The debate between Hitchens and McGrath is well worth listening to. Hitchens is cogent and sharp; he makes exactly the same points about the fundamental immorality of religion that he made at the FFRF convention, but in less time, and with fewer distracting digressions. He's on fire. Of course, he also doesn't get sucked into anti-Islamic fervor, but addresses the deplorable universal qualities of religion.
McGrath is simply awful. This is his argument in summary:
-
I was an atheist once, but I got better
-
Being religious has health benefits
-
It's the fringe fanatics that give religion a bad name
-
Here, I have some tedious praise for Jesus that you've all heard before
It's dreadful laid out like that, but it's worse hearing him plummily drone on about it all. Even worse, Hitchens specifically asked him to state his beliefs — does he truly believe that a human sacrifice two thousand years ago relieves him of certain moral responsibilities? — and he doesn't touch that one. All he had to offer was murky blathering.
Hitchens asked some clearly worded questions about the meaning of the central events of Christianity, and McGrath didn't answer any of them. Clearly, the man needs to be wrestled into a corner, given one sharply worded question, and told to simply answer it … something I doubt the obfuscatory babbler can do. We saw the same thing in the outtakes from The Root of All Evil? — the reason the McGrath interview didn't make the final version was obvious. He's dead boring and waffly.
By the way, as it turns out, I've volunteered to enter a debate at the U of Minnesota on 7 February, on the compatibility of religion and science, with a Templeton-award winner, Loyal Rue. I don't think I'm going to be as lucky as Hitchens in getting a pompous, tedious cloud of gas for an opponent.
- Log in to post comments
If it is still available on U-tube, there was a wonderful discussion between McGrath and Jonathan Winter- in his younger days, the host of a PBS series 'The Body in Question.' Winter systematically corners McGrath. An excellent example of 'demystification'(pun intended). :]
I've read Loyal Rue's book 'Religion is not About God' (the title tells you everything you need to know) so i'd definitely be interested in seeing the outcome of that one. As far as i can tell Rue's version of 'religion' is dependent upon science. No sky fairies or virgin births insight (so definitely nothing like Mcgrath). It's all 'schooling houses for the emotions' and such like for him.
I thought i'd separated 'in' and 'sight', but there you go...
Have had much Guiness at staff party. Typing is hard. But, is there a chance of seeing/hearing said debate for those of us not able to watch live? Thanks
"Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll indulge me for a moment, if those of you who have pen and paper with you could get them out now, I should be most grateful. Draw four tick boxes down the side of the page. You see, last time I heard this man in debate he managed not to answer even one question his opposite number asked him, so if you could tick off the answers to these four questions as you hear them it should prove enlightening. The first question is this...."
I'm sure you'll do fine. :-)
Here's a nice first-hand account from someone who attended the debate.
As long as you have your Trophy Wife's favor with you in battle, you should be OK.
That was no debate. That was an intellectual undressing.
I honestly started to feel sympathy for McGrath.
Hitchens was brilliant.
Ah, it's been awhile since I heard McGrath speak. I had an odd sense of deja vu listening to the Hitchens vs. McGrath audio. I guess he doesn't change his material between speaking venues, especially since he tends to equate atheism with the version of marxism he "followed" during his college years...
Reading the link you posted for Loyal Rue, I find that he too seems "murky". His connecting Jesus (or even spirituality) to evolution seemed almost to come off as non sequitur. He seemed to pull it (weakly) out of nowhere and (weakly) couple it with a sense of awe over evolution and the universe. I'm left wondering what he's actually getting at. Feeling grateful for my life requires no muddy analogies or references to "spirituality", whatever that means in context. Humanities ability to feel awe is as grounded in the natural world as pissing is. Yet the act of pissing does not cause us to wander off into the land of wafer thin mysticism.
I also disapprove of the thinly veiled anthropic argument when lisiting how improbable the universe is. Sagan was dismantling this in '85 during his Gifford lectures. (The Varieties of Scientific Experience -hat tip to William james- is a wonderful book by the way)
So PZ, what are you two even debating over?
To clarify my last question, is Loyal Rue actually going to defend the idea that religion and science are compatable? Or is he going to say that science and "spirituality" are compatible. These would seem to be two different debates. What do you think it's gunna be?
