8 Responses to “Spending for a Cause”

1. don provan Says:
   November 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 am

   Most of the greatest thinkers in the history of human civilization were religious as are many of the finest thinkers doing philosophy today.

   Observing that many accomplished thinkers are religious does nothing to contradict the claim that religion doesn't like thinking.

   If we would like an example of what ideas people propound when they refuse to think it's hard to imagine a better case than Dawkins' own book The God Delusion…

   Hard to imagine such a statement from anyone that's actually read The God Delusion. Dawkins's arguments are clearly laid out and involve lots of thought, something that would be obvious to anyone that understands his arguments regardless of whether they agree with them.

Comment by don provan — November 3, 2008 @ 5:11 am

2. nullasalus Says:
   November 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 am

   Observing that many accomplished thinkers are religious does nothing to contradict the claim that religion doesn't like thinking.

   'Religion' can't like or dislike anything – it's a class of beliefs, traditions, and at times but not always organizations. You can't mean that religious people don't like thinking, since you're ceding that many accomplished thinkers who are religious do exist. You couldn't mean that religion as a whole discourages thinking either, as there's a vast and deep history of religious men exploring, debating, and developing their theologies and philosophies.

   Really – did you think about this before you wrote it?

   Hard to imagine such a statement from anyone that's actually read The God Delusion. Dawkins's arguments are clearly laid out and involve lots of thought, something that would be obvious to anyone that understands his arguments regardless of whether they agree with them.

   Frankly, that's nonsense. From Jesus' existence to Deism to free will to morality to otherwise, Dawkins has an obvious problem being consistent in his arguments – a good indication he hasn't thought through either his positions or what he says about them. I know it may rock your little world that some people may read what Dawkins has written on these subjects and find his reasoning and worldview lacking, but them's the breaks.

   And before I'm asked for an example…

   I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will. Indeed, I encourage people all the time to do it. Much of the message of my first book, "The Selfish Gene," was that we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscience intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build for ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world.

   And yet…

   But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

   So, we can and must use our free will to rebel against our genes – and a scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system makes nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, because physiology, heredity and environment are what cause crimes.

   Use your free will to rebel! But don't treat others as if they can be held responsible for their actions, diminished or not, because that's inane. God is a delusion! But a serious case can be made for a deistic God. Oops, wait, that was actually a debate tactic. Atheists can be just as moral as anyone else! And Peter Singer is the most moral man he knows. Of course, praising Peter Singer for his morality would (aside from being hilarious) imply Singer is responsible for his actions, which is nonsense from a scientific, mechanistic perspective. Just like a deistic God is. Maybe. Depends on how the debate's going.

Comment by nullasalus — November 3, 2008 @ 8:26 am

3. don provan Says:
   November 6th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

   'Religion' can't like or dislike anything…

   It's called "personification".

   Really – did you think about this before you wrote it?

   Yes.

   Frankly, that's nonsense. From Jesus' existence to Deism to free will to morality to otherwise, Dawkins has an obvious problem being consistent in his arguments – a good indication he hasn't thought through either his positions or what he says about them.

   Has it occurred to you that you just don't understand what he's saying?

   So, we can and must use our free will to rebel against our genes – and a scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system makes nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, because physiology, heredity and environment are what cause crimes.

   For example, here you've failed to notice that Dawkins is, as usual, thinking on many different levels, not just the one you are considering. Because you missed that, you see these positions as inconsistent, but, in fact, they are quite reasonable: on the one level, because we are intelligent, we make decisions that do not have to follow our hardwired survival mechanisms. At a higher level, our decisions follow from past events and our abilities to interpret them and our emotional reaction to them.

   None of this is controversial, really, at least not at the level you are objecting to it. Dawkins is taking a rehabilitation stand to a philosophical extreme, but the basic argument is just the mainstream idea that criminals are broken and can be fixed. This does not imply that criminals don't have free will, merely that their freely made decisions were incorrect for reasons we can identify and repair.

   And all this follows logically and with very little wiggle room from the fundamental assumptions Dawkins makes about the nature of reality. If you think there are higher order things that we cannot observe such as "free will", then you might reach different conclusions. The inconsistencies you think are in Dawkins's position are actually caused when you apply your assumptions about free will to his ideas. He rejects such assumptions, so it's no surprise that his conclusions are not consistent with it, and certainly no cause to think he hasn't thought things through.

