My post on “The Evolutionists’ Otherwise Practical Promiscuity” stirred up a firestorm, which is no different than I expected. What surprises me is how hard it is for some people to see reality. Maybe I over-complicated it.
My thesis was in the first sentence: “Evolution—the naturalistic kind—is dangerous.” In support of that I referred to a blog piece by evolutionary psychologist Jesse Bering on the moral implications of evolution. (He did not use the word “naturalistic” but it’s clear from the context that was what he meant. For the remainder of this post, when I speak of evolution I am specifically referring to naturalistic evolution.) I went on to discuss what it was about evolution that made it dangerous. Maybe instead I should have just trotted out the clear prima facie evidence.
We can discuss all week whether evolution entails moral nihilism, or whether evolutionists generally adopt that view. The fact remains that Bering could “get on board with this” intellectually:
There’s a strange whiff in the media air, a sort of polyamory chic in which liberally minded journalists, an aggregate mass of antireligious pundits and even scientists themselves have begun encouraging readers and viewers to use evolutionary theory to revisit and revise their sexual attitudes and, more importantly, their behaviors in ways that fit their animal libidos more happily.
Much of this discussion is being fueled by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá’s scintillating new book Sex at Dawn, which explores how our modern, God-ridden, puritanical society conflicts with our species’ evolutionary design, a tension making us pathologically ashamed of sex. There are of course many important caveats, but the basic logic is that, because human beings are not naturally monogamous but rather have been explicitly designed by natural selection to seek out ‘extra-pair copulatory partners’—having sex with someone other than your partner or spouse for the replicating sake of one’s mindless genes—then suppressing these deep mammalian instincts is futile and,
He can believe, based on his evolutionary suppositions,
that we live in a natural rather than a supernatural world, then there is no inherent, divinely inspired reason to be sexually exclusive to one’s partner. If you and your partner want to … [multiple suggested acts, omitted for reasons of decency] … then by all means do so (and take pictures). … Right is irrelevant. There is only what works and what doesn’t work, within context, in biologically adaptive terms….
He can tell the world that there’s nothing holding us back from this except that evolution has placed within us a restraining empathy response. I won’t take time here to draw out the weaknesses of Bering’s position on that, but I did address it in my last post, and I have more to come soon on the same.
He can get a hearing for his virtually pornographic promulgations through a highly regarded science magazine—because it is, he insists, a scientifically based viewpoint.
So one result of naturalistic evolution is that books like Sex at Dawn get scientific endorsement: cautious endorsement, perhaps, but supportive nonetheless; and “liberally minded journalists, an aggregate mass of antireligious pundits and even scientists themselves have begun encouraging readers and viewers to use evolutionary theory to revisit and revise their sexual attitudes and, more importantly, their behaviors in ways that fit their animal libidos more happily.”
It may not be every evolutionist who says this, but it’s not on the bare periphery, either. It’s at SciAm’s website this week. It’s at Princeton, by way of Singer’s influential (and evolutionary-based) opinions on infanticide and “speciesism.”
That’s dangerous. The thesis is demonstrated.
I know what the first objection to this will be: “Christianity is dangerous, too!” It certainly is. Much evil has been done in its name. The question in the case of both evolution and Christianity is whether their evils fit within them, or whether evil has co-opted them by distorting their true nature. It could be that overthrowing morality is really foreign to evolutionary theory. It could be that violent heresy-hunting is foreign to Christianity. If you have thoughts on that, there will be a thread coming soon to discuss it. (Which means that if you say something about it here, I’ll save my response for the coming blog post.)
So I stand firm on my belief that naturalistic evolution is dangerous. The facts speak for themselves.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Tom,
Thank you. Animals have instinct, they do not understand “ought to do”. I noticed in the previous post few if any women addressing this “polyamory chic” – gee I wonder why? So much narcissism, I wonder if any of the posters know there are human beings (yes with feelings) around them – or are those other creatures simply “human doings”?
Come-on-man! Maybe I am so old now I have the luxury of looking back and seeing trends, or maybe I’m finally old enough to “call a spade a spade”. In the late 1970s this current self-absorption (apparent from the responders comments to your previous blog) was “prophesied” by Christopher Lasch’s book “The Culture of Narcissism – American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations” (applicable title) on page 25:
“Arising out of a pervasive dissatisfaction with the quality of personal relations, it advises people not to make too large an investment in love and friendship, to avoid excessive dependence on others, and to live for the moment – the very conditions that created the crisis of personal relations in the first place.”
Thank you Tom for standing on principles not a cultural self-absorption greed.
“But each man speaks and acts and lives in accordance with his character” – Aristotle (384-322BC)
Eagle Driver:
Regarding character, if you haven’t already, you’ve got to see the film The Emperor’s Club. It’s brilliant.
I nominate Holo to be the blog’s resident film expert. He always has good suggestions
The Emperor’s Club is in the que. Looks great.
The Emperor’s Club, wilco, thanks.
Eagle Driver
check 6
I can’t believe my eyes. I pointed out in the previous thread that Tom’s carefully cropped quote of Bering’s post distorted the message. And here is Tom again, hawking exactly the same mangled quote. It could have been an honest mistake the first time, but this time it is not. You are engaging in quote mining, Tom.
I’ll insert once again key portions omitted by Tom in the last quoted paragraph in boldface type:
Let’s examine Tom’s latest assertions in the light of these reinserted sentences.
In fact, Bering is arguing the opposite. He says that Darwinian thinking does not, should not, and cannot determine what is right and what is wrong. You say that he argues for an immoral position on the basis of a scientific viewpoint, whereas Bering says that the resulting position is amoral. Ponder the difference.
This is false. Bering gives no scientific endorsement of the book’s thesis. Here is the book’s main point summarized by Bering:
Does Bering agree with this thesis? No:
What kind of “scientific endorsement” are you even talking about?
In a nutshell, “Darwinism” is unable to determine what norms of social behavior should be. Such questions are beyond its pay grade. It’s the subject of sociology and psychology.
olegt,
This was his Bering’s final word on the subject. See whether you think it is couched in terms of science. See what you think its moral implications might be. This is what Bering and SciAm have endorsed:
If you don’t see the obvious in there, be encouraged that I’m working on an extended explication thereof.
Tom,
In the latest quote, Bering describes his feelings and muses about their possible origin. There is a long way from there to societal norms.
Go ahead and take another stab at the subject. Maybe third time will be a charm.
I addressed that so-called “mangled quote,” in the other thread, olegt, and you have continued to press on it and press on it without offering the least courtesy of noticing what I said in response. You continue to trot it out as evidence of my wrongdoing. Your one-track mind says, “I’ve found something in Tom’s writing that I can call ‘mangled,’ so I’m going to call it ‘mangled’ come hell, high water, or anything Tom might say by way of explanation.”
In other words, you’re not showing the slightest interest in carrying on a discussion. Discussions involve going back and forth. You say x, I answer y, which ought to take some notice of x if it’s a real discussion; and you answer z, which (if it’s a real discussion) takes x and y into account.
I have accepted your corrections when you made some that made sense. That’s taking your x into account when I answer y.
But here’s what you’re doing: “whatever Tom says, I have x to say in answer to it. If Tom answers y to x, I’ll say x again. If Tom says z in response to x, I’ll still say x; and I’ll utterly ignore both y and z. If SteveK or Bradford say a or b, well, I have a great answer for them, too: I can always say x.”
That’s rude, it’s arguing in bad faith, it’s logically and rhetorically illegitimate, and I think ethically, too.
If you have something to say in response to what I’ve already written in regard to this so-called “mangled quote,” I’m all ears. Until then you’re on moderation here. There is absolutely no reason I have to subject myself to this repeated, careless, I-don’t-give-a-damn-how-Tom-answers discourtesy of yours. If you don’t give a damn how I answer, there’s no good reason for me to let you keep posting more items for me to answer and for you to ignore my answers again.
Don’t come back and say, “well, I have responded to some things you’ve said.” Your discourtesy is in your ignoring what I said about the so-called “mangled quote” and yet continuing to trot out that charge on me over and over again. That is the discourtesy I’m calling on you to acknowledge appropriately and to quit practicing.
Tom.
You did mangle the quote, having stripped it of the intended meaning. You also accused me of being a hypocrite and a bigot simply because you misunderstood my comment. Now you put me in moderation because you suspect that I’m just trying to contradict you. It does not seem to occur to you that you might be wrong. Again.
That’s OK with me. You know my email address and you can always shoot me an email and invite me back. And maybe I will come back. Or maybe not.
All the best, Tom.
Olegt, I’m letting that last comment of yours through.
I note in passing that this very thing has come up once before, very recently, in fact.
Thank you for again answering x and proving my point. Thank you also for proving my point by utterly ignoring this with respect to “hypocrite and bigot,” even though I linked to it in my previous comment. Thank you for proving my point again by not noticing that I do indeed accept it when I’m shown to be wrong.
Thank you for proving my point by assuming I am unable to consider the possibility that I might be wrong. Other than conceding points or making corrections where appropriate, what would the evidence of that be, olegt? It seems to me that engaging another person’s arguments—wrestling with them—is one thing, and utterly ignoring them is another; and that the latter is more sure evidence that a person is unwilling to consider the possibility he or she might be wrong.
Just in case anyone had any doubt as to your methods before, you have cleared them up nicely now. Thank you again.
I encourage you in the strongest terms now to look in the mirror, olegt.
And I remind you that you’re welcome back here any time, if you come back actually to carry on a discussion. No need to wait for an email. Just post something that’s a genuine contribution to a discussion, and I’ll see it and let it through.
