Philip Kitcher at the New York Times Sunday Book Review has written an honest review of Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheists Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, in light of the New Republic’s christening it 2011’s worst book.
Rosenberg’s compendium to the atheist’s vision argues three principle points: that micro-physics determines everything, that natural selection explains human behavior, and that the budding and brilliant work of neuroscience yields the greatest explanatory value among competing frames of reference. Kitcher summarizes: “Morality, purpose, and the quaint conceit of an enduring self all have to go.”
Surely the supernatural commitments of theists are not as naive as these. Claiming that we’re determined by micro-physics is at the very least premature: “Many informed scholars doubt the possibility, even in principle, of understanding, say, economic transactions as complex interactions of subatomic particles.” No more convincing is Rosenberg’s explanation of morality, or “evolutionary psychology on stilts,” as Kitcher calls it, doing painfully little to explain the connection between natural selection and what seems to be congenital moral dispositions. And the burden of proof lies with Rosenberg to show how neural states explain the breadth of human experience.
Kitcher wants us to know, though, that book isn’t bad as work of imaginitive philosophy. Read another treatment by Edward Feser in our November 2011 issue, here.
March 26th, 2012 | 11:51 pm
Even the Christians unthinkingly repeat “Men are programmed to have sex with as many females as they can”. This idea has been successfully insinuated into the mainstream and is now conventional wisdom.
“understanding, say, economic transactions as complex interactions of subatomic particles.”
This, I believe, misrepresents Rosenberg. He would explain economic transactions by Natural Selection and neuroscience.
March 27th, 2012 | 8:40 am
But if Rosenburg is right, he doesn’t explain anything. He merely says what the interaction of subatomic particles, Natural Selection, and neuroscience molded him to say, just as the rest of us do.
Determinism is curious like that. It insulates itself from criticism by this means but also says that people who seem to object didn’t have a choice in the rejection.
Of course, he could argue there is something more so he doesn’t foreclose the human ability to choose, but then that would put him in the same position as the rest of us, truly asking “Why?”
March 27th, 2012 | 11:14 am
Be sure to also check out Edward Feser’s extended critique, over many parts, at his personal blog — brilliant.
March 27th, 2012 | 12:44 pm
“This, I believe, misrepresents Rosenberg. He would explain economic transactions by Natural Selection and neuroscience.”
Natural selection = genetic changes that are later selected or deselected = protein molecules during their stuff = subatomic particles forming and breaking bonds.
Neuroscience = neural activity = electrons moving around.
March 27th, 2012 | 1:16 pm
So, if I understand this, we can no longer excuse our behavior by saying “The Devil made me do it” but we can excuse our behavior by saying “The vector boson made me do it.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact