As you know, there has been a great deal of empirical work on ethics in recent decades coming from game theory, evolutionary psych, etc.
That empirical work seems to me enormously more illuminating than the millennia of speculations by philosophers on the subject.
What I see again is the centuries old pattern repeated: a subject only moves forward when it is taken away from the philosophers and handed over to sensible people.
I have given several concrete examples of this. If you want to maintain that I am missing something, it would help if you too could give some concrete examples.
Again, I readily concede that some individual “philosophers” are bright insightful guys. The question is rather: is there anything accepted in the profession of philosophy as a whole that is of value.
I can think of nothing at all, and no one here has given a single of example.
Philosophy = astrology. At least in terms of intellectual value.
Dave
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 19, 2009 8:46 PM
John,
I looked at the wikipedia entry you suggest, and it is clearly nonsense (like an increasing fraction of the wikipedia, alas).
For example, it starts:
>Far from being purely academic, the study of epistemology is useful for a great many applications. It is particularly commonly employed in issues of law where proof of guilt or innocence may be required, or when it must be determined whether a person knew a particular fact before taking a specific action (e.g., whether an action was premeditated).
Really!!!
When was the last time you heard of a judge calling in a certified epistemologist as an expert witness to help resolve such questions? When was the last time there was a serious courtroom debate over Descartes’ “cogito” or Kantian trnascendentalism or the famous “grue” paradox?
The guy who wrote this was, perhaps, engaged in an April fools’ joke.
John, I have looked into the work in epistemology, both classic and contemporary, over many decades: I am not a newbie to this.
It seems to me that modern epistemology (i.e., since the seventeenth century) is largely a misguided enterprise at its roots.
I bring this up because it connects with the PZ vs. Mickey Ruse food fight.
Let’s be frank: no sensible person ever really lets anything in the real world hinge on issues of brain-in-the-vat type arguments or discussions about Descartes’ demon, etc.
Modern epistemology arose with Descartes et al. because of the intellectual collapse of religion: as science arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the question arose as to how, and how much of, religion could be saved.
Of course, the only true and honest answer was quite simple: none of it.
But of course that honest answer was not acceptable to the ruling elite.
We tend to pretend that Descartes, Kant, et al. were working out of purely disinterested intellectual motives.
They were not.
Descartes’ work is chockful of God: in the end, Descartes saves himself from solipsism by concluding that a good God (and he thinks he has shown that God is good) would not deceive dear old Rene and so the real world must really exist. (To any lurking philosophers: yes, I know I have missed the deep and profound minutiae of Descartes’ thought. Indeed.)
That is a remarkably silly way of escaping solipsism, as if any sane person ever needed to escape solipsism!
Similarly, the culminating point of Kant’s system is his “transcendental” proof (an oxymoron of course) based on “practical reason” that we should indeed believe in God, immortality, and free will. (Again, to any philosophical lurker, I know, I know. I am showing my utter philistinism by so dismissing the subtly incomprehensible brilliance of Kant. Indeed, I am a sinful philistine.)
We wouldn’t really have or need epistemology if everyone had simply admitted from the get-go that science was right and religion was wrong and we could dump all the superstitious nonsense.
Note that Galileo did not need Descartes to do his work, nor did Newton wait for Locke to do his work.
Ernest Gellner has discussed some of this in some detail in a number of books: “Legitimation of Belief,” “The Devil in Modern Philosophy,” etc. (Anyone familiar with Gellner will see that he deserves all the credit for any points I am making here that are valid.)
Mike Ruse continues the pattern set by Descartes and Kant. Neither Ruse nor Kant nor Descartes was a traditional orthodox Christian, but Ruse admits his sympathies for much of religion and he is trying to use the hammer of philosophy to silence people such as PZ and Dawkins who simply point out that the emperor is naked.
Ruse, unlike some posters here, knows how effectively twentieth-century work in epistemology can be used to prop up the old-time religion.
You know the old slogan from analytic philosophy: “the reference is the use”?
Well, the word God is certainly used, so it has a reference.
Therefore, God exists.
QED.
Similarly, you know the (late) Wittgensteinian concept of “language games”?
Well, theology is certainly a “language game.” And, by Wittgensteinian standards, so is science. Therefore, theology is as valid as science.
QED.
You doubt that I am being fair? These arguments have in fact been used by modern theologians, although in much more verbose form. Ruse is angry because PZ, Dawkins, et al. do not take these idiotic sorts of arguments seriously.