Just before you wrote that last one I made up a little thing I was going to add:
Sometimes I think Hell might consist entirely of mirrors.
I’m pondering the idea that the story of naturalistic Darwinism is unable to explain the reality of moral prescriptives, hence Darwinism is not the whole story and neither is naturalism.
The 2 responses that you often hear in publications like SciAm or Nature can be boiled down to this:
1) Naturalistic Darwinism CAN explain the reality of moral prescriptives, and to prove it, here’s a 5-page report by Joe, a leading evolutionary biologist, to explain how it works using all kinds of scientific-sounding jargon.
2) Naturalistic Darwinism CAN’T explain the moral prescriptives, hence there are none, and to prove it, here’s a 5-page report by Joe, a leading evolutionary biologist, to explain how it works using all kinds of scientific-sounding jargon.
Either way, naturalistic Darwinism explains it. Naturalistic Darwinism explains why you percieve some falsehood about reality, or it explains the reality you perceive.
(1) relies on purposeful equivocation of terms and/or willful resistance to being corrected in order to muddle the truth, which is evil; (2) is plain wrong and evil.
I may be missing something, as I’ve not read the comments in the last few posts. Yet, it seems to me that until you can show which of these two options is more likely,
then you can’t actually say this with much confidence,
At most, I think you can say it is “potentially” dangerous, because of x, y, and z. Or, you could say that this specific form of naturalistic evolution is dangerous. But beyond that is a stretch, at least as best as I can tell.
brgulker,
I agree. I have a proposed answer to that forthcoming.
Is evolution dangerous? All knowledge is dangerous. Especially knowledge about ourselves. We found this out early on, in Genesis 2.
But it’s not the knowledge in itself that is dangerous, rather what we do with it. Is evolution dangerous when it tells us how to find antibiotics or to design fishing regulations? Is it dangerous when the evolution of 4-chambered hearts tells us how to correct a common heart defect in newborns? Is it dangerous when studying the evolution of taste buds leads to the discovery of an entirely new class of flavor modulators?
Tom appears to decry only “naturalistic” evolution, although he seems to think that any kind of evolution (i.e., common ancestry with major changes over periods of time) is false, and probably dangerous as well.
So once again, I’ll have to plug methodological naturalism. If evolution can be explained in terms of natural mechanisms that abide by fixed laws of chemistry and physics, then it’s “true” to naturalist science. This is not “naturalistic evolution,” it’s just “evolution.” Whether God may guide it in some undetectable manner does not concern scientists; if the guidance is undetectable, I wonder why it should even concern philosophers.
The fact of evolution is not dangerous in itself. The uses to which we put evolutionary knowledge can be dangerous. Just as in the case of atomic energy—hydrogen bombs or cancer treatments. Nothing new here; it goes all the way back to stone tools and fire.
Tom may have lost sight of the distinction between science and policy. Just because a scientist says it doesn’t mean it’s science. “The relative size of testicles is a good predictor of relative polygamy by the males of that species” is a scientific statement. “We should encourage free sex among men having bigger testicles” is a policy statement. Scientists can be as mistaken about policy as anyone else.
Unfortunately, many important current issues conflate the two. Such as human-induced climate change.
The study of nature mandates very little about public policy. Science can reveal that a virus or unicellular organism is dangerous and explain why. It can facilitate the preparation of a vaccine. What it cannot do is determine how much funding should be directed toward a pathogenic threat. That decision is about allocation of resources and priorities. It’s inherently political. It’s also the reason human climate change theories are not directing with respect to public policies.
When one claims the mantel of scientific authority to advance a political agenda it’s time to hang on to your wallets as your money is a likely target. Science is generally invoked as an authoritative source for the formulation of public policy. But it rarely if ever reveals a single plausible option. The development of the atomic bomb was one of those rarities. It prompted Einstein’s famous letter to FDR.
Evolution is an historic theory which does not lend itself to public policy formation.
Olorin, in this post I really am only talking about naturalistic evolution. None of this has any connection to theistic evolution whatsoever.
It’s not knowledge in itself that’s dangerous; in this case it’s what naturalism does to knowledge—moral knowledge, that is—as well as to moral opinion and belief, which is not the same thing but has very similar effects.
I’m not losing sight of the distinction between science and policy. I’m looking at the connection between a metaphysical belief (naturalism) and ethical practice by anyone at any level. Naturalism is at the heart of the issue, and evolution is somewhat incidental, but as I mentioned twice in the previous post, I find the evolutionary version of this argument interesting, which is why I’m writing on it.
Bradford,
Would A New Biology for the 21st Century fit your description? (Courtesy of UD) Without a moral anchor to secure itself, the odds are that this well-meaning plan will veer off course like a car drifting into oncoming traffic.
Bradford says (#17) that science policy “rarely if ever reveals a single plausible option. The development of the atomic bomb was one of those rarities.” Building an atomic bomb was certainly not the only option; Einstein himself had grave doubts whether it was the right one.[1] Science can inform policy, and should inform policy. But science is not policy.
Bradford also has a warped idea of evolution. He seems to think it only happened in the past: “Evolution is an historic theory which does not lend itself to public policy formation.”
It is this blindness that doomed efforts to save fisheries, by not employing evolutionary principles. For example, salmon have been raised in captivity and released to restock habitats. Why did this effort fail? Because the fish adapted to the lack of predators in captivity by laying smaller numbers of larger eggs. Upon release, the predators ate all the eggs. The selective pressures differ between the two conditions, and the salmon reacted to them.
One of the more laughable efforts of the Discovery Institute a few years ago was to propose an antibiotic treatment program based upon design principles. The drug mix they chose not only wouldn’t work, it would have actually promoted bacterial resistance.
Public policy could do with a lot more evolutionary input. Economists certainly are beginning to think so. Evolutionarily stable strategies and the Nash Equilibrium, for example.
===============
[1] Leo Szilard and Edward Teller convinced him. Isaacson, Einstein, His life and Universe, pp.469-82.
.
Evolution is evolution. There was common ancestry or separate creation. New species arise or they don’t. Selection shapes organism or it doesn’t.
The difference seems not in the evolution, but in the way in which we study it. Naturalistic methods explain by invoking physical and chemical laws, and building upon previous explanations. Theistic evolution invoke supernatural forces—that is, forces that cannot be further investigated, the end of the line. If I am trying to accumulate as much useful knowledge as possible, which of these methods should I choose?
Please let us know what you think is the exact difference between naturalistic and theistic evolution. I think it’s procedural; you seem to think it’s substantive.
Olorin:
I did not say that genetic changes no longer occur. Current events happen every day and will one day become history. The same applies to biological developments. Evolution is a theory seeking to explain the past as well as the present.
Olorin:
BTW, building an atomic bomb was the only option. If it were not for the bomb resistance to Stalin would not have been possible. Unlike Einstein, Stalin was not plagued by doubts.
“So one result of naturalistic evolution is that books like Sex at Dawn get scientific endorsement: cautious endorsement, perhaps, but supportive nonetheless…”
I’m not following you. Where is this scientific endorsement of which you write?
“It’s at Princeton, by way of Singer’s influential (and evolutionary-based) opinions on infanticide and “speciesism.””
Your dichotomy doesn’t exist. Singer is a hero of the animal rights movement, and the very biologists you lump Singer with are the AR movement’s most reviled villains. Singer is a hack and a hypocrite.
“It could be that overthrowing morality is really foreign to evolutionary theory.”
I don’t understand this at all. Clearly, evolutionary theory should be producing testable hypotheses about morality. Isn’t science more about testing empirical hypotheses than being frightened by the musings of a gay SA columnist?
SteveK, A New Biology for the 21st Century, calls for a great deal of caution and study before it gets endorsement. We need to make sure the problems cited yield to the solutions proposed. This should not be about feeling good.
Olorin:
A better question might be what natural process yields a cell with a capacity to evolve?
One more point with respect to the argument that public policy could do with a lot more evolutionary input. On closer inspection the argument is that public policies could do with a lot more input from a theory holding that change over time occurs. That of course is a trivial claim but it is cheerleaders for evolution who use the simile of a blind watchmaker to portray the process. Sure, reproductive fitness and environmental changes are a focal point but how is that informative regarding public policy. The problem with the public policy claim is common to the moral values claim. There is simply no evolutionary rudder able to guide our decisions toward anything of use. But if there is a detectable rudder, allowing for accurate future predictions about the course of evolution, then ID need not be summarily dismissed.
Olorin, the difference between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution is the difference between naturalism and theism. One takes it that all effects in the universe are the result of impersonal law and chance acting upon or through matter/energy (or, matter/energy interacting in impersonal law-like and chance ways). The other takes it that the universe was created by a Person, God, and therefore reality is personal at its core (also good, wise, holy, and more).
I go into more detail concerning the philosophical and empirical (phenomenological) relation between the two here.
Remember, I’ve said that the core of my concern in this post is not evolution, it’s naturalism, and the reason I’m approaching it from the standpoint of evolution is because I think it’s interesting to take it from this direction. The same conclusions for which I’m arguing here could be argued without reference to evolution, but that’s not what I’m doing this time.
Except for this, which is a practical matter: Evolution does not imply naturalism, but many evolutionists in fact teach it as if it does. They’re smuggling metaphysics in along with their biology. When they do this, there is a sense that “evolution” is dangerous, because it becomes a de facto carrier of naturalistic metaphysics.
If nobody ever associated naturalism with evolution, then I would just say naturalism is (ethically) dangerous. But evolution and naturalism have become closely paired with one another in the public and scientific consciousness, so sometimes it’s worth treating them as a pair, even though logically they can be distinguished from one another.
