Evolutionary Humanism: the Antithesis

The Post Chronicle ^ | Sept. 18, 2007 | Linda Kimball

[betty boop]

So I am a filthy, lying ignoramus?

[LiveBait]

“Obvious question for the humanists - where did the protons, electrons, etc. come from? And how did the laws of chemistry and physics originate?”

Obvious answer: we don’t know. Maybe we never will. But we’re working on it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Of course I don’t mean you two.

Didn’t you read the article?

[metmom]

then I have to ask you, which class of people has more people jailed for abusing children: clergymen or biology teachers?

Been following the naughty teacher threads lately?

I wouldn't be quite so smug about clergy beating out biology teachers, or teachers of any kind. And jailing doesn't prove anything. Lack of conviction does not mean lack of guilt.

[AndyTheBear]

Are you reverting to the argument that arrows require pushing angels to keep them in motion, because that's what it sounds like.

No. We were discussing the need for a first cause for the entire universe as a whole. The idea is that unless you think it always existed, it needed a first cause. aNYCguy's counter argument was that the same could be applied to any deity that created the universe.

Science makes discoveries when it assumes that the behaviors of time and motion are not twiddled with from "outside." I'm not aware of any exceptions to this. It was Newton's assumpton.

Agreed. But science is not always the best way to attain practical knolledge. If there "appears to be" a tiger leaping at you, I trust you will duck before seeking independent verification of your observation.

[js1138]

The idea is that unless you think it always existed, it needed a first cause. aNYCguy's counter argument was that the same could be applied to any deity that created the universe.

If one assumes that prior causes are necessary, it is special pleading to assert that your personal entity is exempt. Since all first cause arguments lead to an infinite regress, it is more rational to assume that the need for a first cause cannot be rationally defended.

If there is, in fact, a moment prior to which no matter or energy existed, then time also did not exist, and it is not rational to speak of priority.

[atlaw]

Some thoughts on this topic, and on the "problematic" affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought on certain questions, from Loren Eisley [sic] (at the time of this writing, chairman, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania):

I can't tell if you mean "at the time of your writing" or "at the time of Eiseley's writing," but in any event, Loren Eiseley died in 1977. The article you very selectively edit was published by him in 1959. It can be found in its entirety at positiveatheism.org, and it is titled "An Evolutionist Looks At Modern Man."

Eiseley made no reference to Marx or communism in this rather poetic piece, and how you perceive it to be a commentary "on the 'problematic' affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought" is perfectly mysterious. Must be the result of some supernatural ability I don't posses.

atlaw, you and js1138 and many others here go bananas when it is suggested that there is a good deal of convergence between Darwin’s theory -- at least as it is popularly imagined today and Marxism – a/k/a “social Darwinism.”

If correcting your misrepresentations constitutes "going bananas," I plead guilty.

As for your new contention that it is Darwin's theory "as it is popularly imagined today" that converges with Marxism (nice double twisting backflip there, by the way), it is the creationist imagination that has concocted this supposed convergence, just as it is the creationist imagination that concocted a convergence between Darwin and ruthless laissez-faire capitalism. Any non-sequitur will do, I suppose.

Also, to the extent that humans can transform their environment, they transcend the environmental context that controls Darwinian evolution theory. In a certain way, there is a resemblance here to Lamarck’s theory of heritable acquired traits – taken to the cosmic level. The acquisition of a radically changed environment is actually “inherited by” our descendants.

Cosmic Lamarckism. Interesting (although a little odd, since it certainly seems from your comments that you would want to avoid at all costs the discredited science that actually enchanted Marx and Engles).

[js1138]

I don’t generally engage in name calling, BB, but I can describe behavior and characterize it. I see no way around the issue of repeatedly ascribing causes to events that have not yet taken place.

I accept your “senior moment” explanation for thinking Lamarck followed Darwin, though I can scarcely fathom such an error from someone who writes books on the history of science. It is equivalent of mistaking the sequence of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. It is almost as unbelievable as not knowing that Darwin was agnostic about Larmarkian evolution, sometimes thinking it might take place, and sometimes not. It was really a detail that makes little difference to the iterative process of variation and selection.