Great to hear you're going to be doing a debate, PZ. Once the event gets closer, consider contacting Eddie Tabash for debate coaching, in the past he's been rather generous about that sort of thing. I wouldn't recommend imitating his sometimes-hyperventilating style, but he still knows a thing or two about the mechanics of debate.
I can't even listen to that stuff anymore. Mr. McGrath says the same things they all say. I just fast forward to the Hitchens parts. :P
PZ, not that you need tips, but two points that I'd like to see stressed more often are 1) It is faith which is not compatible with the scientific method, and that's why religion is not compatible with science (nothing to do with the nature of supernatural claims, etc.), and 2) compartmentalization is not the same as compatibility. You can be religious and a good scientist, just never at the same instance.
Good luck to you.
Found this for you PZ. Good luck in the debate.
http://www.intothecool.com/blog/2005/06/loyal-rue-and-religious-natural…
So far, I'm only halfway through watching it. McGrath is spending most of his time on a gigantic excercise in begging the question.
I also want to make the umpteenth plug for a new favorite book of mine. McGrath asks if an evilutionary explanation for morality is adequate. Can we have a moral system without a basis in the transcendent?
I'll ask him to read MORAL MINDS by Mark D. Hauser.
(Soon I'l be asking for money for all this advertising.)
I have to pitch in with Michael X on this one, Loyal Rue makes every effort to conflate spirituality with religion and evolution of systems with the process of biological evolution.
If he still holds to that 10 year old narrative anyone can walk all over him on the science.
There is no cosmology called "the Epic of Evolution" (AFAIK). An "interdisciplinary narrative" isn't a theory - and if it is unpredictive, as is likely considering the aggregation, it is merely a worthless just so story.
I swear, next time I see someone use the nondescript "subatomic particles" I'm going to scream.
Particles "below atomic size" may be fundamental or composite. But more importantly, fundamental particles are created and destroyed continuously in an array of processes and can form composites - when mediating forces as photons in star fusion, as radioactivity, and as much of everything by cosmic radiation or Bekenstein-Hawking radiation around black holes.
Methinks Rue's spirituality ate his brain.
Rue's spirituality also ate my comma:
"when mediating forces as photons in star fusion," - when mediating forces, as photons in star fusion, ...
Indeed, narrative is merely a system of organization, relating actors and events to each other temporally. Then again, that's basic Barthes and Ricoeur. I work in narrative. I've never understood the profundity some people attribute to it. It may be universal, but it's just stories.
OK, I've added Moral Minds to my amazon wish list.
I've done some preliminary reading, and Rue does sound like his tack is to substitute vague 'spirituality' for religion, and call that compatible. I'll read more over the holiday break in preparation...but all I can say is that I hate 'spirituality'.
Muwahahahahaha! All will bend to my endless pitching of MORAL MINDS!
On a serious note, I'll say that from the very day I rejected christianity I have looked for naturalistic answers to every claim made by religion. Up until MORAL MINDS I had not as yet read of a naturalistic theory of morality. Cosmology, biology, psychology, etc. have all been adressed and have left religion no other foothold, as weak as it was, other than the oft touted foundation of our morality.
As for me, this leaves no more gaps for god to hide in and no claim made by a primitive iron age religion that I can't answer. It truely made my day finally having a working theory for the question "If there is no god, what basis do we have for our morals?" The lynchpin is the fact that it is a working scientific THEORY. It may very well prove to be wrong in many areas, but it gives me not only an enriching understanding of why humans think the way we do about morals, but also a testable, conctrete answer to an age old philosophical question. Instead of having a plausable, reasonable, educated guess. That little bit farther makes all the difference for me.
This was indeed Hitchens at his oratory best, and McGrath was hopelessly outclassed in keen-mindedness, substance and presentation. When Hitchens is talking about religion he's cogent, first class.
But, while I appreciate and respect that he's a scrappy fighter, and I would definitely want him on my side in a brawl, I simply don't agree with Hitchen's philosophy towards conflict. I don't agree that we must completely dismiss the idea of nonresistance as a possible course of action when being attacked. He says the proper attitude to assume toward one's enemies is, "We have to learn to educate ourselves in a cold steady dislike of them and a determination to encompass their destruction."
