[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

John: Sadly I have never read any of those people you mentioned, nor can I comment on anything you've said about Dawkins. :S

I definitely understand -- it's not like they're writing the kind of stuff that has the average layman as its audience!! I would ask yourself, though, why Dawkins is a professor arguing with people of low-to-average education and intelligence -- why does he never argue with other professors? I think there are some thoroughly interesting atheists -- Slavoj Zizek definitely comes to mind, not to mention the non-Christians who were on my list above -- and I really liked Dawkins's exposition of his version of evolutionary theory, but Dawkins is just beating around people who aren't as smart or educated as he is.

A short explanation of each of the people I listed, in case you're interested. I've explained them in such a way that it should be clear why Dawkins should have to engage them.

Derrida - Literary theorist who showed that the kind of conclusions exemplified in Dawkins are built into Western linguistic constructions, and further that those constructions create oppressive relationships/societies. Accordingly, also wrote on notions of forgiveness and gift-giving.

Foucault - Explored the history of the development of Western "discourses" such as talk of sexuality, insanity, crime, and so on. Shows that the Enlightenment constructed knowledges/disciplines as a means of gaining power, that claims of objective reasoning in fact mask grabs for power and oppression.

Hauerwas - Theologian highly critical of the politics that Dawkins's secular humanist worldview is based on. Offers a Christian politics as a non-violent alternative. (John Milbank argues somewhat similarly, arguing against the primal violence assumed by secular Western politics.)

Girard - Philosopher who argued that we are caught in a cycle of violence because we try to imitate others and thereby come into conflict over them for the achievement of the very goals we are imitating, offering a Christian solution.

Kuhn - Philosopher of science who argued that science (and, correlatively, other knowledge) develops not by objective reasoning but by the fleshing out of new paradigms for looking at the world.

Feyerabend - Philosopher of science who showed that every scientific rule designed to ensure objective reasoning has been broken by a major scientist, so scientific successes cannot be fundamentally attributed to objective reasoning (at least alone).

Volf - Theologian who writes considerably on violence and the way we treat "the other."

Cavanaugh - Argues that the religious component of most prominent examples of Christian violence in history was either greatly exaggerated or invented outright by Enlightenment historiography.

[Qingu]

Oh, John. You know perfectly well that Kuhn doesn't refute Dawkins' critique of religion anymore than Sam Harris does.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by Sean

A doctorate from Oxford is a poor education?

He's well educated in his field, but if you read his literature or his statements they're sometimes historically ignorant or show ignorance in other fields.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Oh, John. You know perfectly well that Kuhn doesn't refute Dawkins' critique of religion anymore than Sam Harris does.

? I didn't say Kuhn refutes Dawkins's critique of religion. I just said that Dawkins is operating on a really naive view of what science is, and the fact that he hasn't interacted with Kuhn (or Feyerabend, or any of the rest of the last 50+ years of work on science) serves as evidence toward my point that he's just a well-educated, intelligent bully who's picking on less-educated, less-intelligent people. And I take this as a case example of what happens under his narrative of scientific progress -- the elite strong commit violence against the weak under false pretenses of progress in order to gain power and status (progress, if you will) for themselves.

As for Harris, it is really interesting to me that a man who writes that we've got to get rid of "religion" because it creates nothing but violence would be such a warmonger himself -- not to mention Hitchens' strong encouragement of the attack on Iraq!

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

? I didn't say Kuhn refutes Dawkins's critique of religion. I just said that Dawkins is operating on a really naive view of what science is, and the fact that he hasn't interacted with Kuhn (or Feyerabend, or any of the rest of the last 50+ years of work on science)

I'm not sure what sort of "interaction" with Kuhn is required on Dawkin's part (or any evolutionary biologist's part), except maybe to try to be more open to the possibility of paradigm shift than his forebears. I mean, what exactly are you referring to here, John? Dawkin's resistance to group selection theories in favor of his preferred kin selection and "selfish gene" paradigm?

Or are you talking about his criticism of religion? In what ways do you think religious criticism should interact with the idea that science progressives in chunky, generational paradigm shifts?