I am less sanguine about the repeated charge that Darwin was responsible for Marxism. That is filth. When repeated after correction, it is inexcusable filth.

[AndyTheBear]

If one assumes that prior causes are necessary, it is special pleading to assert that your personal entity is exempt. Since all first cause arguments lead to an infinite regress, it is more rational to assume that the need for a first cause cannot be rationally defended.

There is obviously something that does not need a cause. Thus naturalism fails. A deity constrained in the rules of naturalism also fails. Thus we are left with a supernatural cause, specifically something that transcends nature. Most religions are thus eaten away, and naturalism as well. The monotheistic deity of Jewish and Christan theology survives the requirement, nature-gods, idols, and anything that is not considered transcendent to nature does not.

An immature math student may claim its cheating to define a some value "i" to represent the square root of -1. However this does not bother a competent mathematician.

[betty boop]

I didn't coin the term "social Darwinism," and frankly don't know who did. I am not so much denigrating Darwin's theory (other than to say that I think it is incomplete, as noted and for the reasons given in my post). My problem is with its appropriation by people who seek to use it to justify sociocultural transformation. I strongly doubt that Darwin had any interest in doing that. But it is clear to me that some of his modern adherents do. When a respected biologist like Richard Dawkins claims that Darwin's theory has enabled him to become "an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and uses it as a club to attack the traditions, symbols, and institutions of Western culture -- and above all to claim that people who believe in God are morons -- I am not amused.

One thing I noted about Eiseley's article, which was published in the book I cited in 1960, is how much anthropology has changed over the past forty-something years. At that time, one could still speak (poetically as you put it) about the spiritual dimension of man. Today, most of the promoters of Darwin's theory say that spirit is a total fiction. And people who not only believe in spirit, but have had experiences of it, are "Dims," while atheists are "Brights."

This to me is Marx redux: This is akin to dividing the social world of men into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Marx had an irritating habit of not permitting his "system" to be questioned at all. And the sense I get from some folks around here is that they also refuse to admit any questions at all WRT Darwin's theory: You either accept the doctrine whole cloth, or you are an "enemy." I think this is blatently an anti-scientific attitude. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it leads, not about censoring points of view that question an existing theory.

Eiseley does not have to cite Marx chapter and verse for me to see how Marx's ideas correspond in so may ways with the "pop" version of evolution theory that is so evident today.

I have a bias: I believe that truth is indivisible. At some ultimate level, the reports we get from science and philosophy are complementary, finally reconciled in universal truth. Both knowledge disciplines are needed, but they need to be distinct. When a scientist is smuggling philosophy in through the back door -- which happens all the time -- this is illegitimate. For instance, materialism is a philosophical doctrine, as such a presupposition. Science itself has not yet gotten to the bottom of matter yet, and it has been observed that the ultimate entity in nature is not the material particle, but the universal field with which it is associated. Darwin's theory, moreoever, implies an ontology, a theory of being. But the theory does not reach to man himself in his radical differentiation from the rest of nature: It has no theory of man. Methodological naturalism -- and its strong form, metaphysical naturalism -- are effectively schools of philosophy when you boil it all down.

I see the pronouncements of the Dawkins and Lewontins etc., etc., of this world as an attempt at social renovation quite along Marxian lines. They wish to obliterate Western culture and eradicate historical memory. Yet as Eiseley says, "in a society without deep historical memory, the future ceases to exist and the present becomes a meaningless cacophany."

But Darwin's theory itself -- which is essentially an historical account -- would be spared from this historical leveling....

If you don't like the way I "cut" Eiseley's article -- which was fairly lengthy -- then I invite you to cut it your way and post your result here. Then we can discuss that. "Equal time"....

