Scientific Materialism Is NOT Intellectual Fascism-Proof Inside!

Torgo · Apr 2, 2012

Diana Hignutt said:
So, certainty almost describes Dawkins.

Almost. But not quite. Some religionists did a fair amount of crowing recently when they discovered this about Dawkins, pretending that he'd softened his position, but it's always been where he's at.

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 2, 2012

Diana Hignutt said:
So, certainty almost describes Dawkins.

Bit of a misplaced modifier: Almost certainty describes Dawkins.

Or to be really pedantic:

Dawkins certainly describes Dawkins' almost certainty.

I think there is a critical difference here. Dawkins espouses lack of certainty as a moral good. Most philosophers and all competent scientists do. Doubt is vital in science and self doubt is vital in philosophy.

But in the more reactionary brands of religion, doubt is a moral evil opposed to what they claim 'faith' is.

But the few really faithful people I've met, have as much doubt as the best scientists and philosophers. They doubt themselves and they doubt their understanding of what God (or whatever they follow) is like. They do not trust the limitations of their human intelligence and understanding. As a result they are very anti-fundamentalist, even the ones who belong to pretty heavy Bible following Christianity.

Lhipenwhe · Apr 2, 2012

Torgo said:
I think you are doing Dawkins a disservice. I don't think he's saying Hitler wasn't evil - at least in an everyday sense of the word. I think he's saying that it's a genuinely difficult question as to how we arrive at that judgment.

If you're not religious, ethics is actually a difficult and complicated subject. We tend to have no difficulty perceiving that Hitler was evil, but our justification for that belief is often slippery. Are we deontologists - do we feel that some actions are wrong in and of themselves? Or are we teleologists - do we feel that actions are wrong only by virtue of their effects? Do we feel that something is right or wrong based on the intention of the moral agent involved, or is that of no consequence?

It's easy if we have a book telling us THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, because stealing is a sin, and sin is bad because God doesn't like it. If we want to explore a little deeper than that it's actually quite important that we can ask questions like "What prevents us from saying that Hitler was right?" (NB: Dawkins clearly feels that SOMETHING prevents us. He's interested in what that is.)

I probably should have put another quote of his:

“Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Dawnkins' finds it hard to arrive at a moral judgement involving Hitler, yet compares 'religion' to one of, if not the most, lethal virus on Earth. As A Jew and someone who actually studied smallpox, I'm offended as Hell (haha, I made a lame joke) by his complete, utterly sweeping statements and arrogance that he said those words in.

Relating to a previous post I made (also in an attempt to make this one on-topic), you don't need to be religious to be an asshole, or intolerant. Believing in something usually precludes disagreement with something else, and human history abounds with idiotic conflicts and murders over incredibly idiotic beliefs. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not -- it only requires someone to believe that their belief is better superior to others and the will/ability to force that opinion on someone else to be repressive.

Man I'm sophistic lately.

Torgo · Apr 2, 2012

Lhipenwhe said:
Dawnkins' finds it hard to arrive at a moral judgement involving Hitler, yet compares 'religion' to one of, if not the most, lethal virus on Earth. As A Jew and someone who actually studied smallpox, I'm offended as Hell (haha, I made a lame joke) by his complete, utterly sweeping statements and arrogance that he said those words in.

I think you're still being unfair. He doesn't find it hard to arrive at the judgement about Hitler, he's just not sure which way he came. If you keep spinning that statement like he's not sure whether Hitler is evil or not... Well, you're going to be offended. I'm not sure it's Dawkins who is offending you, however, because his own words don't really support the conclusion.

I think it's quite proper to draw an analogy between religious faith - or indeed any kind of idea - and a virus; it's not a particularly flattering comparison, but you can apply epidemiology to the spread of memes. He's been doing it since The Selfish Gene.

