Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

[chaz wyman]

I can see you're making an effort here, and I appreciate that. But I assure you, I am not in the least confused, nor is the fallacy of my creation. To recapitulate what is at issue in all this: the question I would ask of Dawkins is: if even by his own admission, Darwinism makes for a lousy philosophy, then what can be used as the basis for principles and 'the good life'?

Darwinism is not a philosophy, as such. Natural philosophers are interested in what 'is' and not what 'ought', that is as valid a aim for a philosopher as asking what is a good life. This does not make Dawkins an 'anti-philospher', but he does have part of the answer for you too. He is busily engaged in an attack on a major fallacy by which people do live their lives and as I said earlier removing this fallacy is the first vital step to living an authentic life.

The answer appears to be: there isn't anything. There is no scientific basis for values, as such, and no way of ascertaining whether the Universe is in any sense meaningful. Evolution is not understood as a purpose-driven process, and doesn't provide any basis for values, principles or ethics.

I disagree again. You might not like what he is doing, or you may have missed it. He is engaged in a secular "summer school" to replace religious summer schools for kids of atheist parents who want to avoid their children in religious indoctrination. In the school which he has been widely criticised from 'preaching' the science of religion, kids learn about the natural world and how to think using methods of science such as the hypothetical/deductive method.
He is also a co-founder of a new University, with philosopher, Antony Grayling, and David Cannadine.
Far from ignoring moral questions he is clearly active in a wider society.

Yet Dawkins, and others, appears to want to elevate evolutionary theory as 'a replacement for a god driven evolution', as we both agree.

I would not say that. I would say that he often descends into a sort of teleology when describing the emergence of traits and new species as does Dennett.
Speaking of Dennett, do you level the same criticism at him - he who is indeed a professor of philosophy?

I don't think that a Dawkins actually understands the implications of his own words. It leads straight to nihilism. As it happens, Dawkins is a pretty nice guy, and not really malicious.
But that is not by virtue of anything in his books.

See Evolution as Religion: Strange Hopes and Even Stranger Fears, The Case for God, Karen Armstrong, and Why Us: How Science Re-discovered the Mystery of Ourselves. All of these are detailed, secular critiques of many of the ideas found in the books of Dawkins, et al, on making a religion out of evolution.

[/quote][/quote]

I've read Armstrong - she is a moron of the highest calibre. He basis thesis (mythos/logos) is completely false.

[Bernard]

As far as science is concerned, nothing existed "before" (outside) the universe, because science only deals with the observable. We can't make any observations outside the universe, so speculations about "before" (outside) are purely metaphysical. Anything might exist outside the universe, including God and other universes. You are of course fee to speculate and believe whatever you want (I do) but as long as it can't be observed, it remains "nothing" to science.

Well, my simple, but I think unbeatable argument, is that if observations that are undeniable by anyone using reason satisfactorily are valid as scientific conclusion, then the observation that where there is one of anything there is sure to be more of the same thing is scientifically valid. No forms occur singularly, name it: ant, cell, bacteria, leaf, galaxy, boson, comet.

We need to accept the evidence that existence is about infinite individual forms that are never one-off and that are involved in infinite cycles of beginning, growing and replacing.

Where do you find this "evidence" that we "need" to accept?

To be sure, we can safely say there is only one Notvaka or Mona Lisa, but there are things that are similar to them and can be called the same, in the sense of belonging to a genre or as a species. Obviously it is a different matter of discussion when we come to the universe, which we can only safely define as a physical arena of which we are a part and that we know nothing of the boundaries of. What we cannot say of it is that it is nothing, to quote Parmenides: That which is not cannot be thought about or spoken about. So seeing that we think \and talk about the universe, we can safely say it is a thing, and because we can say it is a thing we MUST deduce that it is one of many like things, because there is no observation of any thing that tells us that there are 'one off' things. If you can show to me that there are things that are one off things I will happily eat my hat. My observation is that where anything is spoken or thought of as being one off have no actual reality, eg; God (unless God is being referred to as something plural, which is normally not the case at all, but does have some currency).