[betty boop]

I accept your “senior moment” explanation for thinking Lamarck followed Darwin, though I can scarcely fathom such an error from someone who writes books on the history of science.

js1138, the book that Alamo-Girl and I wrote is not a history of science, nor has it been marketed as such. It is a book about the essential and vital complementarity of faith and reason, the synergy of which is the touchstone of the brilliance and success of Western Culture, on which our own American Experiment is founded. In short, it is a book about Western culture. And so, we deal with issues in science, philosophy, and religion -- for each is necessary for a more complete understanding of the Western historical cultural achievement.

As part of this mission, we deal with issues in science. One cannot omit mention of the brilliance and indispensability of science in an account of the achievements of Western culture. But given our own personal predilections, we do this mainly from the physics side. We don't discuss Darwin's theory directly. We do discuss certain Darwinians. But only if we perceived them to be poaching on philosophical turf. So we do have some fun with Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin; and also the "ethicist" Peter Singer. We cite Mayr and Simpson with respect. But on the science side, we mainly deal with physics (classical, relativity, and quantum), not with evolution theory. The book does broach problems in biology, but at the most fundamental level. Issues such as "what is life?" and information theory as it relates to living and non-living systems in nature are the major foci. Beyond that, we explore various physical cosmologies -- but philosophical and religious ones too.

On the philosophical side, we stress the classical Greeks (probably no surprise there). But we also have a whole lot of fun with Hegel.

The only way we could deal with such an amorphous work was to set it up in the form of a Platonic dialogue. Which probably sounds pretty dull. But instead, think of a screenplay, or a teleplay, or a script for a theatrical performance. These allow you to have multiple characters, expressing different points of view, in a conversational form. We have four characters, each with a different perspective or observational point of view. Plus the dialogue form gives license for humor, and dramatic effects.

In short, we found the form congenial to our purpose in writing. One of the characters is a composite of certain personalities/points of view from the evo/methodological naturalism camp at FR. :^)

BTW, I don't blame Darwin for the usages to which his theory has been put in modern times. He may be rolling over in his grave right now, in despair that he had been so co-opted by lesser men with bigger goals. FWIW.

Thanks for writing, js1138.

p.s.: I'm not following your usage of "following" in the opening italics. Do you mean temporal sequence, or like-mindedness?

[js1138]

There is obviously something that does not need a cause. Thus naturalism fails.

Care to diagram that syllogism?

What exactly are the rules of naturalism? This looks like one of those things where you are simply defining yourself to be the winner.

Methodoligical naturalism is a way of looking for and verifying knowledge. There are no axiomatic limits to where is goes or what it can find.

[js1138]

I apologised if I mischaracterized your book.

[Coyoteman]

...the book that Alamo-Girl and I wrote is not a history of science, nor has it been marketed as such. It is a book about the essential and vital complementarity of faith and reason, the synergy of which is the touchstone of the brilliance and success of Western Culture, on which our own American Experiment is founded. In short, it is a book about Western culture. And so, we deal with issues in science, philosophy, and religion -- for each is necessary for a more complete understanding of the Western historical cultural achievement.

As part of this mission, we deal with issues in science. One cannot omit mention of the brilliance and indispensability of science in an account of the achievements of Western culture. But given our own personal predilections, we do this mainly from the physics side. We don't discuss Darwin's theory directly. We do discuss certain Darwinians. But only if we perceived them to be poaching on philosophical turf. So we do have some fun with Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin; and also the "ethicist" Peter Singer. We cite Mayr and Simpson with respect. But on the science side, we mainly deal with physics (classical, relativity, and quantum), not with evolution theory. The book does broach problems in biology, but at the most fundamental level. Issues such as "what is life?" and information theory as it relates to living and non-living systems in nature are the major foci. Beyond that, we explore various physical cosmologies -- but philosophical and religious ones too.

On the philosophical side, we stress the classical Greeks (probably no surprise there). But we also have a whole lot of fun with Hegel.

The only way we could deal with such an amorphous work was to set it up in the form of a Platonic dialogue. Which probably sounds pretty dull. But instead, think of a screenplay, or a teleplay, or a script for a theatrical performance. These allow you to have multiple characters, expressing different points of view, in a conversational form. We have four characters, each with a different perspective or observational point of view. Plus the dialogue form gives license for humor, and dramatic effects.