Birdseye, re: your 10:51 pm comment.
What I meant by “cautious endorsement” was that it received a somewhat appreciative notice in a highly respected science magazine.
Singer may not be loved by biologists, but his theories would have no basis or grounding without naturalistic evolutionary theory. His views depend on the belief that there is no essential (ontological) difference between humans and animals. This belief flows out of no other source than naturalistic evolution. So even though there may be strong social antipathy between Singer, representing AR, and biologists, there is nevertheless some key conceptual agreement there.
I agree with that. When I wrote, “It could be that overthrowing morality is really foreign to evolutionary theory,” I was proposing a “maybe,” a hypothetical situation, one that I think some naturalistic evolutionists might support, but which in a later article I intend to show is wrong. Your second sentence is right on the mark, too. That’s what science is about. But sometimes, as in this case, science becomes wedded to philosophy. It’s an inappropriate coupling, but it happens.
I’m trying in these comments to clarify that the philosophy of naturalism is my chief concern, and I’ve brought evolution into the picture just because (a) it is an interesting direction from which to approach the issue of naturalism, and (b) it really has become wedded to naturalism in the minds of many, which is a reality that ought not to be ignored. So I’m addressing it.
Interesting. I had asked about SCIENTIFIC endorsement, not cautious endorsement.
You’ve got it backwards, Tom. It’s about how Singer’s philosophy makes him feel about biologists, not the converse.
I think you’re severely lacking in empathy on that point. It seems to me that one can easily arrive at Singer’s utilitarian POV starting with the assumption that animals and humans are all God’s creations.
I wonder why you can see it so much more clearly than both the ARists and the biologists can.
That seems to be what you are doing!
Aren’t you asserting that one can only accept evolutionary science if one starts with philosophical (your term!) naturalism? That because YOU don’t accept philosophical naturalism, evolution itself must be dangerous and false?
It appears to me that from your writing, everything is constructed around the primary danger of accepting evolution itself–hence the titles of your two recent posts. That you can’t see the false dichotomy you’ve created wrt Singer/biologists supports that conclusion.
Birdseye:
If you find that distinction important, that’s your choice. Other readers should re-read the context, which I invite you to do as well, before making their judgment on that.
I acknowledge I got the Singer/biologists thing backward. It was an early morning typo. But one cannot arrive at many of Singer’s conclusions on the basis of biblical theism, which makes strong ontological differences between humans and animals. If you have some other “all God’s creations” theory, I don’t know what that would be or if it is relevant.
I wonder what evidence you have that they don’t see it.
Am I coupling science and philosophy inappropriately? No, I’m addressing the de fact coupling that exists now as a social reality. I think I’ve made that sufficiently clear.
No. Read the link I provided for Olorin this morning on the relationship between theistic and naturalistic evolution.
It appears to me that you have not paid attention to the many times I have specified that I am talking about naturalism. I put it in the first sentence of both posts, and I have reiterated it often. You are projecting something on to me that is not in what I have written.
Tom to Olorin:
Thanks for the pointer. I have an empirical question about this passage:
Would you please give an example of your personal interpretation of the evidence of natural history? By that, I mean some actual empirical evidence, not what anyone else says about the evidence or how anyone else summarizes the evidence.
That would help me to understand your POV.
Singer specifically starts from the position of opposing the Christian view of the sanctity of life.
According to the essayists in Rethinking Peter Singer he attacks a strawman of Christian fundamentalism as part of his plan to soften up deeply held beliefs to prepare the way for his utilitarianism.
Singer believes that the speciesism which he opposes comes from the belief that man is special because he is sacred and that he is sacred because God made him in His image and is further reinforced by the idea that man is immortal.
“He attacks [sexual and moral] taboos as irrational, prejudiced leftovers of an outmoded Christian ethic”.
Here’s the book and a restatement of the biological account of human ethics we hear so often on these blogs from the non-theistic perspective;
http://books.google.ca/books?id=xHAGgWMHTbIC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=singer+presents+a+detailed+account+of+the+development+of+human+morality&source=bl&ots=j9YdPhVhba&sig=6oBArQvu-7-hLkub397HLD12LzM&hl=en&ei=539-TK3xLJOjnQeuxODwAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=singer%20presents%20a%20detailed%20account%20of%20the%20development%20of%20human%20morality&f=false
Charlie:
That’s correct, and it points to the underlying pseudo-philosophical interpretations that are imposed upon scientific findings that makes those interpretations (and resulting worldviews, ideologies, etc.) that are dangerous.
So, Tom, it’s not evolutionary theory that is dangerous: there’s no way an MES theory by itself can be “dangerous” (a value judgement, by the way) because it merely tries to describe material objects and their associated physical phenomena. We should not fear MES-knowledge qua MES-knowledge because truth should never be feared but embraced… and I stand on the good authority of St. Augustine, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas and a host of others in this.
So, you are correct in stating that naturalistic evolutionary theory is dangerous. The problem with that statement is it needs a great deal of unpacking–if these comments are any indicator. Secular scientists automatically assume (based to a great extent on their ignorance) that “naturalistic” (as you use it) somehow stands opposed to the the natures of things in the real extra-mental world and our ability to study and know them through the MESs, or that you’re trying to sneak in “supernaturalistic” into the realm of the MESs.
You employ “naturalistic” in your sentence by tying it (in the background) quite correctly to philosophical (ontological) naturalism. Naturalism, as a philosophy, is… well… stupid, ignorant, self-defeating, ontologically-flatlanding nonsense that enamors weak minds.
(Expanding upon Charlie’s point: for Singer to build his philosophical systems on a priori negations (privations) of things he personally–and quite unscientifically–doesn’t like is really to build upon privations… which is a fancy way of saying Singer is building his hovel on sand.)
Ironically, olegt is correct when he states, for example, that moral relativism doesn’t follow from the theories of relativity. The problem is, he doesn’t understand and cannot articulate why such an interpretation is illicit. He has a strong innate sense (something like: “you’re comparing apples and oranges”) that the interpretation is wrong… and that’s good! But then and in spite of this, he’ll misuse his knowledge of physics to make the non-scientific and pseudo-philosophical claim that quantum events are uncaused, i.e., that TRUE ontological randomness is a reality–simply based what he thinks certain mathematical formalism “mean” (i.e., he believes those formalisms actualize the ontological status of extra-mental reality.
DL does the same thing with his silly if it’s not predictable it’s either not real or valid or whatever. DL denies the validity of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (which holds that all contingent beings must have a causal reason for their existence) NOT because the MESs “tell” him that (how could they? they’d then be appealing to that which they attempt to deny!), but because he wants it to be that way to convenience certain a priori and therefore he imposes upon the MESs his own “telling” them what they should tell us. Not scientific. Not philosophical. Just plain dumb.
Bering? Same thing. I’m not going to get into the hermeneutics of what Bering did or did not mean (I think you’re correct, Tom). My point is he’s playing fast and loose with science as well. Most neo-DarwinISM-ists do so. That’s why it, indeed, is dangerous: dangerous to real human beings who lead real lives and dangerous to the MESs themselves.
What about Dawkins (who claims there is no purpose or good or evil or God animated by his scientISM) or Dennett (who claims there is no such thing as free will… all while trying to convince us by appealing to our free will to “choose” that his nonsense is true!) or Stenger, or Harris, or Hitchens, or whoever? They really are all intellectual pee-wees who ignore inconvenient things in order to hammer critical thinkers with nonsense by taking advantage of the MESs and the ignorance of most people of the beauty and strength of the MESs. (That’s why Dawkins’ former title at Oxford was so ironically sweet.)
And, since I’m an equal-opportunity gadfly, for me a similar problem is had with the ID movement: it tries to “see” something in the findings of the MESs that just aren’t there IF YOU ONLY USE THE MESs. Of course something is there (to deny this is foolish), but it means you need different “eyes” to “see” design or God behind existence, and it behooves them NOT to drop philosophical interpretation but to get it right AND not to promote it as only science that can be taught in a science classroom.
So, why is it that the MESs are so prone to weird, pseduo-philosophical interpretations? Because the knowledge they provide are the most fundamental to us: strike at the root, as it were, and you control the masses. Critical thinkers, however, know better: “most fundamental” doesn’t imply either “most important” or “only” form of knowledge. (To make such a claim would be a non sequitur and certainly neither scientific nor philosophical.) But to admit that truth would be to immediately eviscerate the life out of the quaint yet deadly-dangerous (if history alone is any witness) personal mental and emotional crutch known as atheism.
Charlie:
If Singer really believes that, how is it that in the arena of political reality, Singer’s biggest villains are biologists, who tend to be far more agnostic and atheistic than the general population?
I agree with you that Singer’s derivation is phony, which is why Tom errs so dramatically in lumping him in with biologists; however, the fact that Tom does this lumping is strong evidence that he is starting with evolution, not philosophy, and tweaking things to fit after he draws a bright white line between Us and Them.
Birdseye, with respect to your 2:21 pm comment,
This question of Singer and biologists is just not that difficult. Singer draws from the study of biology the inference that humans and animals are not significantly different in their ontology. From that he infers that we ought not to treat animals with any different level of respect than we do humans. From that he concludes that animal experimentation is wrong. You can figure out the rest. This is not complicated.
Singer’s derivation may be phony, but that doesn’t change the fact that what I’ve just describe depicts the true story of how he views things.
Your “strong evidence” that I am starting with evolution flies in the face of the strong evidence that I have repeatedly insisted otherwise, and explained otherwise, and supported my explanation with arguments. In other words, you have a screwy definition of what constitutes strong evidence.
