The Gospel Of Scientific Materialism
July 13, 2010
R.R. Reno
The scientific popularizers—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and others—don’t go in for nuance, as David Hart has pointed out again and again in our pages. They cheerfully champion the most reductive sort of materialism, including the idea that free will does not exist because our minds are just neural networks that function according to physical laws.
Why are they so enthusiastic about this idea that our minds are just neural networks? It’s not at first sight a very attractive belief. After all, free will provides a sense of self-possession, and it’s the source of the drama in life.
We should never underestimate the satisfaction that comes from finding what one imagines to be the Magic Key that unlocks all the doors, but I think our Happy Warriors of Science get so excited for another reason. The basic thrust of a reductive science of the mind involves a move from cultural categories—“I have an obligation to care for my children”—to biological ones—“I only feel an obligation because human DNA has evolved to promote species survival.”
It is a way, in other words, to deny the reality and authority of culture. One belief unifies a great deal of social theory and philosophy of the last one hundred years, and it’s the belief that culture crushes and deforms us. Max Weber called it “the iron cage.” Jacques Derrida used fancier words, but the so-called “Metaphysics of Presence” amounts to the same thing.
This belief has been reinforced by the fact that most have located the vitalizing powers of human existence in destabilizing thrusts and eruptions that undermine established cultural patterns. Michel Foucault provides perhaps the perfect example. He was fascinated by explosions of erotic desire and vivid scenes of violence.
Duty, logical coherence, settled or inherited patterns of behavior—these are among the bad motifs in our postmodern anti-culture. Self-expression, transgression, unmasking, madness, smashing the system—they are the good motifs. The bad motifs are all associated with laws, norms, and principles that discipline the soul. The good motifs suggest an anti-discipline, a liberation of desire.
It is true, of course, that a romance with transgression leads to a pseudo-morality—a discipline—of sorts, one that teaches that our greatest duty is not to make and express moral judgments that might oppress others. Verily, verily, it is forbidden to forbid.
I’m not surprised by this postmodern anti-Sinai. The old motifs put stress and tension into life. The Socratic maxim—know yourself—animated St. Augustine just as much as Albert Camus. They disagreed about the meaning of life—Augustine sought the uncertain requirements of God’s will, Camus proposed misty notions of an authentic life—but both agreed that we need to enter into ourselves. We must carefully examine our lives so that we can weigh, assess, correct, repent, and renew our efforts to live as we should.
Self-examination turns out to be endlessly painful and difficult. Therein lies the appeal of reductive explanations. They release us from the task of self-examination and the need to discipline our errant desires and disobedient wills. What matters is something impersonal, something working at a deeper level than culture and its soul-shaping agenda: the Laws of History or Physics, the Unconscious or Natural Selection. We shouldn’t underestimate the appeal of this release—and the pleasing rest it provides.
It’s really not a new idea. In his poem On the Nature of Things, the ancient Latin poet Lucretius preached the psychological benefits of explaining away culture and our conscious participation in it. Our world is an accident, he observed. Human life is a speck of no significance in the vast reality of the cosmos. As Lucretius insists, everything that seems to be uniquely personal can be explained by universal principles of matter.
It sounds nihilistic, and it is. But it was the genius of Epicureanism, which Lucretius seeks to promote in his poem, to recognize that with nihilism comes psychological freedom. A reductive theory of our humanity releases us from the tensions of all sorts of questions. Should I marry her? Do I have to keep my word? Should I make a sacrifice for my family? Have I lived honestly and with integrity? All difficult questions, and questions that may have answers we don’t want to know.
If, miracle of miracles, my life is explained by the evolution of human DNA struggling for survival, I can set these questions aside. Then I can just—live.
Perhaps this promise helps explain the strange urgency and high moralism of folks such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and other scientists who write popular books with strongly evangelical tones. They want us to recognize that we are animals governed by impersonal laws of nature for a reason. That reason is that we will be happier if we set aside culture and its illusions about the meaning of life.
If all the mental images we have about ourselves are deceptions, who can blame us for screwing things up? Who can blame us for trying to snatch what happiness we can, even if we have to transgress the moral laws our parents held dear? With this excuse, we can act contrary to our consciences, since conscience itself can be explained away by recourse to a deeper law of nature or a material process.
Yes, free will gives life its drama. But a life without drama is less stressful, less perilous, less urgent, less tense, and the therapists recommend stress reduction. If I’m just DNA trying to out compete other DNA, the mess I make of my life doesn’t matter, and it may even help the onward evolution of the species.
The Happy Warriors of Science are fitting men for our therapeutic age. They provide the metaphysical underpinnings for the great postmodern word of absolution: Whatever.
R.R. Reno is Senior Editor at First Things and Professor of Theology at Creighton University. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible.
Among David B. Hart’s articles on the “Happy Warriors of Science” are Believe It Or Not, The Dawkins Evolution, and Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark.
Comments:
7.13.2010 | 2:26am
steven jacks says:
True, but in Dawkin’s case the irony (or the fatuousness) is that although his obsessed scientism opens out into abysses of that nihilism, like the upright, puritanical Englishman that he is he stridently claims that his science somehow “outmorals” all the moralists. Anyone who has watched or heard him recognizes that he by no means is an advocate for any “whatever” or evading of conscience. Blithely unaware of his position he by turns blandly or fervently advocates the whole remnant of Christian ethics – human rights, respect for the person, dignity, equality et al - with a devotion worthy of any good church goer. (Who or what were his forbears? High church? Dissenters?). Reminds one of Nietzsche’s quip regarding George Eliot, she got rid of God but not the straightjacket that contained Him.
7.13.2010 | 3:22am
brettongarcia says:
Does science, materialism, really seek to free us from responsibility? If we need marital regulations "just" because our DNA tells us we need to reliably reproduce, still, marital/reproductive regulations, have a certain biological NECESSITY and MATERIAL FUNCTION after all. We must reproduce physically, successfully, or the human race is extinguished.
I don't agree that the new atheist materialists are seeking to utterly denegrate culture; or free us from all responsiblity.
I don't agree that the new atheist materialists are seeking to utterly denegrate culture; or free us from all responsiblity.
7.13.2010 | 5:11am
Norman Clemo says:
Read Stephen M. Barr'S The Devils Cchaplain article at www.firstthings.com/article/2007/09/001-the-devils-chaplain-18
as an antidote to Dawkins's poison .
Incidentally , the scientific materialism of Richard Dawkins is no " Gospel ."
Romans 16:25-27
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
as an antidote to Dawkins's poison .
Incidentally , the scientific materialism of Richard Dawkins is no " Gospel ."
Romans 16:25-27
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
7.13.2010 | 8:40am
Dan says:
To paraphrase Lenin, Why bother answering their pathetic arguments? We'll announce their rage stems from being emasculated cowards in a man's world, and everyone will understand everything.
7.13.2010 | 9:29am
pdn Michael says:
Having just finished a re-reading of Peter L. Berger's "A Rumor of Angels," I'm reminded of Berger's term, "cognitive defiance." Berger intended it for those religious folk, mostly Christians living in the highly secularized West, as an attitude, if you will, to hold over against those with the presumably unassailable "facts" of the inevitable triumph of the secular option, those he called "cultured despise-rs" of religion.
Prof. Reno has exposed the raw nerve of a select group of cultured despise-rs here. Why such strident tones from Dawkins, Dennet and their ilk? Most likely its the fact that Americans (especially) continue to be, in the words of RJN, "incorrigibly religious." People continue to pray. Perhaps it's the simple irritation of having to drive to work past steeples, salvation-assurance sign boards and the rather artless "WWJD" culture on the way to work each day that drives this most elite cadre of cold rationalists to shrilly hawk the comforting indulgence of biological inevitability?
Looks to me like they're just becoming another bunch of grumpy old men, conservative in a perverse sort of way, and feeling a little nervous about the future of their own "social construction of reality."
Prof. Reno has exposed the raw nerve of a select group of cultured despise-rs here. Why such strident tones from Dawkins, Dennet and their ilk? Most likely its the fact that Americans (especially) continue to be, in the words of RJN, "incorrigibly religious." People continue to pray. Perhaps it's the simple irritation of having to drive to work past steeples, salvation-assurance sign boards and the rather artless "WWJD" culture on the way to work each day that drives this most elite cadre of cold rationalists to shrilly hawk the comforting indulgence of biological inevitability?
Looks to me like they're just becoming another bunch of grumpy old men, conservative in a perverse sort of way, and feeling a little nervous about the future of their own "social construction of reality."
7.13.2010 | 10:04am
Le Cracquere says:
Not sure I follow you, brettongarcia. If one takes Dawkins's stance as a given, there's still no "necessity" or "responsibility" that follows from the genetic facts, no requirement to avoid the human race's extinguishing itself. Take materialistic scientism as true, and one might as well be extinct as be anything else.