[Jonathan.s]

Darwinism is not a philosophy, as such. Natural philosophers are interested in what 'is' and not what 'ought', that is as valid a aim for a philosopher as asking what is a good life. This does not make Dawkins an 'anti-philospher', but he does have part of the answer for you too. He is busily engaged in an attack on a major fallacy by which people do live their lives and as I said earlier removing this fallacy is the first vital step to living an authentic life.

Curious.. I think there is a tendency to elevate evolutionary theory to a kind of 'secular religion', which is a large part of the problem. And assuming that religion itself is a fallacy, is a belief, not a scientific judgement. Dawkins books are in the Religion section of bookstores. He is actually a religious writer, not a scientist, and I disagree with his religious views.

You might not like what he is doing, or you may have missed it. He is engaged in a secular "summer school" to replace religious summer schools for kids of atheist parents who want to avoid their children in religious indoctrination. In the school which he has been widely criticised from 'preaching' the science of religion, kids learn about the natural world and how to think using methods of science such as the hypothetical/deductive method.

Well, good for them. And the more scientists we get, the better, we need many of them, and science education does not get nearly enough attention.

At issue is that there might be such things as 'moral maxims' and 'moral principles', which might actually be real and important in their own right, and not because someone in a white coat can register them on a meter. These kinds of principles have to be internalised and lived, and act as sources which provide a kind of intuitive guidance to navigating the ocean of life. (See Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life for many examples.) Scientific method is splendid for finding out about objective facts, substances, phenomena, and so on, but has not much applicability in this area, especially when driven by the pathological dislike of anything considered 'religious'.

Speaking of Dennett, do you level the same criticism at him - he who is indeed a professor of philosophy?

Which speaks to the sorry state of the discipline, in my view. My view of Dennett was summed up by Leon Wieseltier's review of his "Breaking the Spell"

THE question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. "Breaking the Spell" is a work of considerable historical interest, because it is a merry anthology of contemporary superstitions.

[Bernard]

I will, though, give that if the universe looks to some as to be something as simple as a force,and is therfore one thing and not repeated, such as gravity is only gravity and not gravities, it would still be mistaken to think of the universe as only one thing; for where there is one force there are other forces, and even though gravity is one among only a few other identified forces, and there is not a huge plurality of forces, as is observed with most things, I don't think this is an impediment to my argument. It is this very observation - that there are only a few forces that are not repeated - that drives some to seek a single unifying force, but on the other hand we may yet discover there are many more forces than the few we see. This, I think, is quite likely. My feeling is that what we know of as energy, for instance, is just one of many forms of energy that are either not physical, as we know physicality, or simply not physical at all. I am not speculating here or believing, these are conclusions arrived at through what I do believe are sincere and sober arguments.

[Jonathan.s]

I don't understand how evolutionary biology 'explains' the progression from inert substances, through to living cells, through to intelligent self-aware beings. I know about 'deep time', I understand the fossil record, and I have no doubt about the objective facts. You can't argue with fossils. But natural selection does not create - it prunes, it prevents oddities, it stops things from happening. People talk about evolution as if it 'does' things - evolution does this, evolution does that. Natural selection doesn't do anything. It is not a force or an agency. I sense something missing here. I don't want to call it God, actually. I am not wedded to the Bible or christian beliefs in particular. But I would have to admit to being much nearer to theistic evolution than scientific materialism (if it isn't already obvious).

[Bernard]

I attended Carlos Castaneda's last major public seminar in 1997. In one of his enthralling lectures he said Darwin's theory was full of holes. What he represented then was the view from within the ancient Mexican tradition of shamanism that he became involved in, was that what was responsible for evolution was intent - the example he gave was that the dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds because they intended to fly. Intent was regarded in that tradition as an actual force that permeates everything and that can be summoned and manipulated. It was also of their view that the womb of women had a secondary function, beside the primary one of reproduction, that was energetic and linked directly to the force of intent, and therefore the primary driver of evolution.

Its a view I have been able to verify through my own limited practices and observations of this heritage of Ancient knowledge.