Relating to a previous post I made (also in an attempt to make this one on-topic), you don't need to be religious to be an asshole, or intolerant. Believing in something usually precludes disagreement with something else, and human history abounds with idiotic conflicts and murders over incredibly idiotic beliefs. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not -- it only requires someone to believe that their belief is better superior to others and the will/ability to force that opinion on someone else to be repressive.

But you see I don't think Dawkins can be accused of much of that. He may believe his beliefs are superior, but he has never tried to force them on others, or to fight or murder anyone over them. His MO is basically to write books and articles full of reasoned arguments in favour of his position.

Lhipenwhe · Apr 2, 2012

Torgo said:
I think you're still being unfair. He doesn't find it hard to arrive at the judgement about Hitler, he's just not sure which way he came. If you keep spinning that statement like he's not sure whether Hitler is evil or not... Well, you're going to be offended. I'm not sure it's Dawkins who is offending you, however, because his own words don't really support the conclusion.

I think it's quite proper to draw an analogy between religious faith - or indeed any kind of idea - and a virus; it's not a particularly flattering comparison, but you can apply epidemiology to the spread of memes. He's been doing it since The Selfish Gene.

But you see I don't think Dawkins can be accused of much of that. He may believe his beliefs are superior, but he has never tried to force them on others, or to fight or murder anyone over them. His MO is basically to write books and articles full of reasoned arguments in favour of his position.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Dawkin's... 'interesting' statement on morality and Hitler. However, I apologize for not making my sophistry regarding scientific fascism clearer: I don't regard Dawkins as an intellectual fascist, or someone who forces his beliefs on others. Although I think he's an incredible asshole, I don't think he's oppressing anyone.

Again, my apologies for my confusing post.

Torgo · Apr 2, 2012

Dawkins has often spoken of Hitler's 'horrific deeds' and referred to him as a 'monster', so I'm not sure how there can be disagreement about his views on Hitler's morality....

veinglory · Apr 2, 2012

Materialism =/= atheism =/= science. In this thread, as in most discussions, they are hopelessly conflated.

Amadan · Apr 2, 2012

Lhipenwhe said:
Dawnkins' finds it hard to arrive at a moral judgement involving Hitler, yet compares 'religion' to one of, if not the most, lethal virus on Earth.

That's disingenuous. I don't think Dawkins is at all ambivalent about whether or not Hitler was a bad person who did bad things. The context of his quote is that it's difficult to frame morality as some sort of objective, universal constant by which we can call Hitler evil in the same way that we can call fire hot. I find your implication that maybe Dawkins doesn't think Hitler was wrong to be reaaaaaally sketchy.

As for his quote about faith and smallpox, his position is that faith has caused death and harm comparable to smallpox. You may disagree with him, but it's an argument with reason behind it, it's just not arrogant flame-bait (though he certainly chose his words for their polemic value). Also, I have to say that the subtle implication that criticizing faith implies criticizing Judaism implies anti-Semitism really grates on me too.

Torgo · Apr 2, 2012

Amadan said:
Also, I have to say that the subtle implication that criticizing faith implies criticizing Judaism implies anti-Semitism really grates on me too.

To be fair I am not sure that was the intention; I read that as part of the Hitler point rather than the smallpox point.

Lhipenwhe · Apr 2, 2012

Torgo said:
To be fair I am not sure that was the intention; I read that as part of the Hitler point rather than the smallpox point.

Yes. I had a problem with it because (my interpretation of what) Dawnkins said, as I mentioned in an earlier post. His criticisms of Judaism are (almost certainly) justified and correct, and I wouldn't call them antisemitic; I'm a non-theistic Jew myself.

blacbird · Apr 2, 2012

veinglory said:
Materialism =/= atheism =/= science. In this thread, as in most discussions, they are hopelessly conflated.

True, and well-expressed. The further issue is by whom are they hopelessly conflated. Not by me, I assure you. But I have a pretty fair idea, and it's not hard to find out who.

caw

blacbird · Apr 2, 2012

Diana Hignutt said:
Further, you have some evangelizing Sceintific Materialists and your evangelizing Atheists.

"Evangelizing"?

