Two years ago Ann departed from what I had taken for a generally secular and modern public persona by coming out with a book entitled “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” which advanced, of all things, a down-with-Darwin line. Apparently I was not the only one a bit surprised by this development (Jillian Becker). Per Wikipedia, Godless includes the following curious statement: “Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” A hostile review in The New Republic is here.
Now she has a new book out entitled “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America”. Do any readers know whether it represents a return to earlier, better form?
“… a return to earlier, better form”
When, exactly, was that? I found her to be a political circus side show well before the “Goodless” book.
I used to find Ann Coulter amusing and entertaining. Maybe it’s just skinny conservative opinionated women in general.
But her opposition to Darwinism has put her beyond the Pale for me. No longer a fan.
I’m not saying that a person should necessarily be dismissed off hand because of a single, crazy wrongheaded belief, but I’m not sure I’d look forward to their next work in spite of it. I’ve got crazy right leaning friends who vote in similar patterns to me but arrive at their conclusion for reasons I find abhorrent. That’s how I tend to see Coulter.
Coulter is in the same category as Limbaugh for me. Occasionally a good idea expressed in a neatly pithy way, but not to be taken too seriously. I see them as having committed themselves to a narrow view, in the same way that Whoopi Goldberg has.
“I’ve got crazy right leaning friends who vote in similar patterns to me but arrive at their conclusion for reasons I find abhorrent.”
You’ve neatly summed up the predicament of most secular folks on the right.
Ann Coulter makes money from being outrageous and making liberals outraged. She shouldn’t be taken seriously as a political philosopher.
Sorry for posting a second comment, but I should also voice my opinion that I don’t think that Ann Coulter personally believes that the Bible is the word of God, she just profits from pretending to.
I’ve just been amused to see books on the shelves that say “ANN COULTER: GUILTY.”
Ann Coulter is a demagogue and bigot. If she ever had a “better form,” I’m not familiar with it.
Coulter is the epitome of a loose cannon. She often gets off a number of good shots (her take on single mothers, the Duke rape case, Harriet Myers, and even her take on recent political history is interesting), unfortunately, her deliberately outrageous tactics do more harm than good to her own cause.
In “Godless” Coulter simply regurgitated huge swaths of material she got directly from The Discovery Institute. She acknowledged her indebtedness to Behe and the gang, but always pretended–in public–that she actually had a clue about, inter alia, paleontology.
Her Christianity is probably a shallow (or non-existent) as her knowledge of science is. She makes an excellent foil for the twerps who appear on Hannity, another intellectualoid.
I never approved, but I previously found her entertaining, in the same way that roadside accidents often prove riveting.
Her antics have become intolerable even to me, and her intellectual bankruptcy painfully clear. I recommend discarding her rather than hoping she becomes entertaining once again.
Half Sigma writes: “Ann Coulter makes money from being outrageous and making liberals outraged. She shouldn’t be taken seriously as a political philosopher.”
What are we to do about Ann? In 2004 she said that “things are going well” in Iraq. 135 Americans died in April of that year, 137 in November, the 2 record months of the Iraq war. She never retracted or qualified her remark (is this what Mr. Olson refers to when he talks about her “earlier, better form”?).
However, some times she gets it dead right, e.g.: as far as I know she was the first to point out that liberals condemn IQ as unscientific when it is used for comparing races, but have absolute faith in it when it comes to getting low-IQ murderers off death row (a very effective observation to make when debating liberals, I speak from experience).
But then there is her evolutionary nonsense; she really believes that an ex-legal assistant and specialist in corporate law with no background or prior interest in science can pronounce finally on the validity of the major biological paradigm of the age. It’s not just that she writes nonsense about evolution, she completely fails to grasp the preparation needed to comment on it in an intellectually serious way.
So what are we to do? I would say – recognize that she in not an intellectual and doesn’t pretend to be one. Read her columns and even her books to winnow the best arguments, but expect massive intrusions of nonsense from time-to-time.
She’s a very shrewd person who’s come up with a brilliant self-marketing scheme and implemented it very successfully: hot blonde dominatrix with a brain. Long blonde hair and a black vinyl bustier will buy you a lot of publicity for your work. (If I could pull off the same kind of stunt, I’d do it in a flash. Maybe.) So my hat’s off to her in that regard. I’m not so sure if she’d have as many male devotees as she does if she were a dumpy brunette in a tweed suit and brogues.
I doubt she really believes that every paleontologist back to Georges Cuvier has been engaged in a giant conspiracy to deny God and promote socialism. I hope she doesn’t. But it certainly seems to be what her audience wants to hear and read.
I’ve actually met Ann on a couple of occasions–back in the late ’90s when I was attending RNC events–and found that on a personal level she was rather charming. Get her anywhere near a television camera and that went right out the window.
I certainly don’t see her as anything more than a satirist, or a political entertainer–in the same way that I see Rush. Not my cu o’ tea… I’m of the opinion that she’s long since outlived whatever usefulness that she’d lent to conservatism. What I’d be at least mildly interested in knowing is who among Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, et al cinsider themselves legitimate journalists as opposed to entertainers, or whatever else they’d call themselves.
“What I’d be at least mildly interested in knowing is who among Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, et al cinsider themselves legitimate journalists as opposed to entertainers, or whatever else they’d call themselves.”
I’ve never bought the line that these people are “entertainers” or “satirists” or whatever. (although, in fairness, I only have heard Limpbaugh claim this. I don’t know if the others had, also.) They’re partisan political pundits. Period. However, by refusing to admit that, and hiding under the label “entertainer” or whatever, they just show themselves to be cowards, because they do it to dodge responsibility for that which they say.
Anyone who says and repeats “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” and considers that “entertainment” is poison, not just the wrong kind of tea.
as far as I know she was the first to point out that liberals condemn IQ as unscientific when it is used for comparing races, but have absolute faith in it when it comes to getting low-IQ murderers off death row
This is a very silly equivocation between 10-point differences in the averages of large groups marked by enormously greater within-group variation, and 100-point differences in individual people.