7.13.2010 | 10:17am
Edward Alleyn says:
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker and the other clerics of scientism do not know and cannot predict the consequences of their notions about the nature of life.
Like many academic intellectuals of the Left, they care only for the abstract and theoretical, not for reality and the practical. It hardly matters to them that their ignorance of Truth will lead the world into a black hole of despair and terror.
Like many academic intellectuals of the Left, they care only for the abstract and theoretical, not for reality and the practical. It hardly matters to them that their ignorance of Truth will lead the world into a black hole of despair and terror.
7.13.2010 | 10:29am
Lachys says:
@Brettongarcia:
It is important to distinguish between what the New Atheists like to say when they address the public, and what they like to say when they are patting each other on the back for being smart and tough-minded. When they are talking to the general public, they love to trumpet democracy, free-thinking, autonomy, and compassion, and human dignity. When they are talking among themselves, they do exactly the opposite, revelling in the fact that "science" has "discovered" that human beings are "nothing but" intrinsically worthless aggregates of molecules that lack any distinctive moral or cognitive properties.
In other word, they promote a political and moral vision that is directly at odds with their metaphysical assumptions, and go around pretending that there is no tension or conflict between the two. Once I know the truth about the universe, that it is a pointless uncaring machine which is devoid of values, why should I still give a damn whether the human race reproduces successfully? If the world really is the way they say it is, who can rationally care about an intentional system no different in principle from a thermometer? Why not be only as "good" as I need to be to keep my neighbors from retaliating, and trying to get all the pleasure and advantage for myself that I can?
For the Atheist, only bad answers to these questions are forthcoming, but there is no shortage of attempts. The bottom line is that you can't talk reductive materialism out of one side of your mouth, and Enlightenment humanism out of the other side. Once the "delusory" beliefs in God and purpose are gone, all your precious moral and political beliefs are gone with them.
It is important to distinguish between what the New Atheists like to say when they address the public, and what they like to say when they are patting each other on the back for being smart and tough-minded. When they are talking to the general public, they love to trumpet democracy, free-thinking, autonomy, and compassion, and human dignity. When they are talking among themselves, they do exactly the opposite, revelling in the fact that "science" has "discovered" that human beings are "nothing but" intrinsically worthless aggregates of molecules that lack any distinctive moral or cognitive properties.
In other word, they promote a political and moral vision that is directly at odds with their metaphysical assumptions, and go around pretending that there is no tension or conflict between the two. Once I know the truth about the universe, that it is a pointless uncaring machine which is devoid of values, why should I still give a damn whether the human race reproduces successfully? If the world really is the way they say it is, who can rationally care about an intentional system no different in principle from a thermometer? Why not be only as "good" as I need to be to keep my neighbors from retaliating, and trying to get all the pleasure and advantage for myself that I can?
For the Atheist, only bad answers to these questions are forthcoming, but there is no shortage of attempts. The bottom line is that you can't talk reductive materialism out of one side of your mouth, and Enlightenment humanism out of the other side. Once the "delusory" beliefs in God and purpose are gone, all your precious moral and political beliefs are gone with them.
7.13.2010 | 10:43am
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Consider Paul DeMan's deep rationalization of writing for the Nazis.
There may be a personal need to have the bonds loosed by Dawkins, et alia, but an even darker possibility remains. They may retain, unwitting, the idea that some free will remains: the free will of their own tribe, at least collectively. They can purge the messy freedom of the other tribes, ushering in a world where everyone is free to be like them.
There may be a personal need to have the bonds loosed by Dawkins, et alia, but an even darker possibility remains. They may retain, unwitting, the idea that some free will remains: the free will of their own tribe, at least collectively. They can purge the messy freedom of the other tribes, ushering in a world where everyone is free to be like them.
7.13.2010 | 10:56am
kirk wynn says:
In Islam there is Shariat which provides the religious and social laws, rules and precepts of civic and social life. Its purpose is to allow society to function smoothly, perhaps equating to "culture" in your blog. This is distinct from Tariqat which refers to the possibility and method of moving beyond Shariat or "culture" through religious attainment.
Caveat: this is the interpretation of a non-Moslem, non-scholar.
Caveat: this is the interpretation of a non-Moslem, non-scholar.
7.13.2010 | 11:49am
bwills says:
It does not seems to me an accident that Mr. Reno has reached for the term 'evangelical' to descibe Dawkins, Pinker and all...in my admittedly rough (and somewhat whimsical) taxonomy there are 'radical catholic libertine atheists' such as one might find in France and "earnest anglo-protestant truth atheists" such as dominate secular humanist organizations in the English speaking world....the difference between them is the sense of irony in the first and the asolute earnest seriousness of the second...clearly public atheism is the spawn of the dissenting tradition in English protestantism...partly in substance (there is the same moralism and, as Nietzsche saw, the same ethic of truthfulness) but more crucially in style (style being the inner man in a real and underrated sense)....thus, we get tracts from Atheists writtten with the same kind of bombast and over the top polemical zeal as any 'true bible believer' would employ...it is no accident that Dawkins is on record as saying that he regards fundamentalist christians as his only true opponents because 'liberals' are in fact unbelievers at bottom...
so....my question for Mr. Reno is whether there is something deeper here than the ancient quest for 'ataraxia' or peace of mind....might he admit what seems evident to me, that Atheism and Secular humanism are forms of Christian hetero-doxy?
so....my question for Mr. Reno is whether there is something deeper here than the ancient quest for 'ataraxia' or peace of mind....might he admit what seems evident to me, that Atheism and Secular humanism are forms of Christian hetero-doxy?
7.13.2010 | 1:23pm
brettongarcia says:
Crac:
If Nature, our DNA is telling us we must do something - like have sex, and reproduce ourselves - then there IS a sort of will or reason or direction, in nature, and in Materialism. See Catholic - and better, non-Catholic - theories of "Natural Law."
Lach:
What DO these materialists say privately, among themselves? Are they only pretending to endorse George Eloit's moral guidelines (Jack's "staightjacket?). I don't know how you are privy to their private communciations, if you are not a sympathizer. But in any case, perhaps their true opinion, as for most of us, lies somewhere between what they carelessly say to friends in a bar, and what they publish. Remember, in academe, in the published world, as in Law, written/published remarks, are always regarded as far, far more definitive and binding, than informal verbal comments.
Dan and Michael:
Do you think these new atheists are cowards? Would "emasculated cowards" oppose all the massive forces of traditional religion? Would they risk the firm, even violent religious opposition to them? Actually, this takes far, far more courage to oppose standard, received ideas, than to passively believe them.
If they are a bit shill, that's just to cut through the constant white noise, of platitudes.
And to - Kirk - move beyond conventional culture.
Bwills and Jacks and myself: But maybe we (?) are more in the right here: the New Atheists are not entirely destroying, rebelling against, the old culture, and even religion; but correcting it? Even in a strange way, resurrecting it. Hopefully, in a new and better form? Beyond a moral straightjacket, to a looser - but (Jacks?) still erudite and therefore disciplined - vision?
If Nature, our DNA is telling us we must do something - like have sex, and reproduce ourselves - then there IS a sort of will or reason or direction, in nature, and in Materialism. See Catholic - and better, non-Catholic - theories of "Natural Law."
Lach:
What DO these materialists say privately, among themselves? Are they only pretending to endorse George Eloit's moral guidelines (Jack's "staightjacket?). I don't know how you are privy to their private communciations, if you are not a sympathizer. But in any case, perhaps their true opinion, as for most of us, lies somewhere between what they carelessly say to friends in a bar, and what they publish. Remember, in academe, in the published world, as in Law, written/published remarks, are always regarded as far, far more definitive and binding, than informal verbal comments.
Dan and Michael:
Do you think these new atheists are cowards? Would "emasculated cowards" oppose all the massive forces of traditional religion? Would they risk the firm, even violent religious opposition to them? Actually, this takes far, far more courage to oppose standard, received ideas, than to passively believe them.
If they are a bit shill, that's just to cut through the constant white noise, of platitudes.
And to - Kirk - move beyond conventional culture.
Bwills and Jacks and myself: But maybe we (?) are more in the right here: the New Atheists are not entirely destroying, rebelling against, the old culture, and even religion; but correcting it? Even in a strange way, resurrecting it. Hopefully, in a new and better form? Beyond a moral straightjacket, to a looser - but (Jacks?) still erudite and therefore disciplined - vision?
7.13.2010 | 2:47pm
Mark Shea says:
The spectacle of materialists writing millions of words of closely reasoned prose, all in the service of trying to persuade me to choose to believe that I have no free will is one of the most entertainingly absurd acts of human folly I have ever witnessed.