NO, NO, NO! This is not what we have to do. What we have to do--is what is necessary to the situation. Every situation is different, and while there surely are times when you must kill or be killed, there are some conflicts where some variation of "turning the other cheek" may actually be the most intelligent, constructive thing to do.
Limiting one's actions to belligerence and simplistic extremes is crude and unimaginative, and that seems a rather curious shortcoming in a person who otherwise seems so contemplative and sensible.
I agree that we are dealing with an extremist's faction that definitely wants to kill us but perhaps I would be more sympathetic to their quick and complete annihilation if I didn't keep hearing about all these contradictory reasons why they hate us so.
Hitchen's is too kind in his responses. This was a very nice debate. I like how Hitchen's handled himself, but I think he should have been more demanding and held McGrath to task on not really saying anything at all. McGrath escapes almost everytime by claiming to mostly agree with Hitchen's on the surface but asserts that there is a deeper meaning that Hitchen's is missing. As said by PZ, McGrath comes off seeming like a "gas cloud."
One annoying miss by Hitchen's is the question asked by someone in the audience. The audience asks how can we know right from wrong without divine guidance? How can we be accountable to do good things without a divine adjudicator?
There are many ways to answer this, and Hitchen's offers a lengthy albeit apt explanation. But why not just stick to the simplest answer to this question - as Sam Harris has offered in his books. The Bible, as an example, is filled with atrocities condoned by and even committed by God and his followers. The Bible instructs the believer to do things that we can easily recognize as wrong. If we could not decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, we would follow the Bible literally and without compunction. The fact that even believers recognize the immorality of what is written in the Bible says that it is not religion or faith that guides us at all. It is something other than faith and religion that allows a believer to discard parts of the Bible. That seems to take care of every religious argument about the source of morality.
I saw the Dawkins/McGrath thing and a) it gave me a headache, and b) it was exactly what I've always experienced with religious people of the non-foaming-fundamentalist variety, i.e. that they change the subject from empirical questions to their feelings.
I sometimes think atheists are so busy responding to the extreme fringe of irrationalists (who are powerful in some ways, I'm not dismissing that) that we don't do more to get waffling people to not go with the religious flow for reasons of "coziness".
Eloquence notwithstanding, Hitchins is still a dick.
McGrath reveals a lot of his mindset in his reiteration that godbelief "invigorates and excites him intellectually" by providing a nice, unassailable answer to all those messy gaps that science always leaves dangling. He wonders what nonbelief could possibly provide in its place to do that.
I suspect that, for him and for many believers, a deep anxiety with not knowing the complete answer yet is central to what keeps them chained to their faith. It's a way of not-worrying by not-thinking. And it makes me wonder all over again how this can be compatible with being a scientist.
I agree that we are dealing with an extremist's faction that definitely wants to kill us but perhaps I would be more sympathetic to their quick and complete annihilation if I didn't keep hearing about all these contradictory reasons why they hate us so.
You're agreeing with something that is patently untrue. Hitchens seems to want all Muslims dead -- are they the extremist's faction? Who exactly is this extremist's faction? Are any of them in Iraq? Is Osama bin Laden (remember him) in Iraq? Presumably ObL is part of this extremist's faction, but how far does it extend? Is it Al Qaida, or a subset, or a superset? What about "us"? Who exactly is that? You? All Americans? All Westerners? Do they really want to kill us, or do they perhaps want to stop us from doing something? Can you answer any of these questions? Confidently? Can you substantiate your answers? Do you actually have a clue? Most people who talk about "they want to kill us" or "they hate us" are mindlessly repeating memes, not basing these statements on knowledge and analysis.
Sam Harris says that the anger toward the U.S. in the Arab world has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy. Harris is an ignorant nincompoop on this subject. Don't emulate him.
I'm not through the whole video yet, but McGrath just said that Jesus "refused to do violence".
John 2:13-15
" and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"
Sounds like violence to me
McGrath briefly speaks in tongues at 58:45.