It’s not an issue of how he views things. The issue is your claim that his view isn’t on the bare periphery:
You’re simply trying to support “evolution is dangerous” by portraying Singer’s utilitarian lunacy as representative of biologists.
.
So… what do you think evolution is, if not genetic change over time?
Maybe I’m being a pest here, bbut I think you have not yet answered the scientists’ question as to the difference between theistic and naturalistic evolution.
Some say that the only question in philosophy is what to do next. So, how do we research evolution differently if we are theistic evolutionists or naturalistic evolutionists? What bacterial experiments do we do differently? What different fossils do we look for? What different outcomes can we predict? If, for any experiment X, NE predicts outcome Y, and TE also predicts outcome Y, then NE=TE.
That’s why I want to know what you think the operational difference is between NE and TE. To my mind, what you call the “cause” of a phenomenon is immaterial, as long as the result is the same; a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
(Recall, for instance, that Newton and Leibniz argued endlessly about the theological implications of a putative gravitational “force”. Yet both, ironically, embraced a materialistic law.)
Olorin,
On the other thread I referred you to, I said there is no empirical difference between NE and TE. There is a theological and philosophical difference, but the difference it makes is in the moral, spiritual, personal, relational, and ultimately eternal level, not the laboratory level.
Olorin said: “what do you think evolution is, if not genetic change over time?”
Evolution is “descent with modification” — not just “genetic change over time.” There are many times genetic changes occur that don’t lead to descent with modification. (It also doesn’t consider what the mechanisms are that led to changes at the genetic level.) You may think that’s picky, but it’s exactly the kind of sloppiness that not only points to an ignorance of what evolution is, but surely reflects an ignorance of things less known by such people… like, oh say, religious faith.
Maybe that’s what explains why Bering, Dawkins, and others are so dumb in their approach: they impose preconceived emotional needs mixed with an a priori world view upon their ignorance of disciplines (to a greater or lesser extent) such as evolutionary theory and religious faith… conveniently then reducing faith (or altruism or free will or what have you) to nothing more than resultant traits riding the froth of evolutionary mechanisms. Dumb. Really, really dumb.
This is silly. Causes are highly relevant. The form of the cause gives us valuable information. For example, in the case of a homoside, the cause of wilfull intent tells us something different than if the cause was accidental. It’s a difference worth noting.
The same is true with evolution.
“I agree with you that Singer’s derivation is phony, which is why Tom errs so dramatically in lumping him in with biologists; ”
This is likely getting way off topic, but seems like a good resource for those involved in this discussion.
Richard Dawkins (reckoned quite famous as a knowledgeable advocate of evolutionary theory) interviews the “most moral person in the world”, Peter Singer. I can’t tell how bare is the periphery upon which we find Dawkins.
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/3951-peter-singer-the-genius-of-darwin-the-uncut-interviews
Christian theism leads just as easily to the finding that there is no difference in kind between humans and “non-human animals”?
I doubt it.
At about 8:40
“Once we accept the Darwinian picture that we are not somehow a specially created species that’s got a God-given right to rule over the other animals …”
Dawkins agrees with Singer and talks about moral responsibilities and capacities existing on the evolutionary continuum: we have more responsibility to the pig, which has a more evolved capacity to reason and feel pain than to the oyster.
So the Darwinian picture tells us about our God-given rights.
At 15 minutes they “totally agree” on the Darwinian basis for our moral feelings.
“Intrinsically there’s not a lot of difference between cannibalism and [eating non-human animals]“. Again, it’s on a Darwinian continuum.
Dawkins: “The barrier between homo sapiens and other species is an accidental barrier in the sense that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct”.
Singer: “I want to reduce the sharpness of that difference. One of my objections to a religious viewpoint, of course, is that it does reinforce that barrier.”
33:30 “What’s the connection of Darwin and what we’ve been talking about?”
Singer:”Knocked out the foundation of believing that we are so special”.
“If you accept an evolutionary account that’s [the idea that we were created by God, have dominion over animals] nonsense. We were not created in the image of any deity. Nobody gave us permission to use them. We just evolved together with them from common ancestors.”
Dawkins nods in agreement throughout.
Dawkins” “Darwin’s one long argument was based upon the need to make humans and animals similar.”
Dawkins: “I can think of no moral objection to eating human roadkill apart from the ones we discussed”. Those being, the person’s desire while sentient that he would not be eaten, the effect it would have on his family, etc.
Singer: “I’ve assimilated Darwinism on this issue better than you [Dawkins] have. … You’ve been influenced by these vestiges of religious belief that separate us from the animals.”
Dawkins admits readily that Singer’s views are “on board the Darwinism” but that he himself is still influenced by social conformity.
40:00
Dawkins, nearing the end, disagrees with Gould that creating a human/chimp hybrid would be immoral. He determines that it would be tremendously moral and Singer agrees that it certainly could be – if the hybrid were not used for experiments or slavery.
Charlie:
Famous, but famous does not mean representative, does it?
Then maybe you should read some papers from the biomedical research literature and determine the fraction of them that don’t exploit animals in ways Singer says is ethically wrong.
The fact that Dawkins fawns over Singer does not mean than most, or even many, other biologists do.
Do you not agree that the pig has, regardless of origin, a greater capacity to reason and feel pain than an oyster?
Pardon me? Singer doesn’t even endorse the concept of rights, remember? He’s a utilitarian.
What proportion of working biologists are “ethical” vegetarians on this alleged continuum?
This is correct.
So here Singer rejects the findings of evolutionary biology when they don’t support his political goals.
Hilarious! Yet evolutionary biology already provides the barrier.
Hi Birdseye.
You don’t really say anything of any relevance or even applicable to the snippets you are trying to comment on.
I’ll provide more facts for those who actually care if it interests me again later.
Holopupenko:
They’re exactly the same thing. Olorin should have been more specific—it’s genetic change in a population over time, or more technically, changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.
You’re parroting a common misconception among evolution denialists, who are so determined to force the word that Darwin never used (“random”) into their description of evolution that they don’t realize that natural selection and drift still act far more on existing genetic variablility in a population than they do on new variations.
In other words, even if all mutations stopped occurring tomorrow, natural selection, artificial selection, and drift would still produce descent with modification and genetic change over time for a very long time before they ran out of variation.
I think it’s amusing that you seized on an omission to insert a creationist misconception.
And those two are different … how?
(It must be a philosophy thing.)
Birdseye:
You truly are a weak intellect: if you would actually pay attention you’d have easily noticed I am neither an ID-er nor a YEC-er. That you so ignorantly and incorrectly label me a “creationist” rather than presenting an argument is ample evidence of your shallow and insecure character. And “evolution denialist”? Me? I laughed so hard the Chardonnay I was enjoying came through my nose! Worse, to conflate “descent with modification” with “genetic change over time” (your categorical words: “They’re exactly the same thing”) is a plainly ignorant and quite stupid assertion. You really don’t have a full grasp of the mechanisms, do you? The latter applies to Olorin as well with his condescension against philosophy. I am truly embarrassed for the both of you.
Atheism: breeder of lies and more ignorance.
Didn’t Darwin himself say his naturalistic theory was dangerous? He didn’t use those exact words, but he did say revealing it was like “confessing to a murder”. Sounds like he knew that the truth of his naturalistic theory came with some very bad news (sounds dangerous, doesn’t it?). That bad news being that the grounding source – the anchor – for morality didn’t exist any more and that morality was free to shift and change with the societal and evolutionary tides. I think most people would say that is a dangerous theory.
Source
Source
Holopupenko’s descent with modification is a more comprehensive reference to the actual science as it alludes to reproductive fitness which in turn allows for assessment by natural selection. Genetic changes can be somatic. The phrase is too vague. That aside though let me note that Olorin’s quoted response evades the point as to how evolution would be useful as a public policy formation factor.
Bradford:
You’re right… but it never dawned on me (until now) that this would have to turn into a classroom for atheists on evolutionary theory. (Birdseye’s and Olorin’s ignorant equivocation expressed so categorically is precious!)
It is SO clear–and I mentioned this earlier–that for an atheist, lack of knowledge even of the MES-topic at hand, avoiding dishonesty, ignorance of more subtle but very important philosophical distinctions, and ignorance of what religious faith is… are all okay as long as one has an a priori commitment to the lie of atheism.
Religious faith–especially Christianity–is the main target, and damn the truth in pursuit of that agenda. You accept evolutionary theory but you’re a Christian? Really? Here, let me correct you… with ignorance and dishonesty.
Can you imagine being a person who’s lead by the nose by a lie, and who tries to manipulate people and things to support that lie? Lies and the lying liars who tell them, I guess…
.
Biologists consider these equivalent descriptions of evolution. Both quite cursory, but equivalent as far as they go. If you think a scientist would use them differently, please drain the Chardonnay from your keyboard and explain.
.
I do not condescend against philosophy. There are numerous cases where a philosopher might perceive a difference that would be irrelevant to a scientist. For example, whether mind is a coequal entity with brain, or an emergent property thereof. Or whether angels are composed of fermions or bosons.
Aww. There goes the Chardonnay again.
Hi olegt
I don’t know, but I assume from your vigorous defense of Jesse Bering, that you agree with his assessment of the moral implications (or lack thereof) of Darwinian evolution. Perhaps, if I reword the quote above a little bit you will realize the implications for your own argument.
“The amoralistic beauty of Darwinian evolution is that there is no right or wrong.”
If you really agree with the worldview promulgated by Mr. Bering then your belief that it was “wrong” for Tom to critique Mr. Bering is incoherent. According to the worldview of Mr. Bering there is no moral difference between sleeping with someone or killing them.