7.13.2010 | 4:11pm
John Thayer Jensen says:
I remember, forty years ago, in a desperate search for meaning in life - and facing the possible failure of my worldly goals (my PhD - and my fears were well-founded :-)) - I invented for myself what I later recognise as a form of pantheism. I was, I thought, simply identical with the All - and therefore whatever happened was Me - the Finger of Mother Everything - doing this or that. So it didn't matter (you may well infer that I had some chemical help in coming up with this :-)).
I hoped to free myself from both the desire to succeed and the fear of failure. I well recall the despair with which I saw the actual reality that, for whatever reason, I could not get rid of the fact that I actually wanted to succeed and did not want to fail.
Being a pantheist - or, what is the same thing, a materialist - only works for those who are actually succeeding :-)
I hoped to free myself from both the desire to succeed and the fear of failure. I well recall the despair with which I saw the actual reality that, for whatever reason, I could not get rid of the fact that I actually wanted to succeed and did not want to fail.
Being a pantheist - or, what is the same thing, a materialist - only works for those who are actually succeeding :-)
7.13.2010 | 4:35pm
brettongarcia says:
Mark:
Note that Hart and our present author are explicitly targeting the crudest materialists;the "reductive" "popularizers." But note that there are far, FAR more subtle and satisfactory versions of materialism, and science, out there. What's getting reviewed in this publication, are the crudest, mass-market polemicists.
The fact is, even the Catholic Church itself allows a more subtle form of materialism, naturalism; when it allows that Evolution might be true, for example.
Many materialists allow that there might be a kind of free will, even.
To be sure, Free Will is a problem for many different systems of thought - including Christianity. Today it is often said that if God knows before we are born, everything we will do in life, this means that our lives cannot, logically, be really free. Since everything was known, determined, in advance.
"Free Will" is a problem, therefore, for MANY different systems - including CHristianity itself.
Note that Hart and our present author are explicitly targeting the crudest materialists;the "reductive" "popularizers." But note that there are far, FAR more subtle and satisfactory versions of materialism, and science, out there. What's getting reviewed in this publication, are the crudest, mass-market polemicists.
The fact is, even the Catholic Church itself allows a more subtle form of materialism, naturalism; when it allows that Evolution might be true, for example.
Many materialists allow that there might be a kind of free will, even.
To be sure, Free Will is a problem for many different systems of thought - including Christianity. Today it is often said that if God knows before we are born, everything we will do in life, this means that our lives cannot, logically, be really free. Since everything was known, determined, in advance.
"Free Will" is a problem, therefore, for MANY different systems - including CHristianity itself.
7.13.2010 | 4:55pm
Dan says:
Brettongarcia:
Taking potshots from behind the doors of academe instead of earning a living as a man doesn't impress me as taking any kind of courage. Do a Google Image search of Daniel Dennet without a beard in his early years. I rest my case.
Taking potshots from behind the doors of academe instead of earning a living as a man doesn't impress me as taking any kind of courage. Do a Google Image search of Daniel Dennet without a beard in his early years. I rest my case.
7.13.2010 | 5:29pm
William "Billy" Bean says:
Brettongarcia: Am I to understand that the acknowledgement of some form of "change" or even "development" (evolution) in the history of the universe is all you mean by "naturalism" and "materialism'? If so, then yes, by all means, count me in!
7.13.2010 | 5:35pm
Colin Gormley says:
" But note that there are far, FAR more subtle and satisfactory versions of materialism, and science, out there."
Got one?
"The fact is, even the Catholic Church itself allows a more subtle form of materialism, naturalism; when it allows that Evolution might be true, for example.
"
that the Church allows for a natrual process for the development of mankind does not exclude the possiblity of divine intervention. Your statement is a collapsing of two distinct principles.
" Today it is often said that if God knows before we are born, everything we will do in life, this means that our lives cannot, logically, be really free. Since everything was known, determined, in advance.
"
That's a human centric understanding of "time." As God exists outside of time, this is not an issue, given that God can see both the future and present in the same moment. It is we who must perceive reality in a linear format.
Got one?
"The fact is, even the Catholic Church itself allows a more subtle form of materialism, naturalism; when it allows that Evolution might be true, for example.
"
that the Church allows for a natrual process for the development of mankind does not exclude the possiblity of divine intervention. Your statement is a collapsing of two distinct principles.
" Today it is often said that if God knows before we are born, everything we will do in life, this means that our lives cannot, logically, be really free. Since everything was known, determined, in advance.
"
That's a human centric understanding of "time." As God exists outside of time, this is not an issue, given that God can see both the future and present in the same moment. It is we who must perceive reality in a linear format.
7.13.2010 | 5:48pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
As Bill Simmons (The Sports Guy at ESPN.com) might say "There's comedy, there's high comedy, there's transcendent comedy, and then there's reading a comment written by brettongarcia."
To wit:
See Catholic - and better, non-Catholic - theories of "Natural Law."
Please enlighten us as to what measure you have determined "non-Catholic" theories of Natural Law as superior to Catholic theories of Natural Law. I cannot wait to hear this one.
Today it is often said that if God knows before we are born, everything we will do in life, this means that our lives cannot, logically, be really free.
Aquinas answered this objection. You know - the rather large (or big-boned, if you prefer) 13th century philosopher and theologian who also made rather noteworthy contributions to "Catholic" theories of Natural Law? That guy.
Free Will is a problem for many different systems of thought - including Christianity.
All problems are not created equal, nor alike: Christians have sought to understand Free Will in light of God's omnipotence; materialists have sought to deny its existence altogether. One has sought to solve the problem, the other pulls out an eraser in an attempt to deny the problem really exists.
Would they (Dawkins, Dennet, et. al.) risk the firm, even violent religious opposition to them?
Please also enlighten us as to even a single incident of violence perpetrated against the person of any of these gentlemen. Have they even been denied tenure over it? No, but they did cash in on the theological and historical ignorance of the greater public-at-large to become millionaires and gain noteriety. The truth is that their supposed "persecution" is of the same substance as their presumed "courage" and "profound thought": a figment of their (and yours, apparently) imagination.
Keep up the humorous work!
GR
As Bill Simmons (The Sports Guy at ESPN.com) might say "There's comedy, there's high comedy, there's transcendent comedy, and then there's reading a comment written by brettongarcia."
To wit:
See Catholic - and better, non-Catholic - theories of "Natural Law."
Please enlighten us as to what measure you have determined "non-Catholic" theories of Natural Law as superior to Catholic theories of Natural Law. I cannot wait to hear this one.
Today it is often said that if God knows before we are born, everything we will do in life, this means that our lives cannot, logically, be really free.
Aquinas answered this objection. You know - the rather large (or big-boned, if you prefer) 13th century philosopher and theologian who also made rather noteworthy contributions to "Catholic" theories of Natural Law? That guy.
Free Will is a problem for many different systems of thought - including Christianity.
All problems are not created equal, nor alike: Christians have sought to understand Free Will in light of God's omnipotence; materialists have sought to deny its existence altogether. One has sought to solve the problem, the other pulls out an eraser in an attempt to deny the problem really exists.
Would they (Dawkins, Dennet, et. al.) risk the firm, even violent religious opposition to them?
Please also enlighten us as to even a single incident of violence perpetrated against the person of any of these gentlemen. Have they even been denied tenure over it? No, but they did cash in on the theological and historical ignorance of the greater public-at-large to become millionaires and gain noteriety. The truth is that their supposed "persecution" is of the same substance as their presumed "courage" and "profound thought": a figment of their (and yours, apparently) imagination.
Keep up the humorous work!
GR
7.13.2010 | 5:49pm
William "Billy" Bean says:
Brettongarcia: This whole "to infallibly foreknow is to pre-ordain and therefore free will can't really exist" thing is really not all it's cracked up to be. Just think about honestly for a moment. Is it the "infallibly" part that's tripping you up? I don't get it.
7.13.2010 | 5:51pm
Zoltan Manyoki says:
To brettongarcia 7.13.2010 | 1:35pm
You may want to rethink that simplistic statement of yours regarding the problematic nature of free will in light of God's knowing everything _in advance_.
Knowing "in advance" assumes time, which is a product of creation. I do not think that God exists within time. I may not be alone with this.
I picture this for myself as an infinite chess game where I know all possible moves of my opponent and all their consequences. No matter what he choses I am ahead.
You may want to rethink that simplistic statement of yours regarding the problematic nature of free will in light of God's knowing everything _in advance_.
Knowing "in advance" assumes time, which is a product of creation. I do not think that God exists within time. I may not be alone with this.
I picture this for myself as an infinite chess game where I know all possible moves of my opponent and all their consequences. No matter what he choses I am ahead.
