Apologists wasting their talent

[_grayskull]

metaphysical materialists........

Forgive my unserious reasoning, but isn't Joseph Smith's statement, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter" metaphysical materialism?

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Light in the Darkness (I like that name - it shows off your humility)

I think Beckwith's comment is fairly outrageous in its idiocy. Here's why. You tell me what I've missed.

What is the argument for the mutual incompatibility of atheism and humanitarian impulse? Unless you, or Beckwith, can provide one (and you can't, since there isn't one), there is no inconsistency in Dawkins's lament at all.

To elaborate:

No doubt as an Enlightenment man through and through, Dawkins not only believes that the use of a particular methodology, constrained by logic and evidence (a.k.a., science) is a far more reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the world than what religious believers claim is "the spirit" or "revelation from God", but also subscribes to the other half of the Enlightenment promise: that this knowledge tends greatly to redound to the well-being of mankind. So, Dawkins laments that knowledge which would have been discovered by a brilliant young scholar who decided instead to devote his life to defending entirely untrue propositions, such as that all six billion of us descend from incest between the children of "the world's first two humans, who lived only 5700 years ago", every animal in the world was loaded on to an ark, etc., wasn't discovered at all.

How anyone could ever justifiably construe that as some kind of "gotcha" is entirely beyond me.

If you're looking for some quality criticism of Dawkins, look up the review of "The God Delusion" that Harper's published a few months ago.

[_The Nehor]

Lame, lame, lame. The author of this is just saying that Richard Dawkins is not allowed to have an opinion about moral duty or human potential because he's an atheist, materialist, evolutionist. It's an idiotic sophistry we've seen a lot of recently. Not long ago Log was making the same kind of argument on MADB, only with the addition that atheists may as well be cannibalistic perverts.

It's not a judgment of moral duty. It's a judgment of purpose. You can't claim on one hand that the Universe is entirely coincedental and then claim on the other hand that there is something wrong with not fulfilling something like a purpose.

It would be similar to an athiest declaring that the Universe is less than it could or should be. At least one atheist was helped to move from atheism to a belief in God when he realized that he was angry at the Universe for not being better suited to humanity and then questioned why if he was a product of the Universe he should expect anything better out of it (C.S. Lewis).

[_Chap]

The argument seems to be:

1. Human beings can only be said to have a purpose if they are created by a non-human entity that itself has purposes (Have I got that right? Please suggest another short phrasing if you think that is an unfair summary of Beckwith's premise)

2. But atheists deny that human beings are created by a non-human entity that itself has purposes.

3. Therefore atheists have to admit that they deny that human beings have purposes.

4. Therefore an atheist would be incoherent in expressing regret that by making certain life-choices (as, to advocate 'young-earth' creationism) a talented person
has failed to fulfil his or her purpose.

[By 'purpose' here we evidently are not to understand 'purpose' in the sense of 'Dawkins' purpose in writing that book'; that usage is essentially identical to 'intention' and no-one will deny that saying X has an intention is quite coherent in the absence of theism. 'Purpose' here is more like the usage in 'what is the purpose of that lever on the right of the dashboard' i.e. 'what is it there to do'.]

But the argument fails at the first step. Why on earth should we believe in (1) at all? The idea that purpose has to come from a non-human source is a mere assertion without foundation, and in any case leads inevitably to the question of where the non-human entity's purposes come from. You can give an answer to that by saying something like 'My favourite non-human entity is the ultimate source of all purpose', but that is saying no more than the second child in this dialogue:

Child 1: BANG! you're dead! I just shot you!
Child 2: Nah! I've got a bullet-proof vest so you can't shoot me!
Child 1: OK, I have just blown you up with a hand-grenade.
Child 2: Nah! I'm in a tank ... and so on.

The whole trick here is to seize hold of a notion (in this case 'purpose' in the sense of potential function) that comes from our fuzzy-edged human world, and insist that it belongs in a special superior world where it is the exclusive property of a 'god' (whatever one of those is). Then we are told that if we deny the existence of that special superior world, we can't have purpose any more. (The same goes for ideas of right and wrong, though that is not the argument here).

Getting our feet back on the ground and clearing our mind of the god-talk, it is in fact clear that in normal life we are perfectly happy with the notion that human beings confer purpose on each other: thus for instance, I have taken immense care over the education and upbringing of my children with the purpose that they should become happy, fulfilled and socially useful adults. And of course in so far as they become autonomous (which is my wish, being fulfilled more and more every day), they will confer purpose upon themselves by the choices they make and the aspirations they form. That is good enough for me, and (to go by what they say) good enough for them too. And clearly if my sons turn into crack dealers and my daughter into a hooker, I shall to that extent by justified in lamenting that they have not fulfilled the purposes I formed for them.

To say that such lament is only justified if their purposes were conferred upon them by some kind of hyper-Chap (let's give Him His capital letter) is quite baseless, and only succeeds in being treated as a respectable argument because of the historically and socially conditioned deference commonly still given to religious views in some societies. (Breaking that baseless deference is of course one of the useful functions of paralleling god-talk with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' talk.)

