Berlinski's Wisdom
by BradfordNot unrelated to the film ‘Expelled -no intelligence allowed’-I submit for your thoughts and comments:
‘Dawkins is prepared to acknowledge the facts while denying their significance. Neither the Nazis nor the Communists, he affirms, acted because of their atheism. They were simply keen to kill a great many people. Atheism had nothing to do with it. They might well have been Christian Scientists.
In the early days of the German advance into Eastern Europe, before the possibility of Soviet retribution even entered their untroubled imagination, Nazi extermination squads would sweep into villages, and after forcing the villagers to dig their own graves, murder their victims with machine guns. On one such occasion somewhere in eastern Europe , an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave.
Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. “God is watching what you are doing,” he said.
And then he was shot dead.
What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals,Brown shirts, Black shirts,gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.
And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either.
That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.”
(taken from David Berlinski’s book ‘The Devils delusion Atheism and its scientific pretensions’)
June 19th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Funny, Berlinski supposedly doesn't believe the same things that Hitler didn't believe. Oh well.
And what was that on the belt buckle of all of those mass murders? Oh yeah, "Gott mit uns." Minor detail…
And he doesn't even get the word 'secular' right. Over here in non-crazyland, this is what it means:
http://dododreams.blogspot.com...
=======
[T]here was a good deal of misunderstanding … respecting the import of the word secular. There is no uncertainty about it. There is not a better defined word in the English language. Secular is whatever has reference to this life. Secular instruction is instruction respecting the concerns of this life. Secular subjects therefore are all subjects except religion. All the arts and sciences are secular knowledge. To say that secular means irreligious implies that all the arts and sciences are irreligious, and is very like saying that all professions except that of the law are illegal. There is a difference between irreligious and not religious, however it may suit the purposes of many persons to confound it. Now on the principles of religious freedom which we were led to believe that it was the purpose of this Association to accept, instruction on subjects not religious is as much the right of those who will not accept religious instruction as of those who will. To know the laws of the physical world, the properties of their own bodies and minds, the past history of their species, is as much a benefit to the Jew, the Mussulman, the Deist, the Atheist, as to the orthodox churchman ; and it is as iniquitous to withhold it from them. Education provided by the public must be education for all, and to be education for all it must be purely secular education.
-John Stuart Mill, “Speech on Secular Education,” 1849
=======
Comment by nickmatzke — June 19, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
June 19th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Very funny. I happened to know some Jews (such as my grandparents) who became atheists because so-called Christians committed the holocaust without being stopped by God.
Whatever it takes to discredit a scientific theory that doesn't sit well with your religious feelings, eh Bradford? I hope it keeps you from hitting the bottle again.
Comment by ully — June 19, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
June 19th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Not meant to be funny.
Christians are not an ethnic group. They share only common beliefs which do not include Nazism. Are you anti-German and if not why not? That was the common denominator of the Gestapo.
What scientific theory would that be? Scientism is more religious than scientific.
I'm not surprised. Help your wife take care of the baby.
Comment by Bradford — June 19, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
June 19th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Nick Matzke wrote:
LOL! That was a carryover from WWI, as was the Iron Cross.
The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race.
Josef Goebbels, 1939.
Keeping up appearances was part of the plan, you see:
Hitler’s evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity was crucial to the mediation of such an image to the church-going public by influential members of both major denominations. It was the reason why church-going Christians, so often encouraged by their 'opinion-leaders' in the Church hierarchies, were frequently able to exclude Hitler from their condemnation of the anti-Christian Party radicals, continuing to see in him the last hope of protecting Christianity from Bolshevism.
Ian Kershaw, 1987 "The ‘Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich"
I love the constant "stupid, ignorant, crazy, or evil" refrain from you schlubs. Those four ad hominem pigeonholes are the only defenses that you have left for your anemic worldview.
Since Berlinski is neither stupid nor ignorant, that narrows your choices down a bit. You'll stick with "crazy" until that's soundly destroyed, at which point you'll switch over to the atheist's version of "evil" – e.g., "lying for Jesus".
By the way, Nick, is English your native language? Because if so, you don't seem to know much about it. It's very fluid, especially under the influence of postmodernists and their lapdogs. The word "secular" had been twisted into a synonym for atheism by guys like Sam Harris long before Berlinski used it as such.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 19, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
June 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I meant "Joseph", not "Josef". Apologies for the sloppy editing.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 19, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
June 19th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
No. Implying that all the arts and sciences are irreligious is very like saying that all professions except that of the law are not about the law.
Well, the spelling is different, give him that.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 19, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 1:31 am
And Matzke poses as a scholar. Where'd you get your info – from MacNeill's blog?
What a joke.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 1:31 am
June 20th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Have a look at this page, Pez: http://www.das-koppelschloss.d....
Be sure to scroll to the bottom.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 2:01 am
June 20th, 2010 at 2:58 am
D did you Google that all by yourself?
Now try something like this.
http://militariawwii.com/origi...
"Gott Mit uns" was not a Nazi slogan, and wasn't worn by SS or officers.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/200...
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 2:58 am
June 20th, 2010 at 3:08 am
Yes, Pez, it was a state-issued buckle worn by soldiers of the German army in World War II.
