NY Times article: Books on Atheism

[Questioninggeller]

Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places
New York Times
By PETER STEINFELS
Published: March 3, 2007

Hey, guys, can’t you give atheism a chance?

Yes, it is true that “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins has been on The New York Times best-seller list for 22 weeks and that “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris can be found in virtually every airport bookstore, even in Texas.

So why is the new wave of books on atheism getting such a drubbing? The criticism is not primarily, it should be pointed out, from the pious, which would hardly be noteworthy, but from avowed atheists as well as scientists and philosophers writing in publications like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, not known as cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy.

The mother of these reviews was published last October in The London Review of Books, when Terry Eagleton, better known as a Marxist literary scholar than as a defender of faith, took on “The God Delusion.”

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds,” Mr. Eagleton wrote, “and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” That was only the first sentence.

James Wood’s review of “Letter to a Christian Nation” in the Dec. 18, 2006, issue of The New Republic began, “I have not believed in God since I was fifteen.” Mr. Wood, a formidable writer who keeps picking the scab of religion in his criticism and fiction, confessed that his “inner atheist” appreciated the “hygienic function” of Mr. Harris’s and Mr. Dawkins’s ridiculing of religion and enjoyed “the ‘naughtiness’ of this disrespect, even if a little of it goes a long way.”

But, he continued, “there is a limit to how many times one can stub one’s toe on the thick idiocy of some mullah or pastor” or be told that “Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of really nasty things.”

H. Allen Orr is an evolutionary biologist who once called Mr. Dawkins a “professional atheist.” But now, Mr. Orr wrote in the Jan. 11 issue of The New York Review of Books, “I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude that he’s actually more of an amateur.”

It seems that these critics hold several odd ideas, the first being that anyone attacking theology should actually know some.
...
Naturally, critics so fussy as to imagine that serious thought about religion exists, making esoteric references to Aquinas and Wittgenstein, inevitably gripe about Mr. Harris’s and Mr. Dawkins’s equation of religion with fundamentalism and of all faith with unquestioning faith.
...
Finally, these critics stubbornly rejected the idea that rational meant scientific. “The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism,” Mr. Nagel wrote.

“We have more than one form of understanding,” he continued. “The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics.”

So what is the beleaguered atheist to do? One possibility: take pride in the fact that this astringent criticism comes from people and places that honor the honest skeptic’s commitment to full-throated questioning.

This was only part, full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/books/03beliefs.html

 

[Pipirr]

“The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism,” Mr. Nagel wrote.

I prefer "world-rounding reductionism" myself.

 

[strathmeyer]

Is anyone feeling beleaguered?

 

[MajorOrgan]

“We have more than one form of understanding,” he continued. “The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics.”

What a great response to a claim that was never made.

 

[Gurdur]

What a great response to a claim that was never made.

Really? The claim that science (or "reason") can determine ethics is one that is made very often -- whether in the writings of Sam Harris, Dawkins or in a million posts on atheist boards.

 

[Jekyll]

Really? The claim that science (or "reason") can determine ethics is one that is made very often -- whether in the writings of Sam Harris, Dawkins

Have you got quotes on this for these guys? I'm quite familiar with the idea that science can determine what ethics already are. Matt Riddley's done a lot of work on this, but I haven't see anyone try to use science to determine what ethics should be.

 

[Dave1001]

This was only part, full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/books/03beliefs.html

I'm receptive to a lot of that criticism, but this part of the article seems a bit sketchy:

“We have more than one form of understanding,” he continued. “The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics.”

 

[Dave1001]

Have you got quotes on this for these guys? I'm quite familiar with the idea that science can determine what ethics already are. Matt Riddley's done a lot of work on this, but I haven't see anyone try to use science to determine what ethics should be.

Well I don't think 1st principle ethics can come from science, at least not as we currently understand it. But if for example it comes from social contract utilitrarianism, for example, we can then use the scientific method to settle what maximizes the interests of the social contracting parties.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well I don't think 1st principle ethics can come from science, at least not as we currently understand it. But if for example it comes from social contract utilitrarianism, for example, we can then use the scientific method to settle what maximizes the interests of the social contracting parties.

People evolved with certain ethical principles, because ethical principles are advantageous to social animals. They didn't "come from science," science just explained their origin.

 

[Gurdur]

People evolved with certain ethical principles, because ethical principles are advantageous to social animals. They didn't "come from science," science just explained their origin.