If the average measured IQs of African Amercians were in the 50-80 range like the mentally handicapped death row inmates, or if the distributions of different races were separated by even a single within-group standard deviation, we would be having a very different conversation on race and IQ, even if the outliers like Obama or Frederick Douglass were still the same.
Instead, the group results are at the limits of detectability and poorly, if at all, disentangled from the effects of poverty, malnutrition, lack of prenatal care, etc.
(As for Coulter, I agree entirely with Gary McGath.)
Chris, you would benefit immensely from a little book called Intelligence, Race, and Genetics by Frank Miele. I want to be kind and gentle but you put limited knowledge on open display. Read the book and then return to the issue. For all her idiocy, Coulter is right re IQ. Bradlaugh has written very wisely about the incapacity of liberals to apply genetics knowledge as they protect and defend blacks via their habitual blank slate theorizing. This error pervades the social sciences, which now have the added burden of fresh new black scholars whose affirmative action credentials hinder them little in grabbing elite institution jobs.These people are reflexively liberal and given to nurture in the nature/nurture debate.The perpetuation of ignorance is safe and sound in academic social science departments.
Coulter really fits well with our American Idol mentality and the enhanced need for entreprenuers to display freak show elements in order to “get press” and “sell copy.” Until I saw Malkin antagonize leftist radicals at the Republican Convention, I naively thought she was different. I still like her fairly substantive analyses of liberal transgressions, but she, too, is willing to use theatrical devices to get attention.Coulter is an exhibitionist whose intelligence is just enough to provide success at repartee but not enough to lead her to scientific literacy. Remember Ben Stein?? Even the brilliant Lawrence Auster has doubts about Darwin. All of these thinkers have high enough IQ’s to grasp basic science but they don’t for personal reasons such as emotional barriers. There will always be such odd types who should know better but don’t.
I remember I rather enjoyed the Treason book but everything since has been lame. Those thoughts pretty much cover most of the so-called “conservative” pundits. They spend years arguing for fical discipline, smaller government, and a humble foreign policy which is all fine by me. Once that good Christian George Bush took office though, that all went out the window. As long as he fought for Christian values, it was perfectly acceptable to go on a spend frenzy, grow the size of government to Great Society levels , and start pointless wars. I don’t know. Coulter, Hannity, etc…all lost me. If they actually feel believe in this stuff, why do they support those who have abandoned it?
If they actually feel believe in this stuff, why do they support those who have abandoned it?
LOL
Because right or left doesn’t really matter.
“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
— Frank Zappa
You have been warned!
@Kevembuangga
Great quote. I followed your link and took the time to read Ike’s whole speech. I found a couple of other warnings that are never mentioned, which I wish I had had during discussion on other threads:
(bold emphasis mine)
Then, stunningly, was a paragraph that every one of the 535 fools currently ensconced on capital hill should be required to write one hundred times on a blackboard, before being allowed to vote on the spending bill they are currently ramming through congress over the ever growing objection of the public:
(bold emphasis mine)
The “Now Generation” blew this one big time. We have already mortgaged the future of our grandchildren, and now we are in the process of stealing from their children and grandchildren. Have we no shame? If the kids could only think for themselves well enough to realize what we have done to them, they would cut off our SSI checks tomorrow… and I wouldn’t blame them. ◄Dave►
Cornelius J. Troost writes: “Even the brilliant Lawrence Auster has doubts about Darwin. All of these thinkers have high enough IQ’s to grasp basic science but they don’t for personal reasons such as emotional barriers. There will always be such odd types who should know better but don’t.”
Two corrections: One, I do not “have doubts” about Darwin. I have argued over and over that the Darwinian theory of the origin of species via random genetic mutations plus natural selection is inherently impossible. My articles on the subject are collected here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010323.html
Second, when someone lays out his position and his reasons for that position with maximum clarity, as I have done, for you say about that person that he disagree with your position because he has “emotional barriers” rhat prevent him from seeing the truth, rather than because of the reasons he has given, is to talk like a totalitarian. How about giving me the minimal respect of saying, “Auster rejects Darwinism, for such and such reasons.” If you’re not willing to do that, that shows you live a closed mental universe and are not considering evidence and arguments.
Second, when someone lays out his position and his reasons for that position with maximum clarity,
Oh! Yeah! Creationists have maximum clarity… as lousy cheaters…
“Second, when someone lays out his position and his reasons for that position with maximum clarity, as I have done, for you say about that person that he disagree with your position because he has ’emotional barriers’ rhat prevent him from seeing the truth, rather than because of the reasons he has given, is to talk like a totalitarian.”
Nonsense. When someone who is described as “brilliant” posits reasons for disbelieving Darwinism which anyone with the desire and the ability to examine any number of Internet sites (let alone more scholarly work and original research) can see are without scientific basis, and whose writings reveal, at heart, a screeching desire to hold onto the deity fantasy, describing that approach as involving “emotional barriers” is nothing but a polite way of describing the situation. A more direct way of describing it probably wouldn’t get past the mod.
Grand Canyon’s reply perfectly expresses the bigotry that has taken hold over Darwinians in recent years, and that I referenced in my previous comment. With such bigotry in the saddle, any useful discussion becomes impossible. From the point of view of those such as GC, a critic of Darwinism is not person with a position who has given the evidence and reasons for his position; he is an ignoramus subject to “the deist fantasy.” This is language that is unsuited for, and those precludes, civilized discussion.
The closed, totalitarian universe of the new Darwinians is seen in the following argument, which one sees over and over: “If a person disagrees with Darwinism, he’s saying that something beyond matter exists; and since we Darwinians know that nothing beyond matter exists, the arguments against Darwinism can be dismissed and ignored. End of subject.”
Thus the Darwinians, instead of following the evidence and arguments where they lead, only allow evidence and arguments that fit their pre-set conclusions, and treat with contempt all other evidence and arguments. The Darwinian project has thus ceased being scientific; it has itself turned into the rigid superstitious dogma which it falsely ascribes to its critics.