And what was the point of linking to the blog of Theodore Beale? Is he some sort of authority on anything? I laughed at his characterization of the Wehrmacht as "the non-Nazi German Army." I suppose the Red Army was non-communist in the same sense.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 3:08 am
June 20th, 2010 at 3:48 am
Wait to get a laugh, Oleg.
I'm also super impressed you can use Day's real name. Well done. Now I don't believe his information at all. Especially since you have pictures.
The army had the slogan decades and decades before Hitler and the Nazis came on the scene. Hitler merely didn't deprive them of their tradition.
When the Nazis formed their own political army they did not use the slogan.
Hitler and the top Nazis did not believe God was with them. Hitler's god was the "laws of nature". He and his circle were determined to destroy religion.
Haha, the Wehrmacht was the non-Nazi German army. Isn't that funny? Since, obviously, the Nazi political party encompassed everything German.
Or not:
saith the wiki
Doesn't it ever embarrass you that you trot around the internet uncritically carrying the same water as any other atheist culture warrior? Yes, a slogan on a belt buckle refutes Berlinski's statement about Hitler and the SS.
Laugh hard because you won't laugh last.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 3:48 am
June 20th, 2010 at 3:53 am
I left off the rest of that wiki.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 3:53 am
June 20th, 2010 at 4:30 am
Pez, the Wiki article that you quote plainly says that the Wehrmacht committed war crimes, too. Immediately following the excerpt that you chose to emphasize is this:
And if you read the article further you will see that those God-fearing non-Nazi soldiers had anti-semitic views and approved of the treatment of the Jews:
Attempts to blame the German antisemitism on atheists aren't very convincing. The phenomenon has long historical roots going back as far as Martin Luther. Some atheist!
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 4:30 am
June 20th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Good job, you kept reading the very quote I supplied.
Change your claims much, Oleg? As you can see, Vox Day was right when he said that the Wehrmacht was not the Nazi army. No, that doesn't make them "God-fearing", it makes them not the mass murdering, concentration camp keeping, Nazi arm, the SS. That's the arm the Nazis formed and when they did they did not use the "Gott mit uns" slogan for them.
Hilarious. Trot off to the Luther archives with the rest of the internet atheists, Oleg. Not that you've actually read him or researched him. Google is your friend, isn't it? This kind of research can be found on any adolescent's "I hate God" site.
And nobody said that anti-semitism was an atheistic trait, did they?
When you can't argue facts through sand.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 5:12 am
June 20th, 2010 at 5:12 am
*throw*
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 5:12 am
June 20th, 2010 at 5:15 am
By the way, Luther wasn't an anti-semite. Learn words.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 5:15 am
June 20th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Pez, the point of Berlinski's argument is that a secular society is bad. He gives the persecution of the Jews by the godless Nazis as an example of what is wrong with it. But there is ample evidence that the persecution of Jews was carried out by both atheist and Christian Germans in World War II. The roots of the German antisemitism were not in the secular nature of the Nazi state, they went much deeper. Hitler slapped a new label on long-existing hatred but he did not invent it.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 5:29 am
June 20th, 2010 at 5:46 am
What tract did Luther write that influenced Stalin's murders … Against The Ukrainians? What did he write that Pol Pot and Mao slapped new labels on?
No, Berlinski's argument (you didn't read his book, either, did you?) didn't make that case. By the way, the Nazis sweeping into Eastern Europe didn't murder only Jews. Their hatred was not so selective as you'd like to pretend.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 5:46 am
June 20th, 2010 at 6:08 am
Pez, I am not arguing anywhere that Luther influenced Stalin or Pol Pot. His influence on the Nazis however has been well documented.
On a larger point, war atrocities aren't exactly the invention of atheists. Religion persecution of Christians by Christians is a fact of history. The Thirty Years' War has wiped out a quarter of the population in some German states and it wasn't exactly a secular conflict.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 6:08 am
June 20th, 2010 at 6:23 am
Oh yes, I know. Luther had them so whipped up that in 400 short years Hitler just couldn't take it anymore and he snapped.
War atrocities certainly are not the invention of atheists. They are a terrible fact of war. The fact that 52 atheist regimes killed 150 million people in under a century argues well for Berlinksi's point, though. And flipping open your playbook for the Argument From Belt Buckles doesn't exactly answer him.
His is an answer to the positive claim such as you are making. But you are doing it in supposed defence. In answer to the atheist habit of pointing at the tens of thousands dead in the name of religion as proof that religion is the Root of All Evil? or proof that God Is Not Great. He responds by showing what their atheistic (secular) attempts at Utopia have netted us.
The fact that the average atheist regime is thousands of times more likely to commit such atrocities, on scales many, many magnitudes greater demonstrates this nicely.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 6:23 am
June 20th, 2010 at 6:28 am
If you cite Luther too strongly and this supposed documentation (talk about Hitler grasping at whatever seems convenient) you're going to have some trouble when you also decide to convince me that most of the Nazis were good Catholics and that suicide-committing Adolph was never even (gasp) excommunicated.