On a serious note, I'll say that from the very day I rejected christianity I have looked for naturalistic answers to every claim made by religion. Up until MORAL MINDS I had not as yet read of a naturalistic theory of morality.
From one book with all the answers to another, eh? Much has been written by naturalists about morality, which is just one element of human culture and behavior. Perhaps you're looking for the wrong thing.
The religious claim that "morality comes from God" isn't coherent -- a naturalistic answer to this bizarre claim consists of paying some attention to what the word "morality" means, or refers to. Asking where morality comes from or what its basis is, is a bit like asking where culture comes from or what its basis is. That's a complex biological and historical story, especially since neither culture nor morality are any one thing, varying from population to population (of any size) while having common elements. But if your conception of morality is still the one you got from church, you're going to have trouble appreciating the naturalistic answer.
Before taking Hauser's claims too seriously, you should read Richard Rorty's review at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/books/review/Rorty.t.html
If we could not decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, we would follow the Bible literally and without compunction. The fact that even believers recognize the immorality of what is written in the Bible says that it is not religion or faith that guides us at all. It is something other than faith and religion that allows a believer to discard parts of the Bible. That seems to take care of every religious argument about the source of morality.
Socrates: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Jonathan Winter- in his younger days, the host of a PBS series 'The Body in Question.'
That's Dr. Jonathan Miller, and his excellent "A Brief History of Disbelief" is running on WNED right now.
By training, he's a medical doctor, hence "The Body in Question" (which is a BBC series, just shown on PBS), which he wrote as well as hosted. In fact, he writes most of the stuff he presents. Except for the Shakespeares.
I would have liked him to hit back much harder for the use of words like "transcendent". That was a perfect opportunity to show the audience the extent McGrath depends on obfuscation and sleight of hand - he uses "transcendent" to bundle together "supernatural" and some other vague good things in an attempt to make it seem as if we're rejecting all those vague good things when we reject the supernatural. Hitchens calls him on it, but it would have done real good to dissect that one in front of the audience and lay it bare, because it's McGrath's main trick and it was a great example.
As for me, this leaves no more gaps for god to hide in and no claim made by a primitive iron age religion that I can't answer.
This is fundmentally the wrong approach, which appears to be leading you to grasp at a (poor) theory for bad reasons. There are always gaps for god to hide in as long as our knowledge is not complete, and there are many questions that you can't answer.
It truely made my day finally having a working theory for the question "If there is no god, what basis do we have for our morals?"
But Hauser's theory isn't a theory for that question, it's a theory of the nature of morality. "if there is no god" has nothing to do with it -- if Hauser's theory of morality is correct, it is correct whether or not there is a god, and if Hauser's theory of morality isn't correct, it isn't correct whether or not there is a god. Beyond that, your question suggests that you think that god might somehow be a basis for our morals. But that's strictly a religious conception -- to even ask the question indicates that you're still in the grips of theistic thinking. god is no more a potential basis for our morals than god is a potential basis for our hobbies, our lifestyles, or our food preferences.
The lynchpin is the fact that it is a working scientific THEORY.
No, actually, it's a hypothesis, and not a very well grounded one. And without such a hypothesis, would god be more likely? The notion that this is a "lynchpin" relative to the existence god is rather bizarre.
It may very well prove to be wrong in many areas, but it gives me not only an enriching understanding of why humans think the way we do about morals
How can it give you any sort of understanding of why humans think the way we do about morals when it is speculative? If Hauser is wrong, and he probably is, then he's giving you a misunderstanding.
but also a testable, conctrete answer to an age old philosophical question.
Um, I thought this was about science? Science doesn't give us testable concrete answers to age old philosophical questions, although it sometimes makes such questions go away by showing how they are misconceptualized. And what is the question here? Neither "Is god the basis of our morals?" nor "What is the basis of our morals?" is a question with a testable, concrete answer.
That little bit farther makes all the difference for me.
Well, it shouldn't, and your irrational basis for finally letting go of god doesn't have anything to do with anyone else, so you shouldn't be hawking a book on that basis.
