tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1606199901235311466..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On the New Atheism & PhilosophyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52486723251827749822014-02-06T18:14:48.332-05:002014-02-06T18:14:48.332-05:00Where's the Tegmark podcast you promised in Ja...Where's the Tegmark podcast you promised in January? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04369264537906109842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68316361802453194362014-02-05T03:54:27.235-05:002014-02-05T03:54:27.235-05:00I think you're being more than a bit melodrama...I think you're being more than a bit melodramatic here and overstating the case that some atheists are making against philosophy.<br /><br />I'd hazard an informed guess that most of these gnus would wholeheartedly agree with George Lakoff in <i>Philosophy of the Flesh</i>: that attaining knowledge about either the mind or the external world purely through rational introspection is a farce.<br /><br />This idea that gnus dismiss philosophy entirely is a straw man, especially since many of them <i>are</i> philosophers. And judging by Massimo and Dennett's exchanges with Lawrence Krauss, I think most of the disagreement is semantic and, ultimately, trite. <br /><br /><br />Mike Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097261108461657167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13777038922800291552014-02-04T10:39:49.902-05:002014-02-04T10:39:49.902-05:00The flaw in science is measure Louis, and the solu...The flaw in science is measure Louis, and the solution or truth is immeasurable. == MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11668070668332593812014-02-04T08:39:31.208-05:002014-02-04T08:39:31.208-05:00Would I be wrong in believing science itself invol...Would I be wrong in believing science itself involves in it's process a measure of philosophical activity?Louis Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03583066162106331227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9216312035013849132014-02-03T12:54:38.782-05:002014-02-03T12:54:38.782-05:00Most gnus do not dislike philosophy and believe it...Most gnus do not dislike philosophy and believe it has worth (off course there are always exceptions), they dislike the parts of theology that try to rationalize the world with a God since these must , by necessity, be imagination driven , rather than anything to do with logic, reason or evidence. And we are even more irritated by Sophisticated Theology™ . The only thing I see is some gnus make the claim that philosophy too must be informed by evidence and that some areas that are traditionally the domain of philosophy might (or a stronger will) come under the domain of science. Fairly obvious but Massimo etc seem to bristle when you say that might include "free will" or "morality" - the rest of the arguments seem to be around pointing hypocrisies.<br /><br />Though I'll also add that I find it amusing that lets say some anti gnu commenter (e.g. gadfly) will jump at some random gnu making a too broad , unjustified generalization and then use that to make a too broad,unjustified generalization about gnus.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74960899838756543102014-02-03T01:50:05.286-05:002014-02-03T01:50:05.286-05:00Isn't it a bit oversimplistic to simply procla...Isn't it a bit oversimplistic to simply proclaim that philosophy has only to do with the "ought" and science with the "is"? That leaves out important branches of philosophy altogether: metaphysics (which studies being--obviously well within the realm of the "is"), and aesthetics, among other thingsMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6278687198018023492014-02-03T01:44:59.581-05:002014-02-03T01:44:59.581-05:00This is a refreshingly thoughtful, levelheaded pos...This is a refreshingly thoughtful, levelheaded post about the new atheists. I think we can criticize strains of thought in the new atheist movement without painting them all as naive, arrogant scientific realists. I agree that the new atheist movement has significantly increased the visibility of atheism in America and that this fact is an important achievement. New Atheists come in all different stripes so I don't think it's fair to use the term to only refer to the fatuous kinds. I would contend that all of the current discussion about atheism and belief scrutability should be subsumed in the dialectic of the new atheist movement. New Atheism to me refers to this highly visible surge of thought in mainstream discourse about the necessity for beliefs to be subjected to rigorous ratiocination. It's just as counterproductive to label all new atheists as blowhards as it is to label all theists as dimwits.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993148116270015124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88561026425656748262014-02-02T06:16:34.189-05:002014-02-02T06:16:34.189-05:00I would suggest that those who are saying that sci...I would suggest that those who are saying that science can take up the torch from the philosophers end up doing neither and in some cases lowering the authority of both.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2170638840111746782014-02-02T01:09:05.207-05:002014-02-02T01:09:05.207-05:00That alloy has not just emerged.
Vienna Circle a...That alloy has not just emerged. <br /><br />Vienna Circle anybody?Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19965767818139683762014-02-01T22:55:53.275-05:002014-02-01T22:55:53.275-05:00As for Coyne? OK, he's read Boyer. Has he read...As for Coyne? OK, he's read Boyer. Has he read Atran? On both of them, there's more to them than the idea that "religion evolved."Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62639586459269146522014-02-01T22:50:46.158-05:002014-02-01T22:50:46.158-05:00Puhleeze.