Big fans of Luther, those Papists were.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 6:28 am
June 20th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Pez wrote:
The world population was much smaller in the medieval times. If you look at the fraction of the population killed in the Thirty Years' War, it's about the same as for World War II.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 6:33 am
June 20th, 2010 at 6:39 am
This'll do you a little better when you want to know about Hitler's influences. Just "find" Pez throughout that page.
http://telicthoughts.com/textb...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I ought to try for some sleep.
…
And now look at the fraction of atheists available over time to commit these atrocities. Did I mention they are a thousand times more likely?
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 6:39 am
June 20th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Pez, thanks for your tireless efforts, but when it comes to history I prefer better sources than Discovery Institute shills.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 6:43 am
June 20th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Then read my comments there and thrill to the copious sources I provide – especially that of Hitler himself.
Did you just call me a shill for the DI? Thanks so much. From you, high praise.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 7:05 am
June 20th, 2010 at 7:08 am
And yes, as you flip your way through your Thumbsmen notebook I fully expected you to add the genetic fallacy and a reference to the DI to your poor argumentation.
Ta ta.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 7:08 am
June 20th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Pez wrote:
No, I was referring to Weikart and Klinghoffer. You're not even at that level.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 7:12 am
June 20th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Not based on the silly slogan evidence introduced by Nick. In God we trust is an American governmental idiom. Although I applaud the meaning I would hardly attribute it to Americans as a whole. Nor would I use it as evidence that Americans are God fearing.
To be fair about the evidence though, there were atheists who opposed Hitler as well as Christians. The French writer Jean Paul Sartre comes readily to mind.
Comment by Bradford — June 20, 2010 @ 8:59 am
June 20th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Never read them,Oleg, so you can rest assured you won't read them when you check it out.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 9:26 am
June 20th, 2010 at 9:26 am
And all of this has precisely what to do with the scientific validity of ID? Let us assume (for the sake of argument) that atheism does indeed predispose people to commit atrocities in the course of prosecuting a war. What bearing does this have on the scientific validity of either evolutionary biology or ID?
Or, if you prefer, let us assume (again, for the sake of argument) that Christianity (or any other religion, such as Islam) predisposes people to committing atrocities in the course of prosecuting a war. Again, what bearing does this have on the scientific validity of either evolutionary biology or ID?
Just curious…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 20, 2010 @ 9:26 am
June 20th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Bradford wrote:
If this motto reflects anything, it's the existence of a strong religious sentiment. Here is what the US Treasury site says about the origin of In God we trust:
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 9:27 am
June 20th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I was inspired on this issue by this evolutionary biologist.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 9:45 am
June 20th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
Allen,
This site has long abandoned any defense of ID as a scientific enterprise and switched to bashing atheism.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 10:12 am
June 20th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Let’s flip that question around:
What bearing does evolutionary biology have on what I believe about ethics, morality and/or religion? Or, in other words, can ethics, morality and/or religion be explained totally in terms of evolutionary biology?
It appears to me that one of your colleagues there at Cornell, Will Provine, believes that evolutionary biology teaches us that: “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly.”
And, Dr. Provine is not alone here. Journalist Robert Wright, Michael Shermer, Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson have made similar types of claims. (And that is just to name a few.)
Indeed, Provine is quite correct in tracing this kind of thinking back to Darwin himself. Have you read The Descent of Man?
If the current debate was just about biology it would be far less passionate and divisive. The reason that it has become so passionate and divisive is because some advocates on your side of the fence have made evolutionary biology as a basis for their world and life view.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 20, 2010 @ 10:55 am
June 20th, 2010 at 11:01 am
JAD wrote:
So this debate has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with metaphysics. Right, John?
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 11:01 am
June 20th, 2010 at 11:30 am
John A. Designer asked:
Nothing.
No.
And, for the record, Will Provine (my colleague, mentor and best friend at Cornell) would answer these two questions exactly the same way I have. Indeed, he has when I have posed them in our Seminar in the History and Philosophy of Biology seminar.
Ergo, it seems to me that this entire discussion is, as Olegt has already pointed out, completely irrelevant to either evolutionary biology or ID as science.
My commentary in the link posted by Pez was not intended to address this issue either. Rather, it was intended as a direct response to Ben Stein's assertion in "Expelled" that Darwinian evolutionary biology leads directly (and, by implication, necessarily) to Hitler. So, Pez, to get back to what is supposedly the actual subject matter of this blog:
Assume (for the sake of argument) that atheism does indeed predispose people to commit atrocities in the course of prosecuting a war. What bearing does this have on the scientific validity of either evolutionary biology or ID?
Or, assume (again, for the sake of argument) that Christianity (or any other religion, such as Islam) predisposes people to committing atrocities in the course of prosecuting a war. Again, what bearing does this have on the scientific validity of either evolutionary biology or ID?
I believe that the answer to both questions is "none whatsoever". How about you? And if you agree, what is your opinion of the appropriateness or usefulness of discussions such as the one in this thread?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 20, 2010 @ 11:30 am
June 20th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Which can also be stated:
olegt has long abandoned any defense of his position as a scientific enterprise and switched to bashing ID.