Name one. Even Dawkins, who seems to be point man for this discussion, doesn't have a TV show or network, and doesn't call for people to come forward and bow down and accept his ideas and, oh yeah, give him "free-will" donations, on the implied threat of being condemned to eternal burning in the afterlife if they don't.

There is no atheist equivalent of John Hagee or James Dobson or Joel Osteen or Ted Haggard or Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham or Sun-Myung Moon.

caw

caw

areteus · Apr 3, 2012

Hitler is not evil if you consider the concept of 'supernatural evil' i.e. state that Hitler was somehow motivated by Satan to do what he did or that he set out to do evil things. I think Dawkin's point here is that he did what he did for what he considered to be perfectly rational and logical reasons to do with the survival of his people. Many world leaders have been in similar positions before, though most of them would never go so far as Hitler did.

I suppose one question you have to ask here is: If you were put into the exact same position as Hitler was, would you make the same decisions?

And what about the decision that led to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? Is that evil also? I think many see it as an essential step in the ending of the war in the Pacific but it was still a morally dubious act.

Note, I am not in any way justifying any act that Hitler made during the war nor providing an excuse (if anything saying that his actions were motivated by supernatural evil is the excuse). What he did was evil by a given definition of morality but it was not because he was the devil or some manisfestation of supernatural evil. He was just a man who made some incredibly bad decisions and had to live with the consequences. I think this is the point Dawkins makes - if you accept that there is a god then you have to accept that there is the devil (or some other manisfestation of supernatural evil - every religion has one...) and therefore you can attribute anything 'bad' to that rather than resting the responsibility on the heads of those who are actually responsible.

And now this debate has been well and truly Godwinned

As for smallpox and religion... I know that Dawkins is a big proponent of meme theory and does consider religions to be massive 'memeplexes' (collections of memes with a linked theme) which are passed down from generation to generation and spread like viruses.

Diana Hignutt · Apr 3, 2012

blacbird said:
"Evangelizing"?

Name one. Even Dawkins, who seems to be point man for this discussion, doesn't have a TV show or network, and doesn't call for people to come forward and bow down and accept his ideas and, oh yeah, give him "free-will" donations, on the implied threat of being condemned to eternal burning in the afterlife if they don't.

There is no atheist equivalent of John Hagee or James Dobson or Joel Osteen or Ted Haggard or Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham or Sun-Myung Moon.

caw

caw

How about Bill Maher? He made a movie, mocking other people's beliefs in a vague attempt to evangelize atheism.

But, I've already conceded virtually all issues raised in this thread (note the change of thread title), and I don't want to argue against points I've come to accept.

Amadan · Apr 3, 2012

Diana Hignutt said:
How about Bill Maher? He made a movie, mocking other people's beliefs in a vague attempt to evangelize atheism.

Yeah, any attempt to advocate for atheism is seen as "preaching atheism" (followed by "They're so mean!" if an atheist does more than raise his voice above a timid squeak or dares to suggest that religious people might be, you know, *looks around furtively*, whispers: wrong.)

I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher either (he's glib, sexist, and doesn't mind cozying up with the likes of Ann Coulter), but whoop-de-do, he made a movie that made fun of people. Yeah, that's totally like the evangelical Christian movement.

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 3, 2012

Diana Hignutt said:
How about Bill Maher? He made a movie, mocking other people's beliefs in a vague attempt to evangelize atheism.

But, I've already conceded virtually all issues raised in this thread (note the change of thread title), and I don't want to argue against points I've come to accept.

There's a good point in the matter of Maher. He's not a scientist. He's a fanboy. In his interviews with Dawkins and others he shows no more scientific understanding then Santorum or any of the other anti-science types around.

Maher is an evangelist for atheism not science. He is following one half of the classic evangelical strategy: to tear down and mock the views of ones opponents. But he doesn't do anything in the building up department.

Dawkins and before him Sagan did a good job showing the wonder and beauty of the universe from a scientific perspective. I don't think that's evangelism more like tourism advertising.

