The 'Evolution As Religion' Movement
by MikeGeneFor a long time, creationists have been trying to portray evolution as a religion and have failed. But with a new book on the horizon, Thank God for Evolution!, written by Reverend Michael Dowd, America's evolutionary evangelist, the creationists may finally have a case.
Consider the following book description:
A movement has been growing over the past few decades that takes our common creation story — the epic of cosmic, biological, and human evolution revealed by science — as the basis for a meaningful view of our place in the universe. Reverend Michael Dowd, America's evolutionary evangelist, is at the forefront of this movement. This well informed, thoroughly researched, and inspired book proclaims a gospel billions of years old.
Thank God for Evolution! presents in a lively and accessible manner the reasons why it is now possible to view evolution as a divine process; how current science shows that evolution is not meaningless blind chance; practical methods for using evolutionary insights to achieve greater personal fulfillment and thriving relationships; and how aligning with evolutionary trends can guide activists and others hoping to make our world a better place. As a Christian minister, Dowd especially addresses the concerns that Christians have about evolution, but this book contains insights that will appeal to people of all faiths and of no faith. Fun and uplifting, Thank God for Evolution! goes beyond the current debate to offer up a whole new way of thinking about science, religion, and the meaning and purpose of our lives.
So now a third movement enters the stage. We have the ID Movement, the New Atheist Movement, and now the Evolution As Religion Movement. If this book gets any traction (the book seems to have solicited support from many players), things will surely become even more interesting over the next few years. Dowd's book is unlikely to have any impact on people who would align themselves with the ID movement and endorsements from people such as Robert Wright, Eugenie C. Scott, Bishop John Shelby Spong, Starhawk, Joan Roughgarden, Ursula Goodenough, and Matthew Fox only help to ensure this. The real battle will be between Dawkins' New Atheist Movement and Dowd's Evolution as Religion Movement. Dawkins has clearly targeted for conversion the very people Dowd is targeting. Dawkins wants evolution to lead people to atheism and Dowd wants evolution as part of people's personal and social spirituality. Of course, the two movements could be bridged by someone like Sam Harris, who, as a leader in the New Atheist movement, doesn't want to be called an atheist and promotes mysticism. But I think this type of compromise will appeal to only a select few.
One thing is clear. The simple-minded perspective of "˜ID as religion' vs. "˜evolution as science' is so yesterday. We now live in a social reality where ID has been cut away from the Wedge, where Science is being used to evangelize for Atheism, and where Science is being used to evangelize for Religion. Popcorn, anyone?
[HT: Stunney]
October 8th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Substitute intelligent design for evolution in the above paragraph and you would get a deluge of highly critical comments particularly if a related book sold well. Expect no more than tepid criticism of the book from the anti-ID crowd and with no enthusiasm behind it.
Comment by Bradford — October 8, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 12:19 am
It should be interesting to watch it unfold. I'm not sure what will happen with the new atheists implode.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 9, 2007 @ 12:19 am
October 9th, 2007 at 12:20 am
I was delightfully surprised to see this book coming out.
I'm not too keen on the endorsements, frankly. Then again, that isn't really what I have my eye on. I'm personally of the mind that, even with the (potentially valid, AFAIK) claims of ID aside, between what we know of evolution, epigenetics, mental development, and elsewise, an incredible argument can be made that what we witness throughout biological history is a creative force at work.
More and more, that 'blind watchmaker' is being shown to have some incredible foresight and creative skill. Now someone's apparently coming out and saying that the watchmaker isn't blind at all, ID or no. This book won't be the last one advancing such a concept.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 12:20 am
October 9th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Even though I'm a supporter of intelligent design, I do not see the point of this movement. How exactly will this knowledge help anyone find "fulfillment in personal life and relationships" This is a game of words signifying nothing.
Comment by dimasok — October 9, 2007 @ 1:11 am
October 9th, 2007 at 9:34 am
dimasok:
Dowd has been at it for awhile, with his wife Connie Barlow (a science writer). They've got children's programs, rosary beads, rituals, liturgy, a traveling ministry and merchandizing! Along with a long list of scientists backing the effort. They call it The Great Story. And don't forget to check out the testimonials.
Comment by Joy — October 9, 2007 @ 9:34 am
October 9th, 2007 at 10:24 am
There are plenty of people like Dowd and his wife, I'm well aware of that. I simply do not see how this paragraph:
"how current science shows that evolution is not meaningless blind chance" relates to this one: "practical methods for using evolutionary insights to achieve greater personal fulfillment and thriving relationships" and frankly, never did.
Okay, so evolution is not "meaningless blind chance", what of it? What kind of spiritual fulfillment short of a direct communion with God could that possibly bestow on anyone?
I was just as comfortable knowing that evolution appeared to be a blind chance in the past as I'm comfortable knowing that it is much more than that now. After all, an intelligent designer could setup things to be either way and still yield the same result, we just don't know what that is and might never know.
Comment by dimasok — October 9, 2007 @ 10:24 am
October 9th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Someone is going to have to explain to me how this isn't exactly the same as saying that current science allows us to detect that life is designed, except for the difference that Dowd explicitly invokes the Big Guy as the one doing the guiding. However, Eugenie Scott, who usually vigorously opposes that claim as being an implicitly religious corruption of science, endorses Dowd's book where the religion is overt?
Judging from the rest of the endorsements, I can make an educated guess that Dowd promotes social and theological liberalism, but surely that doesn't explain the different attitude to it, since as we all know, Scott is only concerned with scientific integrity.
Comment by Deuce — October 9, 2007 @ 10:26 am
October 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
As far as "practical methods for using evolutionary insights to achieve greater personal fulfillment and thriving relationships" goes, I have to admit that confused me too. Greater personal fulfillment, easy, you can draw a lot of inspiration and the like from our evolutionary past. Thriving relationships? Maybe there's a way I'm not imagining yet, but I have trouble seeing it. Seems unnecessary, but I guess we'll find out.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 11:16 am
October 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I heard Dowd on a DVD and he does try to integrate the evolutionary story with a spiritual story. He does this with a mixed bag of science, philosophy, and psychology. He likes Ken Wilber's integrated philosophy and uses his hierarchial approach to spiritual development. He tries not to make it too simplistic but I'm not sure he suceeds.