I remember Travis brought up Kuhn when I was trying to pin him down on whether or not he believed the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. If I recall, he tried to argue that the answer to the question didn't matter because Thomas Kuhn supposedly proved that all scienctific knowledge is relative and meaningless because it progresses in paradigm shifts (which is, incidentally, not what Kuhn said at all). A couple of Muslims I've talked to have also brought up Kuhn, as if invoking his name and a sketchy summary of his ideas somehow magically serves as a bulwark against criticism of religious texts based on scientifically-established facts. (I guess that's why I'm harping on you now about it, it's become sort of a pet peeve for me in discussions with religious people.)

serves as evidence toward my point that he's just a well-educated, intelligent bully who's picking on less-educated, less-intelligent people. And I take this as a case example of what happens under his narrative of scientific progress -- the elite strong commit violence against the weak under false pretenses of progress in order to gain power and status (progress, if you will) for themselves.

Now this is just an ad-hom.

I've read the God Delusion and none of his arguments differ significantly from the things me and Jerry said on here in the old Apologetics forum before it was published. Do you think me and Jerry are elites trying to crush the "less intelligent" masses to gain power and status with our atheist arguments? Granted, I do miss all the fame and fawning ladies I got on my tenure as one of the resident atheists on CGR....

As for Harris, it is really interesting to me that a man who writes that we've got to get rid of "religion" because it creates nothing but violence would be such a warmonger himself -- not to mention Hitchens' strong encouragement of the attack on Iraq!

I haven't read Hitchens' God book and I don't really like him to begin with; however from what I've read of Harris he is basically a political liberal and does not support the Iraq War. You know, like how most atheists demographically tend to be Democratic liberals. If you're trying to paint outspoken intellectual atheists as essentially violent and warmongering, I think you should try using a much smaller brush.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'm not sure what sort of "interaction" with Kuhn is required on Dawkin's part (or any evolutionary biologist's part), except maybe to try to be more open to the possibility of paradigm shift than his forebears.

Dawkins still believes in scientific exceptionalism.

Originally Posted by Qingu

A couple of Muslims I've talked to have also brought up Kuhn, as if invoking his name and a sketchy summary of his ideas somehow magically serves as a bulwark against criticism of religious texts based on scientifically-established facts. (I guess that's why I'm harping on you now about it, it's become sort of a pet peeve for me in discussions with religious people.)

Exactly what Kuhn said or proved is a very complicated thing, and so anti-science reactionaries tend to make wild claims by invoking his name and pro-science reactionaries tend to make wild claims about how "postmodern" and "irrational" he is. Some of the basics are undeniable, but interpretation of Kuhn is really complex. That's why I generally don't get into the nitty-gritty of what he said, because if scholars of the philosophy of science are arguing about it then I'm certainly not qualified to make a comment. But, unquestionably, he (along with Polanyi, to a lesser extent) represents the beginning of a long trend (continued in Feyerabend and others) in both epistemology and the study of science that undermines scientific exceptionalism.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Now this is just an ad-hom.

I've read the God Delusion and none of his arguments differ significantly from the things me and Jerry said on here in the old Apologetics forum before it was published. Do you think me and Jerry are elites trying to crush the "less intelligent" masses to gain power and status with our atheist arguments? Granted, I do miss all the fame and fawning ladies I got on my tenure as one of the resident atheists on CGR....

I'm not talking about conscious intentions here. I'm not saying that you wake up in the morning thinking "How can I eat babies today?" or "How can I smack down the proletariat so that my bourgeois ass can get fat and happy?" I'm saying that this is what actually happens when people follow the Enlightened narratives of progress, regardless of their intentions.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I haven't read Hitchens' God book and I don't really like him to begin with; however from what I've read of Harris he is basically a political liberal and does not support the Iraq War. You know, like how most atheists demographically tend to be Democratic liberals. If you're trying to paint outspoken intellectual atheists as essentially violent and warmongering, I think you should try using a much smaller brush.

Socially he's certainly as progressive as they come. But, e.g.,

"This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are." (Link. End of Faith is broader and offers many comments in the same vein -- essentially, it defends W's agenda of the War On Evil Fascist Radical Fundamentalist Baby-Eating Islam.)