Sort of, "Come to the universe. We have such cool stuff here."

Of course, I've also done some of this professionally so take my comments with appropriate levels of salt for your nutritional needs.

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 3, 2012

areteus said:
Hitler is not evil if you consider the concept of 'supernatural evil' i.e. state that Hitler was somehow motivated by Satan to do what he did or that he set out to do evil things. I think Dawkin's point here is that he did what he did for what he considered to be perfectly rational and logical reasons to do with the survival of his people. Many world leaders have been in similar positions before, though most of them would never go so far as Hitler did.

I suppose one question you have to ask here is: If you were put into the exact same position as Hitler was, would you make the same decisions?

And what about the decision that led to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? Is that evil also? I think many see it as an essential step in the ending of the war in the Pacific but it was still a morally dubious act.

Note, I am not in any way justifying any act that Hitler made during the war nor providing an excuse (if anything saying that his actions were motivated by supernatural evil is the excuse). What he did was evil by a given definition of morality but it was not because he was the devil or some manisfestation of supernatural evil. He was just a man who made some incredibly bad decisions and had to live with the consequences. I think this is the point Dawkins makes - if you accept that there is a god then you have to accept that there is the devil (or some other manisfestation of supernatural evil - every religion has one...) and therefore you can attribute anything 'bad' to that rather than resting the responsibility on the heads of those who are actually responsible.

And now this debate has been well and truly Godwinned

As for smallpox and religion... I know that Dawkins is a big proponent of meme theory and does consider religions to be massive 'memeplexes' (collections of memes with a linked theme) which are passed down from generation to generation and spread like viruses.

I don't think we need to be this far in the Godwin zone. Dawkins is mostly talking about the greater difficulty in coming to an understanding of evil if one does not have argument from authority. I find this intellectually honest. He's not denying the evil of Hitler's actions, only the difficulty in creating a philosophicallly sound theory of ethics.

areteus · Apr 3, 2012

Makes sense, I suppose... but I still say that how you define evil is the root philosophical point in this argument. Your argument above is that Dawkins claims that he cannot provide such a definition (one that satisfies his own strictures on what a definition should be) therefore he cannot claim anything anyone does as being 'evil' due to that lack.

This idea of definitions also underlies the apples and oranges problem I mention earlier. Theological concepts of evil are fairly well defined and are what most people consider when they hear the word. How such concepts apply in a humanistic context is where the difficulty lies.

And technically, the moment anyone mentions Hitler the discussion has been Godwinned

Diana Hignutt · Apr 3, 2012

Amadan said:
Yeah, any attempt to advocate for atheism is seen as "preaching atheism" (followed by "They're so mean!" if an atheist does more than raise his voice above a timid squeak or dares to suggest that religious people might be, you know, *looks around furtively*, whispers: wrong.)

I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher either (he's glib, sexist, and doesn't mind cozying up with the likes of Ann Coulter), but whoop-de-do, he made a movie that made fun of people. Yeah, that's totally like the evangelical Christian movement.

Okay, he was the best I could come up with. Like I said, I'm with you guys on this one.

I've heard this argument from Fundamentalists, and I entertained it briefly. So, I brought it up to the smartest people I know (you guys)... and was cured of my error.

I apologize again.

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 3, 2012

Diana Hignutt said:
Okay, he was the best I could come up with. Like I said, I'm with you guys on this one.

I've heard this argument from Fundamentalists, and I entertained it briefly. So, I brought it up to the smartest people I know (you guys)... and was cured of my error.

I apologize again.

No need to apologize again.

At this point, I think we might be exploring what truth there is that is close to your original idea rather than determining in what way the original statement isn't true.

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 3, 2012

areteus said:
Makes sense, I suppose... but I still say that how you define evil is the root philosophical point in this argument. Your argument above is that Dawkins claims that he cannot provide such a definition (one that satisfies his own strictures on what a definition should be) therefore he cannot claim anything anyone does as being 'evil' due to that lack.