Really? Despite actually having been in science, I am unaware of any such "explanation" with the proper scientific rigor, explanatory power and falsifiability (experimental verification etc.). I AM aware of a great deal of speculation, but that still isn't the same thing as "explanation", is it?

BTw, your train of thought leads to a nasty trap;

• either we live in a fully determinist universe, with no such thing at all as limited free will, in which case it would be nonsense to talk about "ethics" -- there would be only behaviour, not ethics
  .
• or we have actually evolved the capacity of limited free will, and therefore the capacity of ethics, in which case you run straight into the problem Hume described in full 300 years ago -- that is, there is no logical way that you can derive a "should" (or an "ought") from an "is".
  .
• Plus of course you would be totally unable to explain why people come up with new ethics --- why there is creativity in ethics and change in ethical implementation.

Have you got quotes on this for these guys? I'm quite familiar with the idea that science can determine what ethics already are. Matt Riddley's done a lot of work on this, but I haven't see anyone try to use science to determine what ethics should be.

Matt Ridley has actually done work to describe how evolution has influenced our ethics -- not determined them. That is a completely different thing. Also see what I wrote just above in reply to ImaginalDisc.

For an interesting exercise full of fallacies, see here.

Here is Dawkins himself talking about something he terms "rational moral philosophy", wherein he rather fudges a lot and also yet again falls into the trap described by Hume.

Sam Harris invokes determinism in his "End Of Faith"; determinism of course means it really is bloody stupid to talk about what we "should" be doing ethically.

For a full list of quotes, with far more material, you'll have to wait on a wiki article I must write up soon. I'm more concerned with the unthinking groupies rather than Harris or Dawkins themselves; the hagiography surrounding both does not concern me much, only what people do with it, andhow it severely handicaps the secular humanist movement (since I am coming from the nagle of how to pursue a successful and truthful secular humanism).

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Really? Despite actually having been in science, I am unaware of any such "explanation" with the proper scientific rigor, explanatory power and falsifiability (experimental verification etc.). I AM aware of a great deal of speculation, but that still isn't the same thing as "explanation", is it?

BTw, your train of thought leads to a nasty trap;

• either we live in a fully determinist universe, with no such thing at all as limited free will, in which case it would be nonsense to talk about "ethics" -- there would be only behaviour, not ethics
  .
• or we have actually evolved the capacity of limited free will, and therefore the capacity of ethics, in which case you run straight into the problem Hume described in full 300 years ago -- that is, there is no logical way that you can derive a "should" (or an "ought") from an "is".
  .
• Plus of course you would be totally unable to explain why people come up with new ethics --- why there is creativity in ethics and change in ethical implementation.

Jump to any other conclusions lately? Altruism is an area of ongoing research in human and animal behavior. What on Earth does research into the biological roots of altruism have to do with determinism? You're arguing that the hypothesis that there are evolutionary origins of ethics must be false because of the implications? That's a logical fallacy.

P.S. You might be interested in reading how models for altruism inheritence make predictions which are validated by observation, which is quite a bit different from "speculation."

Group Selection
The first mechanism by which altruism can evolve does so under the process of group selection (see note). The following model of E.O. Wilson’s is a good example. Consider a population of N individuals. Within this population, their exists two types of individuals: an altruistic type (A) and a selfish type (S) who exist in proportions p and (1-p) respectively. Due to the altruistic nature of A-type individuals, each member of the population will experience an increase in offspring equal to the product of a value b (a measure of relative offspring gain) and the proportion of the population’s “total available altruism” that the member will benefit from. For S-types, this value will equal b* [Np / (N-1)], while for A-types it will equal b* [Np-1 / (N-1)], the difference reflecting the fact that altruists cannot benefit from their own altruism. If we then assign values to c (A-types’ decrease in offspring due to their altruism) and X (the number of offspring each individual can expect in the absence of altruism), we can then express the average offspring expected, W, of each type in the presence of altruistic behavior.

. . .etc. http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

 

[Gurdur]

Jump to any other conclusions lately?

You're getting ahead of yourself; how about simply trying to answer point by point?

Altruism is an area of ongoing research in human and animal behavior. What on Earth does research into the biological roots of altruism have to do with determinism?

Goodness, I was simply taking your claim about "explanation" to its logical consequence. You are aware of the difference between explanation and speculation, yes? And all that the term "explanation" entails?

You're arguing that the hypothesis that there are evolutionary origins of ethics must be false because of the implications? That's a logical fallacy.