I'm not trying to paint all outspoken intellectual atheists as essentially violent and warmongering. I'm just saying that the loud ones who are ranting about how religious people are the source of pretty much all violence are obviously not offering a solution to endemic violence because they are very consciously perpetuating it.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Dawkins still believes in scientific exceptionalism.

Please tell me in what ways Dawkins believe science transcends human ideological norms or rules, or is privy to transcendental knowledge or exempt from legal or moral scrutiny. Preferably with quotes or citations.

But, unquestionably, he (along with Polanyi, to a lesser extent) represents the beginning of a long trend (continued in Feyerabend and others) in both epistemology and the study of science that undermines scientific exceptionalism.

To the extent that people used to think science was a magical and perfect process, sure. Dawkins clearly doesn't think that, though Dawkins (like Kuhn) obviously holds science in much esteem and thinks it is the best tool to use to understand reality.

I'm not talking about conscious intentions here. I'm not saying that you wake up in the morning thinking "How can I eat babies today?" or "How can I smack down the proletariat so that my bourgeois ass can get fat and happy?" I'm saying that this is what actually happens when people follow the Enlightened narratives of progress, regardless of their intentions.

Is this the point in the debate where you'll compare me to Robespierre because both of us call our ideology "enlightened"?

Socially he's certainly as progressive as they come. But, e.g.,

"This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are." (Link. End of Faith is broader and offers many comments in the same vein -- essentially, it defends W's agenda of the War On Evil Fascist Radical Fundamentalist Baby-Eating Islam.)

Don't quote-mine, John. The intent of the article is to address liberals' rosy view of Islam, it is a reality check that I and (I am guessing) you agree with. It also explicitly does not defend the War on Terror:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq...

The truth is that we are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror.

I'm not trying to paint all outspoken intellectual atheists as essentially violent and warmongering. I'm just saying that the loud ones who are ranting about how religious people are the source of pretty much all violence are obviously not offering a solution to endemic violence because they are very consciously perpetuating it.

You are trying to discredit your opposition's arguments against religion by overgeneralizing their ideology to conflate it with violent imperialism, just like you tried to discredit my arguments against religion by overgeneralizing my ideology into an "enlightenment narrative" with guillotines at the end.

Edit: by the way, John, you should really read this book, called Nonzero, by Robert Wright. There is an ideological narrative that I actually do identify with, and I am sure many so-called enlightened atheists feel the same way.

http://www.nonzero.org/

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Please tell me in what ways Dawkins believe science transcends human ideological norms or rules, or is privy to transcendental knowledge or exempt from legal or moral scrutiny. Preferably with quotes or citations.

The only part of that I could even possibly have claimed would be that Dawkins believes science to be privy to transcendental knowledge, but on the reading of 'transcendental' on which that's true I think that just about everyone in the Western world (myself included) believes science to be privy to transcendental knowledge.

Originally Posted by Qingu

To the extent that people used to think science was a magical and perfect process, sure. Dawkins clearly doesn't think that, though Dawkins (like Kuhn) obviously holds science in much esteem and thinks it is the best tool to use to understand reality.

Perhaps instead of using the word 'exceptionalism' I should have used 'positivism' and 'reductionism,' since they are technical terms.

Here Dawkins responds to the point that Kuhn, Polanyi, and other scientists who wrote about philosophy showed that they actually read and understood epistemology, metaphysics, and where relevant theology, while he hasn't, by saying that he thinks theology is dumb so he doesn't want to read it anyway (no mention of the non-theological disciplines he hasn't read up in). So far as I can tell, this is his only mention of anything close to the work done on knowledge or science in the last 100 years, and, like a true bourgeois elite, writes it all off as a meaningless peasant rebellion without knowing anything about it. (Accordingly, he gets lots of attacks from Marxists, both on the popular and scholarly levels.) The same strategy is evident here , where he says that since you don't have to read about something in order not to believe it you also don't have to read about something in order to write meaningfully about it as a scholar.

This seriously affects his work, as, for instance, he writes at length on natural theology in The God Delusion but obviously hasn't read the work of Alvin Plantinga or Karl Barth, the two most important 20th-century writers on natural theology, as their views are methodologically devastating to the development of his critique -- not to mention his ignorance of all the people who have actually written to defend the arguments he's criticizing. (Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, for instance, thinks Dawkins's concentrated attack on the design argument is pathetic and uninformed.)