7.13.2010 | 6:06pm
andrew says:
regarding: "They (dawkins, dennett, and pinker) want us to recognize that we are animals governed by impersonal laws of nature for a reason. That reason is that we will be happier if we set aside culture and its illusions about the meaning of life."
i may be wrong, but i'm not so sure this statement is true. having attended pinker's lectures, he is certainly zealous and "evangelical." he is definitely a popularizer of scientific materialism, a combination of bad philosopher and over-reaching pseudo-scientist.
but whether pinker has drawn out the implications of his worldview is up for debate, including the implication that "we will be happier." perhaps professor reno has a citation from pinker's (or some other popularizer's) works linking materialism and "whatever" psychology?
for what it's worth, my sense is that this "whatever" psychology is the offspring of many other factors, only one of could be scientific materialism. for example, ask the average suburban teenager about the meaning of life and he'll likely know nothing of "scientific materialism." he will, instead, likely know much about pop culture, video games, and the brand new SUV mommy just bought him.
i may be wrong, but i'm not so sure this statement is true. having attended pinker's lectures, he is certainly zealous and "evangelical." he is definitely a popularizer of scientific materialism, a combination of bad philosopher and over-reaching pseudo-scientist.
but whether pinker has drawn out the implications of his worldview is up for debate, including the implication that "we will be happier." perhaps professor reno has a citation from pinker's (or some other popularizer's) works linking materialism and "whatever" psychology?
for what it's worth, my sense is that this "whatever" psychology is the offspring of many other factors, only one of could be scientific materialism. for example, ask the average suburban teenager about the meaning of life and he'll likely know nothing of "scientific materialism." he will, instead, likely know much about pop culture, video games, and the brand new SUV mommy just bought him.
7.13.2010 | 6:16pm
brettongarcia says:
GOd is all-powerful; he created us to be the way we are, in the world as it is. So where is freedom? If we will to do evil - then God after all, created us, and our will. If the world tempts us - then God created that world.
Where is freedom of will, in God's creation?
Rumple: specify Aquinas' answer?
Where is freedom of will, in God's creation?
Rumple: specify Aquinas' answer?
7.13.2010 | 6:34pm
William "Billy" Bean says:
Brettongarcia: Imagine that the Author of the Story is so much in control of the outcome of the whole plot and story line that He (forgive the prejudicial pronoun!) can actually grant every character in His drama the freedom to write her/his own role! AND STILL, THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME WILL BE THAT WHICH HE WILLS! Yeah, I know it's an analogy, and analogies prove nothing, but they can open up wonderful possibilities in one's thinking!
7.13.2010 | 6:53pm
Don Roberto says:
God = good. Atheist = one who does not believe in good (or in the lack therof, and who thereby opens the door to the Enemy). Materialist = one who I would not entrust with my daughter.
7.13.2010 | 7:16pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
RE: "Rumple: specify Aquinas' answer"
Do your own damn homework. Or are you of the breed that prides himself on "asking questions" but never actually bothers to invest the time, energy, thought, and reflection into finding the answer yourself?
I don't imagine you'll get around to addressing my rebuttals of your earlier assertions, i.e. your appraisal of Catholic vs. non-Catholic theories of Natural Law, your unsupported claims of violence done against the persons of Dawkins, Dennett, etc., and your equating Christians' approach to the question of Free Will vs. that of the materialists. But, really, why should you bother? You didn't know what the hell you were talking about then, so why should now and the near future be any different?
GR
RE: "Rumple: specify Aquinas' answer"
Do your own damn homework. Or are you of the breed that prides himself on "asking questions" but never actually bothers to invest the time, energy, thought, and reflection into finding the answer yourself?
I don't imagine you'll get around to addressing my rebuttals of your earlier assertions, i.e. your appraisal of Catholic vs. non-Catholic theories of Natural Law, your unsupported claims of violence done against the persons of Dawkins, Dennett, etc., and your equating Christians' approach to the question of Free Will vs. that of the materialists. But, really, why should you bother? You didn't know what the hell you were talking about then, so why should now and the near future be any different?
GR
7.13.2010 | 7:54pm
brettongarcia says:
Let's not get distracted by a secondary diversion: the status of free will. If you want to debate that, note that there are hundreds of academic and religious journals that entertain this issue. Suggesting that it is, indeed, a problem even in religion. As even Rumple admits, above: "Christians have sought to undertand" Free Will; indirectly admitting that indeed, it has been a problem for them. But in passing: if God controls everything, does he not control the human will? Or if he does not control human will, then there is something in the Universe God that does not control?
Enough said on this secondary and endlessly debated subject; if you want to debate this, take it up with the experts in a philosophy journal. Just looking at the number of articles on this subject, in philosophical and religious journals, is enough to establish my main point on this subtopic: Free Will IS a problem for BOTH philosophy, AND Catholicism. Therefore, problems with Free Will cancels out as a distinguishing feature, in the differences between Catholicism and Materialism.
The more relevant, more positive point here, are the commonalities between the two. Specifically: the Church itself, acknowledges a place for "nature," much as materialists do. It 1) acknowledges in fact, that we can believe in, specifically and by name, scientific "evolution." And it suggests that 2) nature plays a role, in determining church, religious culture and values; that our religious values might have been reflections of "Natural Law," or things in nature. Though there are many academic debates against natural law; on which religious values are from nature, and which are from false churches.
In any case though, materialism and the Church, actually have some significant overlaps. And in these overlaps, are found some rather more sophisticated materialist/naturalist theories, not mentioned here by Hart or his defenders. Naturalist theories accepted by the Church itself.
Hart and Reno, here, are therefore taking potshots at the very easiest targets: the popularizers, writing sensationalist things to gain a wide audience. A much, much harder target - or in a more positive vein - would be, say, Natural Law. Which Hart does not dare to take on.
[Rumplestiltskin: you're very good at superficial name-dropping and name-calling; but I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you. If I reveal your real name, will you go away?]
Enough said on this secondary and endlessly debated subject; if you want to debate this, take it up with the experts in a philosophy journal. Just looking at the number of articles on this subject, in philosophical and religious journals, is enough to establish my main point on this subtopic: Free Will IS a problem for BOTH philosophy, AND Catholicism. Therefore, problems with Free Will cancels out as a distinguishing feature, in the differences between Catholicism and Materialism.
The more relevant, more positive point here, are the commonalities between the two. Specifically: the Church itself, acknowledges a place for "nature," much as materialists do. It 1) acknowledges in fact, that we can believe in, specifically and by name, scientific "evolution." And it suggests that 2) nature plays a role, in determining church, religious culture and values; that our religious values might have been reflections of "Natural Law," or things in nature. Though there are many academic debates against natural law; on which religious values are from nature, and which are from false churches.
In any case though, materialism and the Church, actually have some significant overlaps. And in these overlaps, are found some rather more sophisticated materialist/naturalist theories, not mentioned here by Hart or his defenders. Naturalist theories accepted by the Church itself.
Hart and Reno, here, are therefore taking potshots at the very easiest targets: the popularizers, writing sensationalist things to gain a wide audience. A much, much harder target - or in a more positive vein - would be, say, Natural Law. Which Hart does not dare to take on.
[Rumplestiltskin: you're very good at superficial name-dropping and name-calling; but I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you. If I reveal your real name, will you go away?]
7.13.2010 | 9:31pm
Lachys says:
@bretton:
I know what they say amongst themselves because I used to be one of them. I am a former naturalist and materialist and I gave up both of those positions because they are philosophically bankrupt. They owe almost all of their prestige to the widespead but false assumption that naturalism and materialism are somehow "forced" on us by the track record of natural science. I know all too the swaggering posture that materialists like to indulge in, the posture of "I am too smart and too tough-minded to think that human beings are anything more than clever apes, and I see right through these silly illusions of objective value and free-will that science has disabused us of."
I know what they say amongst themselves because I used to be one of them. I am a former naturalist and materialist and I gave up both of those positions because they are philosophically bankrupt. They owe almost all of their prestige to the widespead but false assumption that naturalism and materialism are somehow "forced" on us by the track record of natural science. I know all too the swaggering posture that materialists like to indulge in, the posture of "I am too smart and too tough-minded to think that human beings are anything more than clever apes, and I see right through these silly illusions of objective value and free-will that science has disabused us of."
7.13.2010 | 10:31pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
You wrote:
"Rumplestiltskin: you're very good at superficial name-dropping and name-calling; but I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you. If I reveal your real name, will you go away?"
In other words, you have no answers to my rebuttals, nor can you identify what about them you find incoherent. Good Lord, you're pathetic.
I understand your charge on my part of "superficial name-dropping" to mean that I have read those works that I cite, and that you have not. You certainly have written nothing that would convince any soul on this board of anything different.
For accuracy's sake, you should cross out "I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you" and replace it with "I have yet to hear an argument from you that I am able to rebut". Had my arguments been incoherent, you would no doubt be able to cite comments where a coreligionist of mine offered correction. Good luck hunting down examples of that. On the other hand, your dodges and avoidance of my arguments have matched only your towering ignorance in their irritability.