What Dowd tries to do to bridge science and spirituality is focus on holistic concepts both in science and religion. He offers a very organic model of the universe and the world. He almosts ends up close to a Gaia concept but its not really New Agie. One also has to be very careful with terminology. Things like rejecting "meaningless blind chance" can mean a lot of things without invoking an ongoing involvement of God which most theist believe. All in all, however, I think he does a good job at raising consciousness and knowledge concerning evolution. I also think his holistic approach is a good therapeutic for the overly individualistic slant that is common today.
As far as the endorsements I think one has to take them with a grain of salt. I say this because I have personally heard conversations of some fairly prominent atheists (or non-theists) to the affect that the theists have to be brought along slowly. Get them to accept theistic evolution first and don't strike too hard on their remnant "irrationalities". Later they'll see the light and move at least to a non-theism.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 9, 2007 @ 11:45 am
October 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Deuce:
Steve Petermann:
I note Steve's grain of salt comment but Scott's endorsement relates to the integrity issue. How does one endorse the separation clause, Judge Jones' ruling and the book in question while maintaining logical consistency all at the same time? I suspect Steve is correct about the getting them to accept point but that is overtly manipulative is it not?
Nick Matzke, you know Scott personally and your views about the issues mentioned are a matter of record. Are you able to explain Scott's endorsement or is the manipulation theory correct? Does the departure from your previous position have anything at all to do with a double standard evidenced by your previous employer?
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
dimasok wrote:
These people are not really Christians, they are pantheists. They call themselves Christians because they believe the oldest lie, that they are themselves Christ(s).
Richard Dawkins could easily qualify as a Christian with that criterion. A new syncretic, pantheistic global religion may ordain him, who knows.
The Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is the forefather of this movement and is responsible for its link to Darwinism.
Interestingly enough (for you, anyway), some of Teilhard's disciples make up the backbone of the transhumanist movement, which is really just Teilhard's philosophy with the candy coating of an Isaac Asimov short story.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 9, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I was imagining 'Well, just because Scott may endorse a book that looks to evolution for religious support doesn't mean she'd support teaching that in schools. You can teach evolution without a religious component.' Then again, school issues aside, I can see how ID can operate without addressing any creator's identity. (In fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to identify any designer in nature especially if a deity/deities are the designers, and even if they exist as a matter of brute fact.)
As for coaxing believers out of their faith through evolution, I personally don't see it as an insidious plan so much as a desperate one. Dawkins' "Jonathan Edwards with an A on his t-shirt" bit isn't intellectually persuasive. Just waiting out the faith has been an enlightenment-era plan that hasn't worked. Having theists accept evolution and mix it with their faith is last-ditch at best, since it contains the very real threat in that (as I think we've been seeing more and more with the Catholic Church and other faiths) it opens up the possibility of science-focused atheists losing what used to be their trump card. Once evolution is seen as a creative, divine act, it's basically taken off the table as an anti-apologetic tool. Not much left after that, other than.. who knows. Eliminative materialism, perhaps.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
nullasalus:
But if this were Scott's attitude then why the Trojan Horse stance with regard to ID? In other words if concepts like irreducible complexity, front loading and other design arguments, with clear scientific references, are to be equated with creationism then should we not see even stronger opposition to an overt linkage of evolution to religion? Instead we see an endorsement. Even if you set the teaching question aside what could motivate an endorsement other than a manipulative spirit?
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
dimasok:
Hmmm… maybe one can have "greater personal fulfillment and thriving relationships" with biologists if evolution is their religion? I don't know. Seems sort of cultish to me, and it can't bode well for public school biology classes if evolution gets classified as religion.
Steve Petermann:
Sounds like a Wedge… §;o)
Comment by Joy — October 9, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I would have to read the book, but it sounds like something similar to what Alan Padgett has pointed out.
I am not so sure the conflict would be limited to various factions on just one side. Dr. Dembski had an adverse reaction to Alan Padgett's ideas in the past.
From the post ID's Cultured Theological Despisers (#3)…
Let's analyze this:
(1) The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility…
When mothers and grandmothers tell me that they are afraid for their children's and grandchildren's faith because of the evolutionary indoctrination they receive in school, I take them seriously. Padgett, apparently, does not.
…
Padgett needs to rouse himself from his dogmatic slumbers.
Joy has already pointed out the obvious wedge effect of this. I suggest the popcorn eating crowd will be getting plenty of entertainment from both sides.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 9, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Continued from that Dembski quote.
TE'ers, I thought, basically accepted as a matter of course what this book is apparently about the argue. It seems like it's going to go one step further and embrace and highlight the mechanism, rather than passively accepting it. Dembski's point isn't a philosophical one, but pretty dependent on what amounts to persuasive power. If a strong case can be made for purpose in straight-up evolution – a stronger case than it being purposeless, which I think is a million dollar argument waiting to happen – it has the potential to kick the card table over.
Gonna be interesting to see, if it gains much attention.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Hi nullasalus,
How do you argue a case for purpose and/or purposeless without the point being a "philosophical one"
This basic question came up in a discussion Pez and I are having in another thread.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 9, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I wonder what Nick Matzke would think about the fact that these evangelists are presenting in schools. Not just private schools and religious schools either, as the list includes a BIA boarding school.
Is it okay to teach religion as science if the religion embraces science?
Also, I'm not all that impressed with Barlow's scientific expertise. In Rewilding Megafauna (an interview with ActionBioscience) she claims that humans were responsible for driving North American megafauna to extinction, so humans must bring them back. You know… mastodons and wooly mammoths, lions, camels, the big Pleistocene browsers and carnivores.
Scientists now believe it was an asteroid or comet strike which caused dramatic climate change that wiped out the megafauna, not human hunters. Tying your religious beliefs to provisional evolutionary Anazi Tales isn't a very good idea because they change quite often, sometimes dramatically. Barlow's rituals, prayer beads, parables, children's stories, etc. tend to focus on these provisional hypotheses rather than on the broad overview. But I suppose they could be re-written on a regular basis to reflect the Anazi Tale of moment.