Comment by ID guy — June 20, 2010 @ 11:38 am
June 20th, 2010 at 11:43 am
As for people making evolutionary biology the basis for their world view, I can confidently say that the overwhelming majority of the evolutionary biologists of my acquaintance (and I teach courses in what is arguably the largest and most prestigious department of evolutionary biology in the world) that all of them base their scientific research on evolutionary theory. However, none of them (as far as I know, and this includes Will Provine) base their ethics or personal relationships or anything outside of their scientific research on evolutionary theory, any more than they would base their ethics or personal relationships on Newtonian mechanics or the ideal gas laws.
Most scientists of my acquaintance, IOW, subscribe to Steve Gould's concept of NOMA, and don't mix their science with their ethics, metaphysics, or religion. Indeed, if they have thought about it all, they believe that mixing such fundamentally incommensurate activities is to commit a basic logical fallacy, with potentially serious results. This is why, for example, my freshman biology professor, William T. Keeton, could simultaneously write the first comprehensive biology textbook in which evolution by natural selection was used as a basic organizing principle for all of biology, and at the same time could be a highly respected member of the Ithaca Lutheran community. He, like me, saw no contradiction between his science and his religious faith. Do you?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 20, 2010 @ 11:43 am
June 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am
One could just as easily have written that "the reason that [this debate] has become so passionate and divisive is because some advocates on the ID side of the fence have made intelligent design a basis for their world and life view." In both cases, I would agree, and would point out that making a scientific theory a basis for one's "world and life view" is both pointless and extraordinarily limiting, if not downright pernicious. And that goes for partisans on both sides of this issue.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 20, 2010 @ 11:49 am
June 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Allen MacNeill:
The relationship between ID and science (which has been discussed by TTers) merits a post in which I'll quote your question.
The topic is worth discussing and indeed has been much discussed in other forums. Your question though about the propriety of discussing it within the context of this blog is legitimate.
Much time and effort by ID critics has been devoted to questioning the motives of IDists. Complaints that ID is a Trojan Horse abound. But the issue cuts both ways. Of the two camps (ID and anti-IDists) the former is more open and honest about their motivations. Most of them believe in God and acknowledge it. Most also admit that there is a subjective element to human nature to which they are not immune.
On the other hand, particularly since the Dover, PA trial in the aftermath of which most TEs abandoned active opposition to ID, active opposition to ID has a distinctly atheist flavor. Not all of course but probably most ID critics are atheists contending that their opposition is based on objective considerations of science. Calm detached reasoning mind you, nothing to do with the divine, moral values, culture wars and the like. A misleading narrative if there ever was one and one which should not go unchallenged.
Comment by Bradford — June 20, 2010 @ 11:53 am
June 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Bradford, I would welcome a discussion of the science of either evolutionary biology or ID, but only one in which neither of these was used as a stalking horse for a particular ethical, metaphysical, or religious point of view. If you want to talk about ethics, metaphysics, and/or religion, I'm fine with that as well, but only when we have all agreed that we are no longer talking about science.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 20, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I think I already answered your questioned, Allen.
I wrote up above:
“If the current debate was just about biology it would be far less passionate and divisive. The reason that it has become so passionate and divisive is because some advocates on your side of the fence have made evolutionary biology as a basis for their world and life view.”
To me ID is to modern evolutionary theory as materialism/ naturalism are to modern evolutionary theory. They are both top down philosophical interpretations of the scientific evidence.
If your side is going to continue to smuggle their philosophical and theological beliefs into the science, then it is indeed appropriate to call them on it.
So in other words, I agree it should make no difference whatsoever.
But, the problem is that it does. Why is that?
For the record I have never been an advocate of “ID as science.”
On the other hand, I do think that ID’ists have pointed out some legitimate scientific problems with modern evolutionary theory. You don’t need to be an ID’ists, however, to recognize those problems.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 20, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Agree with some qualification. The world view should not be the premise (you use the word basis) from which scientific conclusions are drawn.
However, I have no problem for world view being and inspiration to make an investigation. The hope being that the physical evidence will be supportive of a world view.
Science is approximately defined as: observation, hypothesis formation, experiment
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 20, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I, too, have pointed out many legitimate scientific problems with modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, I'm fairly notorious for asserting that the "modern evolutionary synthesis" of the mid-29th century is dead.
That's what any good scientist does, especially with their own work: subject it to the most rigorous and skeptical analysis possible. However, I generally don't think that a detailed examination of the metaphysical assumptions underlying one's day-to-day scientific work is a necessary part of such a skeptical analysis.
Metaphysical analysis, IOW, isn't science, and confusing the two has led polemicists on both sides of this debate into making some extremely dubious assertions.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 20, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Allen MacNeill:
That's fine with me and for the record I am in agreement with Hegel's oft quoted remark that an ought cannot be derived from an is. You will also encounter such discussions here and should assume that, at least with respect to this commenter, that metaphysical views should be assessed outside a scientific context.
This does however raise an issue about which I know not where you stand. There exists a school of thought contending that evolutionary biology can determine the origin of what we would term metaphysical values. It is found within a template that looks somewhat like this:
The virtually universal belief among humans that murder, stealing, lying… is morally wrong can be explained by reference to natural selection. These beliefs enhance reproductive success (cite the reasons why) and therefore at some point in time genetic changes (vaguely refer to the nature of them) would explain why we are organisms concerned about morals, religion, philosophy… The general approach has been panned by some and endorsed by others and the sides do not necessarily coincide with ID vs. non-ID.
