Same Arguments, Different Movements
by MikeGeneHere's Michael Shermer writing in Science Magazine:
The data have spoken. The God Delusion is a runaway bestseller, a market testimony to the hunger many people"”far more, I now think, than polls reveal"”have for someone in a position of prestige and power to speak for them in such an eloquent voice. Dawkins's latest book deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature. (emphasis added)
The God Delusion is "an important work of science?" Isn't it odd how a popular anti-religious book, which reports no new experiments or data, and was not peer-reviewed, has become an Important Work of Science?
Have you begun to notice as we continue our transition into the post-wedge world, that the arguments used against the ID Movement are slowly being taken off the table to conveniently make room for the Anti-Religion Movement?
Now, science apparently CAN address supernatural causes.
Now, science and evolution apparently DO lead to atheism.
Now, there is apparently NO difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
And now, you can publish a popular book and have it transformed into a great work of SCIENCE (by an ID critic writing in Science when he is not writing for Scientific American).
When the ID Movement made these claims, the Type A Critics loudly and visibly opposed them. Are they behaving similarly when the Anti-Religion Movement makes these claims? You be the judge.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:10 am
BTW, you should check out the comments section at Dawkins' site. Shermer's review is positive. But in one place, he empathizes with his religious friends who might wince at Dawkins' steel-toed boots. This statement has caused most Dawkins' Fans to ignore the positive review and lash out at Shermer. LOL.
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2007 @ 12:10 am
January 26th, 2007 at 12:13 am
So PJ has been right all along….amazing.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 26, 2007 @ 12:13 am
January 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
No, when PJ says X, it's a lie. When RD says X, it's Reason.
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2007 @ 12:14 am
January 26th, 2007 at 12:38 am
No wonder he was and is hated so (PJ) he recognized their shell game along time ago, now its all coming out in the open. Sort of makes "Darwin on Trial" one of the greatest pieces of lterature ever wriitin LOL. My my its great to see PJ totally vindicated…sooooooo sweet.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 26, 2007 @ 12:38 am
January 26th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I share Shermer's amazement that a book advocating atheism has been a runaway best-seller, in the U.S. of all places. It's truly amazing — and truly heartening.
The God Delusion is currently #6 on the NY Times Bestseller List and has been there for 17 weeks. I wonder how many copies have been sold.
Vivid,
What specifically has "PJ" been right all along about?
Comment by keiths — January 26, 2007 @ 12:55 am
January 26th, 2007 at 1:02 am
That there is NO difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism for starters. That Darwinism at its core is metaphysics disguised as science.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 26, 2007 @ 1:02 am
January 26th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Vivid,
What is it about The God Delusion that makes you think there is no difference between MN and PN?
Comment by keiths — January 26, 2007 @ 1:19 am
January 26th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Science has adopted methodological naturalism as its demarcation point as to what is science and what does not qualify as science. Science assumes philosophical naturalism is true ( methodological naturalism) and then go about their business. Dawkings uses science which is based on methodological naturalim to disprove Gods existence thusly proving the reality of philosophical naturalism.
What is it about The God Delusion that makes you think there is no difference between MN and PN?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 26, 2007 @ 1:41 am
January 26th, 2007 at 3:32 am
This is essentially the point of MikeGene's post. A book advocating atheism (or philosophical naturalism) is reviewed in Science Magazine as "an important work of science." I.e, 'Science'='atheism', or philosophical naturalism.
This conflation of science and metaphysics was the focus of Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial.
Comment by BenK — January 26, 2007 @ 3:32 am
January 26th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Reading Shermer's review tells us why he thinks the book is an important work of science, and it's not for the reasons given above:
Comment by KC — January 26, 2007 @ 7:07 am
January 26th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Here is another similarity.
Shermer writes, "He then builds a case for "why there almost certainly is no God."" Kind of like someone making a case why a biological feature almost certainly did not evolve. In fact, Dawkins himself writes,
Our best estimate of the probability?? Perhaps a Dawkins Enthusiast can show us where Dawkins has DONE THE CALCULATION.
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2007 @ 7:54 am
January 26th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Does Dawkins make some new discovery about this that is not in any of his other books?
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2007 @ 7:56 am
January 26th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Comment by Farshad — January 26, 2007 @ 8:30 am
January 26th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Silly Mike, when will you learn that "science" means "stuff the defenders of science says is science." They wouldn't be defending it if it wasn't! Duh! No need for your fancy "calculations."
And everybody also knows that methodological naturalism only applies when you are trying to show that the supernatural exists. Just ask Randi!