In short, we found the form congenial to our purpose in writing. One of the characters is a composite of certain personalities/points of view from the evo/methodological naturalism camp at FR. :^)

Timothy is not currently ranked in sales at Amazon, although there are 21 copies available. This suggests that there have been no sales at all there. (I suspect that those available copies represent drop-ship offers by dealers who do not actually stock the book.)

It is one thing to write a book. It is an entirely different thing to sell what one has written.

A kind of like survival of the fittest, eh?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your excellent essay-post, dearest sister in Christ! Emphasis mine:

I see the pronouncements of the Dawkins and Lewontins etc., etc., of this world as an attempt at social renovation quite along Marxian lines. They wish to obliterate Western culture and eradicate historical memory.

Precisely so.

As you mentioned in the next post, Darwin might be rolling in his grave over this turn of events.

[gunsofaugust]

I see the pronouncements of the Dawkins and Lewontins etc., etc., of this world as an attempt at social renovation quite along Marxian lines. They wish to obliterate Western culture and eradicate historical memory.

No doubt about it, yet their cheerleaders are always in denial when even they know it is true. In fact, that goal is what motivates their secular religion.

[aNYCguy]

It seems everything in the natural world must have a cause.

How convenient that you would make this absurdly broad assumption, given that you seem to consider the manner in which energy interacts to be a "thing" in some poorly delineated "natural world."

I've never seen a cause whose effect has been the creation of statistical distributions to which fundamental physical interactions conform, so I guess things just seem different to me than to you.

This is not because I want it that way...

No, you're making this assumption precisely because you really, really want it to be that way. In any case, all I've seen from you so far has been a series of your gut instincts about the universe and beyond.

Thus there appears to be something that caused them from outside the natural world

I see that your line of reasoning reduces quite neatly in its entirely to a series of pronouncements of what you think things seem like. Thats's fine for what it is, I suppose, and must sound quite nice to someone who feels the same way as you do. But theology offers no more than this. You may find that arenas of discourse in which falsification exists are scarier, but also more rewarding.

[spirited irish]

js...But if you insist on blaming Darwin for behavior that predates Biology by thousands of years (in recorded history alone), then I have to ask you, which class of people has more people jailed for abusing children: clergymen or biology teachers?

Irish...The metaphysical concept of free will is unique to the Biblical worldview, for God who created man in his image, endowed man with free will, thus making man a free moral agent. It’s within the the ancient worldview (and its modernized variants)of naturalism (monism), within which Evolutionary Humanism and its permutations belong, that man is viewed as being helpless before the forces of nature. In other words, man lacks free will and is essentially a hapless puppet whose strings are manipulated by natural forces.

Because you are a monist by virtue of your worldview, you quite naturally believe that Betty is blaming Darwin (Darwin as a force of Nature?) for genocide commited by men of free will, when Betty of course, believes no such thing. Thus it logically follows that you believe that not only are there naturally-occuring ‘classes’ (species) of the human ‘animal,’ but that some of these classes/species are more prone to child molestation. Again the view being that man is not a free moral agent but a species of animal controlled by instincts and impulses whose genesis lies with bacteria, mad-monkey genes, etc.

[betty boop]

I apologised if I mischaracterized your book

Not to worry, js1138. If you haven't seen it, how would you know what it's about?

[betty boop]

It is one thing to write a book. It is an entirely different thing to sell what one has written.

Of course Coyoteman! However, the book we wrote was never intended for a mass audience: Timothy is not Harry Potter. We had excellent advice from our literary agent, who was prepared to take Timothy to Thomas Knowlton or Eerdmanns if we would make a few changes. (She thought we had "two books in one.") She assured us she could get us a "nice contract" with one of these publishers. Alamo-Girl and I discussed it, and decided that since we had written the book we wanted to write, we'd let it stand as written. Timothy was never "about the money." But the door is wide open with this agent, so maybe next time we'll produce something a little more "commercial."

But I dunno. How "commercial" does "God and the Observer Problem" (the working title for our next) sound to you? Would you buy a book with a title like that?