Comment by Bradford — June 20, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Dawkins said it well:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 20, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Formally speaking, if we were to establish that there is reasonable evidence for the existence of God and that this God created the world, we could not, at least directly, scientifically assert He is interested in our moral behavior (that would not, strictly speaking be a scientific hypothesis, but it proceeds from the general assumption that creative Deities are interested in moral behavior).
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 20, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
[...] Berlinski's wisdom [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Essay from Berlinski — June 20, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I’d hate for the validity of ID to be tied to the question of whether we behave morally out of fear that God might punish us if we don‘t. That is obviously not true for non religious people. I deplore pro ID people suggesting otherwise. Either life changes intelligently and purposefully or it changes by accident and for no particular reason (and then “natural selection” somehow makes the process appear purposeful). Science has not suggested an alternative to those two choices. ID permit’s the concept of god, but does not depend upon belief in a deity. Intelligent, purposeful, creativity might be an innate aspect of all reality.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — June 20, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Perhaps, but do they base their scientific research on the premise that the universe and living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes?
Or do they base their biological research on the premise that the diversity of living organisms is due to blind, undirected chemical processes- cumulative selection of genetic mistakes?
The point being is that baraminology is based on the premise that allele frequencies can and do change. Mutations do occur and some/ many have some effect.
However "evolutionary theory" says that populations can change or they can remain (virtually) the same. It all depends.
Is that what they base their research on?
Comment by ID guy — June 20, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I agree.
Perhaps the point (OP) isn't so much about the ID but about the materialistic alternatives.
Comment by ID guy — June 20, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Allen MacNeill:
If it was a direct response you should have been responding to what the movie said. Neither Stein nor his interviewees, Berlinski most notably, said that Hitler was a direct or necessary result of Darwin. You were wrong on your post about Hitler as a Creationist and you are wrong in your assessment of the movie.
Here's a critical reviewer getting it right … part four.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resour...
I'll watch the movie later today if you want the direct quotes.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Before you rebut here's Weikart's rebuttal of your rebuttal.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resour...
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I doubt the validity of this statement. They may think they don't mix these things, but I'd be willing to bet that their worldview directly influences their interpretation of the empirical evidence.
It's a fact of life. Look at the Supreme Court. The "impartial" justices reliably interpret the law by their own worldview. Scientists are no different.
The Christians who come down on your side of the fence are often of the "liberal" persuasion and probably vote the same as you 90% of the time. IOW, their worldview is an indicator of the scientific positions they'll embrace.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 20, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
The mid-29th century?
Was that a “typo”, or are we caught up in some back-to-the-future scenario here?
Mathematician/philosopher David Berlinski is on record claiming that natural selection is insufficient to explain macro-evolutionary change.
He writes:
Is natural selection a scientific concept? Is it open skeptical analysis? Or, is it something sacrosanct that cannot be questioned?
But still that temptation is there as human beings to ask what it all means. Are you saying that scientists are not human? Afterall, at the end of the day that take off their lab coats and go home like everyone else. Don't they?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 20, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
JAD wrote:
Berlinksi is not a mathematician. And even if he was, that would not make him an expert in biology. He also rails against the Big Bang and the use of imaginary time in statistical physics, but that does not mean he understands either astrophysics or thermodynamics. Why would anyone take his opinion seriously is beyond me.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
David Berlinski's bio:
It's a safe bet he knows more about math and biology than olegt.
And I am sure he doesn't run around wearing a frustrated magnet cap, like oleg does…
Comment by ID guy — June 20, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
ID guy wrote:
Joe, no sane scientist would hire a newly minted philosophy Ph. D. as a postdoc. That would be a guaranteed waste of money. I've already mentioned that the postdoc claim sounds dubious.
Comment by olegt — June 20, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
MacNeill:
I don't think that is right. Provine says that if you believe in evolution there is no hope for free will or purpose. That certainly has to have some bearing on morality and ethics. No?
No bearing on religion? But evolution is the greatest engine for atheism ever. How can that have no bearing on religion?
He says that deeply bound to an evolutionary perspective is that there are no "ultimate foundations for ethics". That sounds like it has bearing on ethics.
"You're here today and you're gone tomorrow and that's all there is to it". Sounds like that has bearing on religion as well.
He "immediately began to doubt the existence of a Deity" after scouring his first year biology textbook and finding in it no evidence whatsoever for design. After evolutionary biology starts you here you give up the hope for life after death, then the hope for imminent morality and the idea of human freewill.
"If you believe in evolution … there's no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in life."
Are you sure about his prospective answers to those questions?
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
If evolutionary biology has no bearing at all on belief about religion why do you and Provine question your students on their religious beliefs before and after teaching a course on evolution and why do you note that their views change? Why do you say that your course will challenge your students' "naive" religious views if evolutionary biology has no bearing whatsoever on religious belief?
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
What Pez? Are you questioning their motives? You should know better by now. They are free to question the motives of ID’ists, but you or I better not question their motives. It’s called the double standard. Do you see how that works?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 20, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Gasp. Not at all, JAD.
I'm just aware that they do poll their students and that they do notice a change in their students' beliefs.