No doubt Mr. Bering has in mind the “emotionless” aspect of the psychopath’s personality and not the murderous aspect, however, whether the psychopath, adrift in an emotionless world, engages in sexual adventures or murderous rampages is morally equivalent – or perhaps I should say any moral judgment (according to Mr. Bering) is a category mistake.
Even though Mr. Bering argues the world is “amoral” (that is without any moral categories with which to judge behavior) he here introduces a moral argument that it would be “wrong” to “discriminate (judge) against people in homosexual relationships.”
He also introduces the concept of “consenting adults” which implies another moral judgment (discrimination) on his part. Consensual interactions are morally good. Presumably, non-consensual actions are morally bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
Much as we find arguments to amorality attractive (it helps for those little white lies we tell) we cannot live that worldview consistently. We know that the categories of reight and wrong (moral standards) exist. We may disagree on which standard should take precedence, but we all agree that they exist.
Olorin:
There are numerous experimental findings that are irrelevant to those making policy decisions that shape society. I take it you agree that evolution has little value beyond its biological context.
Is evolution dangerous?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/james_j_lee_hostage-taker_and_037811.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/major_media_spike_discovery_ch037851.html
Dang, Dave, you beat me to it !
When more and more Darwinists tip the hat to Darwinism as an excuse to be dangerous, you’ve got more reason to think it actually is.
As Tom mentioned, people do the same with religion, but in most cases the religion teaches the opposite so it’s hard to argue that it’s the religion that is dangerous. Some are genuinely dangerous.
.
Agree. But there are also numerous experimental findings that are crucial to making policy decisions that shape society. Human-induced climate change is currently at the forefront. Within evolutionary biology, I have previously mentioned the salmon restoration program (done wrong on evolutionary principles, and subsequently failed) and the Australian tuna program (conceived on the basis of evolutionary experiments).
.
Au contraire. See above for policy applications in fisheries.
If you mean that the study of evolution has no applicability outside biology, again wrong. As a trivial example, programs to construct evolutionary trees have been employed to reconstruct Chaucer’s original Canterbury Tales. Also mentioned previously was that economists are finding that evolutionary stable strategies offer solutions to their beloved Nash equilibria. In general, evolutionary biology has been and remains a key area in the emerging study of generalized complex systems. See, e.g., S.Y. Auyang’s classic, Foundations of Complex System Theories in Evolutionary Biology, Economics, and Statistical Mechanics (1999).
Viewing things from a totality perspective this looks meager indeed and not very conclusive. The global warming theory of course has spawned a movement and cooperative ventures involving big business and government. But what is striking about the movement is not its linkage of projects to predictive data about climate change, but rather the absence of this tendency. Global warming theory is a boon to mega-corporations, a feel good source for eco-activists including some politicians and a major expense for every day consumers. Electric bills are slated to increase by billions in the coming decades while CO2 output, mainly from Asian sources, soars. Climate change as a result of activism? No. But a channel for religious impulses among secular factions? Indeed.
.
How many examples would you like? Let’s see. Research that I myself have run across within the past year. The evolution of multicellularity is being studied to deduce the origin of cancer. (We’re talking sponges here—in cancer research! Who woulda thought?) The evolution of bacterial signaling molecules has led to a new way to prevent bacteria from infecting people, without killing the bacteria. (So no anti-biotic resistance.) Investigating the origin of taste buds has led to the development of a new class of compounds that have no taste themselves, but can alter the taste of other foods. (“Taste modulators”) How did the reptilian 3-chambered heart evolve into the nmammalian 4-chambered variety? Noodling out the answer isolated an enzyme that can repair a common heart defect in newborns. Studies of human evolutionary adaptations to high altitudes isolated a factor for anemia. (Imagine!) Evolutionary genetics traces almost all Jews back to the Levant. (They had wondered for a long time how many were ethnic and how many converts. Very few converts, it turns out.) Every animal in the world that produces sperm uses a version of the same gene. (Maybe no practical applications yet, but who knows?) If you think that biological diversity is important, then U British Columbia has tied frequency-dependent multiple traits to determine how to maintain diversity in an ecology. Studying the evolutionary dynamics of transcription-factor binding revealed the source of some gross defects in embryos. The evolution of microbial cooperation promises to guard against harmful “cheaters” in our bodies’ bacterial populations.
S, how many examples are enough? (I only went back a few months, a full year would take too long.) But I have a feeling that no number would satisfy Bradford; he’d continue to ask for more. Meanwhile, of course, the number of benefits that have emerged from applying theories of creation over the past century is … exactly … ZERO.
By their fruits shall you know them.
Pardon the interruption in the flow of thought, but I want to let you know that the follow-up piece I’ve been promising for this topic will be delayed. I’ve written most of it, but before I post it here, I want to get some others’ opinions on whether it has potential as a journal article. Thanks for your patience.
Olorin,
Even though biologists may not exercise this level of care, it really is important not to equivocate on “evolution.” The word is perfectly useful in multiple contexts: the evolution of computers, stellar evolution, evolution of political thinking, bacterial antibiotic resistance, descent with modification, genetic change over time, the theory that random variation and natural selection account for all life’s diversity, and so on.
These all have one thing in common: change over time. They are in many ways also very different from each other. That the concept of evolution is useful or accurate in one of their contexts, therefore, provides no evidence that it is so in another. This is the crux of the micro/macro debate (terms used by Ernst Mayr and S.J. Gould, by the way). No one doubts microevolution happens. It provides only weak evidence, however, for RV plus NS accounting for all the species.
Agree on the equivocation problem. For example, even evolutionary scientists often conflate the fact of evolution and theories of evolution. Ultimately, we shall still be left with a Wittgensteinian cloud of meanings whose boundaries each participant will interpret differently in order to advance his view.
My favorite ever cartoon shows a kindergarten class watching one of its members perform a dance. Above each child’s head is a thought balloon containing a picture. One balloon has an airplane. Another has a sunflower. Another, a gazelle. And so forth. Edward Tufte used this cartoon in his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. (Critics call this book “a visual Strunk & White.”)
Olorin:
You’re evading the issue. I already noted that research yields productive results which is why I wrote in a previous comment that the utility of evolution lies within a biological context. E.g. Breakthroughs in pathology as a result of new data on signaling pathways- and much more- no doubt. But this thread alludes to the bigger picture and begins by noting the dubious relevance of evolution to morals and a great many other issues around which value systems and public policies are fashioned.
.
Another example of equivocation. Ever since Yurii Filipchenko introduced the terms \microevolution\ and \macroevolution\ in 1927, they have had different meanings to different people at different times. For many years, biologists avoided them altogether, because of the equivocation problem. Even Gould and Mayr did not totally agree on their meaning.
So you must define your use of \macroevolution\ when you say it doesn’t happen. (If you mean merely \new species\ then macroevolution obviously does happen, as you can see with your own eyes by driving up the San Joaquin Valley, circumnavigating Lake Superior, or boating across Lake Victoria, for example.)
I can’t be sure of what Gould wrote on it, but if I recall correctly, Mayr’s usage is consistent with what I wrote earlier.
Another niggle, although it may be important in Tom’s later exposition:
.
I don’t know any evolutionary biologist who claims that RV+NS accounts for all species, or even for most. Pitched battles rage over whether neutral drift may actually overppower selection. Significant new research indicates that filling vacant (or vacated) ecological niches may constitute the great majority of species diversity. Epigenetic factors can be inherited, we now learn, re-infecting elocutionary theory with a mild case of Lamarckitis after a century.
(Thus, even when you say “Darwinian” evolution, you mean something different from biologists, and they equivocate among themselves.)
Olorin:
Neutral drift is really, broadly speaking, a subset of random mutation, or to be more accurate, random variation. In the naturalistic evolutionary conceptual toolbox, all the various mechanisms ultimately fall broadly under accidental changes (random variation) and the accidental spread of those accidental changes, or under environmental pressures (natural selection), or some combination thereof.
.
When you decide on a destination, the first question is—or should be—how to get there. This requires knowledge of where you start from, and in many cases, of how you got where you are. This is why policymakers who ignore history usually fail.
Many—perhaps most—policy decisions can also fail for lack of knowledge of how people will react to a given course of action, and the history of “how we got here.”
Take just one area that I have mentioned before, evolutionary stable strategies (ESS). A number of interrelated adaptations have made humans monogamous, but with a tendency toward infidelity. This is disruptive, so other adaptations punish infidelity. Evolution therefore tells us that eliminating teen pregnancy by merely telling teens not to engage in sex is doomed. And in fact, abstinence-only programs have failed miserably wherever they have been tried. If we wish to decrease teen pregnancy, we’ll have to take this ESS into account, and call upon a countervailing adaptation to manage it.
This is in principle the same as the difference between the failed US salmon program (which did not take evolutionary adaptations into account) and the successful Australian tuna program (which did).
As I noted previously, many ESSs—of diverse species, including bacteria–involve codes of behavior, cheaters, and punishment of cheaters. Codes have quantifiable benefits for the species. Cheating yields quantifiable benefits to the individual cheater. Punishment incurs quantifiable costs to the punisher(s).
Admittedly, our knowledge of the large number of human “moral” adaptations is currently nascent. However, new results appear monthly. Some are counterintuitive—charitable giving actually decreases total giving when it is rewarded with cash?? (Think of the new movement to reward good grades with cash Will this policy work? We could ask what adaptations does it engage or ignore?) Sacrificing one life to save many seems morally acceptable when the sacrifice is passive, and not morally acceptable when you actually have to push the sacrifcee onto the tracks to save the other five livers?? Well, huh.