And I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about Barlow quote-mining The Ancestor's Tale to support her own version of convergence as basically front-loaded evolution.
Dowd's writing appeals more. I'd guess he's a pretty good speaker too. The whole stewardship, glory of God in nature thing is certainly sound. A more evangelistic version of TE beliefs, and most liberal, reformed and orthodox churches have no problem with evolution apart from seeing God's creative hand in the process. The New Atheists would consider it ID as well as inconsistent (as they see TE).
Eugenie Scott doesn't have a problem with TEs (that I've seen), so I can see why she might endorse the book.
Comment by Joy — October 9, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Well, that's pretty much what got me into ID and what keeps me there: I don't believe you can. But I also believe a double-standard was and in many cases is in effect, depending on which side you argue in favor.
Specific to Dembki's case: In the entry you quoted him, Dembski argues he's not against evolution based on religious reasons (In fact, he says flat out that he can remain a Christian if evolution were true, interestingly enough) – he's claiming his disagreements center on technical problems he sees with evolution, and points to the current intellectual/'spiritual' investment some have. He knows you can be an atheist even with telic guiding principles in the universe. That doesn't mean that if such a principle were proposed (or falsified, assuming Orch-OR or another theory can do that) there wouldn't be a PR hit, of sorts.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Hi nullasalus,
I asked… "How do you argue a case for purpose and/or purposeless without the point being a "philosophical one""
You responded with…
Thank you for the straight-forward answer. But, frankly, what followed was a little confusing.
You started off with an innuendo about a double-standard existing. While that was confusing enough (exactly which of the multiple factions MikeGene referenced were you referring to?), the following was difficult for me to reconcile with the points being discussed.
Dembski says he can remain a Christian because evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God. Evolution is compatible with both a presumption of purpose and a lack thereof. Normally this would be considered a good thing, but it is clear that Dembski was arguing the other way.
My point was, and is, that this ID Movement leader wasn't happy with the idea of presenting evolution as supportive of different philosophies.
As for Dembski knowing "you can be an atheist even with telic guiding principles in the universe." His begrudging reference to ID alternatives "way down the totem pole" was added after a day of critical discussions of the implications of Dembski's original pronouncement about the ONLY possibility available if God didn't exist.
However, way down on the totem pole or not, EAM and the Third Choice, ID Version apparently are ID Alternatives.
Will Dembski be able to keep is arrogance in check if Thank God for Evolution! becomes more visible than it is?
Let's just say, I will keep my bag of popcorn nearby.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 9, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Joy:
What makes a theistic evolutionist acceptable and an ID evolutionist not acceptable? Will someone who understands the mindset of Eugenie Scott explain that?
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
TP,
Innuendo? I'll say it outright: I think there's a double standard. The existence of that double standard is what got me interested in ID to begin with, and what largely keeps my interest. As far as factions go, I haven't thought to divide and subdivide the sides (Where does Eugenie Scott 'fit in'? Beats me, and the question isn't important to me on this topic.) I tend to view individuals as complex, and ultimately unique. It's why I prefer to talk about 'some' rather than imply 'all' when speaking about general groups in these cases.
I don't see that presented at all. Dembski's attitude seems to be that Christianity is certainly compatible with evolution, and that evolution is a core component of modern atheism, though not a philosophical necessity. He has problems with evolution that are (if you take him at his words) related both to questions of mechanism, and the attitudes and perspectives that result from modern atheism. Who knows, maybe he'll disagree with Dowd's take on things – I certainly can't read his mind. But considering the sympathetic boosting I see on UD on topics ranging from epigenetics (fascinating stuff) to theistically neutral design concepts (Robert Shapiro's come to mind) to otherwise, I don't think it's clear. I have a feeling we'll find out as much soon, or at least when the book gets published.
I don't think 'way down the totem pole' is meant in reference to philosophical or even general viability so much as popular attention. As always, I find Orch-OR interesting, but again, QM itself isn't familiar to people at large, even the net-savvy. Mention Sir Roger Penrose's discovery of Orch-OR to most people and they'll think you're talking about World of Warcraft.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Hi nullasalus,
With all these battling movements, the dynamics could be more interesting that they seem. In a strange way, the ID critics have tremendously empowered the ID movement (in a social sense). By treating the ID movement as a dangerous threat and a social evil, it gives the ID movement the Power of the Embrace. That is, if Dembski finds things to like about Dowd and his book, it becomes (gasp) associated with the perceived threat and evil of ID. Dembski can take the stigma of ID and rub it all over whatever he wants. The New Atheists might even use this as they seek to push Dowd closer to "ID Creationism" (consider how they attack Francis Collins).
Anyway, are the ID critics now going to start calling Dowd's Evolution as Religion movement a new strain of Creationism?
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I don't get the mindset, but I understand the tactic. In war it's "divide and conquer". In business it's "marginalizing the competition".
The NCSE has always encouraged the religious to embrace NeoDarwinism. They have a whole ministry devoted to this very cause. If the NCSE can build up a large enough database of churches and theists that openly embrace the NeoDarwinist metaphysic then they can divide their perceived enemies' forces.
So the religious are always welcome to the NCSE table. But if you question the NDS, you will be investigated, then smeared.
Excuse me. I meant to say "smeared, then investigated".
Comment by chunkdz — October 9, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Hi nullasalus,
You wrote…
The innuendo part is that you left hanging who you were talking about. You said it was "depending on which side you argue in favor". You still haven't directly stated even which side, but you have implied you are talking about Eugenie Scott. Are you saying that or just implying it through innuendo?
And you said that with a straight face?
EAM had gained some popularity on ARN a while back. You might find it interesting to look into the history of what happened to it.
If this is about science, shouldn't we combine the best science from both viewpoints?
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 9, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
I would like nothing more than to have the ID Movement embrace something like EAM or the Third Choice.
It would probably increase the volume, but then again, there would be substance behind the noise.
It would be worth it.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 9, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
TP,
Eugenie Scott is a side?
You say I'm implying something about Eugenie Scott, then you ask if I'm implying anything. So have you decided I'm implying, or are you not sure?