Here's a question: Where did egalitarianism and opposition to slavery come from? They obviously didn't come from the bible -- that shoots down the bible thumpers's claim that their god is the source of our morality. And they obviously didn't come from an organ in our brains -- that shoots down Hauser's claim. Figuring out the answer to this question (hint: think about such things as democracy and classic liberalism) requires correcting some rather severe misconceptions of morality.
Ah Truth Machine, you are the king of coming into a thread late and talking to yourself.
Let me clear up a few misconceptions that you made in your solo debate: Hausers book attempts to give an evolutionary frame work for where we get our ethical sense. It is a direct answer to the common question of "where do you get your morals?" which has in it's asking the implied idea that humans do not have a natural sense of morality and that it is given to us only by a diety. (As a matter of fact Hitchens repsonded to such a question in this very debate. Sagan also answered such a question in his Gifford Lectures, with the exact same answer I'm giving here. That we are not given this sense but it is a product of natural selection. To then have a book that attempts to provide a framework for such an idea is the next step in answering such questions) To then respond with "our ethical and moral sense, like much else in the human condition is a product of natural selection" does not seem so far fetched.
As for looking for "all the answers", you're cute phrasing aside, you mistake me for a simpleton. It's a theory I seek after, that is testable and may be shown wrong in many ways. Not the end all be all so that now I can stop asking questions. Your assumptions speak louder than your words. Quoting Richard Rorty by the way, is in no way a response of any merit, as he seems to miss the point. The humanities and social sciences are derived from the very ethical and moral humanity Hauser is attempting to explain the evloution of.
Your next post wonderfully splits hairs about the common usages of words and their more academic usages. Also in my stating that this leaves god no more gaps to hide in, the point is that morality is the last bastion for common believers of every stripe. Of course there will always be some part of human knowledge that some believers will want to exploit (consciousness currently jumps to mind) but none of these are what everyday believers hook their faith on. As for the split between a theory and a hypothesis, yes, actually, you'd be surprised to learn that I am aware that there is a technical difference between the two. Yet in colloquial speech (you know, what normal people talk in) to state that it's a theory is perfectly acceptable in the given company. No one here will be mistaking, or even caring, about such trivial differences that are tertiary to the main point. To beleaguer the point in this case is to simply appear haughty in your knowledge of trivialities, which in no way changes the validity of my argument.
To comment further you seem to miss the entire point and impact of such a book on the evolutionary beginnings of morality. And aside from your argument from definiton, yes, science can make claims on age old philosophical questions. As a matter of fact, "Who gives us our morals" is just such a one that has been asked throughout time, where the askers didn't know of a way to test such a question quantitatively. The currently attempted answer now being, "No one. It's actually a product of our evolutionary biology. Here's how I think it played out." But your problems differentiating between, "this is what people ask" and "here's a suggested answer to what I think you're getting at" is in no way to say that I too would phrase the question that way. Furthermore, I marvel that you cannot seem to understand the colloquial meaning of such a question and instead prefer to argue symantics over whether the argument phrased in such a way makes perfect logical sense. To do so misses the point of the question and loses the opportunity to answer it constructively.
Lastly, egalitarianism comes from the same place that our love for our children comes from. Our brains. This is also the same place that the idea that "slavery is bad" came from. Do you propose a different place from which humanity creates it's ethical views? Egalitarianism is certainly such a view. Slavery is one as well. These are all produced by our natural, non-supernaturally-infulenced, sense of ethics and fairness. Hausers book is the first major attempt to describe how this came about. The little bit of difference made for me by someone attempting a comprehensive explanation of our human sense of ethics has nothing to do with why I'm not in a chuch anymore by the way, and I can find nothing other than your bald assumptions of my character to lead you to such a conclusion. Instead it has to do with the fact that now we can start to give scientifically testable reasons for what was before simply an educated guess.
There, Truth Machine, now you have someone else to talk to.
Folks, get this. Alister McGrath is not *really* a former atheist. He briefly decided that he didn't believe in god at age 13, and by the time he got to university, in his first year, joined the Christian Union and became a Christian shortly thereafter. So all his "atheism" was confined to his adolescence, and is pretty much what every spotty youngster goes through (Skatje excepted, PZ - she's a very bright lass!) at that stage.