You guys should listen to yourselves. It is amazing to see self-avowed rationalists advert instantaneously, without passing Go or collecting $200, to the ad hominem argument, and to the argument from authority, and to harrumphing. “Harrrrumph! Every sane and educated person knows that the right websites and textbooks all say that science can be scientifically supported! Anyone who disagrees with that is a lousy cheater.” Remarkable. Your extreme reluctance to consider alternative hypotheses is unscientific. One gets the impression that you are under the sway of a screeching desire to hold onto the atheist fantasy …
If a person disagrees with Darwinism, he’s saying that something beyond matter exists
and
Your extreme reluctance to consider alternative hypotheses is unscientific.
No, no, no, the grudge is not about “something beyond matter” nor considering “alternative hypothese”, it’s all about any kind of EVIDENCE!!!
This is what distinguish science from fantasy, you can setup some experiment (do this, see that) or consistently make some observation (every time we see this we also see that).
The explanation of the cases does NOT have to rely on any “material facts” beyond the measurement apparatus and the observer eyes and ears (think quantum mechanics).
It is the (statistically significant) reliability of the repeated observations which matters not the “nature” of the model used to offer an explanation.
Is there any such kind of EVIDENCE in the theistic world views?
Nope, zero, zilch!!!
(and THIS is what is “unscientific”)
“If a person disagrees with Darwinism, he’s saying that something beyond matter exists; and since we Darwinians know that nothing beyond matter exists,”
I’d call that a monistic, naturalist position. Not necessarily Darwinian. Though Darwinism, like all science, is naturalistic.
I have a feeling Panda’s Thumb is a good website to go to for arguments about Darwinism. If that is your inclination.
We are secularists. Mostly atheists and agnostics. For myself I have no interest in debating with prerationals.
Especially I am not interested in your imaginary friend in the sky.
Kristor
Remarkable. Your extreme reluctance to consider alternative hypotheses is unscientific.
But I understand your science perfectly Kristor: GOD DID IT.
Now can we end this conversation? What more is there to say?
Kevembuangga replies to me:
“No, no, no, the grudge is not about ‘something beyond matter’ nor considering ‘alternative hypothese’, it’s all about any kind of EVIDENCE!!!”
The commenter misunderstands my point, and in a way that is very typical of Darwinians when confronting criticism of Darwinism. I have not proposed a theory about the origin of species, therefore I do not need to present evidence for any theory. Rather, what I have done, in a long series of blog articles, is to look at the Darwinian theory of the origin of species by random genetic mutations and natural selection, to take it seriously and consistently on its own terms (which the Darwinians themselves often do not do), and show that it is inherently impossible.
While I occasionally speculate as to how evolution happened, I make clear that this is nothing but speculation. The true scientific position is that we do not know how new species and life forms originated.
Also, I am a critic of the intelligent design movement. While I agree with them in their rejection of the Darwinian theory of evolution, I think they made a big mistake in claiming to have proposed their own theory, which they ludicrously call a scientific theory, instead of merely showing the flaws in the Darwinian theory. I agree with the Darwinian critics of intelligent design that intelligent design is not scientific, because it produces no testable hypothesis. I would call intelligent design rational criticism of Darwinism, not a scientific theory. And that is also what I do. I present rational criticisms of Darwinism.
I have not proposed a theory about the origin of species, therefore I do not need to present evidence for any theory.
Well, Lawrence, you actually do need to present something else. Science needs theoretical frameworks to be of use. The theory evolution has proven itself so, time an again. One example, the Tiktaalik fossil–a transition between fish and amphibians–was found by isolating a particlar stratum of rocks and anticipating certain features, a neck, thicker appendages, etc. The theory doubtless will need refinement, just as Einsteinian physics does, but it still holds together and has proven utile.
Rather, what I have done, in a long series of blog articles, is to look at the Darwinian theory of the origin of species by random genetic mutations and natural selection, to take it seriously and consistently on its own terms (which the Darwinians themselves often do not do), and show that it is inherently impossible.
You seem to have the terms confused. The mutations are not “random” themselves. Mutations are commonplace. You probably contain a number of mututations yourself. Some of the genes provided by your mother and father were erroneously copied. The overwhelming majority of those mutations are inneffectual, but some aren’t. Those that aren’t provide advantages or disadvantages in a given environment. That process plays out just like weather patterns or gravitational attraction.
Grand Canyon’s reply perfectly expresses the bigotry that has taken hold over Darwinians in recent years, and that I referenced in my previous comment. With such bigotry in the saddle, any useful discussion becomes impossible.
It isn’t “bigotry” to point out that someone is motivated by a combination of ignorance and religion. “Useful discussion” becomes impossible when one side can pen an essay discussing the so-called problems with the Darwinian evolution of internal fertilization and mating in humans (in an essay titled, “An Absolute Refutation Of Darwinism,” no less) and not even discuss reproduction in sharks or the sexual habits of bonobos. These things are so patently applicable to the subject matter that their absence makes any reasonably well-informed reader conclude that the author simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.
From the point of view of those such as GC, a critic of Darwinism is not person with a position who has given the evidence and reasons for his position; he is an ignoramus subject to ‘the deist fantasy.’ This is language that is unsuited for, and those precludes, civilized discussion.
I’m assuming that this statement of yours demonstrates this supposed “evidence”:
“…God is the whole of existence, he draws forth out of existence a being who will correspond most closely with God’s own qualities, a being who can know and love God and become, in his limited sphere, like him. God is the end of man. God is the reason, the purpose, why man came into existence. And if that is true, then God, in some manner we can only speculate on, guided the evolution of life so as to lead to the human form, because only in the human form can God be consciously known and loved.”
Yup, nothing but “evidence and reasons” here…
Lawrence Auster,
In that case if as you say, your criticism is purely rational, you need to talk to biologists. Why bother us? How about publishing a paper in the scientific press?