Comment by macht — January 26, 2007 @ 8:31 am
January 26th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Shermer obviously doesn't know what science is. (Man, I've been waiting a long time to say that about a leading light of evolution. It feels pretty good. I can understand why evolutionists are always so quick to use it when arguing with Creationists - using it gives one a kind of intellectual "high", a feeling of superiority and power. It's exhilirating, actually. I think I'll use it a lot more often from now on.)
Comment by Douglas — January 26, 2007 @ 8:52 am
January 26th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Mike, I'm sure the PT folks have assigned each chapter of The God Delusion to an appropriate person to thoroughly debunk.
Comment by macht — January 26, 2007 @ 8:57 am
January 26th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Since people are talking about Phillip Johnson, I thought I'd offer up this nice quote from him:
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2007 @ 9:03 am
January 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Why would you be amazed by this?
There are probably 10-20 million hard-core angry militant atheists in the US. I suspect a great many of them have purchased The God Delusion. Many have probably bought extra copies to evangelize their (dis)beliefs. Why would this be any sort of surprise at all?
Also, what is "heartening" about aggressive proselytizing atheism, exactly?
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 26, 2007 @ 10:59 am
January 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
keiths and MatthewCromer,
I am not amazed at how well The God Delusion has sold. Polls indicate that 78% of US citizens see the Bible as the Word of God.
Now, if someone in a prominent academic position (who is held up as a quasi-authority on the subject of God's existence) writes a book claiming that the Bible is not the Word of God because God doesn't exist, some feathers will be ruffled.
Write the book with inflammatory language, insult God, claim yourself as a defender of science and reason, and snub everyone who believes in God, and you'll get a best-seller.
In other words many people are going to buy the book to find out why someone would hold such a radically disparate view from oneself. Even more so now that Dawkins has admitted that he is an idiot on the subject that he has offered his thoughts on.
I think the fact that Dawkins is stupid (ludicrously under-qualified and ignorant) on the topic of his last book will actually improve what his long-term sales would have been without his admission of stupidity. I would attribute the sales status of the book to Von Restorff effect, and also the tendency for people to stare at a destructive or tragic car accident.
Comment by Inquisitive Brain — January 26, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I seem to remember something about Ann Coulter's Godless being a bestseller as well. The lesson seems to be that if you're writing a book, make sure it is as simplistic and radical as possible. That way, you'll get a controversy, and everybody will be buying your book to see what all the fuss is about.
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Vividbleau:
Not really so amazing. The EAs [Evangelical Atheists] have been there all along, taking up the banner of Darwinism as soon as Origin… was published and running with it through all the serious challenges and changes to it over the past century and a half. It was seized upon immediately as means to an "intellectually fulfilled" atheism by atheists seeking intellectual fulfillment through science.
Johnson recognized this because it's always been entirely evident on the philosophical level. Denials from the EA contingent have never been very credible. My first exposure to the radical fringe came about when I was referred to Internet Infidels when first becoming interested in the debate (and why so much absolute garbage was being asserted by people who claimed to have science on their side). THAT qualifies as a car wreck!
It immediately became obvious to me that this was a metaphysical corruption of everything science was designed to be, and it seemed a very big shame. Because science was designed to be our most powerful and useful tool for controlling conditions in this world. It was never about metaphysics, and wasn't invented to seek metaphysical truths. The pretension that science *does* seek - and establish - metaphysical truths is the greatest threat to the scientific endeavor that science has ever faced.
Galileo could recant on the insistence of the Pope [power] because he understood that the [relative] physical truth couldn't be destroyed by imposition of any particular metaphysical interpretation. It would outlive him, and sure enough did. It was the metaphysical imposition that had to give way, because it was erroneously applied. Science won that round, but it can't win this one because this time it's the scientific imposition that is in error.
I didn't agree with the Wedge or the metaphysical impositions it sought. It was politically incorrect at the most basic level of our political charter. It failed precisely because it was anathema to the political system it sought to subvert. We can't have a theocracy in the US under the charter we've got - we'd have to change form first.
The same thing is true of an atheocracy, but so long as it can slip itself in disguised as a scientocracy it might succeed where the Wedge failed. Thus it represents the bigger corruption - the bigger danger to that which we as 'free people' value most highly.
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Go to either Barnes & Noble or Border's and you'll see the God Delusion on all the end caps.
Product placement plays a role…. as does the general ideology of the bookstore's employees.
If you want a telic friendly book from Borders of BnN, and if it's a newer release…. chances are you'll be ordering it from them.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Dawkins also wants to raise consciousness about the power of Darwin's dangerous idea of natural selection. He believes that most people"”even many scientists"”do not fully understand just how powerful an idea it is. He attributes that failure to the need to be steeped and immersed in natural selection before you can truly recognize its power. In this context, natural selection "shatters the illusion of design within the domain of biology, and teaches us to be suspicious of any kind of design hypothesis in physics and cosmology as well."