Alister McGrath is merely a "former teenager".
It is disappointing that his intellectual rigour has not improved any - he has merely got himself into a comfy rut. He clearly wants to be thought of as the next CS Lewis. Given that the last one wasn't all he was cracked up to be, I'm not sure this is a very lofty ambition.
Ah Truth Machine, you are the king of coming into a thread late and talking to yourself.
Since you're responding, I obviously wasn't talking to myself. But that is typical of the quality of your thinking -- to return the ad hominem. Good luck with that.
Lastly, egalitarianism comes from the same place that our love for our children comes from. Our brains. This is also the same place that the idea that "slavery is bad" came from. Do you propose a different place from which humanity creates it's ethical views? Egalitarianism is certainly such a view. Slavery is one as well. These are all produced by our natural, non-supernaturally-infulenced, sense of ethics and fairness.
You really are a bit dim. The point is that they are a rather recent phenomenon -- too recent to have evolved biologically. Yes, of course they come from our brains -- meme machines.
In a preview of what was to come at the FFRF, Hitchens said:
"Love your enemy?!" he gasped. "No philosophy is more suicidal than this. We must destroy our enemy! Fortunately, everyone in America agreed the enemy must be destroyed after 9/11."
Here is another writeup on the debate: http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/house-divided-hitc…
Personal Insult != Ad Hominem logic.
Example:
Person A: 2 + 2 = 5
Ad Hominem Attack: That's not true because you're an idiot.
Reasoned response with insult: You're an idiot. 2 + 2 = 4, because . (Note that insulting the speaker doesn't invalidate the argument made.)
Just for fun:
Argument from Authority: I have a Doctorate in Mathematics, and I tell you 2 + 2 = 4. Therefore this must be true. (Note: if the speaker would go on to explain why, then it is no longer an Argument from Authority.)
This is supposed to show:
Reasoned response with insult: You're an idiot. 2 + 2 = 4, because (Number Theory, blah blah.). (Note that insulting the speaker doesn't invalidate the argument made.)
Sorry.
He's on fire.
Umm, he was definitely on something...
Hitchens, such a lovable ...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11768
Michael X: You might also enjoy Frans de Waal's Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved.
Another good McGrath debate is one with him and Peter Atkins, the end part Atkins just repeatedly asks the exact same question, and McGrath still doesn't ever answer it.
If I thank Hitchens for anything in this, it's that he elucidates the falsity that Soviet Russia was a secular entity committing atrocities. That I think was his most important statement, tying it to the horrific human compulsion to place undo capability and power in things that do not exist, or persons self-interested and disconnected from their humanity.
BTW: Anyone else find it ironic Mr. McGrath looks like a televangelist when he's at the podium? That backdrop doesn't help that suit he wore.
Rue writes, "Nature appears to be informed by internal, systemic values as it struggles through to something ever higher."
Kindly ask him where he gets his f'n yardstick. Altimeter. Whatever.
Thanks.
Silly machine of truth. My going "Hey you sure do seem to talk to yourself alot and never engage in any substantive debate" and then moving onto my next points, no matter how much you seem to dislike it, is true. I figured a truth machine would have picked up on that. Though I do love the idea that someone actually responding to you invalidates the fact that you usually talk to yourself.
Though you did make one response, so in the spirit of things, I'll answer it.
Lets actually assume for the sake of argument, that you're actually saying something worthwhile. Eagalitarianism has come onto the scene late aided by the social evolution of memes. And this somehow invalidates the idea that our ethical and socal framework has evlolved to allow us to make use of and supports egalitarian memes, ... how? The cart keeps getting put in front of the horse here and the horse is getting tired. (Also, the idea of memes is one that even RD has shyed away from.) If we were not in some sense predisposed to a primitave level of egalitariansim the philosophy we know today would never have taken hold. Likewise no amount of memes will ever spread the practice of torturing babies for fun. Looking into our evolutionary history is a powerful tool that can allow us to restrain those biological tendencies that hinder us culturally now, and support those that help us culturally now. Having that knowledge of what makes us tick is invaluable in helping us fix parts of our psychology that no longer function well in in todays culture. Come on, Truth Machine, you get the metaphor.