Once again Pandas Thumb is a place you can go to talk to real biologists. Why are you posting here? I have no interest in wasting time on your “long series of blog articles”.
There are scientists whose speciality is evolutionary biology. They can answer you from their own deep knowledge based on years of research.
Why not gnxp? Why not Pharyngula? There are heaps of science blogs where you can debate evolution with real experts.
Daniel,
Lawrence’s case against evolution is more metaphysical than scientific. I may be mistating it, but he attacks naturalists’ use of teleology; ie, we’ll often use language that presupposes intentional design. For example, a biologist might say a whale’s blowhole is on top of its head because that makes for a better sea-going creature. While I don’t intend a god doing the work, it does sound like I’m imputing intention to the process.
Really, Lawrence would be well served by looking at Daniel Dennet’s arguments on intentionality in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Dennett acknowledges the quandary Lawrence poses and proposes a workaround by propounding a number of levels of knowledge, including “intentionality” where, due to our limited lifetimes, we assume intentionality on nature’s behalf to give us a better understanding of nature.
Polichinello
You put a replicator in a selective environment and you get a feedback loop. The system adapts – it tracks the optimum survival point in the environment. Just like an amplifier’s output tracks its input voltage. A replicator is a gene-amplifier – with natural selection providing the feedback.
It is a primitive kind of purposefulness.
I agree with you, and Dennett says the same thing in justifying his intentional viewpoint, IIRC.
Lawrence Auster
what I have done, in a long series of blog articles, is to look at the Darwinian theory of the origin of species by random genetic mutations and natural selection, to take it seriously and consistently on its own terms (which the Darwinians themselves often do not do), and show that it is inherently impossible.
You certainly didn’t, because nobody can do that!
That is, with the exception of purely formal systems (analytical philosophy, mathematics, 2 + 2 cannot be 5), it is not possible to prove that something cannot happen.
You can only point at some missing or amendable elements in a physical theory.
This argument is abundantly used to show that atheists cannot disprove the existence of God.
A double standard?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or is it not?
An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.
@Lawrence Auster
I guess this is addressed to Mr. Auster in defense of Grant Canyon’s post.
Just imagine that an intelligent, educated person insisted that he can show Darwinism is impossible on the grounds that (a) humans look very different from apes, (b) genes are built from atoms, so it’s impossible for them to mutate, (c) mathematical probability theory shows that nothing can happen by chance without a higher intelligence behind it, etc. Wouldn’t you conclude that there was something going on with that person other than an objective, impartial investigation into the truth?
Well, your specific arguments appear about as sound to us as the above examples appear to you. I just want to emphasize that I’m talking about our subjective judgment of your specific arguments against it. Maybe Darwinism is wrong, I really don’t know. Either way, we may be wrong in our evaluation of your arguments. My point is simply that given our evaluation of the arguments you’ve made, and given that you’re obviously intelligent, it’s a reasonable conclusion that your reasoning is affected by your religious or other beliefs.
Auster’s position is simple. No Darwin no Hitler.
Don’t fall for the ‘rigid superstitious dogma’ trap. The teory of evolution is a scientific theory because it’s falsifiable. Rabbits, hippos or a Buick in the PreCambrian period and evolution is toast. “God” is not falsifiable and therefore qualifies ‘rigid superstitious dogma’.
Grant Canyon, and others who take his side,
In your comments here, you have felt free to attack opponents of Darwinism, so I feel free to do the reverse.
This dispute is about theism, not science: If a god exists (not necessarily the God of the Bible) then it is not necessary to interpret all phenomena in naturalistic terms, and your criticisms of anti-Darwinism are destroyed. Conversely, if no god exists, something very much like Darwinism is true virtually by definition, there being no other possible explanation for life other than a vast series of small mindless changes.
Darwinism assumes, but does not prove, atheism (in the form of philosophical naturalism). All the scientific expertise and knowledge in the world cannot compensate for a philosophical premise that turns out to be false, and the only way actually to know whether it is true or false is to investigate it philosophically, not scientifically. Science is not the only form of knowledge
You give the appearance of being ignorant of the millennia-old philosophical tradition of arguing rationally for the existence of God. Like a child who does not understand adult ways, you apparently imagine that you have good reason for rejecting God when in actuality you have simply presupposed that your naïve view of reality is the only possibly valid one. I say this because you only give invective and slogans; never even the hint of an argument.
To give you a just a sense of this tradition of arguing for God, here is a link to an article in which I give rational reasons why naturalism is false, and therefore some sort of super-natural realm must exist:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry/
If you cannot correctly refute this argument, you will need to withdraw your naturalism and admit that doubting Darwinism is acceptable.
(For a more complete argument for God, see Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.)
Also, Ploni Almoni said, speaking to Lawrence Auster:
My point is simply that given our evaluation of the arguments you’ve made, and given that you’re obviously intelligent, it’s a reasonable conclusion that your reasoning is affected by your religious or other beliefs.
Well, Ploni Almoni, has it ever occurred to you that your beliefs about Darwinism are affected by your religious or other beliefs? Atheistic Darwinists have various emotional reasons to hate the idea of God just as Christians have various emotional reasons to love the idea of God. Everyone is biased. The real question is: who has the best evidence on his side?
Alan Roebuck, Because you address us respectfully I will speak respectfully to you. It is my policy not to argue with religious people if at all possible. If you like, to me it is a version of the Prime Directive. People have needs for religions. It is best if you find your own path to pure reason if that is your inclination.
The truth is we come here for peace and quiet to be among like-minded friends. If there is invective it is because you invade our space with your challenges. Which are of no interest to us.
We do not bother you to seek your affirmation, why do you bother us?
Why do you need our agreement? Believe in God if you wish or not.
None of us have come here to debate with believers, rather we are here to talk among ourselves. In an environment where we do not have apologise for shared values.
This entire thread has infested with faith-heads trying to score points in debates.