But that’s how we got here. And how we got here often tells us how to get to where we wish to go.
.
I understand that Bradford will demand additional examples. This is always the last bastion of creationists, that the opposition cannot produce infinite detail. Perhaps others will at least admit the possibility that evolutionary science may inform policy and morals.
Olorin:
I would argue that many moral guides are counterintuitive from an evolutionary perspective. That’s why I consider adaptation a very poor guide for moral behavioral norms. For example, if the reproductive fitness of an individual were said to be enhanced by trait x, any and all variables within this behavioral set at variance with altruism, unselfishness and humility would run counter to idealized moral values held by many. Of course there is an aspect of evolutionary theory which attempts to explain the origin of social behavior for organism whose lives are community centered. But linking such theories to specific genes and points in time when adaptations would have induced such genes is highly speculative and practically speaking of little consequence to discussions of the relative value of comparative moral codes.
Holo:
Three insults and a false accusation!
If you bothered to read what I wrote, I didn’t label you a creationist. I pointed out that you offered a creationist misconception. If you think those are synonymous, you need help.
I merely pointed out that you are someone who is parroting a common misconception among evolution denialists.
That you simply call an assertion ignorant and stupid, rather than presenting evidence to back up your own assertions (I suspect you’re as fond as Tom is of conflating evidence with rhetoric), is very funny.
I do. What’s obvious is that neither you nor Tom do.
And how would that be pertinent?
The Deuce:
It really isn’t.
Drift is what happens to allele frequencies in populations. Variation refers to the range of genetic differences between individuals in populations.
We can make static measurements of variation. We cannot make static measurements of drift.
Tom:
I don’t conflate your assertions or arguments with evidence. That goes back to my earlier request that you predictably ignored: when you wrote,
I asked, “Would you please give an example of your personal interpretation of the evidence of natural history? By that, I mean some actual empirical evidence, not what anyone else says about the evidence or how anyone else summarizes the evidence.”
You didn’t reply, probably because you don’t look at the evidences of natural history (or far more importantly, experimental evidence) at all. Far better to conclude that “Evolution is dangerous: the facts speak for themselves” on the basis of what a gay magazine columnist writes, instead of any of the available facts relevant to any honest evaluation of evolutionary theory.
.
So you would draft moral norms without reference to evolutionary adaptations?
Fir example, having decided that abstinence-only is the only right moral choice, you would plow ahead with the abstinence programs, despite the fact that they always lead to an increase in teen pregnancy.[1] You would not inquire why abstinence-only fails—because that is the “right” choice.
When we tell the Palestinians and the Israelis that they should not kill each other, do we simply admonish them that killing each other is immoral? Or do we try to figure out why they are killing each other, and then fashion a plan to attack the cause?
================
[1] Or you could stone them to death, as they do in Iran. (No, wait. They only stone the women.) Would that solve the problem? Has it solved the problem in Iran?
Re evolution in policy (Bradford):
One of Tom’s recent posts (Islam in America: Are We Ready?) discussed the problem of homosexuality. Tom seemed to concentrate on morals-based solutions: Tell ‘em it’s wrong, or employ legal sanctions.
Homosexuality persists around the world and through the ages. Some societies ban it, some tolerate it, some even embrace it. Suppose, instead of simply promulgating a moral judgment, we investigate it as a possible evolutionary stable strategy? What adaptation does it confer? Why do others hate or fear it?
Perhaps this is another social-policy question where we could make some progress by studying it from an evolutionary viewpoint. Well, let’s put it this way: We certainly could not make less progress than we have by treating homosexuality as a purely moral issue.
And it can’t be reiterated often enough that if consequences matter, in addition to the higher teen pregnancy rates (even after correction for abortion rates and income), evangelical Christianity is associated with higher divorce rates and lower ages of first intercourse.
While that doesn’t necessarily mean that evangelical Christianity causes those phenomena, it clearly means that evangelical Christianity doesn’t help to prevent them.
[...] in the last week or so that tie into this entire theme through evolution. The first article is at Thinking Christian, pointing to an article at Scientific American, which I will quote from [...]
Birdseye, you quoted me and then responded,
That’s an odd thing you’ve said. My assertions and arguments are the only evidence there is for where I start from in this discussion.
You go on,
This is funny. You “don’t conflate [my] assertions or arguments with evidence,” you say, this implying that evidence is all-important to you; and here you assume from my silence that I don’t look at the evidences of natural history. That’s evidence?
I didn’t answer, Birdseye, because your question was off topic, and I don’t follow rabbit trails. It really hinders the focus of a discussion like this. Your question was about my interpretation of natural history, which is not what I brought up for discussion.
What I think is true about biological origins does not affect what can be shown to be true about the ethical implications of naturalism. In this discussion I’ve argued on behalf of those implications from an evolutionary angle. If naturalistic evolution is true, then those morality-undermining implications follow logically; and if it is false, then the fact that some people believe it is true still undermines morality insofar as their belief has influence. The thrust or burden of my argument has been to show that naturalistic evolution is dangerous. not that it is false; and in fact morality is undermined by the theory of naturalistic evolution whether it is true or false.
Thus for purposes of the present discussion, the truth of evolution is irrelevant.
Birdseye,
You said to Deuce,
Nevertheless drift is more or less a statistical gloss on RV and NS, and nothing else but that. It is still the result of differential reproduction of individuals, so that their individual genotype, their variation set as it were, is selected for.
NS is typically thought to be the process by which adaptive variations are preserved. That’s accurate as far as it goes. But it’s really differential reproduction, and if the difference in reproduction results from some adaptive-neutral process, it’s hardly different in the fine detail than if it results from some adaptive trait.
Olorin,
You wrote,
Could you help me understand what you mean by “progress” in an evolutionary paradigm? I thought evolution was the process whereby that which succeeds, succeeds; and that although some species may be better adapted than another for a certain place and time, evolution actually knows no such thing as “progress.”
In other words, if we’re going to use evolution as our guide to morality, then it seems to me the outcome would have to be:
Wherever you go, there you are.
Birdseye, you say,
Yes, it can’t be reiterated often enough; a lie works better if it gets restated over and over again. Ice cream sales in St. Louis were found to be associated with the crime rate. Does ice cream cause crime? (You know about the correlation/causation thing, I assume.)
You were perhaps referring to the Regnerus study (see here for a report). I’m away from home so I can’t dig it out for you right now, but there is a considerably more fine-tuned study of youth by Christian Smith that correlated levels of religious devotion with various behavioral/social/economic/academic outcomes, including sexual activity. In every one of 99 outcome measures, the more devoted youth had healthier behaviors and outcomes. You can track this and other studies down for yourself if you like, and I’ll offer you a starting point if you like.
The GSS shows similar outcomes for divorce: more frequent church attenders divorce less often, and evangelical/born again Christians also divorce less often.
So at most you can say the studies disagree. I haven’t read the Regnerus study, but from the reports it does not appear to cut the definitions as finely as the Smith study, so the possibility of third variables is much greater (as the Slate article noted).
You can thank me if you wish for not only linking to evidence for my position, but also to yours. I do believe in evidence, you know.
Olorin asks:
Absolutely. How does one derive an ought from biological function?
Not seeing a smiley face, I assume the question was seriously put.
\Progress\ refers to progress toward formulating policies concerning homosexuals that society will consider equitable and workable. As opposed to congealing into opposing camps that merely hurl demands at each other. Will marriage—or something less—be sanctioned? Will homosexuals be allowed to adopt? And so forth.
Seeing homosexuality as a condition rather than as a lifestyle choice has already changed many attitudes. Seeing it as an ESS (and thus self-limiting) may allay the fear that you expressed[1] concerning homosexual activism.
==============
[1] \Islam in America: Are We Ready?\ (Aug. 21, 2010)
.
Good luck on lowering that teen pregnancy rate, then.
How’s it workin for ya so far?
Olorin,
That question was very serious. You missed most of it. What you’ve described is change, but in what direction? Toward something better? What could that mean under an evolutionary paradigm, which at its root denies such a thing? (You might refer to the longer statement of the question as I made it earlier.)
What is an ESS?
ESS= “Evolutionarily stable strategy.” mentioned previously. The behavioral equivalent of sickle cells in the blood, which do not die out (because they confer protection against malaria) but do not become fixed (because, if homozygous, they are fatal). Cheating, in algal mats or in human marriages, is an ESS. The stable point may vary in different situations, even for the same behavior among the same organism.
ESSs show a correspondence to the concept of Nash equilibria in economics.
Again with the sloppy language: “ESSs show a correspondence to the concept of Nash equilibria in economics.”
First, “to the concept” or “to the Nash equilibria“? (English language-writing competency check.)
Second, question-begging and broad equivocation: the implication is that sickle cells in blood, cheating (additional level of equivocation: algal mats and human marriages!), and Nash equilibria are all the same ontological kinds of things… which further implies a stealthy reductionism and mechanization. Comparing cheating (can someone please measure a “cheat” and put it in my pocket like one can a sickle-cell… or, like for DarwiniISMists, is this just presupposed and unquestionable)?
The wave equation can be used to describe waves in liquids or EM waves or huge crowd behavior at large-stadium sporting events, i.e., mathematically there is no difference. The electro-weak theory in physics is formulated in terms of a system of equations used to describe superconductivity–two very different phenomena. Do we make the same mistake as Olorin to imply that all these things are the same kind of ontological things?
And then regarding what Bradford nicely pointed out (and in the face of which they remain silent): these folks try to sneak in moral “oughts” from biological functions (or any physical systems for that matter)? They can try, of course, but first they must demonstrate moral categories are reducible to the same ontological kinds of things as algal mats.