Go over and spend a few days reading randomly in philosophy journals over the last half-century in a local university library. Most of the papers will be no better reasoned than what I have suggested above (although much more verbose).
Philosophy is still the handmaid of theology.
Same-old same-old.
Much the same is true in ethics, incidentally. The subtext beneath most modern ethics texts is how can we believe the Christian dictum to “love our neighbor as ourselves” now that literal Christianity is known to be false.
It is a rarity to find an author who admits the truth: “love thy neighbor as thyself” is obvious nonsense when we drop the Christian superstitions.
As I have admitted, I personally take a perverse enjoyment in many of the philosophical conundrums (as I said, I am currently scratching my head again over “grue”), and I even take a perverse enjoyment in bizarre questions such as whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son.
Some of us have weird hobbies.
But, for the life of me, I can think of nothing in science (or in everyday life) to which the “grue” paradox is even remotely relevant. At best, it is a verbal form of sudoku.
I’d be happy for someone to show I am wrong: it would be nice if my pointless little hobby were not utterly pointless after all.
But I fear it is.
Dave
P.S. Again, I acknowledge that individual “philosophers,” such as McGinn and Gellner, have done good stuff. I merely question whether there is anything at all that is generally accepted in the profession of philosophy that is of value.
Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2009 4:06 AM
Dave, it appears your knowledge of the topic exceeds mine, and that you have considered the matter carefully.
You'd get a better response from a working philosopher; perhaps you could try John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts, who until recently was also with ScienceBlogs. He's responsive and accesible to commenters.
Here's a link to one of his recent papers, on-topic.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 20, 2009 4:22 AM
Dave, one thing I'm curious about is your stance on ethics. In my severely limited knowledge on the subject, I'm having a little trouble reconciling your position.
That empirical work seems to me enormously more illuminating than the millennia of speculations by philosophers on the subject.
I'm a little perplexed because it feels like you are comparing the descriptive with the prescriptive. That those bodies of science tell us how we behave, but to compare that to what a lot of ethics is about: how we ought to behave seems a little dishonest.
It may be that I'm misreading you or not understanding where you are coming from, but ethical systems like deontology to me are means by which to derive a rational justification for behaviour. And this would be valid regardless of the evolutionary or mathematical description of how we behave.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 20, 2009 7:44 AM
Kel, OM wrote to me:
>It may be that I'm misreading you or not understanding where you are coming from, but ethical systems like deontology to me are means by which to derive a rational justification for behaviour.
Well… as far as I can see, a purely deontological system cannot possibly be a way to “derive a rational justification for behaviour” simply because I do not see how you can rationally “derive” ethical behavior at all.
If the system is purely deontological, that would seem to make the starting point purely and completely arbitrary, and then it is hard to see how it would be rational. And, if you have some way of justifying or deriving the starting point of your deontological system, then that would be the real justification of your system, and not deontology.
There have been numerous attempts over the centuries to escape this dilemma, from Kant to Gewirth: none has succeeded (not just in my judgment, but in that of almost all philosophers, also).
And, indeed, no one will ever succeed in deriving an ethical system from non-ethical premises: Hume was right when he pointed out that you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” (As you can see, Hume is one of those philosophers whom I respect slightly more than most.)
My own view is that it is wisest to start by looking at the various codes of morality that actually exist in human society and try to understand why they exist – e.g., what purposes do they serve? Obviously, the empirical work I mentioned helps in this.
If you do that, I think you will find, that, to a substantial degree, morality is what enables us to function as rational beings in a community of other such beings: think of it as a handshaking protocol, somewhat like TCP/IP for computers on the ‘Net.
Does that prove that you should adhere to morality?
No. No one will ever produce such a proof.
That is just reality.
In the end, it is simply your personal choice: choice cannot be “derived.”
But, I think the considerations I mentioned may help one to make that choice in a more informed manner.
In some ways, my approach is of course similar to that of Aristotle’s in the “Nicomachean Ethics” (and J. L. Mackie's in his "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong"): I make no claim of originality.
I actually think the approach of philosophical ethics over the last four centuries, an approach that takes an a prioristic / language-oriented approach to ethics without investigating the actual function and role of morality among real human beings in real human societies is likely to be extremely damaging and to lead to utterly unlivable ethical systems: if you know anything about “utilitarianism,” you may see my point.