Feel free to reveal my real name to anyone and everyone; if you're feeling frisky, throw in my email address, home address, phone number, shoe size, and name of my QuickHit online football team as well, if you have them. I use "GeronimoRumplestiltskin" because that was my first internet board "handle". As my real name is somewhat mundane, and hardly as unique as "GeronimoRumplestiltskin", I have subsequently and consistently posted under that handle in multiple forums, so that the matter of whom is doing the writing is easily identifiable. I do find it funny that you consider the threat of you revealing my real name to be something that would drive me away from any site at all, let alone a site I have been commenting on since its inception. So while you have failed to rebut anything I have written, your attempt to compensate for this failure is to make threats as to things I could not possibly care less about? Congratulations!....And yes, I'm laughing at you.
With laughter in mind, in closing I would only ask that please, please, please keep on typing and posting your silly screeds - if not for my amusement then for the continued amusement of those who frequent this board. That way you can continue to imagine yourself as an intellectual giant, and we can continue to marvel at your often laughable and consistently asinine arguments and assertions. Witnessing an individual flaunt his ignorance with such panache is a better source of entertainment than most of what passes these days for television programming.
GR
You wrote:
"Rumplestiltskin: you're very good at superficial name-dropping and name-calling; but I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you. If I reveal your real name, will you go away?"
In other words, you have no answers to my rebuttals, nor can you identify what about them you find incoherent. Good Lord, you're pathetic.
I understand your charge on my part of "superficial name-dropping" to mean that I have read those works that I cite, and that you have not. You certainly have written nothing that would convince any soul on this board of anything different.
For accuracy's sake, you should cross out "I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you" and replace it with "I have yet to hear an argument from you that I am able to rebut". Had my arguments been incoherent, you would no doubt be able to cite comments where a coreligionist of mine offered correction. Good luck hunting down examples of that. On the other hand, your dodges and avoidance of my arguments have matched only your towering ignorance in their irritability.
Feel free to reveal my real name to anyone and everyone; if you're feeling frisky, throw in my email address, home address, phone number, shoe size, and name of my QuickHit online football team as well, if you have them. I use "GeronimoRumplestiltskin" because that was my first internet board "handle". As my real name is somewhat mundane, and hardly as unique as "GeronimoRumplestiltskin", I have subsequently and consistently posted under that handle in multiple forums, so that the matter of whom is doing the writing is easily identifiable. I do find it funny that you consider the threat of you revealing my real name to be something that would drive me away from any site at all, let alone a site I have been commenting on since its inception. So while you have failed to rebut anything I have written, your attempt to compensate for this failure is to make threats as to things I could not possibly care less about? Congratulations!....And yes, I'm laughing at you.
With laughter in mind, in closing I would only ask that please, please, please keep on typing and posting your silly screeds - if not for my amusement then for the continued amusement of those who frequent this board. That way you can continue to imagine yourself as an intellectual giant, and we can continue to marvel at your often laughable and consistently asinine arguments and assertions. Witnessing an individual flaunt his ignorance with such panache is a better source of entertainment than most of what passes these days for television programming.
GR
7.13.2010 | 10:32pm
Matt says:
Brettongarcia writes, "I don't agree that the new atheist materialists are seeking to utterly denegrate culture; or free us from all responsiblity."
Interestingly, Richard Dawkins came up with the atheists' 10 commandments, which encourage kind and ethical behavior. Here are the first three:
"(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.
(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect."
I believe there is a strong biological component to a great deal of behavior. Ethical behavior as an outcome of evolution is not contrary to Christian belief. We're told not to judge others, which I believe is because we can never understand how nature and nurture have shaped and possibly limited their brains to react in certain ways.
Interestingly, Richard Dawkins came up with the atheists' 10 commandments, which encourage kind and ethical behavior. Here are the first three:
"(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.
(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect."
I believe there is a strong biological component to a great deal of behavior. Ethical behavior as an outcome of evolution is not contrary to Christian belief. We're told not to judge others, which I believe is because we can never understand how nature and nurture have shaped and possibly limited their brains to react in certain ways.
7.14.2010 | 12:31am
Joanna says:
brettongarcia,
Natural Law and free will go together; if you deny one, you deny the other as well. Here is the most simplified definition of Natural Law: the universal, moral law given by God in the very act of creating human beings and open to being known by the light of reason. Thus, natural law refers to rational, moral agents and it points to the right way of acting freely and responsibly as human beings. The Catholic tradition of course defends strongly this built-in morality, that is knowing good and evil and being free to choose either one. It is true that our freedom is not absolute since we are finite creatures and therefore limited. But within the given limitations, we are truly free to choose in moral matters. For example, am I free to speak the truth as I know it? Of course I am, and so are you. Am I free to lie, especially if it is convenient? To deny free will is to deny moral responsibility.
Now, to the extent that other voices witness to the natural law (e.g. pagan literature as in the Antigone passage of Sophocles, the western legal tradition), we can enter a reasonable dialogue and thus discover a genuine overlapping. The main principles of natural law are enumerated in the Decalogue and whoever recognizes that it is wrong to kill or wrong another is an excellent candidate for entering a fruitful dialogue with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Natural Law and free will go together; if you deny one, you deny the other as well. Here is the most simplified definition of Natural Law: the universal, moral law given by God in the very act of creating human beings and open to being known by the light of reason. Thus, natural law refers to rational, moral agents and it points to the right way of acting freely and responsibly as human beings. The Catholic tradition of course defends strongly this built-in morality, that is knowing good and evil and being free to choose either one. It is true that our freedom is not absolute since we are finite creatures and therefore limited. But within the given limitations, we are truly free to choose in moral matters. For example, am I free to speak the truth as I know it? Of course I am, and so are you. Am I free to lie, especially if it is convenient? To deny free will is to deny moral responsibility.
Now, to the extent that other voices witness to the natural law (e.g. pagan literature as in the Antigone passage of Sophocles, the western legal tradition), we can enter a reasonable dialogue and thus discover a genuine overlapping. The main principles of natural law are enumerated in the Decalogue and whoever recognizes that it is wrong to kill or wrong another is an excellent candidate for entering a fruitful dialogue with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
7.14.2010 | 1:33am
JustMe says:
Relax GeronimoRumplestiltskin. The comment from brettongarcia was obviously a play on your handle. You see, Rumplestilstkin is a story about ... oh, never mind. In any case, how do you suppose brettongarcia could have made good on this 'threat'? You seem to have a penchant for jumping before looking. Oops, sorry.
7.14.2010 | 4:24am
Derek Walsh says:
It's telling that the author of this article doesn't quote a single word from any of the "scientific popularizers" he mentions. Likely, he hasn't read much of their work. If, for example, he had read "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel Dennett he would know that Dennett therein argues that free will can exist without a supernatural explanation.
Had he read anything by Dawkins, he would be - or should be - embarrassed to accuse him of amorality.
The idea that life "doesn't matter", "that we will be happier if we set aside culture" is not one that is held by any atheists I know and it is certainly not a view championed by any of the writers mentioned in this article.
If this was a post by some random blogger, I would dismiss it is merely the product of ignorance. But a professor - even a professor of theology - should be held to higher standards. Either he hasn't properly researched his article in which case he is guilty of negligence or he is being deliberately honest in a cynical attempt to mislead those who are unlikely to read any of these books but still wish to hold an opinion of them. Either way, this is a thoroughly shameful piece of propaganda.
Had he read anything by Dawkins, he would be - or should be - embarrassed to accuse him of amorality.
The idea that life "doesn't matter", "that we will be happier if we set aside culture" is not one that is held by any atheists I know and it is certainly not a view championed by any of the writers mentioned in this article.
If this was a post by some random blogger, I would dismiss it is merely the product of ignorance. But a professor - even a professor of theology - should be held to higher standards. Either he hasn't properly researched his article in which case he is guilty of negligence or he is being deliberately honest in a cynical attempt to mislead those who are unlikely to read any of these books but still wish to hold an opinion of them. Either way, this is a thoroughly shameful piece of propaganda.
7.14.2010 | 4:47am
brettongarcia says:
First Things, Hart and Reno, haven't done their homework again. Many of us have already been exposed to the abuses of the simplest forms of Materialism; but First Things readers should have been told about the more sophisticated, defensible forms of Materialism and Realism, today.
In fact, as many responders have already noted here, even Dawkins and the rest, are not quite as crude as Hart and Reno have caricatured them; many commentators here have rightly noted that even these popularizers, offered us a Materialism that has room for Culture and Morality in it.
But more importantly, First Things should move on to some even better, more defensible forms of modified Materialism; some forms accepted even by the Catholic Church. Including especially, the theory of "Natural Law."