This idea of definitions also underlies the apples and oranges problem I mention earlier. Theological concepts of evil are fairly well defined and are what most people consider when they hear the word. How such concepts apply in a humanistic context is where the difficulty lies.

And technically, the moment anyone mentions Hitler the discussion has been Godwinned

I'm not sure it's technically Godwinning if what you are discussing is someone else Godwinning another discussion, which is essentially what Dawkins himself did. This might be MetaGodwinning.

I don't think Dawkins said he couldn't say that an act was evil or not, only that he didn't have a satisfactory definition, and that this showed that talking about evil was more complex for humanism and atheism than it is for those with an authority.

For the record, I usually use the following definitions of good and evil for actions:

An action is evil if it causes unnecessary suffering.
An action is good if it reduces unnecessary suffering.

This moves the argument for a given action down to the meanings of necessity and suffering which are more situational (but arbitrarily arguable).

I try not to say that people are good or evil, rather that they do or have done good or evil. No one does all of one or the other. Matters of justice and mercy are easier if we relate them to the doing of actions in context rather than trying to slap labels on people.

Returning to Godwinning: Hitler's actions are so evil that I would certainly have no problem with his removal, except that the person or persons who would kill him would be causing the death of another human being which is always rough on a person's psyche.

areteus · Apr 3, 2012

Metagodwinning... I like it. You should totally copyright that term

theorange · Apr 25, 2012

The sense in which the theology of scientific materialism is problematic is two-fold:

1. It spreads a belief in science as the only way of gaining knowledge, and this assumption becomes so ingrained in people that they don't even look at other possibilities.

2. It makes it unfashionable to pursue any other method of gaining knowledge. People in educated circles increasingly find it embarrassing to talk about religious or spiritual impulses.

That is a very dangerous and sad situation, since it is eminently clear that science does not now nor will it ever have all the answers.

Amadan · Apr 25, 2012

theorange said:
The sense in which the theology of scientific materialism is problematic is two-fold:

1. It spreads a belief in science as the only way of gaining knowledge, and this assumption becomes so ingrained in people that they don't even look at other possibilities.

2. It makes it unfashionable to pursue any other method of gaining knowledge. People in educated circles increasingly find it embarrassing to talk about religious or spiritual impulses.

That is a very dangerous and sad situation, since it is eminently clear that science does not now nor will it ever have all the answers.

Well, I don't see it as a bad thing that educated people find religion and "spirituality" increasingly embarrassing, but I'm one of those fascistic scientific materialists. :sarcasm

More seriously, science is the only way of gaining provable, reproducible, falsifiable knowledge, which is all that science is interested in, and if you are interested in "knowledge" that comes from outside of science, then there's no point complaining that science doesn't have the answers you want.

I have a problem with people talking about things like souls and afterlives and gods and the Universal Oneness of All Sentient Creatures as "knowledge" because it can never be anything but knowledge that exists inside your own head. It can't be passed on as provable knowledge, only as shared belief. Even if it's absolutely true that God answers your prayers and angels talk to you, until such time as God and angels manifest as verifiable phenomena (and therefore enter the realm of science), they are inherently personal and thus irrelevant to anyone who doesn't accept your experiences on faith.

Maxx · Apr 25, 2012

theorange said:
The sense in which the theology of scientific materialism is problematic is two-fold:

How is scientific materialism (which is technically a 19th century mode of deriving plausible explanations and has little or nothing to do with whatever is happening in the sciences now) a theology? It seems like it would be anything but a theology, especially in 19th century terms.

Scientific Materialism Is NOT Intellectual Fascism-Proof Inside!

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Nurture Phoenixes

Moving with my soul, step by step

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Moving with my soul, step by step

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

volitare nequeo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Moving with my soul, step by step

Very Tired

Nurture Phoenixes

Nurture Phoenixes

Very Tired

Nurture Phoenixes

Nurture Phoenixes

Rebellious philosopher

Got the hang of it, here