I tell you now. Your arguments are trivial and easy to refute. Your problem is that you have defined “intuitive” as a magical process. IT IS NOT. It is the function of conscious and unconscious processes in an actual physical brain. A brain is a type of biocomputer. It has been created by cellular processes directed by your genes.
Caledonian is the expert in this but I will attempt it….
When you solve theorems, proofs. You are actually running calculations on your brain-computer. They have no guarantee of being TRUE. The only truth value they have is derived from the fact that the structure of your brain incorporates the “experiences” of a billion years of struggle for survival. That empirical process has programmed your genes with the best program they could find in millions of years of evolution, to build a brain that works in the real world.
Your “proofs” are really computational trials or experiments that you run on your brain-computer. If there is any kind of “gods” there, or any other structure or regularity, such as logic or the potential for mathematics, it is because at some time in the past that element added some survival value to your ancestors’ existence. It does not prove actual gods exist. It only proves that belief in gods was once beneficial to your ancestors. And you have inherited that trait. It does not prove that mathematics exists in some mystical platonic realm. It proves that the capability of abstract and geometric symbolic reasoning had survival value. And consequently your ancestors evolved those traits to a high degree of perfection, and passed them down to you.
Logic, visual imagination, all of our brain’s capabilities are the same. They prove nothing except how well, Evolution by Natural Selection has designed us to survive in a complex causal world. A world of natural regularities and symmetries, that we for traditional reasons call “laws”.
The fact that Man has always existed in a complex societies is the reason we have evolved complex behavioural adaptations, just like all other social animals. These instincts are what that you call “morality”.
If you don’t think evolution can explain social behaviour, you really need to study evolution a lot more. We are starting to find the actual genes that control the various elements of our behaviour. Many of them go back to our pre-human ancestors and are shared with the other social primates. But again I am no expert in evolutionary biology.
You know Alan, this is stuff you could easily discover for yourself, if you put as much effort into studying science, as you put into trying to defeat it.
And again I’m no expert so maybe I got some of my dates and details wrong. I speak in general priniciples only. There are much better experts than me in evolutionary biology. Even posting here.
And that is not to deny that there is a vast gulf between Man and other animals. But there is also much in common that evolved over the shared part of our ancestry. No other animal has evolved such sophisticated symbolic reasoning capabilities ovre so many modalities to enhance our natural genetic endowment with reason and creative thought.
@Alan Roebuck
You are correct, sir, that what the fundamental dispute comes down to is philosophy, not science. BY DEFINITION science cannot speak to that which is not natural, because the empirical methodology on which it is built reflects only causal phenomena (even if the interactions of these causes turn out to be enormously complex). Science presupposes a lawful, orderly universe where things act in accordance with their natures, for the simple reason that it can describe no other.
Now, on to your claims – you cannot make a rational argument for belief in God, because reason and faith-based belief are fundamentally incompatible. Knowledge is only possible through the use of reason. You can arrive at any conclusion you want through faith, feelings, suppositions, or any way you wish, but unless you are using your reason to make inferences or deductions from the facts of reality you cannot properly call it knowledge. You speak of higher or lower forms of knowledge in your blog but there is no such thing – knowledge is knowledge, and two pieces of knowledge cannot contradict each other, because contradictions do not exist in reality. Now, knowledge is hierarchical, but all that means is that it nests in levels, not that some knowledge is inherently “better” than others.
This has already gone on a bit long, but I will mention one more thing, that embracing reason and refusing to accept a metaphysical proposition on the existence of God does not preclude a philosophical commitment to moral realism. Do not presume a false dichotomy between the absolute and the subjective.
The fact that Man has always existed in a complex societies ….//…. But again I am no expert in evolutionary biology.
I am not happy with these two paragraphs I wrote here. It is too assertive and unqualified. I miss comment preview. Try this edited version:
The fact that Man has always existed in a complex societies is the reason we have evolved complex behavioural adaptations, just like all other social animals. These instincts are thought to lie at the root of what that we call “morality”.
If you don’t think evolution can explain social behaviour, you really need to study evolution a lot more. We are starting to find the actual genes that influence many elements of our behaviour. Some of them can be inferred to go back to our pre-human ancestors because they are shared with the other social primates. But again I am no expert in evolutionary biology.
Also I think I threw around a few too many billions up there. Sheesh. Next time I try something that long I’ll proof it in Word first.
Daniel Dare: you say, “For myself I have no interest in debating with prerationals.”
1. So you have no interest in this debate, but you have posted to it in the most irate and insulting terms, several times, because … why? Why didn’t you just ignore it? Why did it bother you so much? Is there something about theism that really cranks your adrenal glands – something you fear? I’m not trying to score points on you here, honestly; I’m asking you some questions that maybe you should ponder in your heart.
2. Understand that in hurling insults like this, you sound … prerational. Puerile, to be precise; like a little boy who, mastered in a game of the dozens, can think of nothing better than, “Yeah, well you’re stupid!” Again, I don’t mean to score points, just to make sure that you understand that this sort of speech makes the Darwinian side look irrational. Surely you can do better. Surely you realize that this is not a game of the dozens?
Daniel Dare: You quote my statement that an extreme reluctance to consider alternative hypotheses is unscientific, and then you say, “But I understand your science perfectly Kristor: GOD DID IT.”
But how do you know that’s what I think? You don’t know me from Adam. So far as you can tell from what I have so far written on this thread, I am myself a Darwinian.
You have not actually responded to my statement at all. Do you disagree with it? I would guess not, or you would have said so, and marshaled an argument or two. In that case, the criticism of the discursive conduct of some naturalists on this thread implicit therein stands unchallenged. If on the other hand you do disagree, I urge you to pick up any history of science. You might also want to check out Karl Popper, probably the best source for the actual philosophy of science, particularly with respect to its epistemological credentials.