There are many definitions of Natural Law. But basically, the idea is that many of our highest cultural ideas and institutions and laws, even our religious morals, are actually tied to, derived from, the laws of material nature.
Example? Take for example, your parents telling you to "be polite." "Treat others with respect." This is a nice civil, cultured idea; it is moral behavior, and it has religious, Biblical roots ("turn the other cheek"; don't call an older person a "fool," etc.). But this nice cultural convention, might be tied deeper down, to the most brutal facts of material, animal nature, "red in tooth and claw": maybe we are taught to be polite, to respect others, in part because, in less regulated societies, if you insult others, they will experience anger or rage. And will physically attack - and even kill - you.
The Cultural command to "be polite" therefore, is actually a reflection of some deep, animal, material facts - and a way of dealing with them. It is ultimately, in part, a way of escaping physical extinction.
This would be one example of how the theory of "Natural Law" works; showing how our most apparent polite cultural conventions, may actually be derived from deeper laws of material "nature." And by the way, it does NOT say that culture is ridiculous or silly; it suggests that culture is often materially valid; that deep down, much of it has real material functionallity.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time myself, to continue to explicate the theory of Natural Law here and now; fortunately though, some of you here, seem capable of carrying the ball if you want.
(I'd just close with a quick note, though that there were many different thinkers that have held this theory; some of them Catholic, and others not. In secular academe, the theory of Natural Law was partially rejected in the last century, in part because they said, various conservative organizations, like the Catholic Church, had appropriated the theory, and was abusuing and misusing it: it was using the theory to assert that all its own traditional, pre- Vatican II Catholic laws and doctrines, were entirely natural, inevitable, and true and scientific, and can never be changed; they were laws of nature. Whereas, other Natural Law theorists asserted, natural law should not be misused thus, to justify the status quo; since our understanding of what Natural wants or what its laws are, is constantly changing. And since even many things in nature itself, change. Therefore, to use Natural Law to assert that one's own laws are justified as part of the eternal natural universe, is an abuse of the concept.)
The fact is, there have been many, many abuses of and mis-turns in, materialistic and Natural Law theory. Still, there are many, many good things in this theory. And in effect, an updated, improved version of Natural Law is always around in the Church and in academe; being continually updated and improved and tweaked, in fact. (Just like my Microsoft System 7 operating system, right now).
So that finally, though there have been some problems with scientific materialism in the past, many of us are currently developing new, more sophisticated theories; including theories of natural law. And these theories are extremel useful: they link the laws of nature and science, to culture and religion. Ultimately they link heaven and earth, in fact. And they do that today, in a way that is less inflexibly dogmatic.
Finally, among other improvements to the old natural law, and to earlier, too-reductive scientific materialism: many of us today will simply, provisionally concede an apparent reality to Free Will. Though indicating that however, many things we think are free, are determined by natural events, far more than many have thought in the past.
I don't know how much time I will personally have here to explicate the more refined verisons of scientific materialism, and especially NATURAL LAW, here and now; time calls me to other projects.
But it looks to me though, that many of our commentators here on this blog, are easily capable of doing a little research on Natural Law especially. And showing how it might be made to work; to provide a tie between scientific materialism, and religion, at its best.
In fact, as many responders have already noted here, even Dawkins and the rest, are not quite as crude as Hart and Reno have caricatured them; many commentators here have rightly noted that even these popularizers, offered us a Materialism that has room for Culture and Morality in it.
But more importantly, First Things should move on to some even better, more defensible forms of modified Materialism; some forms accepted even by the Catholic Church. Including especially, the theory of "Natural Law."
There are many definitions of Natural Law. But basically, the idea is that many of our highest cultural ideas and institutions and laws, even our religious morals, are actually tied to, derived from, the laws of material nature.
Example? Take for example, your parents telling you to "be polite." "Treat others with respect." This is a nice civil, cultured idea; it is moral behavior, and it has religious, Biblical roots ("turn the other cheek"; don't call an older person a "fool," etc.). But this nice cultural convention, might be tied deeper down, to the most brutal facts of material, animal nature, "red in tooth and claw": maybe we are taught to be polite, to respect others, in part because, in less regulated societies, if you insult others, they will experience anger or rage. And will physically attack - and even kill - you.
The Cultural command to "be polite" therefore, is actually a reflection of some deep, animal, material facts - and a way of dealing with them. It is ultimately, in part, a way of escaping physical extinction.
This would be one example of how the theory of "Natural Law" works; showing how our most apparent polite cultural conventions, may actually be derived from deeper laws of material "nature." And by the way, it does NOT say that culture is ridiculous or silly; it suggests that culture is often materially valid; that deep down, much of it has real material functionallity.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time myself, to continue to explicate the theory of Natural Law here and now; fortunately though, some of you here, seem capable of carrying the ball if you want.
(I'd just close with a quick note, though that there were many different thinkers that have held this theory; some of them Catholic, and others not. In secular academe, the theory of Natural Law was partially rejected in the last century, in part because they said, various conservative organizations, like the Catholic Church, had appropriated the theory, and was abusuing and misusing it: it was using the theory to assert that all its own traditional, pre- Vatican II Catholic laws and doctrines, were entirely natural, inevitable, and true and scientific, and can never be changed; they were laws of nature. Whereas, other Natural Law theorists asserted, natural law should not be misused thus, to justify the status quo; since our understanding of what Natural wants or what its laws are, is constantly changing. And since even many things in nature itself, change. Therefore, to use Natural Law to assert that one's own laws are justified as part of the eternal natural universe, is an abuse of the concept.)
The fact is, there have been many, many abuses of and mis-turns in, materialistic and Natural Law theory. Still, there are many, many good things in this theory. And in effect, an updated, improved version of Natural Law is always around in the Church and in academe; being continually updated and improved and tweaked, in fact. (Just like my Microsoft System 7 operating system, right now).
So that finally, though there have been some problems with scientific materialism in the past, many of us are currently developing new, more sophisticated theories; including theories of natural law. And these theories are extremel useful: they link the laws of nature and science, to culture and religion. Ultimately they link heaven and earth, in fact. And they do that today, in a way that is less inflexibly dogmatic.
Finally, among other improvements to the old natural law, and to earlier, too-reductive scientific materialism: many of us today will simply, provisionally concede an apparent reality to Free Will. Though indicating that however, many things we think are free, are determined by natural events, far more than many have thought in the past.
I don't know how much time I will personally have here to explicate the more refined verisons of scientific materialism, and especially NATURAL LAW, here and now; time calls me to other projects.
But it looks to me though, that many of our commentators here on this blog, are easily capable of doing a little research on Natural Law especially. And showing how it might be made to work; to provide a tie between scientific materialism, and religion, at its best.
7.14.2010 | 9:12am
Brendan Burke says:
Scientific materialism is bad science!
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics states that "things do not exist but that things have tendencies to exist that are only actualised by an intraction with an observing, non-material, mind."
EG from high school physics: Light had a dual nature. It can be either composed of waves or of particles (polar opposites here).
If a beam of light is analysed using a Young's Slits apparatus the measurnment devise(circa 1830) will prove that light is composed of waves. Einstein's photoelectric effect apparatus (1906) establishes the opposite, that light is composed of discrete particles.
Mater also exhibits wave-particle duality.
Mind (and it must be non-material to avoid an infinite regress) alters the nature of objective reality. Of course mind does not (in the above circumstaces at any rate) alter it simply by its edict.
Scientific determinism is accurate only in the Newtonian 'middle range' and 'mind' does not just vanish from the universe when those aspests are in question.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics states that "things do not exist but that things have tendencies to exist that are only actualised by an intraction with an observing, non-material, mind."
EG from high school physics: Light had a dual nature. It can be either composed of waves or of particles (polar opposites here).
If a beam of light is analysed using a Young's Slits apparatus the measurnment devise(circa 1830) will prove that light is composed of waves. Einstein's photoelectric effect apparatus (1906) establishes the opposite, that light is composed of discrete particles.
Mater also exhibits wave-particle duality.
Mind (and it must be non-material to avoid an infinite regress) alters the nature of objective reality. Of course mind does not (in the above circumstaces at any rate) alter it simply by its edict.
Scientific determinism is accurate only in the Newtonian 'middle range' and 'mind' does not just vanish from the universe when those aspests are in question.
7.14.2010 | 3:00pm
brettongarcia says:
Brendan Burke:
YOUR SCIENCE IS BAD.
Your presentation of "Copenhagen" "science" is in part, 1) a common misunderstanding, of the Heisenberg Principle of Indeterminacy. Which was never meant to assert some kind of post-Berkley-ian, phenomenologicalistic or mentalistic notion: that things in general, only come into existence when we observe them; or that the way our mind thinks of a thing, changes that physical thing. Rather, Heisenberg merely to suggest that when the physicists of the day looked at atoms, the particles of light they used and other methods, interfered with the atoms; and changed what we see.