[ForgedinHell]

I don't understand how evolutionary biology 'explains' the progression from inert substances, through to living cells, through to intelligent self-aware beings. I know about 'deep time', I understand the fossil record, and I have no doubt about the objective facts. You can't argue with fossils. But natural selection does not create - it prunes, it prevents oddities, it stops things from happening. People talk about evolution as if it 'does' things - evolution does this, evolution does that. Natural selection doesn't do anything. It is not a force or an agency. I sense something missing here. I don't want to call it God, actually. I am not wedded to the Bible or christian beliefs in particular. But I would have to admit to being much nearer to theistic evolution than scientific materialism (if it isn't already obvious).

It's called the second law of thermodynamics. Chemical reactions go in the direction of increasing disorder. There is a hatural tendency as a matter of physics and chemistry for the substances that build living organisms to form into living organisms. And natural selection is composed of much more than you are stating here. Part of it is dependent upon mutations, and some of those mutations make an organism better off. Is that creation in your opinion or something else? There is not the slightest hint of anything supernatural going on in evolution. Just the opposite is the case.

[Notvacka]

I don't understand how evolutionary biology 'explains' the progression from inert substances, through to living cells, through to intelligent self-aware beings.

Then you understand it correctly, because evolutionary biology explains how life on earth has evolved, not how inert matter became living matter to begin with.

[Jonathan.s]

There is a hatural tendency as a matter of physics and chemistry for the substances that build living organisms to form into living organisms.

In other words, it is just so.

[ForgedinHell]

There is a hatural tendency as a matter of physics and chemistry for the substances that build living organisms to form into living organisms.

In other words, it is just so.

"Just so"? Look, reality is what reality is. The laws of physics do explain what is going on. Mathematical probability theory predicts quite precisely such things as genetic drift. IF there were something supernatural buggering about in evolution, then the evidence would not fit the laws of physics or fall within mathematical description. Can you think of any aspect of evolution that does?

[Jonathan.s]

The laws of physics are over-rated. The historical context for that idea is that when Newton discovered them, it appeared to tie up all the observable phenomena in the known universe. Newton himself thought he was discovering 'Gods Laws'. That is why they have been put on such a pedestal. It is part of the process of secularization which replaced 'God' with 'The Universe' and 'Religion' with 'Science'. (See The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Allen Gillespie.)

I don't want to cast myself on the side of the Christian apologists, because I'm not. I am interested in spiritual principles. Here is what I observe. If you look at nature, generally speaking, everything gets old and decays. This is in line with the law of increasing entropy, but that is not the point. There is only one type of thing that is ever new in nature, and that appears in the form of living things. Life itself is ever-renewing. While everything else runs down, rusts, corroded, corrupts, life is always renewing itself. This goes not only for individuals but also for the development of new species.

Now, why is that? I don't want to say that it is "God". That immediately puts it within the domain of organized religion and dogma. I prefer the Vedic understanding: tat tvam asi, 'that thou art'. Whatever it is that generates this constant source of novelty, it is also your very being. It is like constant 'horn of plenty', the cornucopia, and also the effortless abundance of the divine, the Pleroma.

The job of philosophy, in the ancient world, before the current age of universal confusion, was for the philosopher to realize that being in his or herself. If you can realize that, and align yourself with it, there is nothing else to worry about.


Artwork from Alex Grey

[ForgedinHell]

The laws of physics are over-rated. The historical context for that idea is that when Newton discovered them, it appeared to tie up all the observable phenomena in the known universe. Newton himself thought he was discovering 'Gods Laws'. That is why they have been put on such a pedestal. It is part of the process of secularization which replaced 'God' with 'The Universe' and 'Religion' with 'Science'. (See The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Allen Gillespie.)

I don't want to cast myself on the side of the Christian apologists, because I'm not. I am interested in spiritual principles. Here is what I observe. If you look at nature, generally speaking, everything gets old and decays. This is in line with the law of increasing entropy, but that is not the point. There is only one type of thing that is ever new in nature, and that appears in the form of living things. Life itself is ever-renewing. While everything else runs down, rusts, corroded, corrupts, life is always renewing itself. This goes not only for individuals but also for the development of new species.