Polichinello: You say that Auster needs to present an alternative to Darwinism if he is going to critique it. Why? I mean, I understand that hypotheses are grist for the scientific mill, but why ask the mill to supply more grist? Is it not possible to notice a defect in a theory before one has perfected an alternative? Is it not rather true that the discovery of a defect in a theory is the very thing that precipitates the search for an alternative – or, if the defect is not fatal to the theory, for a patch? If one detected no defect, why would one search for an alternative? See Popper, James, Dewey, Kuhn on this. The discovery of theoretical defects is the engine of scientific inquiry, and their repair its nisus (NB that this means science is teleological).
Polichinello: You say that Darwinism still holds together. So did Newtonian mechanics – until it didn’t.
Polichinello: You say that mutations are not random, but commonplace. Commonness and randomness are not mutually exclusive, so the “but” is inapposite. If mutations are as you say not random, then they are organized, raising the question of the origin of that organization. What do you mean here, really, by random?
Grant Canyon: You say that Auster should have discussed the reproductive behavior of the bonobo and the shark, in order to make his essay, “An Absolute Refutation of Darwinism” at all adequate. But in critiquing a theory, one need not reiterate all the cases in which it seems adequate, one need only discuss the cases in which it does not. That Darwinism seems adequate to explain 99% of the phenomena under consideration doesn’t help it at all when it comes to the last 1%. It’s the stubborn counterexample that kills a hypothesis – and forces us to search for a more comprehensive and adequate theory.
Grant Canyon: You quote Auster’s criticism of your insults as unsuited to civilized discourse, and respond by mocking him. I hope it is superfluous for me to point out that you have proved his point. Look, if you want to make his arguments look bad, you have to respond to them with arguments, not insults. Huffing and puffing doesn’t work; you have to reason in public. In mocking Auster, or his arguments, you only make yourself look bad.
Daniel Dare: You say that if Auster is correct that his arguments against Darwinism are wholly rational, he should debate with evolutionary biologists at gnxp or Pharyngula, rather than at Secular Right. Does this constitute an admission that no one at Secular Right is competent to deal with Auster’s arguments? Why is it that only professional evolutionary biologists are allowed to be rational critics? Is there then no such thing as an intelligent layman? If not, how can any posters at Secular Right justify saying anything on subjects that fall outside the domains of their dissertations?
Polichinello: You say that Auster’s case against evolution is more metaphysical than scientific. Thanks for your calmness. Lawrence does indeed point out that Darwinists, and naturalists in general, inveterately make use of teleological language and concepts, even though they insist that “nature never sucks.” He argues that such diction radically vitiates naturalism. Dennett’s suggestion that the intentionality we attribute to nature is a sort of computational heuristic does not surmount the difficulty. The difficulty arises because minds and all their intellectual products – theories, knowledge, information, heuristics, and so forth – are intentional through and through, by definition (actually the technical term is “intensional,” but intention is a species of intension). If there is no intention in nature, there just is no intention anywhere in nature; and that includes those portions of nature we call our minds and our scientific journals. But the naturalist who argues thus is reduced in the end to insisting that however much it appears that he thinks, really he doesn’t (this is what Dennett’s suggestion boils down to). Unfortunately for the naturalist, we intend with everything we think. We cannot think, “there is no such thing as intention,” without intending to think something true, or to understand, or to explain. Thus the fact that the statement, “there is no such thing as intention,” is meaningful refutes the meaning thereof.
There are two ways to respond to this discovery that “there is no such thing as intention” is self-refuting. One is to pretend that there is no defect in the theory that nature is utterly ateleological. Why this seems like a good move to anyone is beyond me. The other is to admit that there is such a defect, that it is fundamental, and that ateleology should be abandoned as incoherent – “not even wrong.” I don’t get why there is so much resistance to that move. Probably for the same reason Marxists don’t want to abandon socialism despite its manifest failures and incoherence, or that Einstein resisted quantum indeterminacy to the last. One has enjoyed one’s elegant, parsimonious theory – one has found it utile – and one would rather not abandon it, is all I can think of.
Daniel Dare: you raise the idea that if you put a [population of replicators] in a selective environment, you get a feedback loop, because the population ends up tracking the configurations that are best suited to survive therein; you point out that this is a primitive kind of purposefulness. This is good, a useful contribution. But primitive purposefulness is still purposefulness, no? Note your language: “selective,” “feedback,” “tracking.” No need to preach to me about how this works, I read Design for a Brain back in ‘75 (what a great book!), and I agree with Ashby. No argument that if you design a system, it can behave the way it was designed to behave. Constrain a solution space, put a stochastic string generator to work inside it, and sooner or later it will chance upon the solution whose characteristics informed your decisions about the constraints on the solution space. I get that. Where do the constraints come from in the first place? In the very first place, I mean. That was the question Aristotle was working on. Democritus the atomist posited the clinamen, a random current in chaotic motion, to explain the world and its apparent orderliness. But a random current isn’t a current at all, it is just chaos. I.e., it doesn’t actually exist. What doesn’t exist can’t explain anything. If Democritus and the naturalists are correct about the fundamentally random nature of reality, then the world is wholly chaotic, there is no order in it to discover, and thus no possibility of thinking or knowing, or doing philosophy, science, or politics.
Kevembuangga: You say that no one can prove that a theory in natural history is incorrect by formal or analytic means. But the doctrine that evolution is not informed by any order – that it proceeds from utter randomness – is, not a theory in natural history, but a theory in metaphysics. That’s because there is no way that any part of a world can be totally chaotic unless that whole world is totally chaotic (unless, that is to say, it is not a world at all, properly speaking). The proposition that biological novelty proceeds from a purely chaotic source is thus a proposition about the nature of existence as such – it is a proposition in metaphysics. Thus it is vulnerable to analytical or metaphysical refutation. That refutation is rather simple. If everything in nature proceeds from mere chaos, then there is no such thing as “evolution,” or “change,” no such thing as math, logic, bodies, mass, causation – you name it, it ain’t. If the world is generated by nothing more than chaos, then the world just is chaos, and there is nothing at all other than chaos. Chaos excludes all other concepts. It is the zero of being, of experience, and of thought.