So, while I do not think a “philosophical” approach to ethics can be of much help, I certainly acknowledge that it can produce real disasters!
I’ve written at more length on this in a review on amazon.com of Alan Donagan’s “The Theory of Morality.”
Dave
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 20, 2009 9:55 AM
"In some ways, my approach is of course similar to that of Aristotle’s in the “Nicomachean Ethics” (and J. L. Mackie's in his "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong"): I make no claim of originality."
If you want counter-examples of the "good stuff," I'd be inclined to wonder why, exactly, the Nichomachean Ethics and Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong don't count.
I think we're falling into an unproductive definitional wrangle: if it's good, for you it's either not philosophy or it's the occasional unusually bright philosopher standing out above the herd. With the debate put in these terms, the end seems preordained, no matter what example anyone comes up with.
On the subject of useful experimental insights into morality, there's now, by the way, a whole experimental subfield of ethics which specifically examines commonsense ethical intuitions and how they affect the behavior of ordinary people. The people doing these studies regard themselves as philosophers; you, presumably, to the extent that they come to any valuable conclusions, do not. An argument as to who's right or wrong wouldn't, I think, be very enlightening.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 20, 2009 12:40 PM
I'd just add that what Aristotle and Mackie are doing in these books meets the modern definition of philosophy (it's speculative, and concerned with questions that don't generate the consensus answers that hard science typically does), but it's in both cases pursued empirically. Speculation, informed and disciplined by empiricism, seems to me to be a "useful" or "valuable" activity (though we might argue about how exactly to define those words).
To give another example from Aristotle: his Politics is generally regarded as a valuable account of its subject matter, in no small part because Aristotle had done a detailed study of actually existing governments in his day (including non-Greek states like Carthage), and used the results of that research (I think it's safe to call it research) to back up his arguments and speculations. I'd call this more of the "good stuff" that philosophy can sometimes deliver.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 20, 2009 5:58 PM
The reason why Aristotle is still remembered is that he's one of the few philosophicists who didn't peddle bullshit. This is such a rarity that the few who don't are remembered for millennia
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 20, 2009 6:30 PM
I've got to say when I did an ethics course at university, utilitarianism was the notion that resonated most with me. But I take your point.Posted by: Quiet | August 25, 2009 4:00 AM
I read this blog regularly as many do and often find myself agreeing and disagreeing with various things I find. Lately I have found myself fascinated by the criticisms of Michael Ruse that I find here and the focus of Dr. Myers on him directly. As someone who has every reason in the world to be an atheist but is willing to admit she is an agnostic, I find the positions of ID theorists and Creationists at best untenable and at worst dangerous. To be fair I feel I should explain that I am a grad student, a member of the LGBTQ community, and the mother of an elementary-aged child who is very curious, and is fascinated by scientific and religious questions.
I am a student of religion, philosophy, and philosophy of science and I have worked with Michael directly for several years. His students get the best of someone who understands evolutionary theory, the history of science and religion, and philosophical methodology. At times he is frustrating, demanding, and exacting, and a host of other things too numerous to count. However, I have also found him to be an insightful mentor, a tremendous writer, and a committed evolutionist. Additionally, I find him to be someone who understands the depth of the commitments people have to religious beliefs. He is someone who understands that we have the best hope of doing away with the most damaging aspects of religious belief if one understands exactly how and why people come to have such beliefs. He is someone who understands the necessity of engaging the ideas, of conversation, and of the ability to disagree without dismissing an entire discipline.
While I am convinced that Creationism and ID theory are two very detrimental sorts of beliefs, I also understand that hating them and wishing for them to go away won't make it so.
Over and over in the comments on Myers' blog and in his own commentary on Michael in the last few months there has been a steady outpouring of what I think I would call vitriolic hatred and dismissal of him as an academic, his work, the study of religion, and even philosophy as valid areas of inquiry. While I normally enjoy listening to scientific discussions, having scientific theories explained to me, and reading what I can find on biological topics (although, since I am not a scientist, some of this is beyond my current ability to understand) I have been really disappointed in these last blog posts on Michael. I’m not even sure why someone like Dr. Myers, with so many legitimate pursuits in the sciences would go to such extremes repeatedly to establish that someone else in the academic community is or has, as Dr. Myers describes, “become a trivial irrelevancy and a rather silly figure who takes pride in standing on a bridge between good science and people who believe Jesus created the dinosaurs, reassuring everyone on the crazy side that it's OK to cuddle up to ignorance…” Further, his comments that someone like Michael “would have no future in a secular world, and his fortunes right now are too strongly tied to his blithe role as the ever-helpful intermediary to the creationists…” seem very harsh and more like the actions of someone who never learned how to conduct themselves properly in a graduate seminar. While I certainly understand Myer’s urge to criticize Michael’s criticisms of atheism, I am unsure as to why he does it repeatedly or in such a nasty, petty way. Forgive, Dr. Myers if I am being too harsh a critic but I am truly puzzled as to the motivation for your intense hatred of Michael.