Now, why is that? I don't want to say that it is "God". That immediately puts it within the domain of organized religion and dogma. I prefer the Vedic understanding: tat tvam asi, 'that thou art'. Whatever it is that generates this constant source of novelty, it is also your very being. It is like constant 'horn of plenty', the cornucopia, and also the effortless abundance of the divine, the Pleroma.

The job of philosophy, in the ancient world, before the current age of universal confusion, was for the philosopher to realize that being in his or herself. If you can realize that, and align yourself with it, there is nothing else to worry about.


Artwork from Alex Grey

Life comes at the expense of even greater entropy to the surrounding environment. Writing that the laws of physics are overrated, is just an incredibly ignorant statement to make. The fact that science increases its knowledge and has the ability to correct its mistakes is not a reason to discount science. No other discipline has ever approached the success of science. As Carl Sagan pointed out, "Science delivers the goods."

Religion is not "understanding" it is made-up crap. You may find comfort in being ignorant, but I would rather take the side of science, and face the world as it really is, as best we can know it, than pretend to have knowledge in made-up gibberish. The laws of physics govern everything.

[chaz wyman]

Wilson and Dawkins are having the mother of all battles at this very moment. Quite apart from the specifics of the debate, the vituperative tone is an interesting reflection of the politics of evolutionary science.

This debate is a complete no-brainer.
Dawkins position which emphasises gene selection is wrong and so is WIlson's emphasis on group selection.

It is plainly obvious that selection occurs when some individuals die, and other individuals survive. There are no simple criteria for determining "fitness", because perfectly good individuals die and perfectly crappy ones survive. Additionally each surviving individual comes replete with a collection of neutral , negative and positive traits, genes and behaviours, so it is not possible to simply point to a gene and say that gene in particular is what has caused the individual to survive.

All we can do is speculate. Both Dawkins and WIlson are both right and wrong. They are both right because you can look into genes, individuals, kin, groups, environment to try to understand the process; they are both wrong to deny the other's work and pretend that their emphasis is the better one.

Darwin said pretty much all that needed to be said about the Origin of Species, all the rest is hot air speculation and a means of perpetuating a career in Biology.

[Notvacka]

So seeing that we think \and talk about the universe, we can safely say it is a thing, and because we can say it is a thing we MUST deduce that it is one of many like things, because there is no observation of any thing that tells us that there are 'one off' things.

Things do not exist as "things" outside human consciousness. Identifying "things" is something that we do when we try to make sense of the world.

A qoute from another topic:

If objects exist in nature then there must be some natural process or substance that establishes their physical limits. An analogy is the drawing of a line around a cartoon figure. No such process or substance has ever been identified.

Oh yes, it has. It's the process of human consciousness. Humans are part of nature just like everything else. The process of identifying (establishing) objects is a human process, but that doesn't make it anything other than a "natural" process.

The only problem here is that you use the world "nature" as if humans and human behaviour were somehow excluded from it.

That we denote the totality of physical existence with the word "universe" (drawing a line around everything as in the cartoon analogy above) does not necessitate the existence of other universes like it.

[Bernard]

Things do not exist as "things" outside human consciousness. Identifying "things" is something that we do when we try to make sense of the world.

Baloney! We are separate things, otherwise we wouldn't be communicating; there would be no need.

A qoute from another topic:

If objects exist in nature then there must be some natural process or substance that establishes their physical limits. An analogy is the drawing of a line around a cartoon figure. No such process or substance has ever been identified.

Oh yes, it has. It's the process of human consciousness. Humans are part of nature just like everything else. The process of identifying (establishing) objects is a human process, but that doesn't make it anything other than a "natural" process.

The only problem here is that you use the world "nature" as if humans and human behaviour were somehow excluded from it.

That we denote the totality of physical existence with the word "universe" (drawing a line around everything as in the cartoon analogy above) does not necessitate the existence of other universes like it.

That is such a cop-out. The universe is there whether we denote it or not... talk about a species with a God complex! Sheesh!