Purpose is, on this view, merely a human thing - but then, we are merely humans, and I have no problem with that.

[_The Dude]

It's not a judgment of moral duty. It's a judgment of purpose. You can't claim on one hand that the Universe is entirely coincedental and then claim on the other hand that there is something wrong with not fulfilling something like a purpose.

Why does the Universe need a purpose? I don't agree it's even meaningful, nor do I see why anyone must assert it.

The random set of genes in my body are entirely coincidental, of course, as is the geography of the city where I live, and the weather from day to day, yet I feel that I am here for my purpose, which I can just decide for myself. I exist and that is enough to make the Universe purposeful for me.

So there is nothing wrong for claiming the Universe is entirely coincidental. And yet I fulfill something just for existing.

[_beastie]

Well, this thread is following a predictable trend. ALITD shows up to make specific accusations against certain posters, doesn't bother to provide evidence of his assertion, throws in some of the same old "atheists have to be nihilists" bunk, and then goes away, unable to either provide evidence of his primary accusation, OR defend his borrowed bunk.

Prove me wrong, ALITD. Show me where I said apologists are wasting their talent, and defend your borrowed bunk.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Well, this thread is following a predictable trend. ALITD shows up to make specific accusations against certain posters, doesn't bother to provide evidence of his assertion, throws in some of the same old "atheists have to be nihilists" bunk, and then goes away, unable to either provide evidence of his primary accusation, OR defend his borrowed bunk.

Prove me wrong, ALITD. Show me where I said apologists are wasting their talent, and defend your borrowed bunk.

Or, you know, I don't always check this board every few minutes and actually was doing other things with my life. This is the first time I looked back on the board. I'll reply shortly to the extent there are replies worthy of addressing. And yes, I realize that everyone likely thinks their counterargument is awesomness incarnate, but calling a philosophy professor's argument "idiotic" does not a refutation make.

I'm much less interested in searching your post history to link examples where you express lament for apologists not using their abilities on more worthwhile pursuits, but this isn't as important to my main point as the mere fact that one person has done such a thing. I know Tarski did recently in a thread I posted in, so I am able to link that example. Searching for other examples will prove difficult and I only have so much time.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Lame, lame, lame. The author of this is just saying that Richard Dawkins is not allowed to have an opinion about moral duty or human potential because he's an atheist, materialist, evolutionist. It's an idiotic sophistry we've seen a lot of recently. Not long ago Log was making the same kind of argument on MADB, only with the addition that atheists may as well be cannibalistic perverts.

This is idiotic sophistry. Or, at least asserting so will be enough to refute it if I were to think like you do.

Dawkins is saying that Wise has a duty to use his fited faculties for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge. Indeed, he calls it contemptible that he does not and justifies his hostility towards religion on the grounds that religion - apparently - corrupts minds such that people turn into young earth creationists. (Nevermind the hundreds of millions of nonfundamentalists out there.) Since Dawkins lacks any basis for saying Wise's faculties have valid and invalid purposes, he lacks any foundation for such a claim. Since what he needs to make the kind of argument he wants to make is religion, and he is using his argument to attack religious belief, his argument is ultimately irrational. It is like saying that one ought not be moral. Since that statement requires one to have a moral basis to make it, the argument is irrational.

[Guest]

[color=darkblue]Hi Light in the Darkness (I like that name - it shows off your humility)

I think Beckwith's comment is fairly outrageous in its idiocy. Here's why. You tell me what I've missed.

What is the argument for the mutual incompatibility of atheism and humanitarian impulse?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I think everyone is imbued with a humanitarian impulse. But you don't understand Beckwith or Dawkins if that is what you think Dawkins needs to make the claim he does and be rational. Dawkins isn't just saying that he feels sad about wasting talent. If that was all he was saying, there would be no problem. It also would be entirely uninteresting and nonrational. Dawkins is making an argument that one has a justified basis to be hostile to religion because it causes people to waste their talent. That requires one have more than some sense of right and wrong. That requires one have some rational basis to think people ought to use their faculties in certain ways. It's one thing to feel as though the earth is round. It's another to actually have sound reason to think it. That is what Dawkins lacks. I have no doubt he has feelings about how people ought to act.

Rock On Tal

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Ha! So if I have faith in the Flying Spagetti Monster, I can magically escape the box canyon of atheism? You mean all I have to do is believe in some kind of "god" and it becomes kosher for you?

Mocking believers aside, we both know there is no rational basis for believing in the Flying Spagetti Monster. That would be the problem with trying to ground your moral ideas there. You might say, "Aha! The same is true of God. Neener Neener." Yeah, you might think that, but I believe I have enough reason to warrant strong disagreement. And it is true that if my beliefs are true, then there's no problem. If your beliefs are true, then the argument holds. We both know the FSM isn't something sound to believe in, so the example is a mildly offensive nonstarter.