A year and a half ago, Michael encouraged a group of his History and Philosophy of Science students to go to the Florida Legislature meeting to sit in on and show support for the changing of the standards for science education in elementary through high school students in the state of Florida. The hearing was being held just prior to a vote on whether or not to change these standards. One of the changes in question included being able to mention ‘evolution’ for the first time in the classroom, rather than referring to ‘changes over time’. I can remember being terribly excited about the prospect that perhaps my daughter might learn actual scientific facts and theories in her science classrooms. Many people from the university got up and spoke on how it was imperative that children learn science in a science classroom while a healthy contingent of ID theorists and Creationists were there as well, also speaking on how evolution is merely a theory, one of many, and that ID was a legitimate scientific theory that also should be taught. All this was done on their part to attempt to halt the vote on the standards and get lawmakers to revise them. Instead, the new science standards passed and we won a major victory that day. It was because of Michael’s work and his views that we were there that day and that we recognized that the kind of activism we were engaging in was important, at least as important as teaching students in a college classroom. Myers’ recently criticized Michael’s reports of his experiences on another trip he took students on, a trip to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and the Creation Museum in Kentucky. When Michael described the phenomenology, the psychological experience of being in the Creation Museum, Myers’ took him to task; making fun of him yet again for pointing out something Myers’ thinks is obvious about the psychological tactics of Creationists. However, in the midst of all this criticism, I am left to wonder what benefit the approach like Myers’ has in this debate. If the point is to huddle together on a web page and be nasty and uncharitable, then we could all do that at a conference or in a seminar, out in the open. Or, if the point is to be a rock star like Dawkins, preaching to a choir of other atheists, that is fine as well, I guess, but I still don’t see how this helps us further the cause of science. Maybe the point is to emulate Jon Stewart by ridiculing other people’s ideas and dog their moves waiting for them to make a comment or assertion that can be used to make them look stupid. I have always loved Jon Stewart for that. Somehow, its just not as funny when someone else attempts to copy the method and is nasty instead of funny, petty instead of insightful.
I do know that Michael is still producing and supporting young scholars, good ones, who are committed scientists, philosophers, educators, and historians. He continues to look for money for scientific pursuits in a time when it is scarce, particularly for the Humanities, to further educate these scholars and turn them into careful, thoughtful academics and good teachers. His students learn science, science education, religion, history, and philosophy. When Michael is seriously engaged, as he often is in his own writing, I have never known him to criticize atheists and not to criticize overzealous religious advocates who are only interested in converting the world to their point of view. I have never heard him suggest we should allow intolerance and hatred, stemming from religious views, to be taught to our children, or that we should sacrifice their science education in favor of untenable religiously motivated claims. Rather, what I have seen is someone who can understand that atheism can become a kind of fanatical devotion that clouds the mind to reason as surely as any kind of religious fervor. I have seen someone who is hyper-aware that universities are losing money and good faculty year after year as religious fundamentalists of many stripes in this country complain that humanities education and requiring science electives for students forces them to take classes they don’t need and will never use. I have seen someone who watches tenured faculty grow complacent and dusty while untenured faculty are too afraid of not getting tenure to speak up on the important issues. If Myers or anyone else really thinks that Michael is irrelevant, silly, content to collect money, or simply a toady to Creationists then it is clear that such persons must get all they know about Michael from the interviews and comments he offers, in which he sometimes gets very worked up and passionate about the situation he is discussing. It is also clear that they pay little to no attention to his writings, educational pursuits, activism, or the students he is producing.
Perhaps it’s been too long since some of you taught introductory undergraduate courses or maybe it’s just that students are aware they have to at least attempt to act like they’ve learned or care about evolutionary biology and science in order to pass. From someone who teaches classes in which student’s writing and in-class discussion is assessed, often on matters related to science and religion, an overwhelming number of them don’t even understand the basics of biology, much less evolution. They have a fear and hatred of it. They see it as the enemy, governed by those who view them as stupid or inferior for their religious beliefs. I often find myself trying to pry their minds open to the insights of science (with varying degrees of success.)