A second source of what you have mis heard: 2) the theory of Phenomenology at times suggests that our mind set changes how things APPEAR to us in our minds. However, more normative science now simply suggests that reality is always the same; it is only its appearance in our minds, that changes, according to our interpretive schemes, models, or mental biases.
To assert that real, physical reality, changes according to how we think of it or look at it, is to3) assert a belief in Magic: that mind can make matter change. An idea that all real science rejects.
There are many very, very speculative theories of science today; but many of them stand for a few years, and then are disproven or rejected. And many more are widely misunderstood. Do you have a PhD in nuclear physics? Even if you do, could you say you fully understand these subjects?
Because of these and other problems with using more recent speculations ,I find it is far more useful to think in the realm of classic, even Neutonian science, for purposes of discussion.
- Dr. Brettongarcia, PhD.
YOUR SCIENCE IS BAD.
Your presentation of "Copenhagen" "science" is in part, 1) a common misunderstanding, of the Heisenberg Principle of Indeterminacy. Which was never meant to assert some kind of post-Berkley-ian, phenomenologicalistic or mentalistic notion: that things in general, only come into existence when we observe them; or that the way our mind thinks of a thing, changes that physical thing. Rather, Heisenberg merely to suggest that when the physicists of the day looked at atoms, the particles of light they used and other methods, interfered with the atoms; and changed what we see.
A second source of what you have mis heard: 2) the theory of Phenomenology at times suggests that our mind set changes how things APPEAR to us in our minds. However, more normative science now simply suggests that reality is always the same; it is only its appearance in our minds, that changes, according to our interpretive schemes, models, or mental biases.
To assert that real, physical reality, changes according to how we think of it or look at it, is to3) assert a belief in Magic: that mind can make matter change. An idea that all real science rejects.
There are many very, very speculative theories of science today; but many of them stand for a few years, and then are disproven or rejected. And many more are widely misunderstood. Do you have a PhD in nuclear physics? Even if you do, could you say you fully understand these subjects?
Because of these and other problems with using more recent speculations ,I find it is far more useful to think in the realm of classic, even Neutonian science, for purposes of discussion.
- Dr. Brettongarcia, PhD.
7.14.2010 | 3:15pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
JustMe:
"The comment from brettongarcia was obviously a play on your handle. You see, Rumplestilstkin is a story about ... oh, never mind.
I guess I missed that. If only he had been so clever in his attempts at theological and philosophical reasoning. Oh, well. I suppose we'll have to settle for witty fairy tale references...
In any case, how do you suppose brettongarcia could have made good on this 'threat'?"
Perhaps this internet thingy is new to you. Though I am neither a bookie nor a computer whiz, I would set the over/under on any computer whiz being able - given only my handle and internet access - to obtain any available information on me including name, present and past addresses, phone #, Social Security #, employment history, etc....at about 3 minutes.
You seem to have a penchant for jumping before looking.
A "penchant", which you concluded from a data set of 1. Fascinating.
Cordially,
GR
"The comment from brettongarcia was obviously a play on your handle. You see, Rumplestilstkin is a story about ... oh, never mind.
I guess I missed that. If only he had been so clever in his attempts at theological and philosophical reasoning. Oh, well. I suppose we'll have to settle for witty fairy tale references...
In any case, how do you suppose brettongarcia could have made good on this 'threat'?"
Perhaps this internet thingy is new to you. Though I am neither a bookie nor a computer whiz, I would set the over/under on any computer whiz being able - given only my handle and internet access - to obtain any available information on me including name, present and past addresses, phone #, Social Security #, employment history, etc....at about 3 minutes.
You seem to have a penchant for jumping before looking.
A "penchant", which you concluded from a data set of 1. Fascinating.
Cordially,
GR
7.14.2010 | 5:51pm
Brendan Burke says:
A non-material mind observes a macroscopic measuring device (matter, composed of millions of molecules) which is measuring a 'few' sub-atomic particles, or such like.
Waves and particles differ in far more 'substantial' ways than mass and momentum.
Newtonian determanisn is only obviously valid for interaction between innanimate objects.
When a consciousness studies entities that are meaningfully described using quantun physics the way these entities present themselves to that consciousness depends on how the consciousness examines the entity.
A beam of light does not become a wave phenomenon or a particle phenomenon just because someone refers to it as either a 'wave' or a 'particle'. But 'at this level of analysis' the 'physical' nature of interaction betweeb 'thing' and 'mind' becomes one thing or its opposite as I have described. Mind/macroscopic-measuring-device/particles(waves?)
The mind is initmately associated with the brain. That Newtonian determinism is an 'obvious' model for matters pyschological is absurd. Mind exists 'somewhere' in this universe.
If I was to proclaim that the light emiting from the bulb overhead was composed of 'ducks' it would, of course, not effect the nature of the light.
Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, psychology are different, if overlapping, fields of knowledge.....
Magic I have experienced.... but that's a different thing again....
Brendan Burke
Waves and particles differ in far more 'substantial' ways than mass and momentum.
Newtonian determanisn is only obviously valid for interaction between innanimate objects.
When a consciousness studies entities that are meaningfully described using quantun physics the way these entities present themselves to that consciousness depends on how the consciousness examines the entity.
A beam of light does not become a wave phenomenon or a particle phenomenon just because someone refers to it as either a 'wave' or a 'particle'. But 'at this level of analysis' the 'physical' nature of interaction betweeb 'thing' and 'mind' becomes one thing or its opposite as I have described. Mind/macroscopic-measuring-device/particles(waves?)
The mind is initmately associated with the brain. That Newtonian determinism is an 'obvious' model for matters pyschological is absurd. Mind exists 'somewhere' in this universe.
If I was to proclaim that the light emiting from the bulb overhead was composed of 'ducks' it would, of course, not effect the nature of the light.
Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, psychology are different, if overlapping, fields of knowledge.....
Magic I have experienced.... but that's a different thing again....
Brendan Burke
7.14.2010 | 5:53pm
Richard says:
BG
An idle question. Since you advertise your Ph.D. so vociferously, and in fact use it as a credential for your arguments, I wonder if you would mind telling us what field your phd is in, at what institution you earned it, and when.
Best,
Richard
An idle question. Since you advertise your Ph.D. so vociferously, and in fact use it as a credential for your arguments, I wonder if you would mind telling us what field your phd is in, at what institution you earned it, and when.
Best,
Richard
7.14.2010 | 8:28pm
Renton says:
Can we avoid the drama of competitive/paranoid personalities and egos, and address the issues?
Natural Law looks interesting, as a way of merging science and religion, or finding their more plausible interface. Anyone want to outline some more of it?
Natural Law looks interesting, as a way of merging science and religion, or finding their more plausible interface. Anyone want to outline some more of it?
7.15.2010 | 2:47am
Bret Lythgoe says:
There seems to be a self-refuting component to the "New Atheists'' beliefs. On the one hand, they chastize religious believers for believing in God. And, moreover, there's a strong moral ferver to their chastizement. But how can this conincide with their belief that humans have no free will?
7.15.2010 | 8:13am
Brendan Burke says:
Ooops!
Heisenberg is, of course, POSITION Vs. momentum (= mass X velocity)
NOT mass vs momentum
Heisenberg is, of course, POSITION Vs. momentum (= mass X velocity)
NOT mass vs momentum
7.15.2010 | 8:45am
harry says:
Those who believe that "free will does not exist because our minds are just neural networks that function according to physical laws" must realize that they then have no choice but to think that. If “thinking” is really no more than a biological computer running a predetermined program, then there is no way to learn the truth - one has no choice but to think what one thinks, regardless of how contrary one's thoughts may be to the facts. If we really have no true control over our thoughts, the odds are we are hopelessly wrong about most everything. If we really do control our thoughts, then, of course, we have a free will.
7.15.2010 | 9:48am
Colonel Sun says:
Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker [the Unholy Trinity] are clearly doing something right if their efforts can elicit such a bombastic rhetorical response from InsularThings™.
A response in which more strawmen then all the terracotta warriors in China are set up and then demolished with great flourish.
Anyways, I'll wish Godspeed to the Unholy Trinity and further success in their work.
A response in which more strawmen then all the terracotta warriors in China are set up and then demolished with great flourish.
Anyways, I'll wish Godspeed to the Unholy Trinity and further success in their work.
7.15.2010 | 9:51am
Colonel Sun says:
Btw,
Brendan Burke wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics states that "things do not exist but that things have tendencies to exist that are only actualised by an intraction with an observing, non-material, mind."
Not even wrong.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
Brendan Burke wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics states that "things do not exist but that things have tendencies to exist that are only actualised by an intraction with an observing, non-material, mind."