It seems that MacNeill and Provine are both aware that the teaching and knowledge of evolutionary biology does, in fact, have some bearing on beliefs about religion.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
No one said anything about a timeframe.
As if you would know.
How is that frustrated magnet cap working put fer ya?
No one cares what you mention as you have already proven to be a useless source for good information and a good source for dubious information.
Comment by ID guy — June 20, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
This is great- olegt thinks he knows Berlinski better than Berlinski.
No wonder the only people who take him seriously are the mindless drones who hang out over on AtBC…
Comment by ID guy — June 20, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Provine showing that evolutionary biology has no bearing on religion.
MacNeill verified these quotes.
Comment by Pez — June 20, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
June 20th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
This is what Dr. Provine wrote about NOMA:
It sounds to me like Provine doesn’t see NOMA as solving much of anything.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 20, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
June 21st, 2010 at 8:56 am
This ignores the many attrocities committed by Muslims in the twentieth century – who definitely thought God was watching (and approving) what they were doing.
These zealots often used the same torture methods as their atheistic counterparts – thus proving that evil comes in various disguises.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 21, 2010 @ 8:56 am
June 21st, 2010 at 8:23 pm
I think there are two issues here. The first is whether Nazis or communists are motivated by atheism. I think the answer is clearly "no". The very idea of a jihad to spread atheism would be nonsensical.
The more complicated issue is whether Nazis and communists, regardless of what motivated them, were only evil because they were atheists. A debate of that topic should start with Dawkins's page on the topic so as to avoid rehashing points already on the table.
Since the cited argument doesn't provide any reference that I can see, I'm not sure which statements of Dawkins it is referring to.
Comment by don provan — June 21, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
June 21st, 2010 at 10:49 pm
By noting Berlinski's reference to the bearded Hasidic Jew who stated “God is watching what you are doing,” you get another perspective on this which is that an absence of concern with morality and he who judges immorality leads to no restraints on authorities wielding absolute control.
Comment by Bradford — June 21, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:52 am
Karl Marx said that it's not enough for materialism to explain the world, it must also change the world.
Nonsensical?
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 22, 2010 @ 8:52 am
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:18 am
Sense and nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Comment by Pez — June 22, 2010 @ 10:18 am
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 am
http://www.answers.com/topic/j...
Comment by Pez — June 22, 2010 @ 10:25 am
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I understand where Berlinski is going, I'm just not clear how it relates to anything Dawkins has said.
The unstated premise of Berlinski's note is that Christians are moral and atheists are not. Keep in mind that hideous tortures of the Inquisition were performed because God was watching. Dawkins has presented many arguments against Berlinski's premise, so I'm not sure how to approach his comments since they appear to be unaware of the entire body of argument about this subject.
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:12 pm
That's an oversimplification. The premise is that a belief that God is watching inhibits immoral behavior. It may conflict with other drives like a will to rationalize behavior and therefore is not a foolproof predictor of good behavior. But if one is inclined to do evil and no one is watching, who is willing and able to impose consequences, then free reign is given to immoral impulses.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Once again, read Berlinski's quote here as a reply to the charge and claim of men like Dawkins that religion is the Root Of All Evil(?) and that secular(only) society would provide a better outcome.
Comment by Pez — June 22, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Provan, the unstated premise of your intentional misrepresentation is that you are in love with Richard Dawkins.
Comment by chunkdz — June 22, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I understand, and I think that is the oversimplification implicit in Berlinski's note.
I'll have to read it later, but I can imagine it's perfectly reasonable. But in the quote in the OP, it's been stood on its head: refuting that religion is a major cause of evil is not the same as demonstrating non-religion is a major cause of evil.
chunkdz: If you have nothing to contribute, just keep quiet.
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
My contribution is exposing your questionable tactics.
In the future, Don, try to avoid making up "unstated premises" and attributing them to others.
Comment by chunkdz — June 22, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
No, your contribution was to insult me. If you think I'm wrong, please explain why. I think I've made a fair summary of the idea behind "God is watching you".
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
My point (which was either missed or ignored) was that it's not only whether God is watching or not, but also which God is watching.
Radical Muslims believe in a God who approves the torture, rape and murder of "infidels". In the long ago past, there were some Christians who thought God approved the burning of heretics at the stake.
None of these IMO, reflect an awareness that the true God is watching us. It's not just a lack of belief in God, it's a lack of belief in the right God.
Jesus said "you'll know them by their fruits".
That's my point.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 22, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I don't see that anywhere in Berlinkski's wisdom.
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:34 pm
My intention was not to insult. It was to turn your own tactic back upon yourself. If you find it insulting then so would Berlinski likely find your misrepresentation insulting.
If you had read Berlinski's book you would not have had to to make up an "unstated premise" and attribute it to Berlinski. You could have actually used Berlinski's stated premise – which, not surprisingly, bears little resemblance to your puerile misrepresentation.
The truth is Berlinski does not make the claim that you attribute to him. You won't find it anywhere in the book. Yet here you are claiming that your completely fabricated premise is a "fair summary".
And when I protest your false accusation, you have the temerity to demand that I now refute your false accusation. I'll leave you to ponder the irony of using this Stalinist tactic given the subject matter of the thread.