I'll save you the trouble and toss you the clear question: "Do I think Eugenie Scott has a double standard?" My answer is, 'Beats me.' Never spoke with the good (I assume) professor, only vaguely know of her doings. Even as an atheist she may have a more complicated opinion on this topic.
And to clarify: The double standard depends on whether you're asserting there is no evidence of design/intention/intelligence in or behind nature, or asserting that there is such evidence. Both are philosophical subjects. If Francis Collins sees the work of design in the universe – even while accepting scientific orthodoxy – Nature gets an angry letter demanding to know why the magazine is not at work crushing the likes of him for acting as if science and faith are compatible. Meanwhile someone like Victor Stenger belts out God: The Failed Hypothesis, and, well, Victor rejects NOMA and this is consistent with his position, and this book is about his opinion more than anything and we're all entitled to our opinion so let's respect that.
Not really interested in ARN; feel free to provide a concise history if you choose. But 'relatively popular among ARN forum regulars' isn't quite what I meant by popular. I'm sure Orch-OR is all the rage over at forums.orchoristhefuture.com.
Who's talking about science? This whole thread is about endorsements of a book that, unless Dowd's got one hell of a trick up his sleeve, is not going to propose any new science, but simply add to the philosophical discussion. The Dembski post you quoted was concerned with both science and philosophy, the latter of which we've been primarily discussing. And my talk of double standards has been centered around what are philosophical disagreements.
As near as I can tell, there's only one 'science' around. Science informs viewpoints, but it's not like Penrose has his science and Tegmark has his science and they refuse to share.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 12:01 am
TP,
Actually, that's a great question for you, disconnected from this discussion though it may be.
Tegmark's gone after Hameroff in an apparently big way over quantum interactions in microtubules. Do you think Tegmark's disagreement is entirely motivated by science? Partly motivated by metaphysics? Mostly? Entirely?
I have no followup planned however you answer – my knowledge of the situation is informed by the wikipedia and a handful of websites. But I've never seen that asked of you, so I'm curious.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 12:01 am
October 10th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Hi nullasalus,
I will forgo the other comment and respond to Hameroff/Tegmark.
It doesn't matter what Tegmark's or Hameroff's motivations are because they are arguing the science.
Tegmark has his model, Hameroff has his. Scientific observations are eating away at Tegmark's presumptions.
This is science. Hypothesis verses hypothesis. Model verses model. May the best model win (until a better one comes along).
The ID Movement leaders aren't doing that. They don't have to come up with an answer, they just claim the other side is wrong. No need to offer an alternative. All they have to do to win is rally the troops.
Dr Wells…
So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence "“ any evidence, no matter how skimpy "“ to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.
The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion "“ especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.
link
Do you see the difference?
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 12:17 am
October 10th, 2007 at 12:40 am
TP,
Win what? Rally the troops around what? I never read Wells' book, so I don't know what to think of him. And in my personal experience, what people mean when they sling around the term 'darwinism' is difficult to nail down, so I don't know what to think of that quote. Is he talking about the idea that humanity's ancestors underwent evolution? That humanity has biological ancestors that could be classed outside of 'human'? That humanity may have such ancestors, but that's not the whole story? 'Evolution', 'darwinism', and 'neo-darwinism' all seem to slip a bit in definition depending on who I'm speaking with.
I asked a point-blank question – why the dodge? Then again, that's a bit point-blank too, I suppose.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 12:40 am
October 10th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Nullasalus,
And whether or not they are shield-bashing at the moment, right, TP?
Comment by Pez — October 10, 2007 @ 1:12 am
October 10th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Hi nullasalus,
You wrote…
While we can't know for sure what the goals of the ID Movement are, we can make some educated guesses…
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. link
As to answering your direct question…
I have indicated before that I have felt Tegmark is motivated by a discomfort of the implications of Hameroff's ideas. I can't know if that is his entire motivation. I still don't see the relevance of Tegmark's or Hameroff's motivation other than to gauge the level of trust in unsupported statements.
The same goes for ID Science. Present a positive hypothesis, support it with evidence, make the case and the motivations are moot.
Do my motivations make the arguments and evidence about things like Orch OR any less sound?
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 8:37 am
October 10th, 2007 at 11:11 am
nullasalus:
EAM is Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (that link is to the full ISCID Encyclopedia entry). It wasn't popular at ARN. Its originator and one other were arguing the issues from an EAM POV, I introduced myself after completing the UA course with Hameroff, Stapp, et al. because Orch-OR suggests something very like this. Sans the unnecessary metaphysics.
As for Eugenie, I expect she'd have no big problem with Dowd and his evangelism of evolution because he's not talking about science and isn't challenging the NDS. And while I do find Barlow's children's stories both shallow and likely to need constant revision, I don't think Scott would have problems with those either. On a scientific level, and so long as it's not posing as science in public schools.
The evangelical atheists won't like it because it usurps NDS to promote religion, particularly to children. Whether or not they once again allow their metaphysics to dictate their position on the science is an open question. So far I haven't seen any of the usual suspects mention it except Eugenie Scott. Who endorsed the book.
Comment by Joy — October 10, 2007 @ 11:11 am
October 10th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Hi Joy,
Thank you for responding to Nullasalus on the EAM as I had hoped you would.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 11:27 am
October 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
TP,
I don't think that's much of an educated guess. You're saying that all the 'ID leaders' have to do to 'win' (Win what? Win at defeating scientific materialism? What does that mean?) is keep rallying the troops (In what way? Against what? Most importantly of all, did their plans change regardless of what they once intended to 'rally' against for the 'win'?)
Here we're on some firmer ground. A bit more spelled out. The problem is…
…They aren't alone in making their moves in the service of philosophy. And you'd apparently agree that being philosophically motivated in accepting or rejecting a scientific view is itself not a bad thing. On the flipside, it also seems that you aren't against promoting one scientific concept over another, owing to philosophical motivations.
Data is data. That's the beautiful thing, really – like I said, Tegmark and Penrose have the same 'science' no matter how firmly their philosophies differ. More importantly, philosophies can likely differ – now and forever – even with the same science in play. Which brings us to what I consider to be the most interesting point, and in an amazing move for most internet conversations, it's relevant to the OP.