I can see, Holopupenko, how Olorin’s reference to the Nash equilibrium makes sense in the way he phrased it: not that they are the same kind of thing ontologically, but that they have some features in common, especially equilibrium in an environment. I don’t think he meant it as more than an illustration of a concept I had asked him to define.
Olorin, my next article on this is definitely based on features of the theory of evolution that differ significantly from the theory of nuclear fission. Dennett’s ideas will enter into it.
I’m still wondering what you mean by “progress” in an evolution-based model (referring to my 7:08 and 9:34 pm comments). Without a solid, non-question begging answer to that, you cannot speak of moral progress in any sense whatever; and if you can’t speak of moral progress, then moral philosophy of all kinds falls to pieces. So this is a hugely important question. Lacking a good response to it, any red-brown stains here must be yours, not ours.
Tom:
Then let’s ask him to clarify: is cheating the same ONTOLOGICAL KIND of thing as sickle cells, i.e., is the behavior of cheating in humans reducible to sickle cells? If so, why? Then, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt to clarify the following: is CHEATING in humans (which presupposes abstract thinking and a free will) the same KIND of thing as sickle cell BEHAVIOR? Is there an ESSENTIAL difference (one of KIND) or an ACCIDENTAL difference (one of DEGREE), and if so, why?
Until he can clearly respond (irrespective of whether we agree or not), my criticism stands.
Sickle cells and chearting[1] in living organisms are both physical phenomena that evince conflicting adaptations, and and are therefore self-limiting. That they are very different in other ways was deliberate.
===============
[1] Calling a rogue algal cell a “cheater” is obviously an anthropomorphism. Biologists use this term rather than making up an arbitrary new one. (You might recall how the quark came to be named.)
.
Would you accept a paraphrase of your question as “What does ‘better’ mena vivs-a-vis evolution”? Or am I still missing the ark? I’m trying to keep the question as simple as possible, although no simpler.
Re comment #90: Sorry, Tom, for misspelling your name on New Discoveries and Comments about Creationism. \Gilmore\ is the name of my daughter-in-law’s car. Why do women name their cars, but men do not? An evolutionary adaptation?
Re comment #90: Sorry, Tom, for misspelling your name on New Discoveries and Comments about Creationism. “Gilmore” is the name of my daughter-in-law’s car. Why do women name their cars, but men do not? An evolutionary adaptation?
Answer the question.
Olorin,
You can rephrase my question about progress any way you like, as long as you take seriously the way I put it to you. If you end up not answering what I asked you for, you won’t be any further behind than you are now. And we can figure out where to go from there.
Re Tom’s comment 80. As nearly as I understand Tom’s question, “progress” has no meaning as to the operation of evolution. In the same sense that it does not in nuclear fission.
But I never said it did. The “progress” I referred to is progress in crafting social policies that seem to stymie us because we consider the issues only from a moral viewpoint, and not from a scientific one.
Science—evolution—can in some cases at least tell us which policies might work, and which will not, regardless what we may think of their morality. The continuing example is that abstinence-only sex-education programs DO NOT WORK and never will, regardless whether you consider them: morally “right” or “wrong.” The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on contraception is universally ignored by all Catholics tout le monde. It may be morally “right,” but is practically irrelevant. And science can tell you why. If you are interested.
I probably still have not said this very well.
In view of Comment 97: I thought your question might be flippant because everyone knows that evolution has no preferred direction. That is, that “progress” is meaningless.
Then if morality has its roots in evolution, and evolution knows nothing of progress, is there any such thing as moral progress? If so, from whence does that meaning come? Or have I misunderstood what you take to be the source of humans’ moral sense?
Ignorant nonsense used as a rhetorical trick. Would you like to back up your categorical assertion with verifiable references? (Do you think my wife and I are the only Catholics that adhere strictly to eschewing the moral evil of contraception so that your conscience can be embalmed? Are you going to try to stop us from having more than the already seven children we have–like environmental wacko James Lee who considers kids “parasites”?)
Moreover, even if it were true, how does ignoring a moral precept eviscerate it of moral content or make it irrelevant? How do any of the modern empirical sciences “tell you” that the moral evil of contraception is “irrelevant,” i.e., how do you make the jump from a physical/chemical/biological description to a moral “ought” or “irrelevance” (a value judgement, by the way)? Please respond.
More ignorant nonsense used as a rhetorical trick. Would you care to back up your categorical assertion with verifiable references? Please respond.
Do you have any clue as to what a moral virtue and vice are without running to Wikipedia or something?
Man, I almost lost the Chardonnay again! Leaving aside the in-your-face scientism, are you serious? Are you atheists always given to broad-brush categorical generalizations that are prima facie false? Has it ever occurred to you that morality is legislated all the time (consider the lowly traffic stop sign) and that many, many times we rely on knowledge gained through the sciences to pass such legislation? Jeepers creepers these people actually walk among us!
My strong sense is the scientistic reductionism is percolating away quite strongly in the background… which is why, for among other reasons, the question in #91 is still being avoided… or ignored.
I should have said “considered” rather than “considers” regarding James Lee. He is now in the past tense. It seems to me the evolutionary mechanism that provided for the survival of the species led police to whack the wacko who would have threatened the survival of our species through the elimination of kids who, in his eyes, are “parasites.” Thank goodness for mindless, purposeless evolutionary mechanisms protecting the human race! I would call that “progress” in evolution… wouldn’t any one?
How does one control the urge to roll with laughter? This evolutionISM stuff is really entertaining!
On a related note, comment #84:
1. Biblical morality is not based on how’s it workin. It’s based on biblical and general revelation of God’s character. The Bible affirms what is right even when it does not apparently “work.”
This is a large topic having to do with free will, the building of persons’ character, the eternal goodness and justice of God, redemption in Christ either accepted or rejected, and much more. There is so much there that I can only mention it in passing. “How’s it workin” is relevant but it’s only one of many relevant issues in a deep topic.
2. From an evolutionary perspective, is there anything wrong with a high teen pregnancy rate? Is there anything wrong with a low teen pregnancy rate? Is there anything wrong with abstinence programs, from an evolutionary perspective?
Tom:
Here’s an example of Olorin’s (in fact, atheism’s) vision for the future as science “tells him” it should be: sterilization of the “unfit”… or, as the Nazis would term it, “life unworthy of life”–like Terri Schiavo: http://www.zenit.org/article-30252?l=english. See also Donald DeMarco’s and Benjamin Wiker’s Architects of the Culture of Death: http://www.amazon.com/Architects-Culture-Death-Donald-Demarco/dp/1586170163/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283771166&sr=1-1.
Regarding your point 2 questions, are you ready for some evolutionISMistic tautologies?
It might be helpful, Holopupenko, if you could draw the link between that article and Olorin’s views; otherwise he can just disavow it.
Hi Tom:
It relates to Olorin’s implication that findings of the MESs are the exclusive animators of decisions in ethics/morality, and the further implication that science is the most reliable animator of moral truths. The MESs NEVER by themselves “tell us” what to do when faced with moral and ethical decisions: it’s we humans (rational agents) that may, if appropriate, use the findings of the MESs to assist us in our decisions. (It’s not the eyes that “see”–it’s the person that sees.) The problem isn’t the MESs in and of themselves, the problem is the misinterpretation AND misappropriation of the MESs as applied to evil ends or to illicit, pseudo-philosophical visions of reality–visions (read: ideologies) that are quite deadly… as atheism is quite deadly at its very core (to which history attests quite well).
So, the question becomes: should we permit the findings of the MESs to animate or somehow actualize and lead our decisions (implying they are essential or at the core of those decisions), or may we permit them to inform our decisions (implying a choice to permit greater verities to animate moral decisions)? Dennett–and I believe Hauser–are of the former position… and of the personal (and quite unscientific) opinion that morality and ethics are fully and exclusively understood through the MESs… and this appears to be Olorin’s position as well–like the “expert” in the article.
Olorin: So you would draft moral norms without reference to evolutionary adaptations?
Bradford: Absolutely. How does one derive an ought from biological function?
Olorin: Good luck on lowering that teen pregnancy rate, then.
Is that response instructive on how one derives an ought from biological function? But since you raised the issue lowering the rate of teen pregnancy is accomplished by adherence to morals which proscribe sex outside marriage. From: Increased Abstinence Causes a Large Drop in Teen Pregnancy
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/05/Increased-Abstinence-Causes-a-Large-Drop-in-Teen-Pregnancy
Oh, come on, Bradford: don’t confuse the issue with referenced and verifiable facts! Play nice with categorical and emotional atheist assertions…
And now for something really special–why Star Trek is smarter than atheism (Season One, 2nd Show “Space Seed” before an Enterprise contingent boards the USS Botany Bay to find Khan):
Think about DarwinISM; think about atheist “brights;” think about Kurzweil’s silly futuristic nonsense; think of the repugnant vision of the Transhumanist movement; think of Margaret Sanger; think of the heaps and heaps and heaps of bodies resulting from the official animator of communist regimes: scientific atheism; think about Peter Singer…
What was it that Olorin said of science… “If you want to know”?
* “Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.” (William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2)
The author of this article is a beautiful example of what a man of faith and reason is: http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2010/09/09/magical-versus-miraculous-thinking/.
This is funny… kinda: http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2010/09/religious-fertility.html
.
Does anyone in evolutionary research use the term “moral progress”? No.
The whole point about evolution and morals was this: We often decide policy issues on “moral” grounds. But science may be able to inform us whether that policy will succeed or not. At least you will know that you are choosing between what you think is right and what will work.