We are used to intellectual laziness from the likes of you, Provan. But this is just disgraceful.
Comment by chunkdz — June 22, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:02 am
I wasn't presented with a book. I was presented with an article. It presented a morality play that implied that the Nazi, because he didn't believe God was actually watching, was without morals and shot the Jew cold bloodedly. The obvious implication was that if the Nazi had been a Christian, the Jew's statement would have made him reconsider and not act immorally. You've twice accused me of fabricating this analysis, but you haven't said one single thing to suggest how it is inaccurate. Yet you're accusing me of being lazy.
Comment by don provan — June 23, 2010 @ 2:02 am
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 am
The moral analysis would have preceded the encounter with the Hasidic Jew. Clearly moral standards held by Jesus conflict with Nazi values. You cannot believe in both.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2010 @ 8:31 am
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 am
Nor did I claim it was. I said that his claim misses a larger point.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 23, 2010 @ 8:57 am
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Neither the passage nor the book from which it is taken make the assertion that you claim.
That is because you made it up.
It took me exactly 18 seconds to find the story in context online. Berlinski clearly does not consider atheists to be "without morals".
You made it up. And it probably took you longer to make it up than it took me to look it up.
You made this up too.
I'm accusing you of being a disgrace. You make things up about people, and when someone points out that you made it up you demand proof that you made it up.
Then when you are pointed to the book, you pretend that you were never told about the book even though it was referenced in big bold letters in the OP.
And when it is pointed out to you that you are being intellectually lazy, you respond by calling me lazy for not doing your research for you.
Why don't you do 18 seconds worth of googling, Provan, and discover for yourself that Berlinski argues against relative morality, not amorality. Or do you really, really think that making up a false "unspoken premise" and attributing it to someone really is a "fair summary"?
What an awful disgrace you are. You should really feel shame about the way you conduct yourself here.
Comment by chunkdz — June 23, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Well, that's a larger question. Berlinski's wisdom is focused specifically on Dawkins's denial of the cause for that descrepency being atheism, calling that "acknowledge the facts while denying their significance", but Berlinski seems to have failed to make that case. Berlinski is simply assuming the cause is atheism, ignoring significant arguments already on the table to the contrary.
Comment by don provan — June 23, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
chunkdz,
Not interested.
Comment by don provan — June 23, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:52 pm
You were interested enough to make up a false premise. You just weren't interested in the truth.
Most people would feel shame about this.
Comment by chunkdz — June 23, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I think Berlinski's wise enough to recognize how much this would weaken his argument. It would beg the reader to consider whether there's anything inherent in the concept of God that actually supports the case Berlinksi's trying to make against Dawkins's statements about atheism.
Comment by don provan — June 24, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Hi Don,
I'm sure you are a capable thinker but sometimes pure reason falls to revelation – especially when you invent uncharitable premises. Sometimes knowing your subject matter is valuable if you are going to keep on talking about it.
Berlinski is not dishonest and is not trying to trick his readers into abandoning thought. Twice in the first chapter Berlinski discusses radical Muslims, how their belief overflows into action, and how the "advent of militant atheism marks a reaction – a lurid but natural reaction – to the violence of the Islamic world."
"Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The Twenieth century was not an age of faith and [contrary to the claims forwarded and rebutted previously in the chapter] it was awful".
He is answering stupid statements like Weinberg's "But for good people to do evil thikings, that takes religion".
Comment by Pez — June 24, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
*
"evil things"
*
Comment by Pez — June 24, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Pez,
David was talking about which God was watching, not which religion one followed. Since the original quote was about atheism, even suggesting that there are real Gods and other gods such as a Muslim God shoots that argument in the foot. I'm not sure what made you think I considered Berlinski dishonest simply because he avoids a faulty argument.
On another note, it strikes me as odd that he should be rebuting "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" with an example of Muslims doing evil things because of religion, but I don't think that's the topic of this thread.
Comment by don provan — June 24, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
The point being that belief and adherence to the God of truth and love will stop one from doing evil things. Belief in another "god" or no god at all will tend to remove that barrier and -as has been amply demonstrated by history – open the floodgates of unspeakable atrocities which men will commit towards their fellow human beings.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 24, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
You have heard of the Inquisition, haven't you? You do understand those unspeakable atrocities were performed by people that devotely believed in and adhered to the God of truth and love, don't you?
Comment by don provan — June 24, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Sorry DP this is just incorrect the measure of “adherence” to a person is the correspondence of your conduct to his wishes.
The folks who ran the inquisition were not following the Commands of God as revealed in his word. Therefore it is illogical to say they adhered to him.
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
(John 14:15)
nice try though
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 24, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
And if you ever bother to read Berlinski you will find that he does not dispute this point.
The point is (the REAL point, Don, not the made-up point that you invented and attributed to Berlinski)
Do you really want to start counting bodies Don? Those killed by moral absolutists versus those killed by moral relativists?
You can go first. Spanish Inquisition. 3000.
My turn. Mao. 60,000,000.
Your turn…
Comment by chunkdz — June 24, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
June 24th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Please Don, do yourself a favour.
Matzke, Oleg and MacNeill embarrassed themselves enough on this thread.