Wrong yet again. I am taking the various hypotheses from a scientific angle. The hypotheses were in consequence as I outlined; and if you are unaware of how science performs in judging results by necessary predicted results (predictability, explanatory power), god help you.

Plus, of course, you're rather wrong on the logic front; if you think I am committing a logical fallacy, do please name it.

And you are completely wrong about what I am saying. I am not saying there are no evolutionary origins to ethics; induitably, IMHO, there are. However, given the most parsimonious explanation being that we have also evolved limited free will and demonstratable creativity in ethics, I was pointing out to you that evolution does not full explain ethics itself --- it merely explains (and only haflway "explains", given problems in testing and verification) the origins, which is a completely different thing. I was also pointing out to you that Matt Ridley's work, or anyone else's, does not fully "explain" ethics, in line with all the above.

Effects of complexity for $ 100, Alex.

P.S. You might be interested in reading how models for altruism inheritence make predictions which are validated by observation, which is quite a bit different from "speculation."

Since the predictions of evolutionary psychology do not fully explain human actions, and have only a mild predictive statistical power, certainly not a convincing one, trying to adduce one limited observation to backing up your claim that all "ethics" are thus explained is more than dubious, yes?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You're getting ahead of yourself; how about simply trying to answer point by point?

Goodness, I was simply taking your claim about "explanation" to its logical consequence. You are aware of the difference between explanation and speculation, yes? And all that the term "explanation" entails?

Wrong yet again. I am taking the various hypotheses from a scientific angle. The hypotheses were in consequence as I outlined; and if you are unaware of how science performs in judging results by necessary predicted results (predictability, explanatory power), god help you.

Plus, of course, you're rather wrong on the logic front; if you think I am committing a logical fallacy, do please name it.

And you are completely wrong about what I am saying. I am not saying there are no evolutionary origins to ethics; induitably, IMHO, there are. However, given the most parsimonious explanationbeing that we have also evolved limited free will and demonstratable creativity in ethics, I was pointing out to you that evolution does not full explain ethics itself --- it merely explains (and only haflway "explains", given problems in testing and verification) the origins, which is a completely different thing.

Effects of complexity for $ 100, Alex.

You're arguing that evolution cannot explain ethics because it implies things you don't like. Rather than attacking the proposal, you're attacking its implications. I cannot argue that I did not run a red light because it would imply that I need to pay a fine, the thing either happened or did not regardless of what I think about the implications.

 

[Gurdur]

You're arguing that evolution cannot explain ethics because it implies things you don't like.

Wrong yet again. Funny. But I can repeat myself as long as it takes to get the basic point over to you.

Either:
we are fully determinist, in which case the concept of ethics makes no sense (see my initial post to you for fuller explanation)
or
we have evolved limited free will, which explains our creativity in ethics and and the fact individual choice is present.

In neither above case, does science tell us what ethics "should" be. Get the point yet?

Rather than attacking the proposal, you're attacking its implications.

Wrong yet again. An established scientific method is to describe all logical consequences from a hypothesis. I can repeat this as well all day, if needs be. I find it awkward for you that you cannot yet name what logical fallacy I was supposed to be committing.

I cannot argue that I did not run a red light because it would imply that I need to pay a fine, the thing either happened or did not regardless of what I think about the implications.

I think you better go back and re-read my posts, rather than imagining things, since this is a total non sequitur of yours.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you finished inflating yourself?

You set up the following incorrect logical structure:

If Evolutionary origins of ethics (A) are true, then B, C or D must be true.

B, C and D are false.

Therefore, evolutionary origins of ethics are false.

You failed to demonstrate that B, C and D are false. You failed to demonstrate that A invariably must lead to B, C or D. Your logic is faulty.

 

[Gurdur]

BTW, I do assume you know what scientism is, yes?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

BTW, I do assume you know what scientism is, yes?

Are you capable of demonstrating that entertaining the hypothesis that ethics have an evolutionary origin equates to scientism?

 

[Jekyll]

Matt Ridley has actually done work to describe how evolution has influenced our ethics -- not determined them. That is a completely different thing.

Yes.

Dawkins himself talking about something he terms "rational moral philosophy", wherein he rather fudges a lot and also yet again falls into the trap described by Hume.

Not really, he's talking about questions and answers and what he would like in the world. He doesn't try to make the jump from 'is to ought'.

Sam Harris invokes determinism in his "End Of Faith"; determinism of course means it really is bloody stupid to talk about what we "should" be doing ethically.