Not even wrong.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
7.15.2010 | 10:55am
Mark says:
It struck me as a bit, well, post-modern for the author to spend more time wondering about the motives behind Dawkins, Pinker and company than in actually quoting and refuting what they wrote.
In the case of Pinker, I have to point out that he is a very harsh critic of post-modernism and its related -isms. He is a neo-Hobbesian with a real appreciation for cultural constructs that help keep peace and preserve civilization so the idea that he is motivated by an anti-cultural perspective appears to be simply false.
In the case of Pinker, I have to point out that he is a very harsh critic of post-modernism and its related -isms. He is a neo-Hobbesian with a real appreciation for cultural constructs that help keep peace and preserve civilization so the idea that he is motivated by an anti-cultural perspective appears to be simply false.
7.17.2010 | 12:47am
ST says:
The underlying theme of Dr. R.R. Reno’s essay is that Atheists use “scientific reductionism” as a way to justify their disobedience of divine law. Somehow, claims Dr. Reno, if atheists can show free will to be an illusion, they can live as they want, shielding themselves from criticism by claiming that they can act no other way. If left to do as they please, apparently said atheists would engage in all sorts of illicit practices. Whether their quest to dethrone religious truth is a generations-long conspiracy by atheist scientists (as the essay almost seems to suggest), or simply the result of individual atheists having the same incentives is irrelevant. Thus, in the final analysis, the whole premise of the paper reduces to this one sentence:
Quote:
He [Foucault] was fascinated by explosions of erotic desire and vivid scenes of violence.
If we were to follow the plain meaning of the text, its logic goes like this: There was a weird perverted guy once, Foucault. Among other things, he was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are perverts. Obviously, this is an invalid argument, and surely the good Theology professor cannot have failed to notice that. (As a complete aside, did I mention that Harvard has a graduate school of Forestry, that churns out grads?)
So what could possibly justify the presence of the phrase here? It can’t be to shove stereotypical anti-atheist imagery down the throats of First Things readers. The readers are a perceptive bunch, and surely would not fall for such facile deceptions.
But there is no other productive purpose it can serve. Therefore, we must conclude that the good Doctor was himself so intrigued by Foucault’s fascination, that the felt the compelling urge to share this with the readers, despite it being irrelevant in the structure of the essay. Interestingly, it comes hot on the heels of sexual imagery: talk of thrusts and eruptions.
We are then talking of the author’s obsession with sex and “vivid” violence. (Again, how is violence vivid exactly? I would think morbid would be a better adjective)...
It is understandable, in fact. As a good old Jesuit college, I bet the college population (65% nymphs, 35% attractive young boys) are all wearing those fun Catholic uniforms (heck, I’m a fan), and our Professor struggles with temptation at every class, day in, day out. His “explosions of erotic desire” and (likely) caning fantasies (“vivid violence”) probably make the gentle presence of the Lord in his heart seem not just reproachful, but instead feel as dark and wrathful as the burning eye of Mordor did to the hobbits carrying the ring.
If we stop to think about it, the very premise is laughable. If only it were that simple, and a reductionist approach to the science of the mind did indeed save people from having to deal with the problems of life! Unfortunately, reductionist or no, we all have to deal with the complications of our romantic relationships, with the social implications of dishonesty, with difficult kin relationships, never mind dealing with the ultimate problem of trying to find emotional meaning in our lives. Against all reason, according to Dr. Reno, these atheist philosophers just pencil their papers, and then easily put aside all such worries and, like the lilies of the valley or the ravens of the sky, just live.
Isn’t that nice?
Quote:
He [Foucault] was fascinated by explosions of erotic desire and vivid scenes of violence.
If we were to follow the plain meaning of the text, its logic goes like this: There was a weird perverted guy once, Foucault. Among other things, he was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are perverts. Obviously, this is an invalid argument, and surely the good Theology professor cannot have failed to notice that. (As a complete aside, did I mention that Harvard has a graduate school of Forestry, that churns out grads?)
So what could possibly justify the presence of the phrase here? It can’t be to shove stereotypical anti-atheist imagery down the throats of First Things readers. The readers are a perceptive bunch, and surely would not fall for such facile deceptions.
But there is no other productive purpose it can serve. Therefore, we must conclude that the good Doctor was himself so intrigued by Foucault’s fascination, that the felt the compelling urge to share this with the readers, despite it being irrelevant in the structure of the essay. Interestingly, it comes hot on the heels of sexual imagery: talk of thrusts and eruptions.
We are then talking of the author’s obsession with sex and “vivid” violence. (Again, how is violence vivid exactly? I would think morbid would be a better adjective)...
It is understandable, in fact. As a good old Jesuit college, I bet the college population (65% nymphs, 35% attractive young boys) are all wearing those fun Catholic uniforms (heck, I’m a fan), and our Professor struggles with temptation at every class, day in, day out. His “explosions of erotic desire” and (likely) caning fantasies (“vivid violence”) probably make the gentle presence of the Lord in his heart seem not just reproachful, but instead feel as dark and wrathful as the burning eye of Mordor did to the hobbits carrying the ring.
If we stop to think about it, the very premise is laughable. If only it were that simple, and a reductionist approach to the science of the mind did indeed save people from having to deal with the problems of life! Unfortunately, reductionist or no, we all have to deal with the complications of our romantic relationships, with the social implications of dishonesty, with difficult kin relationships, never mind dealing with the ultimate problem of trying to find emotional meaning in our lives. Against all reason, according to Dr. Reno, these atheist philosophers just pencil their papers, and then easily put aside all such worries and, like the lilies of the valley or the ravens of the sky, just live.
Isn’t that nice?
7.17.2010 | 2:24am
lzzrdgrrl says:
".....It struck me as a bit, well, post-modern for the author to spend more time wondering about the motives behind Dawkins, Pinker and company than in actually quoting and refuting what they wrote......."
The whole of Reno's essay, is to argue that it's a waste of time.....
He points out for anyone that will bother to read, that the idea is an old one - if things just happen because they do, that absolves us of responsibility to control our desires and cultivate the habits of conscience. All the Boom and unf-unf is directed towards the constraints and priorities of culture, it is not as a postmodern prescription for the way human beings should act. The threat of materialistic reductionism isn't that it will turn us into wild beasts of passion and instinct. The threat is that it will turn us into stupid, dull..... food animals......
The whole of Reno's essay, is to argue that it's a waste of time.....
He points out for anyone that will bother to read, that the idea is an old one - if things just happen because they do, that absolves us of responsibility to control our desires and cultivate the habits of conscience. All the Boom and unf-unf is directed towards the constraints and priorities of culture, it is not as a postmodern prescription for the way human beings should act. The threat of materialistic reductionism isn't that it will turn us into wild beasts of passion and instinct. The threat is that it will turn us into stupid, dull..... food animals......
8.17.2010 | 12:41am
RPA says:
"we all have to deal with the complications of our romantic relationships, with the social implications of dishonesty, with difficult kin relationships, never mind dealing with the ultimate problem of trying to find emotional meaning in our lives."
But what is the significance of human relationships if they are just ultimately a mechanism that helps us perpetuate our genes through time? We have relationships only to maximize our reproductive potential! They don't MEAN anything! Emotions, for that matter, are just a sophisticated system to keep us alive and reproducing.
See, isn't it a fun game? It's like Kipling's "Just So Stories."
But what is the significance of human relationships if they are just ultimately a mechanism that helps us perpetuate our genes through time? We have relationships only to maximize our reproductive potential! They don't MEAN anything! Emotions, for that matter, are just a sophisticated system to keep us alive and reproducing.
See, isn't it a fun game? It's like Kipling's "Just So Stories."
10.13.2010 | 3:15am
Danyell Florist says:
There seems to be a self-refuting component to the "New Atheists'' beliefs. On the one hand, they chastize religious believers for believing in God. And, moreover, there's a strong moral ferver to their chastizement. But how can this conincide with their belief that humans have no free will? The Cultural command to "be polite" therefore, is actually a reflection of some deep, animal, material facts - and a way of dealing with them. It is ultimately, in part, a way of escaping physical extinction.
11.8.2011 | 3:49pm
AKO says:
"Why are they so enthusiastic about this idea that our minds are just neural networks? It’s not at first sight a very attractive belief. After all, free will provides a sense of self-possession, and it’s the source of the drama in life. "
I was just reading an interesting article the other day that was talking about how our minds do a lot of work in the background, and how when we get epiphanies it's actually our subconscious that is dropping us hints. Free will is such an interesting discussion. Technically we have it, and technically we don't.
I was just reading an interesting article the other day that was talking about how our minds do a lot of work in the background, and how when we get epiphanies it's actually our subconscious that is dropping us hints. Free will is such an interesting discussion. Technically we have it, and technically we don't.