Comment by don provan — November 6, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

4. Bradford Says:
   November 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

   don provan:

   Dawkins is taking a rehabilitation stand to a philosophical extreme, but the basic argument is just the mainstream idea that criminals are broken and can be fixed.

   There is an added dimension to this as far as Dawkins is concerned. It is the contention of a significant segment of the social science community that rehabilitation of criminals is a viable possibility. But they do not have Dawkins' scientific background and most do not share his atheist views. So the question is what is it about modification with descent that leads Dawkins to assert the viability of rehabilitation from a scientific perspective?

   This does not imply that criminals don't have free will, merely that their freely made decisions were incorrect for reasons we can identify and repair.

   Incorrect because they broke laws. But this begs the question of the moral underpinning of the specific laws themselves. There would be consensus about armed robbery but what of the conviction were for violation of campaign contribution laws? What would you attempt to repair and how?

Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

5. don provan Says:
   November 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

   There is an added dimension to this as far as Dawkins is concerned. It is the contention of a significant segment of the social science community that rehabilitation of criminals is a viable possibility. But they do not have Dawkins' scientific background and most do not share his atheist views. So the question is what is it about modification with descent that leads Dawkins to assert the viability of rehabilitation from a scientific perspective?

   It's not like I know anything more about it than anyone else — I've only just read his one "Fawlty Towers" article on the matter — but my reading is that he was drawing a moral conclusion based on his materialistic world view, not claiming that there were biological or evolutionary reasons to think rehabilitation was viable.

   This does not imply that criminals don't have free will, merely that their freely made decisions were incorrect for reasons we can identify and repair.

   Incorrect because they broke laws.

   I'm afraid I don't understand how this observation makes my statement incorrect.

   But this begs the question of the moral underpinning of the specific laws themselves. There would be consensus about armed robbery but what of the conviction were for violation of campaign contribution laws? What would you attempt to repair and how?

   The choices are fixing or punishing. Dawkins merely asks why we tend to deal with malfunctioning humans with punishment when we approach anything else that malfunctions by fixing it. Which human actions we consider malfunctions and how we justify our decision is something else again.

   In other words, I would say, yes, it does beg the question — intentionally. Dawkins assumes such decisions have already been made, and that we are merely pondering how to react to a transgression.

Comment by don provan — November 6, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

6. Bradford Says:
   November 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

   It's not like I know anything more about it than anyone else — I've only just read his one "Fawlty Towers" article on the matter — but my reading is that he was drawing a moral conclusion based on his materialistic world view, not claiming that there were biological or evolutionary reasons to think rehabilitation was viable.

   But that's exactly the point. On what does Dawkins base his moral principles?

   The choices are fixing or punishing. Dawkins merely asks why we tend to deal with malfunctioning humans with punishment when we approach anything else that malfunctions by fixing it. Which human actions we consider malfunctions and how we justify our decision is something else again.

   Punishment is intended to fix. If you commit armed robbery you go to jail.

Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

7. Raevmo Says:
   November 6th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

   Bradford:

   But that's exactly the point. On what does Dawkins base his moral principles?

   On what do you base your moral principles?

Comment by Raevmo — November 6, 2008 @ 6:56 pm

8. don provan Says:
   November 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

   But that's exactly the point. On what does Dawkins base his moral principles?

   As I said, he is drawing this conclusion from his fundamental assumption of a materialist universe without unobserved forces such as "free will" or God. Feel free to disagree with his assumptions and, hence, his moral principles, but that's different than saying he "refuses to think", or that his reasoning is lacking.

   Punishment is intended to fix. If you commit armed robbery you go to jail.

   That's deterring the individual, not fixing him. Dawkins himself gives the clearest example you could ask for: the man beating his broken car, as if that will deter it from being broken in the future. It's true that deterence can work, and we could debate whether it's better or worse than rehabilitation if that were on topic. But none of this has any bearing on whether Dawkins has made a clear, logical argument that he has clearly thought through.

Comment by don provan — November 7, 2008 @ 3:46 pm