How do we conquer this effect of atheism? How do we live in a world where inquiry is encouraged and curiosity supported, even when it is about something that we ourselves don’t believe? I am sympathetic, very much so, to atheism. But, I am not blind to the fact that the figures who are prominent representatives thereof are every bit as detrimental to the cause as those religious figures who tirelessly advocate for religious belief as scientific fact. The truth is that as educators, lovers of knowledge, and pursuers of inquiry we are going nowhere fast. We are losing jobs, money, and even entire departments of universities where we used to do our work. We need to have the courage to face the fact that our insularity, sense of superiority, and lack of concern for what happens outside our own communities of fans and critics has led to the terrible situation we have found ourselves in.
When academics are petty, refuse to work with one another, deny that their academic peers do meaningful or important work, ignore everything but their own concerns, wall themselves off from other disciplines out of fear or hatred, or refuse to criticize their own enterprise, they have sounded the death knell for academia as a place where people learn from each other and expand the knowledge base. They have allowed fear and prejudice to rule them in much the same way communities outside the university do.
When someone says something like, “I have learned nothing valuable from theology or philosophy”, I find myself wondering how that can be. At the very least you (should) learn history, how to construct good arguments, and how we find ourselves where we are politically, scientifically, or religiously. I can honestly say I have learned something from every professor I have come into contact with, regardless of what they study. Sometimes it is helpful for my own work, other times it simply adds to my overall knowledge. However, I went looking for it and sought it out. I didn’t assume I had nothing to learn from someone or that, because I disagreed with them, they were silly, stupid, or irrelevant. I recognize though that this is often what undergraduates do. It is most frequently what those with a religious and political agenda to implement and self-satisfied atheists are doing.
If I could encourage Michael to do anything it would be to stop worrying about defending himself against the anemic criticisms of people like Dr. Myers. He should continue to grapple publicly with these issues, to let students see him do it, to continue to be an activist, and to continue to encourage people to talk to one another.
I have no doubt that this post will lead to endless speculation about my personal intelligence level, ability to be objective, and entitlement to be a graduate student. That will likely be the best of it. Some of you will speculate that I have a hero complex, that I have a sexual relationship with, or that I am, in fact, Michael Ruse. Many of you will use these speculations to dismiss my comments from your mind and I am prepared for this. The truth is far more mundane and is simply that I have worked with and respected Michael for a long time and would be remiss in not offering up this critique of what I have long sensed are problems in academia. I have said all I have to and intend to say with regard to this. I'm sure you are glad. Do your worst.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 25, 2009 4:17 AM
This kind of writing is really unhelpful. It's playing the victim card, and you shouldn't need to do that. Your post speaks for itself, however that is taken. yep, that was it. ;)Posted by: Rorschach | August 25, 2009 4:34 AM
@ 540,
So far so meaningless.
Huh?
Ah,that explains it.Guess he was busy to speak for himself.
criticize != hate, a philosophy student should know that.
You must be american.Because the first world countries generally have good science classes.That's what Prof Myers is fighting for, btw.
Poor strawman is getting beaten badly.
Sexual relationship? I wouldnt have thought of that to be honest,and I dont really care, it doesnt change the fact that your accomodationist apologetics are misplaced, and your defense of your former Prof on a blog seems a rather sad effort.
Posted by: Drosera | August 25, 2009 4:35 AM
Quiet,
Your accommodationist concern is noted. Why don't you address the arguments that Myers made in this post?
Posted by: John Morales | August 25, 2009 5:07 AM
Quiet, your input is essentially a character reference. Unfortunately, since you are an unknown, this carries little weight.
It would've been more persuasive if you'd addressed the substance of the criticism in the post, however.
I invite you to do so.
PS, I find it odd that you seem so perturbed over what you characterise both as "vitriolic hatred" and "anemic criticisms".
PPS, are you aware of the concept of the Overton window?
Posted by: Drosera | August 27, 2009 2:13 PM
All quiet here.
Posted by: salimbag
|
February 2, 2011 9:43 AM
Myers response is worthy of Rush Limbaugh. He demeans, redirects, insults, misrepresents, but never addresses Ruses points.