You've asked a number of times now whether the ID movement is willing to sacrifice their metaphysics to accept scientific evidence of teleology that does not in and of itself necessarily bolster their philosophical viewpoints. But to me, the real question is whether you'd be willing to accept the ID movement advancing EAM or Orch-OR and claiming it as strong evidence backing their metaphysics. Distinct from any curriculum question, as I wouldn't be much in favor of promoting any philosophy in schools – personally, I have a strong distaste for schools and universities anyway.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Hi nullasalus,
You wrote…
As I said earlier in this thread…
I would like nothing more than to have the ID Movement embrace something like EAM or the Third Choice.
It would probably increase the volume, but then again, there would be substance behind the noise.
It would be worth it.
In my Guest Host thread, I offered something called the Third Choice, ID Version where I gave up the NOMA separation and mixed science and metaphysics. I could do the same thing presuming God. In fact, I have pointed out multiple times that interconnected quantum effects would be a useful tool that God could use.
I would fully expect that if they did this the ID Movement leaders would be advancing such a scientific hypothesis "and claiming it as strong evidence backing their metaphysics." I more than accept this, I encourage it.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
TP,
Then I wouldn't worry – it's probably just a matter of time until someone does, especially if the science seems to have the validity you believe. Right now, I actually see ID as performing the very important task of promoting independent thought and new ways of looking at established data. You've claimed that it's unfair to question without providing an alternative, whereas I see questioning as an important first step in providing an alternative.
Actually, there's another important role for sincere questioning: It enables people like me to be open to EAM, or Orch-OR, or anything else. We non-scientists matter too, y'know. Obviously, since the fight has more to do with us than the actual scientists in some ways.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Hi nullasalus,
You wrote…
"Someone" has.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that it appears Dr. Wells and other ID Movement leaders are focusing on the non-scientists. Why bother suggesting scientific hypotheses when all you have to do is rally the troops to gather up those inclined to believe what they want to believe in a very big tent?
Orch-OR has been around for eleven years. It looks like Mike Turner started talking about EAM on ARN about six years ago.
I think it is a good bet the ID Movement leaders were, and are, directly aware of EAM. And it is noteworthy that Dembski presented some interesting ideas in his Expert Witness Report for the Dover Case…
"How, if at all, does quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? The intelligent design community is at the forefront in raising and answering such questions."
"[T]here is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain."
I may be arrogant, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I am the only one who sees there are strong scientific cases available for the ID Movement leaders to embrace.
P.S. From wikipedia… "Stapp sees a global collapse of superposed brain states as in the process of choosing between alternatives."
For more information see the Schwartz/Stapp paper titled Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind"“brain interaction
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
TP,
Qualified: "Someone in the ID movement and who is visible." A good sign will be if a book comes out. A better sign will be if people feel the need to mobilize and trash it on Amazon.
EVERYone is focusing on the non-scientists, from Dawkins to Dowd to Dembski. And again, rally the troops to what? Gather up people who are like-minded? And what then?
As near as I can tell, if the ID leaders are having any real success, it's in promoting – amazingly enough – skepticism, a healthy interest in science, and a thoughtful approach to philosophy. I'm positive some are making claims I don't agree with, of course. But on the whole it's encouraging, and I'm also of the mind that that is the success that irritates some ID proponents most of all.
And, what? Intentionally ignore it? Maybe they simply have other focuses. Orch-OR seems out of the specialty of Behe, Dembski, and Wells (I'm sure there are other strong ID proponents, or at least TE proponents, who are physicists. Stephen Barr seems busy with conventional work.) With EAM, it seems out of Dembski's field, Wells' aims I know less about, and Behe is apparently interested in testing the limits of evolution.
Even my interests don't focus strongly on EAM for the moment (obvious – I was only dimly aware of it, and now I have that and a concise webpage to inform me.) I find epigenetics in general to be quite an interesting development, I've recently come to some realizations about the evolution of mind (You said you saw my conversation on this, so perhaps you know where I'm coming from), and the philosophical interpretations of data that's already mainstream. I think we're going to see more of the latter for awhile, because it's somewhat recently that it's been given so much attention from ID types. But I also think we'll see someone coming along with the sort of EAM book I mentioned above.
And yes, I regularly read the Stapp Files. He has some interesting ideas, though he also seems to have some disagreement with Penrose.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Whoops. "That irritates some ID opponents" that is.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Nullasalus wrote:
I think that most atheistic evolutionary biologists and scientifically literate atheistic types in general simply don't realize or are unwilling to face up to just how radical and unpalatable are the implications of the atheistic evolutionary theory to which they so proudly, and even smugly, subscribe. Most, or at least many of them, aren't aware or don't wish to face the fact that atheistic evolutionary theory, understood as the supposedly "˜scientific' worldview, leads logically and directly to eliminative materialism. Nor do they grasp or admit how drastic are that doctrine's logical consequences. It leads not just to moral irrealism, but to irrealism about reason as such, including irrealism about scientific rationality itself.
There are essentially three responses among philosophers of mind to the core issue raised by evolutionary biology, which is the issue of its implications for understanding mental phenomena:
1) Embrace, reluctantly or otherwise, eliminative materialism as being the only logical conclusion consistent with evolutionary biology. (The Churchlands)
2) Declare that how mental phenomena derive from evolutionary biology is a mystery which is and will forever be beyond human comprehension, but also declare that those phenomena do arise from evolutionary biology nonetheless, somehow. (McGinn and the New Mysterians)
3) Abandon materialism in all its forms as being hopelessly inadequate for explaining the full range of mental phenomena, which entails that evolutionary biology cannot be a complete explanation of human nature. (Chalmers and Kim, though with some differences regarding the potential causal role of mental phenomena.)