This was the reason for the example concerning the Catholic Church and contraception. The Church’s position is that the sole purpose of human sex is reproduction; ergo sex should be limited to procreation. From an evolutionary viewpoint, this is wrong—bizarre, in fact. And maladaptive. Almost) everyone realizes this, and behaves accordingly. Congratulations on the seven kids, Holopupenko. My (Catholic) son had four, then went for a vasectomy; his (Catholic) wife approved. As did her (Catholic) parents, who did the same after four children.
Another ignorant and self-serving assertion by Olorin (that will, as with earlier ones, go unanswered) expressed in categorical terms that is not only false but tries to reduce such an important aspect of human nature to sound bites. Please refer to the CCC (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm) just for starters to see how ridiculous and facile your assertion is. Also, we’re not interested in hearing about your family members’ grave sins… that are better dealt with in the confessional.
They walk among us…
Olorin,
You wrote
If there is no one researching the evolution of morality who has an opinion on moral progress, then my point is proved: they don’t believe there is such a thing. If there is no such thing as moral progress, then we have experienced no moral progress since the days of worldwide slavery, and Rwanda’s ending of genocide was not moral progress.
But I doubt there’s any truth to your assertion. That would be too easy.
.
That’s not what I said, though, is it?
That’s what you did last time as well. Changed the question from a scientific perspective to a religious perspective.
.
So when does the magnum opus come out? That’s what I/m waiting ofr.
Could you elucidate my error, please?
You said no one in evolutionary research uses the term “moral progress.” I think there’s a straightforward logical step from your statement to my conclusion (from your statement) that no one researching the evolution of morality has an opinion on moral progress. I didn’t say anything about religion. So what did I do wrong?
Tom:
You’re dealing with someone you showed to be dishonest a bit earlier, and who just recently misrepresented or outright lied on issues of contraception, chastity, and the Catholic Church’s stand on the procreative act. He’s playing a similar word game with you here. Are you expecting honesty from him at this point?
Holopupenko,
Whether I expect honesty from him or not is not the point. I’m asking the question regardless. If he can answer it, fine: I’ll learn from it, and that’s good. If he can’t, then his assertion’s falsehood and emptiness stand exposed for what they are. I’m okay with that either way.
Olorin: You’ve probably noticed how little I’ve been blogging lately. This is because of family vacation time, a lot of meetings, and a lot of work I’m doing to prepare for a project. (I’ll be posting on that project very soon.) Nevertheless I have completed the first draft of my next article on this topic. I will edit it and then send it to a few people for review, and I will do it on my own schedule. I’m sorry to keep you waiting, but I’m confident you can handle it.
.
You took an answer that concerns science and turned it into one that lies outside the purview of science.
Within scientific research. the concept of “moral progress” is meaningless, in the same sense that “gravitational progress” is meaningless in astronomy. The moral sense, and the content of particular moral codes are investigated as they exist.
Individual scientists, as everyone else, may have philosophical or religious opinions as to what “moral progress” might comprise, and whether or not anyone is headed in that direction. When they do this, they have stepped outside science.
Would that more people were able to step into science, at least occasionally. Then they might understand, for example, why moving to a rural area is NOT a good idea in response to a recent study that the lowest cancer rates occur in counties with the smallest population.
Yet again, Olorin displays an inability to apply clear and obvious distinctions–on top of his dishonesty and false, unsupportable, emotional, and categorical assertions.
Note his last paragraph where he surreptitiously attempts to sneak in a value judgement (which might animate a moral decision) and impose it upon an MES finding.
First, Olorin appears to have muddled his own enthymeme (a kind of shortened syllogism employed in rhetorical arguments) because re-written for clarity it reads: P – lowest cancer rates occur in counties with smallest populations; C – therefore, NOT a good idea to move into a rural area. The latter doesn’t follow from the former. So much for clear writing…
… but it gets worse: Second, the reason the latter doesn’t follow from the former is the hidden value judgement animating it. I stress: the conclusion is NOT one that any MES can produce–only a value judgement (it appears Olorin’s own imposition of what “quality of life” means) can do that.
Given his track record, I propose Olorin is (again) being dishonest AND misappropriating the MESs to serve his own personal needs. It’s hard for me to believe Olorin is that ignorant.
Here’s an example that may clarify what Olorin is trying to foist upon us: We have sophisticated remote sensing technologies based on specific MES findings that permit us (within certain error bounds) to detect the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iran. (I know, because I worked on a related support project in Uzbekistan.) These MESs/technologies can detect WHAT is there; but there is NO WAY they can tell us WHAT TO DO ABOUT the findings.
Olorin pretends to be speaking non-morally when referencing the findings of the MESs when, in fact, he IS moralizing while illicitly permitting the MESs to animate that moralizing when MESs findings can do nothing of the kind. They may INFORM our moral decisions; they can never ACTUALIZE those decisions. We, human beings, are the moral decision makers–the MESs can no more tell us what to do in such cases than they can “tell us” whether to steal candy from a baby or not.
And, by the way, “stepping outside science” for Olorin are code words for “stepping outside rationality.”
Olorin,
You are contradicting yourself. In your last paragraph you say science can help us understand if one way of evolutionary adaptation is better than another.
How does science tell us that it is better to survive rather than die of cancer?
Mind if I clarify a bit?
I think Olorin’s last paragraph was intended to read thus: that if we really understood science, we would have what it takes to investigate a situation thoroughly and thus understand just why it’s false to conclude, “P – lowest cancer rates occur in counties with smallest populations; C – therefore, NOT a good idea to move into a rural area.” I think that’s what he intended. I could be wrong; it really wasn’t all that clear. If I’m right, then the enthymeme is not false in quite the same way you’ve taken it to be, Holopupenko.
Nevertheless, Olorin, Holopupenko’s most important point does stand up. You criticized me for smuggling a non-scientific category into a scientific discussion, and then a paragraph or two later you did precisely the same thing. You brought in a value judgment. It’s implied, not explicit, but here it is spelled out for you: If we knew all the scientific data, then we would know where it is best to live.
And now I want to turn your complaint back around on you, or rather turn it right-side-forward once again. You say I erred in taking an answer that concerns science and turning it into one that lies outside the purview of science. You forgot where we came from.
Your crticism was apparently in reference to this exchange, beginning with your words and ending with my answer:
Your quote there was originally an answer to my question,
Note the if-then statement there. I said, “if morality has its roots in evolution….” I was exploring the proposition that morality and evolution are linked in that manner. Many people think they are, so there’s nothing illegitimate about taking exploration where I did. You just forgot what we were talking about. And then incomprehensibly you even added,
You still haven’t explained how I did that. Actually you appear to be trying to change the question. The question (by way of reminder) was,
Maybe you don’t like the question. But it’s an important one precisely because many do believe morality has its roots in evolution. I haven’t changed the question. I’ll do my best (up to a point, at least) to help you keep up with what we’re talking about, so you won’t have to think that I’ve changed it.
Tom, with your background in psychology, you approached the intention of my last paragraph. Which was to see the situation in terms of its analytical implications, rather than making a value judgment that rural counties are “good” or “bad.”
The others seem not to c comprehend this,which indicates that the discussion of this aspect of the discussion is within epsilon of pointless.
My reading of your last paragraph was essentially the same as SteveK’s, and essentially the same as the second paragraph of Holopupenko’s (also his second-to-last). I hope you didn’t miss that.
It would be more “pointful,” too, if we could stay on topic and not be accused of changing the question. I wouldn’t go pointing fingers at others for making this “within epsilon of pointless” if I were you.
Tom:
My point stands, especially in light of Olorin’s “explanation” of his “intention.”
The “analytical implications” foil is a joke because Olorin refuses to see what you again and again point out to him, Tom.
“… within epsilon of pointless”? Yes, sometimes mixing categories adds spice to context and can help reveal what is important if so understood. But, in Olorin’s case, the track record is so, so clear: high-jacking part of the definition of what a mathematical limit is and attaching it to yet another value judgement is the underlying animator–not just a linguistic trope. In other words, Olorin takes deadly seriously and believes in his heart that it is valid to fully compare the essence of a value judgement (“pointless”) with a mathematical formalism (“within epsilon”).
I again remind the studio audience–to intentionally drive the point home–that Olorin is dishonest, a manipulator of words, and categorical promulgator of false accusations and notions… all without the intellectual cajones to face his own dissonant music when asked to do so… time and time again.
Atheism weakens the mind… severely.
Reppert links to this from an atheist who, as far as I can tell, follows the logic that some here claim is not valid.
The logic is this: Naturalistic biological evolution, therefore no God, no Commander and no Morality.
Dangerous, indeed — the philosophy, that is, not the logic. The logic is sound.
No morality… except, of course, if you try to take an atheist’s iPad without asking. Then all, ehem, Hell breaks loose… literally.
Holo,
You are right about all hell breaking loose. How does the author in the link I provided justify this response? Here’s what he wrote.
And what about “morality as conceived” by Hitler Stalin, Maragret Sanger, Peter Singer, abortionists, pedophiles, promoters of homosexuality, child rapists, alcoholics piloting planes, students cheating on exams, etc.?
They walk among us… and sometimes they kill, while justifying such killing of “useless” lives with “low” quality of life indecies…
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there’s something very weird – maybe illogical – about someone who argues/reasons about the fine details of a believed nonexistent reality in order to animate their life. This is what I hear him saying….
SciFi fans do this to some extent, but they do it knowing that it is fun and games. Those that take their SciFi way too seriously are just as weird as our atheist author appears to be.