First, I have never said anything clos...Puhleeze. <br /><br />First, I have never said anything close to what you have in quote marks. Neither has Massimo, but I'm speaking just for myself.<br /><br />So, I'll buy anything you sell once you stop setting up straw men.<br /><br />Second, I don't attack fundamentalists any more than Gnus, if that much.<br /><br />So, I'll buy anything you sell once you stop claiming people like me are worse than Gnus in our take on fundamentalists.<br /><br />To be blunt, I see less and less insight from you the more and more you write.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77860762014226356672014-02-01T19:23:40.352-05:002014-02-01T19:23:40.352-05:00Gadfly, I will buy your argument as soon as peopl...Gadfly, I will buy your argument as soon as people like you stop attacking fundamentalists (and new atheists, for that matter). And when the anti-new-atheist atheists stop condescending to religious believers by saying "I personally don't need belief and think it is all bollocks, but some people do and we can't take away their security blanket."<br /><br />And by the way, Coyne was citing Pascal Boyer way back in 2011.....<br />http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/where-does-religion-come-from/ michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45735662913556086702014-02-01T19:23:21.447-05:002014-02-01T19:23:21.447-05:00Gadfly, I will buy your argument as soon as peopl...Gadfly, I will buy your argument as soon as people like you stop attacking fundamentalists (and new atheists, for that matter). And when the anti-new-atheist atheists stop condescending to religious believers by saying "I personally don't need belief and think it is all bollocks, but some people do and we can't take away their security blanket."<br /><br />And by the way, Coyne was citing Pascal Boyer way back in 2011.....<br />http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/where-does-religion-come-from/ michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53867204504217134312014-02-01T18:56:12.989-05:002014-02-01T18:56:12.989-05:00What nagged me about the discussion was that there...What nagged me about the discussion was that there seemed to be a lot of turf-defending in terms of what we call it, but what I would have liked to see is how different the case would be if the "new atheists" had taken into account philosophy. For example, in <i>The God Delusion</i>, the majority section dedicated to the arguments for and against God were almost exclusively philosophical in nature, complete with appeals to philosophers like Russell, Mackie, Dennett, and Hume. Perhaps his arguments may have been sharper if he had more philosophical training, but it's hard to see scientism in the substance of the book.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26405329129165217342014-02-01T13:28:36.429-05:002014-02-01T13:28:36.429-05:00Meissler's right about how Dennett is wrong, b...Meissler's right about how Dennett is wrong, but wrong in other ways himself. Since we're still in the Early Bronze Age, at best, on studying human consciousness, there's a lot of wrongness out there. Here's part 2 of my "Mu to free will vs. determinism" set: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/12/mu-to-free-will-vs-determinism-part-2.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66808789845870254812014-02-01T13:17:02.711-05:002014-02-01T13:17:02.711-05:00Sorry, Steve, but I'm still very much with Mas...Sorry, Steve, but I'm still very much with Massimo. Gnus engage in ad hominems, and similar vitriol it's impossible to do a Husserl-like "bracketing" of talking about the Gnu movement without that, IMO.<br /><br />Basically, they're somewhat well-poisoners, when at their extreme, for advancing secularism without backlash. And, the backlash happens. And, both Gnus and fundamentalist Xns welcome it, as it gives both of them an easily caricatured enemy. US vs USSR. Brer Fox vs. Tar Baby is even better. The two sides are each other's Tar Babies.<br /><br />Beyond the "scientism" issue, most Gnus show little knowledge of, or interest in, philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, evolutionary development of religion, etc. That's part of why, but not the only reason why, they focus attacks on fundamentalists and seem to imply that that's a representative position of religion in general.<br /><br />After the likes of Coyne read Scott Atran and/or Pascal Boyer on the development of religion, and has something positive to take away and discuss, I might consider you right. (This is part of why I'm willing to call Dennett a quasi-Gnu, rather than full blown. But, other stances of his means he still has one foot in that camp, at least.)<br /><br />Until then? Nope.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77265796868660058952014-02-01T11:19:50.318-05:002014-02-01T11:19:50.318-05:00Science unites with philosophy at a place called t...Science unites with philosophy at a place called truth.<br />I'll meet you there. == MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14256089186180859702014-02-01T10:48:07.991-05:002014-02-01T10:48:07.991-05:00"None of the quotes you mentioned were sarcas..."None of the quotes you mentioned were sarcastic. There's nothing ironic about them, unless they're meant to be interpreted as *compliments* to Harris."<br /><br />OK; let's call them "unkind" then, or "harsh." At any rate, the overall tone of the review was rather harsh, or at least harsher than Massimo's critique of Harris, which Coyne took some serious umbrage with. <br /><br />"The issue in this case is simply that some people...are commenting on topics like religion, free will, morality, etc., without consulting the vast literature already developed on these topics…"<br /><br />Yes and no. Dennett's review definitely focuses on the lack of scientists to engage with the philosophical literature; but Harris and Coyne definitely want to broaden the definition/scope of science to include--usurp?--philosophy. And I don't see that as a bad thing *per se*Steve Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711295082644210782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50308200264345912772014-02-01T08:25:12.731-05:002014-02-01T08:25:12.731-05:00None of the quotes you mentioned were sarcastic. ...None of the quotes you mentioned were sarcastic. There's nothing ironic about them, unless they're meant to be interpreted as *compliments* to Harris.<br /><br />Anyway, I don't think the issue here has anything to do with the distinction (or lack thereof) between "philosophy" and "science," which is a recurring theme in Massimo's posts. The issue in this case is simply that some people (who tend to be employed in "science" departments) are commenting on topics like religion, free will, morality, etc., without consulting the vast literature already developed on these topics (mostly written by people who happen to be working in "philosophy" departments). As a result, they end up publishing old ideas and arguments that have long been criticized and improved upon. It's simply bad scholarship, regardless of how you cut up the boundaries between disciplines. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39847781225120867302014-02-01T07:17:51.549-05:002014-02-01T07:17:51.549-05:00Steve,
Thanks.
What do you make of Daniel Meissl...Steve,<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />What do you make of Daniel Meissler's response to Daniel Dennett?<br /><br />http://www.danielmiessler.com/blog/dennett-wrong-freewillAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14332388043031669017noreply@blogger.com