So where is the science in these assertions. Natural selection is a focal point but for design as well as those attempting to debunk it. A contravention of selection would indicate design.
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The EAs [Evangelical Atheists] have been there all along, taking up the banner of Darwinism as soon as Origin"¦ was published and running with it through all the serious challenges and changes to it over the past century and a half. It was seized upon immediately as means to an "intellectually fulfilled" atheism by atheists seeking intellectual fulfillment through science.
There is a shorthand route to distinguishing scientific from metaphysical concerns. If one endorses standard evolutionary theories, including the basic mechanisms by which it is said to have occured, he will still incur the wrath of Dawkinites if he insists a design inference can be found in the data. That wrath is not induced by a concern for science.
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Bradford:
But philosophically (metaphysically), a design inference is inescapable. Consider the words of Emile Zuckerkandl in his article for the journal Gene…
Where has he established that "higher intelligence" must conform to time and all other dimensions? "Emergence" is a scientific formulation of the design inference, and because it entails supervenience (complete with all applicable philosophical arguments) it cannot be necessarily true that the "emergent" IC property itself must conform to the limitations of its medium. In fact, its irreducibility to the properties of the medium is what qualifies it as "emergent." The only necessary relationship between the substrate and the superstrate [emergent property] is that the substrate be existent *as* the medium, subject to whatever limitations the medium demands.
IOW, the sculptor does not need to be clay in order to use clay to express his designs. The painter need not be a water-based substance in order to use watercolors to express her designs. The designs will be limited to the medium (a clay statue is physically "identical" to the clay from which it is sculpted), but the statue [form] is ephemeral compared to the clay.
We don't have much trouble recognizing intelligent design - expression of a designer's design - in a clay dragon. We know that the dragon is embodiment of an immaterial thought-form created by a designer - hardly anybody older than 2 believes the clay made itself into a dragon, or that there was a force field "dragon-matrix" specified by the environment which shaped the clay. Eventually the dragon will deteriorate into clumps and dust, the idea gone [where?] while the clay still remains. Doesn't this describe what we 'know' about form in life (and all other things physical)? Is this not The Law of clay?
Most humans do apprehend the situation - reality here in 3+1. We observe it every day, understand it intimately. Where does "I Am" (the thought-form) go when the clay turns back into clay, available for embodiment of a new thought-form? For a time, in time.
Zuckerkandl has made a gratuitous and appallingly unsupported assumption about the nature of "higher intelligence." His prior sentence outlines his criteria:
Why?
Without bothering to question the definition of "intelligence" either as it manifests in clay (emergence) or what would qualify as "higher" than the clay embodiment. He has presumed his conclusion, a good example of confirmation bias, but metaphysically insupportable from the outset. Odd that he managed to get this published in a biology journal. It would never have passed peer review in a philosophical journal, so long as biology recognizes anything so philosophically debatable as "emergence."
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Natural selection as the cause of creativity — yes it is a remarkably powerful meme indeed, in the number of people who have fallen under its sway.
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 26, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Doug wrote:
Doug,
It has nothing to do with ideology. The God Delusion is #9 on the NY Times bestseller list. The latest major "telic-friendly" book, Jonathan Wells' PIGDID, isn't on the list. Amazon puts it around 9,500th in sales.
If you're a bookstore manager who has to report her sales figures to corporate HQ every week, which book are you going to feature prominently?
By the way, PIGDID got quite a push from my local (SF Bay) Barnes and Noble when it came out. There were a lot of copies, and the book was shelved sideways so it would "jump out" relative to the conventionally shelved books on either side.
Comment by keiths — January 27, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Krauze wrote:
What's simplistic is Krauze's implied argument:
1. Godless was a bestseller.
2. Godless was simplistic and radical.
3. The God Delusion is a bestseller.
4. Therefore…
Comment by keiths — January 27, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Hi Keith,
Keep that straw man to yourself, thank you very much. Any argument about the quality of Dawkin's book should start here.
Comment by Krauze — January 27, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
What's simplistic is Krauze's implied argument:
1. Godless was a bestseller.
2. Godless was simplistic and radical.
3. The God Delusion is a bestseller.
4. Therefore"¦
Keiths, you are distorting a clear argument. The God Delusion is seen as simplistic and radical. It has nothing to do with its best seller status. Colter has been a best seller too. But that is not why Krauze thinks her last book was simplistic and radical. That combination may be a formula for best seller status although I have personal reservations about that. Am I wrong Krauze?
Comment by Bradford — January 27, 2007 @ 6:26 pm