Furthermore, the random element in Darwinist theory (NB that “random” does not mean “probabilistic:” probability is a species of orderliness) is not necessary to the viability of the theory of natural selection, making it a good candidate for excision by Ockham’s Razor.
If we say that the world is not totally chaotic, then it is just not possible for any part whatsoever of that world to arise in an utterly chaotic process. If, that is, the world is really a world – if it coheres and is causally ordered – then every aspect of its operation is, precisely, not random (NB again that “random” is the opposite of “probabilistic”). Thus evolution presupposes, arises from, and supervenes upon the orderliness of the world. It cannot explain the orderliness that it presupposes.
Desmond Jones: You say that God is not falsifiable, and therefore qualifies as rigid superstitious dogma. But you are not falsifiable either. That is to say, your body may exist – we can push it around and so forth – but the existence of your conscious awareness is not testable. You might be an exquisitely programmed robot. Indeed, under a naïve physicalist doctrine, that is precisely what you are. You may respond perfectly to all the Turing tests in the world, and we could never ascertain whether you actually felt or knew anything. So I guess that makes your existence a rigid superstitious dogma?
Of course not. It makes you our best inference from the general pattern of our experience. The pragmatic reliability of the scientific method is founded upon just such an inference. We can’t prove that science works; we can only infer that it does, because it seems to; thinking that science works accords with our experience better than thinking it doesn’t.
What all this means is that falsifiability is not the sine qua non of knowledge. In fact – obviously, when you think about it for a moment – it takes quite a bit of a priori reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that falsifiability is an important criterion of knowledge in natural history. The doctrine of falsifiability makes a great deal of sense, but is not itself a scientific theory. You can’t design an experiment to falsify the proposition that falsifiability is necessary to scientific knowledge.
Daniel Dare: Your comment time-stamped 2/10/09 at 20:35, #42, is your best yet. You ask some good questions. Why do we come over to Secular Right and bother you with silly theistic arguments, in which you have no interest? Well, I think it is fair to say that Auster, Roebuck and I are doing it for charitable reasons. We see you guys making some basic category errors (such as, e.g., confusing natural history with metaphysics), and blundering about shooting yourselves in the foot with your rhetoric, and it just pains us, you know? We are conservatives, you see, and we want the Right side to be as coherent and systematic as possible. We think that atheism is a big problem for conservatism. Why? Well, if God doesn’t exist, then nowhere is there perfect knowledge. If no one has perfect knowledge, then no one knows perfectly what is good. But if no one truly knows the Good, then in effect it just doesn’t exist. Instead, all goodness is merely subjective – i.e., illusory. In that case, the contest between socialism and capitalism, or between the West and Islam, are just “he said she said.” No one is right, except in their own illusions. If no one is right, there is no intersubjective justification for any given social outcome; no Justice out there to be had. In that case, what can it matter – what can it matter really, that is, outside your own head – whether you live or die, or your children live or die, or whether your country lives or dies? It can’t. In that case, all society is just a power play, an amoral grab for utility, and nothing more, nothing more whatsoever.
Now this constitutes a weak foundation for any argument that we should be vigilant about things like socialism or the fall of the West. We are to get all worked up over those abstract things, and even perhaps sacrifice our lives to prevent them, for … no reason at all? No; I think I’ll have another beer and watch American Idol instead. See what I mean?
This is why Auster, Roebuck and I all think that the recovery of widespread religious faith is crucial to the long term success of our culture, particularly in its competition with a culture that is burning with faith. And that is why we take the trouble to respond to all of you at Secular Right.
I won’t need to spend too much time on your argument that, because the brain is a protein computer, there is no such thing as truth. If it is correct, then – as it argues – it is not true.
The Kat: You do get right down to it. Thanks for a pertinent comment. You say that “it is not possible to make a rational argument for belief in God, because reason and faith-based belief are fundamentally incompatible.” But “faith-based belief” is just a way of writing “belief-based belief.” What you’ve written, then, is, “reason and belief are fundamentally incompatible.” But if this were true, you couldn’t perform the act of believing something you had logically demonstrated to be true.
Belief is not ipso facto unreasonable. Even things we believe, not by having thought them through, but as a result of a direct delivery of the senses – such as that fire is hot – are not therefore necessarily unreasonable. Beliefs are unreasonable only if they contradict our experience or our reason.
But with respect to the existence of God, that is precisely the question. Does the proposition that He exists contradict our experience or our reason? In arguing about that we are not yet arguing about belief in God. St. Thomas argued that faith, properly construed, is, not credence in a proposition you cannot rationally support, but rather an act of the will to adopt as true the propositions you have demonstrated to be true by a process of ratiocination. The credence that follows upon a logical demonstration of the truth of a proposition does not come into play until one has reached the conclusion.
We all have faith in this Thomistic sense all the time. We believe we are standing on the outer surface of a ball, when if we look around us that idea seems just whacked. But, when we reason carefully about our experience, we are forced to admit that the floating ball cosmology makes more sense, however improbable it might have seemed on its face. It was in just this sense, for example, that Planck, in contravention to his deepest intuitions about nature, admitted that it had to be fundamentally discontinuous. He forced himself to believe in this conclusion, even though he didn’t want to believe it, even though he hated the idea.
Does God exist? We examine the arguments as honestly and carefully as possible, and follow where they lead. If at the end of the day we find that they indicate His existence, then we decide to believe in His existence. In terms of the volitional experience, it’s just like deciding that we really do live on a floating ball.
I would be interested to hear how you make moral realism agree with atheism. But perhaps you only meant to say that, while you are convinced of moral realism, you are not convinced of theism, so that you can’t see how the two doctrines either agree or disagree.
Sorry for the long comment. Just trying to be thorough, and do everyone proper honor.
1. Is there something about theism that really cranks your adrenal glands – something you fear?
Yes. I was raised in a religious tradition. And like many people who have been there and done that and fought our way out of it. I don’t like preachy people who think it is their duty to second guess my own choice. But fear is not the right word. I will concede to irritation at the presumption.