No it's not. If we are *only* deterministic, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use effective reasoning to determine what we would be better off doing. It's what I expect from my fully deterministic computer programs, to make a best guess about what to do next in order to satisfy my criteria.

For a full list of quotes, with far more material, you'll have to wait on a wiki article I must write up soon. I'm more concerned with the unthinking groupies rather than Harris or Dawkins themselves; the hagiography surrounding both does not concern me much, only what people do with it, andhow it severely handicaps the secular humanist movement (since I am coming from the nagle of how to pursue a successful and truthful secular humanism).

There are idiots everywhere which is why I'm not to concerned with what some fan boy on the internet has said somewhere. But if someone like Harris or Dawkins was trying to justify a choice of ethics scientifically then I respect them enough that I'd like to see what they're thinking.

 

[Gurdur]

are you finished inflating yourself?

*snicker*
You're projecting. Now how about you try a rational response instead?

You set up the following incorrect logical structure:
If Evolutionary origins of ethics (A) are true, then B, C or D must be true.
B, C and D are false.
Therefore, Evolutionary origins of ethics are false.

You are totally wrong again. Why am I so unsurprised?
BTW, you still haven't named what logical fallacy I am supposed to be committing. Why so coy?

Here is a trimmed-down version of what I am actually saying:

• You claimed science can "explain" ethics.
  I pointed out to you science cannot tell you what ethics should be.
  Got that yet? It's a vital point.
• You kept on answering the above point with a non sequitur:
  you claimed that some of science deals with possible explanations of how ethics orginated.
  Therefore, you implied, science can explain ethics.
  I replied to you that human variability (especially individual choice and creativity in ethics) cannot be explained by mere recourse to evolutionary psychology --- since evolutionary psychology is not terribly good at predicting human choices, and is most certainly not 100 %.
  I pointed out to you that evolved limited free will is necessary for explanation.
• I also pointed out to you that science cannot tell you what your ethics should be.
• Thus I talked about
  a) your inflated claims about "explanation"
  and
  b) why unless you wish to assume full determinism, no such explantion is logically possible -
  and if you do assume full determinism, then the concept "ethics" itself is meaningless.

You failed to demonstrate that B, C and D are false. You failed to demonstrate that A invariably must lead to B, C or D. You logic is faulty.

The name of the informal logical fallacies you yourself are committing are "red herring" and "strawman". Cheers!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

*snicker*
You're projecting. Now how about you try a rational response instead?


You are totally wrong again. Why am I so unsurprised?
BTW, you still haven't named what logical fallacy I am supposed to be committing. Why so coy?

Here is a trimmed-down version of what I am actually saying:

• You claimed science can "explain" ethics.
  I pointed out to you science cannot tell you what ethics should be.
  Got that yet? It's a vital point.
• You kept on answering the above point with a non sequitur:
  you claimed that some of science deals with possible explanations of how ethics orginated.
  Therefore, you implied, science can explain ethics.
  I replied to you that human variability (especially individual choice and creativity in ethics) cannot be explained by mere recourse to evolutionary psychology --- since evolutionary psychology is not terribly good at predicting human choices, and is most certainly not 100 %.
  I pointed out to you that evolved limited free will is necessary for explanation.
• I also pointed out to you that science cannot tell you what your ethics should be.
• Thus I talked about
  a) your inflated claims about "explanation"
  and
  b) why unless you wish to assume full determinism, no such explantion is logically possible -
  and if you do assume full determinism, then the concept "ethics" itself is meaningless.

The name of the informal logical fallacies you yourself are committing are "red herring" and "strawman". Cheers!

What I actually said was,

People evolved with certain ethical principles, because ethical principles are advantageous to social animals. They didn't "come from science," science just explained their origin.

To which you replied:

BTw, your train of thought leads to a nasty trap;

* either we live in a fully determinist universe, with no such thing at all as limited free will, in which case it would be nonsense to talk about "ethics" -- there would be only behaviour, not ethics
.
* or we have actually evolved the capacity of limited free will, and therefore the capacity of ethics, in which case you run straight into the problem Hume described in full 300 years ago -- that is, there is no logical way that you can derive a "should" (or an "ought") from an "is".
.
* Plus of course you would be totally unable to explain why people come up with new ethics --- why there is creativity in ethics and change in ethical implementation.

None of which is at all relevant to saying that science can explain the origin of ethics and all of which is logically faulty as I explained above. Where do you get off accusing me of strawmen?