2 is essentially a clever trick invented to allow people to enjoy the "˜respectability' that goes with adhering to scientific naturalism while not having to bother even attempting to explain some distinctive mental phenomena scientifically. It has obvious parallels to multiverse hypotheses in its appeal to an invisible mystery that rather splendidly meets the demands of their prejudices in being not divine but natural. Jolly hockey-sticks and brisk handshakes all round! At root, this option is intellectually dishonest; for if scientific naturalism is true, then nothing exists which science cannot explain at least in principle. But realizing the extreme nature of the difficulties associated with seeking such explanations, those who go this route are in essence saying that we have to take naturalism on faith, since not only is there is no good theory of the mind that fits in with scientific naturalism, no such theory is even possible. The way mind and matter fit together is, they aver, intrinsically unknowable by any humanly conceivable method of natural science. But we just have to assume that somehow naturalism is true nevertheless. The option 2 proponents abandon the procedure we generally adopt in science when faced with radically recalcitrant data, and this is particularly improper in their case, since they elsewhere profess strong faith in natural science as part of their commitment to naturalism. But rather than do the obvious thing when you get data that don't fit the theory in a radical way, and which you concede cannot ever be made to fit the theory, at least by human beings—–the obvious thing being to dump the theory, evolutionary naturalism—–these guys just say "True, it's an unsolvable mystery how evolutionary naturalism can possibly be true, but we're just going to believe in it anyway." This is all very, very, very ironic from a theist's point of view, of course.
The only honest options are 1 and 3. The trouble with 1 is that to "˜the man in the street' (and indeed to many academics), it is humungously implausible. The atheistic evolution crowd would therefore rather not very openly affirm or even consciously accept that atheistic evolution entails 1, since if word got out to the man in the street, the man in the street would probably doubt more strongly than he does already that evolution can explain everything about human nature, even in principle. And this would be very bad news on the culture front for the atheistic evolution movement. And so most of them brush 1 under the carpet, and get embarrassed and anxious when Dawkins and Dennett write books for a popular audience using lots of provocatively eliminativist statements and implications.
The trouble with 3 is also political/cultural in nature. For if materialism is false, then evolutionary biology cannot be a complete account of human nature, even in principle, because evolutionary biology can only explain scientifically that nature insofar as it is a material nature. And, boy, do the atheistic evolutionists definitely not want evolutionary biology to be widely acknowledged by academics as being intrinsically inadequate as the grand, overarching Explanation of Human Nature the atheistic evolutionists so desperately want other academics to regard it as being, since an open and widespread acknowledgment of evolution's inadequacy in the academic community would also most likely engender a severe loss in the wider culture and spin wars from the atheistic evolutionists' perspective.
Comment by stunney — October 10, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
nullasalus to TP:
Pardon my interjection, but it's known that the 'Movement' has fundamentalist Christian roots, and that's where philosophical motivations arise. It was all about defeating the materialist philosophical motivations in science and NDS in particular. Political dueling metaphysics – a perennial human pastime.
Neither EAM nor Orch-OR can be used to try and force anybody's philosophy on public schoolchildren (or legislate anyone's metaphysical beliefs). Though it is entirely possible – perhaps even likely – that Orch-OR/EAM or something quite like these will end up replacing NDS in biology with a non-random design paradigm. Eventually.
Not to worry. The culture warriors on both sides will still believe what they always believed. IDers will convince themselves that science supports their belief in ID, but religious ID still won't be science. EAs will convince themselves that science still supports their belief in materialism even if there is design in nature. The noise level will go down a few notches for awhile, which would be nice.
Science should never have allowed itself to become so corrupted in the first place. I for one will be glad when it cleans metaphysical house.
Comment by Joy — October 10, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Joy,
Roots, maybe. But I don't see ID as staying fundamentalist Christian – I know for certain it's getting a lot of talk and attention in Catholic circles, I've read about its promotion in orthodox jewish circles, muslim.. heck, I recall some UD post about ID proponents meeting with some school leaders running a shinto university in Japan.
I think looking to and at science with teleology in mind (as well as rejecting certain philosophical forms of materialism) is an idea that's been a long time coming (In a modernized sense, at least), and the concept's expanding quite nicely thanks to the conversations ID has stirred up. That the roots may have been fundamentalist – even YEC, as Nick Matzke claims – means as much to me as hearing that Darwin believed in a beginning-less eternal universe means to a modern nds-proponent. It's not purely what was said that's valuable so much as what's been started.
I have no interest in school-fights, as I said with TP. At least not of a 'teaching philosophy' kind.
When I say EAM and Orch-OR can be taken on sympathetically by religious IDers, I mean entirely outside of schools, in a philosophical setting. TP says he's fine with that, and I take him at his word. Again: I'm not concerned about making sure sixth graders or high-school seniors get any kind of public-school philosophical indoctrination, materialist or non-materialist.
Stunney,
I have similar thoughts to yours on the politics of the matter. And from what I read, there's a heckuva lot more people throwing in with option 3. I notice a fair chunk of EAs (as Joy calls them) cut and run when engaged about some of the philosophical consequences of EM or the EM-like.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Stunney apparently can't talk about his own field of expertise, philosophy, without distorting it in ways that are childishly easy to see through. He says there are three possible positions:
1) eliminative materialism (there are no mental phenomena)
2) mysterianism (we can't explain mental phenomena)
3) abandoning materialism altogether
Which conveniently omits the position held by roughly all working brain scientists, and a good number of philosophers, which is that mental phenomenon exist but are completely material.
And he blows more smoke by straining hard to prove that "evolutionary biology cannot be a complete explanation of human nature", which is not something it has ever claimed to be. The universe may be completely described by the Schroedinger wave equation, but that doesn't mean that physics is a "complete explanation of human nature".
Comment by mtraven — October 11, 2007 @ 12:51 am
October 11th, 2007 at 5:02 am
mtraven wrote:
Yes, you share this perennial illusion with the people I referred to in my post, the illusion that one can hold that mental phenomena are completely material without that entailing elimininative materialism. Jaegwon Kim and other reluctant non-materialists have amply demonstrated how untenable this position actually is, as have the eliminative materialists themselves of course. You've even pretended that Dennett isn't an eliminativist—yes, the author of 'Quining Qualia'. And you have the cheek to say I'm distorting my area of expertise? As I told raevmo, you guys are fucking unreal. Next you'll be telling us that Paul Churchland 'believes' 'he' has a 'soul', perhaps even that Saul Kripke is taking out a full page ad in the New York Times recanting his argument against mind-brain identity because of your 'devastating critique'.