Originally Posted by Qingu

Is this the point in the debate where you'll compare me to Robespierre because both of us call our ideology "enlightened"?

I think you're taking this more personally than anything else? I didn't write any of these things with you in mind.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Don't quote-mine, John. The intent of the article is to address liberals' rosy view of Islam, it is a reality check that I and (I am guessing) you agree with. It also explicitly does not defend the War on Terror:

I wasn't quote-mining; if it read that way, you're reading me as saying more than I intended. He was and has been very clear that he thinks the way Bush has handled the War On Radical Fundamentalist Fascist Baby-Eating Islam is pretty bad (though caveat that because he does a lot of Bush-defending), but further that he is very on board with the fight itself. Not necessarily the War on Iraq, of course, but he does take America vs. Islam to be this really important story.

And yes, I do think that when it comes to understanding the Muslim world some liberals are living in too rosy-faced a world because of their optimistic humanistic utopianism, but I certainly don't think that a more even-keeled judgment underwrites the aforementioned "war."

Originally Posted by Qingu

You are trying to discredit your opposition's arguments against religion by overgeneralizing their ideology to conflate it with violent imperialism,

Well, I said that it's naive to act like religion is the primary cause of violence and your secularism is the answer to that violence when you are yourself being so supportive of violence. (The 'you' here not referring to you yourself, obviously.) You are trying to discredit my arguments by overgeneralizing my strategy to conflate it with waving my hands around and calling people names. (wink)

I don't consider them my opposition, and I'm not particularly interested with their arguments. I'd rather watch Star Trek: The Next Generation, even if it hurts to watch such a good Shakespearean actor stuck in mediocre television, and much more interesting and sophisticated versions of the kinds of things they'd wish to get to can be found in Quine and Rorty. (Dennett is the closest philosopher to their actual views, but even his friends only give his work underhanded compliments.) What I'm mildly interested in is this particular strand of militant atheism from a sociological, not a philosophical, point of view.

Originally Posted by Qingu

just like you tried to discredit my arguments against religion by overgeneralizing my ideology into an "enlightenment narrative" with guillotines at the end.

To be honest I can't really remember enough of your arguments against religion to comment on this. Sorry. Mostly I remember you arguing theology with me.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Edit: by the way, John, you should really read this book, called Nonzero, by Robert Wright. There is an ideological narrative that I actually do identify with, and I am sure many so-called enlightened atheists feel the same way.

http://www.nonzero.org/

I've actually never read it, even though I've seen and heard about it. Next time I'm at Half Price Books I'll see if I can find it. The title is funny so me because in my work we often refer to trading the markets as a "zero-sum game." Haha.

[Chrysostom]

I figured I would list the names I think Dawkins should have studied in the study of science (having already mentioned more than enough literature in the area of "religion & violence," though I would definitely have to add to that list John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory and Being Reconciled, plus his cronies Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward).

Michael Polanyi Personal Knowledge, Tacit Dimension
Thomas Kuhn On The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Daniel Greenberg The Politics Of Pure Science
Jerome Ravetz Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems
Paul Feyerabend Against Method
Imre Lakatos The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar Laboratory Life
Karin Knorr-Cetina The Manufacture of Knowledge, Epistemic Cultures - the former is 20 yrs older and may be out of print
Bas C. van Fraassen Laws and Symmetry
Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men
Nancy Cartwright, The Dappled World
Ed. Sandra Harding The Racial Economy of Science - an anthology

The basic consensus could be stated as, Scientific knowledge is not discovered but socio-culturally constructed. My personal assessment would probably be a bit more Realistic than that, but I wouldn't defend positivism or anything near it.

Responses:
Rudolf Carnap, Introduction To The Philosophy Of Science - standard presentation of the positivist view, contemporary of the first book above
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (a classic), Conjectures and Refutations (more accessible)
Larry Laudan, Progress and Its Problems, Science and Relativism
Norman Leavitt and Paul Gross Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science
Alan Sokal, "Transgressing the Boundaries," a hoax paper published in Social Text 1996; in book form, The Sokal Hoax combines the article with its revelation and some mostly useless opinion pieces by other authors