Right. And Berlinski, rather than avoiding the issue of which god was being worshipped faced it head-on. Rather than claiming that any belief in any god would "support his case" he showed that radical Muslims were currently committing violence with the expectation that God is watching them. But it is a god that their teachings claim supports these behaviours.
You suggested Berlinski would avoid a fact that would cause people to think critically about his argument. That would be dishonest.
This is weak reading. He rebutted the claim as I said he did – by pointing out that the 20th century was not a period of faith and it was atrocious – in contrast to those who say it was just swell.
In so doing, he acknowledged, as Daniel has suggested, that people can do badly even when believing in God and also when they believe in a god who is not the God of the Bible.
This is all really obvious, is it not?
Yes, even Berlinski is aware of the Inquisition … and the Crusades. Can you get this point though …? He is answering atheists, like you and the gang above, who think that waving around the Inquisition proves something. IN RESPONSE to people who think this is a useful argument, who say Religion Poisons Everything and Religion Is The Root Of All Evil and It Takes Religion To Make Good People Do Evil, he says, wait, check out the 20th century and the atheist regimes.
By the way, if you actually, you can easily read up on the Inquisition(s) and how the religious Inquisitions were moderating influences and were preferred by defendants over the secular ones. They would often make statements of religious contention to get themselves placed before the religious authorities as opposed to the secular ones.
Comment by Pez — June 24, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
June 25th, 2010 at 1:55 am
Pez wrote:
I, for one, have never said that religion is the root of all evil. And if Berlinski, like you, is using tu quoque to argue against a secular society, that's a weak argument. Take this piece,
and ask yourself: what is Berlinski's alternative to that? A society governed by religious authorities? That is, after all, the meaning of a non-secular society. But a merger between the church and the state is no guarantee against brutal wars. In fact, history shows that in this case, wars can and will be waged in the name of God. The French wars of religion fought in the late 16th century (Catholics v. Protestants) had reduced the country's population by 10-20%. Did they think God was not watching them? Au contraire.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2010 @ 1:55 am
June 25th, 2010 at 2:02 am
No, Oleg, it is not a "so's your mama".
It is an answer to the charge that only religion allows good people to do evil, that a secular society would be a better, more peaceful society. Berlinski says this and I've said it many times. Internet charges of fallacy this and fallacy that are so weak – especially when you get it wrong.
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2010 @ 2:02 am
June 25th, 2010 at 2:27 am
That's a non-answer, Pez.
I can see what Berlinski is arguing against, but the passage does not make it clear what he stands for. That's typical of him. He argues against theory of evolution but (guess what?) he does not argue in favor of ID. He can rail against a secular society, but (as far as I can tell) he is not an advocate of merged church and state. He is merely a contrarian.
Berlisnki is also a hypocrite. He is an agnostic himself and prefers to live in a thoroughly secular society. That's quite ironic, isn't it?
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2010 @ 2:27 am
June 25th, 2010 at 2:41 am
How's it a non-answer, Oleg? A non-answer to what?
So what is he's a contrarian? So what if he's got irritable bowel disorder?
That doesn't mean he said things he didn't say, or made arguments he didn't make. It doesn't argue against the case he did make or the challenges he did answer.
If you guys can't be bothered to read these people why do you continue to talk about their books?
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2010 @ 2:41 am
June 25th, 2010 at 3:15 am
Maybe at least read about the book.
http://apologetics315.blogspot...
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2010 @ 3:15 am
June 25th, 2010 at 3:22 am
Pez wrote:
Why don't you get some sleep, Pez? You are not even trying to make a coherent argument.
It wasn't "us" who brought up Berlinski's passage in this thread. Unless Bradford turns out to be a double agent, a possibility that I'm willing to entertain but not to bet on. It's your side who continnually brings up Berlinski, Meyer, Wells, Dembski and company. "We," on the other hand, keep wondering why people at TT still regard Discovery Institute and its fellows as a credible source of information on anything.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2010 @ 3:22 am
June 25th, 2010 at 4:05 am
I can't argue against anything if you can't say anything relevant, Oleg.
But I can shoot down your irrelevant claims.
Berlinski's so-called hypocrisy is irrelevant to his arguments (although I agree he's made a mistake in his choice of countries, what with his "secular" home now being more violent that the U.S. …. yes, I know it's irrelevant, just thought you'd like it). So is your latest boo-hoo "it wasn't 'us' who brought it up'.
So? You're the ones talking about Berlinski without knowing the book and with no knowledge as to what he said or what his arguments are. Who cares is you don't know 'what he's for'? His argument is against a claim, and your embarrassing gyrations don't rebut him.
Berlinksi's not a source of information. He is the source of an argument here. One you can't even acknowledge let alone answer.
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2010 @ 4:05 am
June 25th, 2010 at 4:06 am
One thing you got right – I ought to sleep. You just sit there and keep the world safe from Christians and IDists, though.
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2010 @ 4:06 am
June 25th, 2010 at 10:45 am
"We" keep wondering who are you question anyone's credibility?
It is interesting that you seem to have issues with Berlinski but you refuse to discuss them with him.
It's as if what his says strikes a chord of reality, which exposes you, gets your panties in a knot, so you lash out at him…
Comment by ID guy — June 25, 2010 @ 10:45 am