Every time you open your trap about philosophy of mind you provide merely an ever more grotesque demonstration of your inability to understand any of it. You literally don't know what you're talking about. It's marvellous entertainment. And it's free.
That's, er, straightforwardly false. Ask Michael Ruse. Ask Ruth Millikan. Ask Richard Dawkins. The only smoke I blow is from my cigars. You, on the other hand, must be almost dead from lung cancer at this rate, with metastasis in the colon, given how much you've been contributing to greenhouse gases. Perhaps with your last gasping emission of carbon dioxide you can reveal what explains the bits of human nature that are not explained by evolutionary biology. That should be almost as funny as your tying yourself in knots about the relation between software and hardware, then deciding it's really all hardware, and then protesting that this doesn't entail eliminativist materialist. "It's all really just hardware. And it's not all really just hardware. Oh, and, eh, religious belief is irrational." Dearie me. What a clown you make yourself. All wannabe materialists do, of course, but most of them don't make it quite so obvious as you. That may be your special talent.
You epitomize the type of atheistic evolutionist my post was about. In fact, because of your special talent you combine both types. You're the type who doesn't get it and the type who doesn't want to get it, all rolled into one. You manage to display both intellectual dishonesty and stupidity at the same time. As I say, yours is a special talent.
Yes, that's right. The universe may be completely described by the wave equation (though keiths and raevmo seem very confused on this point when it comes to the implications for limb regeneration probabilities). But that doesn't mean that physics is a complete explanation of human nature. And you know why it's not? Because physicalism and hence materialism is, er, false. And as nullasalus noted, "And from what I read, there's a heckuva lot more people throwing in with option 3."
Kim on explanatory exclusion principles is the go-to guy for understanding why you have no option but to embrace your fate at the Scylla of eliminativist materialism or the Charybdis of abandoning materialism and risking tut-tuts and outraged howls among the atheistic evolution cargo cultists. But it won't do you any good because you're exactly the type my post was about, the type that does not understand or want to face and admit the implications of evolutionary naturalism, because when those implications are correctly, honestly and openly stated, the sanity-based community, er, bursts out laughing. And that's bad for your team's culture warriors.
Comment by stunney — October 11, 2007 @ 5:02 am
October 11th, 2007 at 5:34 am
stunney:
The trouble with this "argument" is that it is humungously stupid. Much scientific knowledge that we take for granted now used to be humungously implausible.
That settles it then. Stunney says so. We can all go home now.
Comment by Raevmo — October 11, 2007 @ 5:34 am
October 11th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Raevmo wrote:
The trouble with this argument is twofold. First, vast numbers of humungously implausible propositions are false, far more than form the set of humungously implausible true propositions. Second, you have missed completely the point I made, thus demonstrating your humungous capacity for mindblowing errors of comprehension. See, the point of my argument—–and feel free to read my post again and admit your error rather than fire off another tiresome irrelevance because of your inner demons telling you to whenever you see my name—-was not that eliminative materialism is false (though it is), but that whether it's true or false, atheistic evolutionist types for the most part don't like to broadcast or even face the fact that their worldview entails eliminative materialism because of the effect of its implausibility with respect to the culture wars.
Exhibit no. 1 :- mtraven
Once again your inability to comprehend is astonishing in its humungousness. The argument mtraven presented was that the wave equation completely describing the universe does not mean human nature is completely explained by physics. And I agreed because I think physicalism is false, which would explain why the wave equation does not completely explain human nature. I at no point said physicalism is false simply because I think it's false. I stated my view that it is false, and that this would explain the fact mtraven had pointed out. But at no point in my post did I even try to argue that materialism is false, since that wasn't the point of my post. My post was about why perceptions of the political impact of certain philosophical positions color the way those positions are treated by the 'evolution as religion' movement.
Which, and I realize this may come as an enormous shock to you, raevmo, is the title of the thread topic.
It's worrying that you make so many errors of reasoning as you do in so short a post and yet are paid to do science. You're probably not typical in that respect, though.
Comment by stunney — October 11, 2007 @ 6:04 am
October 11th, 2007 at 10:33 am
nullasalus:
It was of course inevitable that ID – as a teleological urge in life and evolution – would outlive the 'Movement's' popularity among the biblical literalists who thought they could use it to get around SCOTUS rulings against 'Creation Science'. That was always doomed to failure, as Dover demonstrated.
But what bringing the fight so publicly into the sociopolitical arena DID do is lend courage to the population of biologists and other scientists who have always considered NDS non-explanatory. They've been around pretty much under the radar ever since Darwinism turned up short on the origins end at the turn of the last century. They continued through development of NDS, and still exist to this day. When new technologies are bringing new knowledge about life, and things aren't looking nearly as 'random' as NDS insists they must be on the origins end.
It just opened the door for reporting the many findings from new technologies and new knowledge as a direct challenge to NDS 'orthodoxy' and its several 'dogmas' and 'tenets'. Following the evidence is what science is supposed to do.
It's been there under the radar all along. I agree that the ID 'Movement' has stirred up the dissent, and that's a good thing.
The religious will believe what they believe regardless of what science says today or tomorrow. Always have. The topic of this thread demonstrates they can even take NDS as philosophical support for their beliefs (as TEs have long done). Philosophy is just a way of looking at facts, and the facts can usually be made to fit the philosophy just fine no matter what they are.
I think it's a general backlash against materialism that is bubbling up from the crack the IDM's Wedge opened. It was thrown into question scientifically and philosophically when the entrenched 19th century mechanistic view came up against QM. Developments since then haven't made it any less questionable.
The NDS die-hards of our own day didn't accept a cease-fire upon legal defeat of the Wedge. Instead they've chosen to wield their own Wedge in an attempt to save their dying materialist metaphysics. Almost as if that's what motivated them all along.
Comment by Joy — October 11, 2007 @ 10:33 am
October 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Dennett is not an eliminativist for mental phenomena in general. Most materialists are not. You like to pretend otherwise, but who do you think you're fooling?