So, I'll try to make this simple John Madden style: Before you can abolish slavery, BOOM, you need an evolved ethical framework that's compatable to do so.
To tell me that I'm dim for saying that egalitarianism comes from our evolved and evolving sense of ethics, to only then tell me that it actually came from a tool in the use of our sense of ethics, is well, funny.
Egalitarianism "the full fleged philosophy" may be a relative latecomer but we can chart it's evolution just the same from the few remaining hunter gatherer tribes to the full fleged philosophical idea it's become. And that very beginning of egalitariamism emerged from our biological predispositions. Wouldn't it, maybe, be of some sorta practical use to, I dunno, understand that better too?
Lastly, lets assume the entire book (which I'll assume you've actually read) is for the majority, off base. This though does not, as you've said, leave me with nothing but misconceptions. It leaves me with a framework that when tested will either be tinkerd with heavily or replaced altogether by a new and better idea. But we have to start somewhere. And opposed to the assertion that the book is merely specualation, it actually has all this wonderful evidence stuff that I'm surprised you missed. That's the stuff that will allow us to improve it or find a whole new framework that better explains it. In any case it's the first major interdisciplinary step being taken in this realm and I'm excited to be around for it.
But don't worry, you will be too, once we get to OZ and get you a heart.
Thanks Pierce! I'll look into that one.
It didn't take long for them to quote you.
http://antiwar.com/justin/
I was shocked to learn, by way of the Hitchens video, that McGrath can actually move his neck. The Dawkins video had made me think otherwise. Had he just slept wrong on the day Dawkins interviewed him, or was he just being British?
Video tape it for youtube.
Just watched the whole video, need to get to bed -- but wanted to mention one thing. When McGrath was talking about the "limitations of science" and all those areas where science cannot go (but religion apparently can), I really wished Hitchens had stepped in and said something like:
"Excuse me. It is not only science and religion. There is science, there is philosophy, and then there is religion. I claim both science AND philosophy. Secular science, secular philosophy. Those are mine. They can also be yours if you want, but those two are mine. Now, please go on, and explain to us all which areas religion can answer, can deal with -- but neither science nor philosophy has any say."
Cut their heads off. You know you want to, Kit.
Thanks for the "heads up" on this program.
Poor Dr. McGrath was trampled in his own bullshit.
McGrath didn't posit a single defensible and articulate position during the whole episode. Poor devil.
This is waaaaay late, and perhaps even irrelevant, but just for the record...in my earlier comment #25, I said: "I agree that we are dealing with an extremist's faction that definitely wants to kill us but perhaps I would be more sympathetic to their quick and complete annihilation if I didn't keep hearing about all these contradictory reasons why they hate us so."
It never occurred to me that "extremist's faction", could be construed as a description of the whole of the Muslim community. I've no doubt the vast majority of them simply want to live in peace.
I was, of course, referring to the 911 suicide fanatics and their ilk. When they say "Death to America" they obviously mean it.
How large is this group? And where exactly are they? I don't know, I keep hearing contradictory things, and I don't trust my government enough to tell me the truth about it. That is why I think temperance is very much in order and Hitchen's simplistic warmongering rhetoric disturbs me.
I have to pitch in with Michael X on this one, Loyal Rue makes every effort to conflate spirituality with religion and evolution of systems with the process of biological evolution.
If he still holds to that 10 year old narrative anyone can walk all over him on the science.
There is no cosmology called "the Epic of Evolution" (AFAIK). An "interdisciplinary narrative" isn't a theory - and if it is unpredictive, as is likely considering the aggregation, it is merely a worthless just so story.
I swear, next time I see someone use the nondescript "subatomic particles" I'm going to scream.
Particles "below atomic size" may be fundamental or composite. But more importantly, fundamental particles are created and destroyed continuously in an array of processes and can form composites - when mediating forces as photons in star fusion, as radioactivity, and as much of everything by cosmic radiation or Bekenstein-Hawking radiation around black holes.
Methinks Rue's spirituality ate his brain.
Rue's spirituality also ate my comma:
"when mediating forces as photons in star fusion," - when mediating forces, as photons in star fusion, ...