tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post260153159718173102..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Jim Woodward: Empirical Study of Religion and HarmAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25988946226292875752007-05-07T15:13:00.000-06:002007-05-07T15:13:00.000-06:00Sheldon, Gould, defending himself against a hit jo...Sheldon, Gould, defending himself against a hit job by Daniel Dennett made a pretty good case that the reductionist view, what he referred to as "Darwinian Fundamentalism" actually ignored that Darwin himself believed that selection couldn't be the only factor in evolution. Gould regretted this because he suspected that the idea of "an evolutionary psychology" was probably useful. <BR/><BR/>The creation of explainatory myths by Dawkins and his close associates is certainly relevant to his hobby career since it supposedly sprang from the opposition to the superstition of creationism. If I was going to make a second career of mocking religious myth, used by most Christians and Jews as metaphores I wouldn't create new ones to support an allegedly scientific position. I've always thought that Dawkins was held to a far lesser standard by his fan club and they constantly reinforce that suspicion. <BR/><BR/>As to Harris' not producing. Maybe if he didn't spend all of his time on producing romantic nonsense for profit he might get time to write and defend his dissertation.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24785348277492013622007-05-07T14:52:00.000-06:002007-05-07T14:52:00.000-06:00Alonzo,My apologies for drifting the discussion ou...Alonzo,<BR/>My apologies for drifting the discussion outside of your original post. <BR/><BR/>Olvzl,<BR/>I don't know if Harris has published a peer reviewed article yet. But give him a break, supposedly he is or was s Ph.D. student in neuroscience, and presumably if he finishes or has finished his doctoral research, then a published paper would probably result.<BR/> <BR/>I share your skepticism about evolutionary psychology, however I think you overstate your charge of its mythological status. Alot may be bunk, but not all.<BR/><BR/>Evol. psych. is in part inspired by Darwinian approaches to animal behaviour, which has been tested quite rigorously. From there they take a basic premise that particular behaviours should confer reproductive success as opposed to other behaviours. Often there evidence are some suggestive and interesting correlations. When confronted with anamolies like homosexuality, they offer some pretty weasely post hoc explanations.<BR/><BR/>I think we can agree that human social behaviour is far to complex to be explained only by reference to Darwinian/evol. psych.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27194470385104693232007-05-07T12:16:00.000-06:002007-05-07T12:16:00.000-06:00Complex life evolved from simpler life. Ergo, com...Complex life evolved from simpler life. <BR/><BR/>Ergo, complex societies and complex religions evolved from simpler ones. Children are awash with unquestioned cultural behaviours and modern media propeganda. <BR/><BR/>For the emerging mind it is how well it is able to detach from hypnotic suggestion.<BR/><BR/>The harm is not religion but new religion. For every generation, every child comes to it anew. Old Religions die in the abatoir of ritual. It has to be alive and suggestible. Feminism and homosexuality are just a two of many new religions. How do I know that? Because they claim they were born into it. A birth right. They had no choice.<BR/><BR/>That marks the difference between the life of a humanist and the life of an animalist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79534209757081745552007-05-07T12:02:00.000-06:002007-05-07T12:02:00.000-06:00Actually, has Harris produced even one scientific ...Actually, has Harris produced even one scientific paper, published in a peer review journal yet? I've been listening to him going on about science without having seen any from him for quite a while now. <BR/><BR/>My point about Dawkins re "cherry picking" is that it is an intrinsic part of his particular school of biological determinism. I was suspicious of Dawkins before he began his avocational career as the Don Quixote of romantic atheism exactly because his "evolutionary psychology", rescued from the damaged ship Sociobiology was unnecessarily reductionist and dishonest. I had a major concern about one part of the methodology of "explaining" the evolutionary basis of "behaviors" through explainatory fables, generally, as pointed out by some of their critics, without any fossil or other physical basis supporting the entertaining tale. It is exactly the same thing as the "historical" books of the Bible and especially those parts of Genisis which they mock religious believers over. I will point out that while the e.psy. fables are taken by their audience for science the Biblical fables are only taken that way by the rankest fundamentalists. Many, perhaps most, religious believers who use the Bible see them for exactly the kinds of alegories that they were probably intended to be in the beginning.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53701869243507750982007-05-07T10:43:00.000-06:002007-05-07T10:43:00.000-06:00Alonzo, Thanks for the clarification."is that thei...Alonzo, <BR/>Thanks for the clarification.<BR/><BR/>"is that their arguments necessitate ignoring the fact that the explicitly non-literalist view of the Bible goes back at least to Augustine."