2.But how do you know that’s what I think? You don’t know me from Adam. So far as you can tell from what I have so far written on this thread, I am myself a Darwinian.
Because you said: “One gets the impression that you are under the sway of a screeching desire to hold onto the atheist fantasy … ”
That kind of comment usually comes from those who are trying to push their own religious fantasies. I have had some experiences in the past dealing with superstious people who have “saving the world” obsessions. If I am mistaken, I apologise, and withdraw it.
And responding to your question: Do I have to respond to every scientific issue that is raised? No this is a politics website with a secular slant. Science websites are all over the web. If you are discussing deep theoretical science here on a thread about Ann Coulter you are off topic. But everyone seems to be determined to divert the thread to their hobbyhorses.
A brief mention was OK. I didn’t object to Mr Auster’s first comment because I thought it had been provoked but really, what does all this stuff have to do with Ann Coulter? Again and again the thread has been hijacked to serve some agenda. I keep trying to tell you that this is not what we are doing here. I keep suggesting better websites to go to. But it is ignored every time.
Does this constitute an admission that no one at Secular Right is competent to deal with Auster’s arguments?
No we have a couple of the most talented scientists I know here at this blog but that is not the purpose of this blog. This is a politics blog with a bit of light science fun, not a deep science blog. Some of the posters here run deep science blogs (like GNXP) and I tried to suggest some of them Mr Auster could try. It is some of the same people but it is a different blog.
Where do the constraints come from in the first place? In the very first place, I mean. I have no idea. 21st century science (a) does not know the answer to that kind of question. Come back in a thousand years. (b) We are so far from knowing, that we probably haven’t even learned how to ask the question properly yet, much less find the answer.
Science is a historical process of investigation, not a magic oracle with all the answers to all the questions we can dream up.
Well, I think it is fair to say that Auster, Roebuck and I are doing it for charitable reasons.
Well I don’t remember asking you for your charity nor am I convinced that you are anything other than a typical preachy arrogant superstitious primitive with a smart line in sophistry.
Well, if God doesn’t exist, then nowhere is there perfect knowledge. True there is only empirical knowledge and it is not perfect.
If no one has perfect knowledge, then no one knows perfectly what is good. But if no one truly knows the Good, then in effect it just doesn’t exist.
I am a Darwinian Agent. All Darwinian agents are constrained by natural selection of their genomes to seek “goods” such as survival, reproduction, anything that adds to my inclusive fitness etc. I am a puppet of my DNA basically like Mr Dawkins says. There is no higher good for a Darwinian Agent than survival.
This is why Auster, Roebuck and I all think that the recovery of widespread religious faith is crucial to the long term success of our culture, particularly in its competition with a culture that is burning with faith. And that is why we take the trouble to respond to all of you at Secular Right.
Well that’s nice any time I am interested in finding out about that I’ll be sure to visit you both at your website.
Meanwhile we are Secular Right and I don’t remember any of the site owners saying we wanted to become Religious Right. I mean do you ever listen to yourself? Or rather do you ever listen to anything other than yourself?
I am honest now. I would ban you if I owned this site.
Oh I just noticed one more point.
particularly in its competition with a culture that is burning with faith
If this is a circumlocution for Islam, then I think it only fair to warn you that I am a China-firster.
I have no concern about Islam because I believe that China will be the worlds largest oil importer before 2020 by far, and that consequently by then the entire middle east including the Persian Gulf will be coming under the control of the new Chinese Superpower that will just about be starting to pass the USA at that time.
The distance from the Chinese border to the Iranian border is 1000km, say Washington DC to Chicago. so they will probably go overland by pipelines and rail/truck etc. this also avoids the naval chokepoints at Malacca and Hormuz under the control of the US Navy.
I think we can trust the Chicoms to:
(a) Suck all the oil out of the ME leaving only hot dry sand.
(b) Teach the grateful ME peoples, the wonders of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
(c) Teach the more dangerous muslim radicals the ancient art of Chicom love. Which begins with a bullet to the back of the head and ends with a letter to the family demanding payment for the bullet (or so I have been told by some Taiwanese, who in truth may have been making it up, but then again maybe not).
Polichinello: You say that Auster needs to present an alternative to Darwinism if he is going to critique it. Why?
Because, in the end, you can’t beat something with nothing. More below.
Polichinello: You say that Darwinism still holds together. So did Newtonian mechanics – until it didn’t.
That’s right, but it was still necessary and was held to until something of an alternative framework was established. There has been no predictive alternative to Darwin’s theory. In fact, it continues to perdure because it continues to predict new discoveries (see tiktaalik, et. al.) and is itself verified by other fields of study, like genetics. This is not the case with Newtonian physics, which started falling apart as our instrumentation became better. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
Polichinello: You say that mutations are not random, but commonplace. Commonness and randomness are not mutually exclusive, so the “but” is inapposite. If mutations are as you say not random, then they are organized, raising the question of the origin of that organization. What do you mean here, really, by random?
The way Lawrence used “random” seemed to indicate rarity. That’s one of the key criticism of Darwin, that it’s unlikely. But it’s not really the case. Imagine a coin-tossing contest with 1024 people. The group breaks into pairs of 512, and each pair tosses a coin. The loser is elminated and is paired with another winner from the remaining 256. This goes on until only one person is left.
Now, go back to the beginning and pick any one of those thousand. Let’s call the guy “Joe.” The chance that Joe will be the last man standing is pretty low. Let’s say Joe wins the contest anyhow. Joe will look back and think, “Wow, I sure am lucky!” He is. He won ten tosses in a row. But the fact that Joe is there is not some freak. It was inevitable, because one of those 1024 guys had to win. That’s analogous to evolution. We’re like Joe. We feel pretty lucky, and in a sense we are. Still, given the state of this universe the chances were good that some sort of life would have come out at the end. It very could have been something different than us, but it would have been something.