Here is Chalmers, a dualist, estimating that philosophers of mind shake out to be "50% materialist, 25% agnostic, 25% dualist". You are conveniently omitting the majority position from your typology.
As usual, your posts are composed mainly of insults, distortions, and appeals to authority. This indicates to me that you are incapable of making actual arguments. It must suck to have chosen philosophy as a career only to find yourself unable to live up to its rather weak professional standards.
Comment by mtraven — October 11, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Joy,
That was definitely an effect, and I'd agree with it as well. Every time I read about a new unexpected development in biology (and it seems fairly common), the most important task for some seems to be to assure everyone that it's all totally compatible with NDS if it turns out to be true. Also if it turns out to be false.
I think the religious angle is more complicated than this, honestly. But to select one difference – I agree that philosophy is about how you look at the facts. But I also think that philosophy has been passed off as science for quite awhile, as well as it being recent that many religious have started to look towards the science directly to inform their philosophies, rather than having it filtered. The internet helps with that as well – it's a lot harder to get away with spin unchallenged nowadays.
I've said before, I don't believe ID has provoked the fight it has for the reason most opponents tend to argue – that it's stealth-YEC. I'm not sure it's even that they think their materialist metaphysics are dying. It's the idea that other metaphysics can be drawn out of the science just as appropriately, or more appropriately, that seems to be the big threat. It was easier a few decades ago, where the options for most were either accepting both the science and the particular metaphysics as a combo-platter, or ignoring science altogether.
Comment by nullasalus — October 11, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
mtraven:
Can you do me a favor? Point to the bit in my post where I indicated that most philosophers of mind aren't materialists. I ask, because I didn't.
I gave three positions in my typology, only one of which was non-materialist. Without further background knowledge, a neutral non-philosopher reader of my post would estimate that the chances are that 66.66% of philosophers of mind are materialists, dividing equally between eliminativists and new mysterians. So your charge that my typology distorts the field is itself a blatant distortion of what I said.
Your confusion about whether one can be a materialist without being an eliminativist is a confusion about ontology and concepts. An eliminativist about the ontology of the mental does not get to not be an eliminativist just because he's not an eliminativist about concepts of the mental. Dennett is certainly someone who qualifies.
But thanks for the Chalmers estimate. Here it is again, in context:
[Emphasis added]
Comment by stunney — October 11, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
stunney:
Very impressive stacking up of negations there! Good way to hide a point that is both uninteresting (what counts as an "eliminativist", which is just labelliing) and wrong, if I've untangled your tortured syntax correctly. You seem to be saying, or implying, somewhere in there, that being a non-dualist is equivalent to being an eliminativist. Of course, this hides all the differences between actual eliminitavists like the Churchlands and people like Dennett and all of cognitive science.
In short, you are still trying to sell your idea that being a materialist implies being either an eliminativist or a mysterian. No matter how you try to sneak this in, the facts disagree with you (the facts of how people label themselves, not the facts of the actual ontology of the mind). You may think all of those people are wrong, but please don't pretend that they don't exist or hold positions different from what they actually believe.
Comment by mtraven — October 11, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
mtraven, I don't have time right now, but you confirm my original point—lots of the atheistically inclined don't like the eliminativist label. But there are only two possible positions on the materialist side. 1) Science can in principle solve the mind-body problem, and the only possible solution is one that eliminates a distinct ontology of the mental; 2) Science cannot in principle solve the mind-body problem, and the only possible solution if it could do so would be one that eliminates a distinct ontology of the mental. The eliminability of mentalistic linguistic concepts is a side-issue which atheists often use to obscure the ontological issue, as per my original post. Because if 1 is correct, then such concepts can give way to scientific ones. But if they can't give way to scientific concepts even in principle, that just = 2.
Comment by stunney — October 11, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Actually, those are the only three possibilities. A materialist who chooses to keep mental words (such as "belief") in his vocabulary must be a mere ascriptivist about those things. That is, he must hold that "belief" is simply a word that we apply to certain material objects, such as configurations in the brain, based on the physical behavior they produce.
He cannot hold that the material entities we call "beliefs" have anything intrinsically special or different from other material entities in any way, such as having 1st person properties that cannot be viewed and described in the 3rd person like all other material objects, because believing that would render him a dualist by definition.
On the other hand, if he denies that the material entities we call "beliefs" have any 1st person properties that are intrinsically distinct from the 3rd-person observable properties that all material objects have, then he is by definition an eliminativist about those 1st person properties.
So, therefore, anyone who is a materialist must be an eliminativist about 1st person properties of mental phenomenon, which is precisely what we mean when we refer to eliminativists. That they may say that mental phenomena exist, but are material, doesn't save them from being eliminativists, because all they are doing is applying mental terms to material objects, while continuing to deny that there are any special 1st person properties.
It would be similar to if I were to start referring to cows as "unicorns", and then started claiming this as proof that I wasn't an eliminativist about "unicorns" even though I don't believe in unicorns. I could even use cute, confusing dodges like the eliminativists do such as "I'm not saying that unicorns don't exist. I think that unicorns do exist. It's just that they are entirely cows." That I was using the word "unicorn" to refer to things wouldn't change the fact I was an eliminativist about unicorns. Non-eliminativist materialism is therefore a linguistic game rather than an actual position with actual content.
Actually, I should say there are only 2 positions, because I don't think mysterianism is a real position either. Since consistent materialism does logically imply eliminativism about 1st person properties, claiming that mental phenomena exist and are entirely material, but that we can't understand how, is a sort of nonsensical non-assertion, sort of like saying "unicorns are cows, but I don't know how they are cows" or "It's possible to make a square out of three straight lines, but we can't know how".
Comment by Deuce — October 11, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
October 12th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Deuce wrote:
Nice.
I would say in defence of the New Mysterians that their trick—-viz., openly admitting that science cannot solve the mind-body problem but insisting its solution, if there were one, would be consistent with a purely material ontology—-is pretty darn nifty.
As far as brass-necked chutzpah goes.
Comment by stunney — October 12, 2007 @ 1:28 am
October 15th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I hope, for Dowd's sake, that he is not talking about evolutionary psychology.
Comment by MikeGene — October 15, 2007 @ 10:43 pm