<BR/><BR/>Olvizl,<BR/>That may be true, but there are plenty of beleivers that do at least pretend to a literalist view of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Regarding materialism and science. That is why I said "supposedly". Of course, there are many types and levels of materialism. The natural sciences are generally methodolgical naturalist, i.e. they look for causation in the natural/material realm. The science Harris and Dawkins practice, neuroscience and biology certainly are materialist in that sense. This doesn't neccessarily commit one to ontological or metaphysical materialism. Which is what I think you think I was implying.<BR/><BR/>The meaning of materialism in the social sciences does not translate directly into what it might mean in the natural sciences. However, my point was that Harris and Dawkins overly emphasize ideas in trying to explain the behaviours of say Islamic jihadists without considering the broader contexts of those ideas and behaviours.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57171211616456291742007-05-06T12:42:00.000-06:002007-05-06T12:42:00.000-06:00I'm curious, Sheldon, where in life do you find pe...I'm curious, Sheldon, where in life do you find people who deal with the information contained in very large anthologies of disparate writings, some of them compilations if not pastiche assembled into what are mistaken for discreet "books", produced over many centuries in their entirety? And then live their lives in accordance with their results. The fault of these pop-atheists is that their arguments necessitate ignoring the fact that the explicitly non-literalist view of the Bible goes back at least to Augustine. This might make things more complicated than can be dealt with in a book of best seller length, but that doesn't change the fact that is the range they will need to address in order to face the reality of the situation instead of their cartoon version of the views of a huge number of people. <BR/><BR/>It's kind of an irony that Dawkins school of evolutionary psychology is often said to "cherry pick" beginning with its insistence on the primacy of selection as the determination of, well, just about everything. Gould and Lewontin's points about the blinders this school of science wears might be an interesting comparison. <BR/><BR/>If those who talk about Christians who "cherry pick" when they don't misinterpret the meaning of the few passages traditionally used to promote the long pogrom against gay people knew even the slightest bit about the long and complex history of that collection, they wouldn't say such foolish things. As an example the story of Lot and the strangers used as the earliest example to prove the depravity of gay men. In Jeremiah the "sin" of those in Sodom was explicitly identified as inhospitality. You can certainly find a lot more about that subject, online, if you want to look into it. <BR/><BR/>I entirely disagree with your statement "science is supposedly materialist". A scientist can be a materialist or not. "Science" can only deal with the material universe, it is a set of procedures and tools expressly developed for dealing with the material universe but "science" isn't something apart from the entire body of people who "do science". "Science" doesn't have an ideological position or a personal philosophy. Science doesn't belong to materialists of any kind, it doesn't belong to idealists or any others who espouse a philosophical position. It would be better if people would remember this.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46199398501522414272007-05-06T05:31:00.000-06:002007-05-06T05:31:00.000-06:00Yes, Woodward's argument takes the "cherry picking...Yes, Woodward's argument takes the "cherry picking" accusation as fact. Indeed, it is so clearly observed that it would be difficult to question.<BR/><BR/>However, the phenomenon of cherry picking is inconsistent with the accusation of scripture being the source of moral attitudes. If scripture is not the source of moral attitudes, then "scripture is the source of moral attitudes for religious wrongs" is fundamentally unsound.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins and Harris advance two claims which are inconsistent: that religious people cherry-pick their moral principles (which they get from someplace else), and scripture is bad because religious people get their moral principles from scripture.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81857414228184277532007-05-05T22:41:00.000-06:002007-05-05T22:41:00.000-06:00"By Woodward's argument, it makes no sense to blam..."By Woodward's argument, it makes no sense to blame scripture for the condemnation of homosexuality - even though those who condemn homosexuality often quote scripture. Because, if scripture were the true cause of the condemnation, these people would also be advocating the death of those who work on the Sabbath."<BR/><BR/>Mmm? Perhaps I am confused? In some sense Woodward's argument supports Dawkins and Harris' more limited claim that religionists cherry pick their morality from scripture. That is exactly what cherry picking means. Finding the evidence or support for rationalizing what one wants to believe. Is it not? The accusation of "cherry picking" is an accusation of inconsistency. <BR/><BR/>In the case of Islam, the jihadists find support for their attacks in the Koran when other variables lead them to take that course of action. When those circumstances are not in play, those versus in the Koran have less significance.<BR/><BR/>But the overall general point does stand. It is overly simplistic to find cause in only the belief.<BR/><BR/>An aside. Dawkins and Harris are supposedly scientists, and science is supposedly materialist. From theoretical perspectives found in social sciences however, such as cultural materialist or Marxist, Dawkins and Harris would be accused of committing an error of idealism. That is they put ideas as primary causal factors without adequately theorizing the material factors that animate those ideas.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.com