The Bible of Logical Positivism

[unkleE]

Interesting post, James. I don't know if I'll be reading Ayer, but I'll at least have a look. As some of us have discussed previously, I think the "problem" goes very deep.

1. Many of the new atheists, especially the headbangers on internet forums, are scornful of philosophy. Philosophers can never agree or produce anything of value, they say, philosophy is all just mind games. Give us the hard results of scientific study. They ignore that in making that statement, and many others, they are doing philosophy themselves, but inexpertly, without rigour, and often badly.

2. You quote Ayer: “If the assertion that there is a God is nonsensical, then the atheist’s assertion that there is not a god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted.” But internet atheists have become very tricky here. They act like people who actively disbelieve in God - i.e. they would agree with the proposition "No god exists." - but if pressed they often define atheism as non-belief, not active disbelief. Thus they avoid Ayer's criticism, and avoid having to justify their proposition.

It is like the new atheists are playing American football at the Superbowl while the theists are playing Rugby at Twickenham - different rules and no engagement with the opposition. I haven't had much success in crossing those divides - has anyone else?

[noons]

I would respond by saying that if all their atheism is is simply a lack of belief, then that lack of belief sure has a lot of tenets to it.

[jamierobertson]

Or you could target their humanism and scientism, rather than their atheism.

[bjorn]

I try to work around the cop out and ask them to justify their world view. The discussion should not so much be whether God exists - as if all else would be equal, and God an add on - but how to build any world view from a lack of belief in God (or at all, including a conclusion on no God).

I can find absolutely no resources - ethically, epistemologically, scientifically etc. - in the firm foundation of a lack of belief in God.

Whether one starts or concludes with no God existing, it is important to do an iterative evaluation. What kind of ethics/epistemology/rationality is it possible to derive from a purely material universe?

Takes the whole discussion some steps ahead, in my experience. Sometimes it even gets some people to think.

[thegreypilgrim]

Regarding (1) this actually seems like a foundational strategy for neo-atheists. Try to play on the oddities and ambiguities of language to attempt to excuse yourself of having to justify your position. The scorn for philosophy is a smoke and mirrors game to avoid having to employ the sort of logical rigor they inadvertently expect out of theists. This rejection of philosophy as worthless really only results in them doing incredibly poor philosophy as has been pointed out several times.

What I do (well, what I attempt to do) is press them on their meaning when they say "I lack belief in god(s)." Often times they seem to imply, when they say this, that they literally have no beliefs about God whatsoever. This is obviously nonsense, so in order to make sense of this "lack of belief" the only interpretation I can come up with is that by saying this they actually mean to say that "belief in God is irrational."

That's an epistemic proposition (i.e. one about one's knowledge, beliefs, justification for one's beliefs, etc.) and I think this is what they're really getting at. They don't want to assert that God ontologically does not exist (I'm not really cognizant of their aversion to arguing this - perhaps it's to avoid the "lack of certainty" criticism but this really isn't so problematic), but would rather make the case epistemic in nature. There's nothing wrong with that, but if this is really their intention (I can't see what else it could be) then this whole "lack of belief" approach is just awkward and confused (hence, the need for philosophy!).

Another thing I will never be able to understand is the oft-mentioned oddity of their acting like there are no metaphysical consequences for removing God from the picture of reality. Hence the whole problem with their liberal humanism - it just doesn't fit with naturalism at all. Try to make that point on a message board dominated by atheists and not get crucified.

[jamierobertson]

May 19, 2009 23:12:22 GMT thegreypilgrim said:

Another thing I will never be able to understand is the oft-mentioned oddity of their acting like there are no metaphysical consequences for removing God from the picture of reality. Hence the whole problem with their liberal humanism - it just doesn't fit with naturalism at all. Try to make that point on a message board dominated by atheists and not get crucified.

Greypilgrim, I'm not sure I follow you here. Can you expand?

[humphreyclarke]

I think he's referring to the problems you get when you remove God and therefore forfeit any pretence of objective morality. So what?, why can't morality just be a subjective system of agreed rules between members of a social contract?. Well one problem is that people generally don't see morality in this way, rather they follow the ethical properties of right and wrong as if they existed objectively. If you make morality subjective you have to think of things in a rather Machiavellian way and follow self interest to a degree that negates some forms of moral action.

Henry Sedgwick for example, the greatest of Utilitarians, maintained in 'The Methods of Ethics' that ethical systems that lack the concept of a God who takes an interest in moral affairs will inevitably suffer from what is known as the dualism of practical reason. On the one hand it is self evident that we have reason to pursue our self interest, on the other it is also self evident that we often take an impartial point of view (the point of view of the universe) from which we give equal weight to all the beings in the universe. There appears to be no way of reconciling them, unless we adopt a hypothesis of religious belief. Deciding what is right and wrong is accessible to anyone who takes an impartial view. But what is the justification for doing what is right when it is demanding and goes against my happiness and self interest?. There doesn't appear to be one in a subjective moral system.

Doing good is hard. Morality requires, at least, that every human need should count morally, whenever it occurs. This makes the moral life very difficult. I should be fund-raising for starving people instead of going to the movies, but if I act in my self interest, I'll go see Star Trek instead. The moral life and my happiness are not consistent with one another. In the truly moral life they will come apart. The most you can get with enlightened self interest is being 'fairly' good when people are looking, but morality requires taking the point of view of the universe and acting with unconditional commitment.

The moral demands of religion are extremely demanding and doing things for self interest is frowned upon. Hence:

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

Whatever you do for the least of my brothers and sisters, you do for me

Another problem is moral motivation. More of us will accept the claims of sentient life upon us if we care about sentient life. Not just with feelings of sympathy but with the recognition of fundamental value. Again, its hard to arrive at this in a subjective moral system forged on happiness and self interest.

In an objective system such as Kant's, morality has universal application. Following its rules must therefore please the supreme being and this constitutes the strongest motivating force. Pleasing God because you love God rather than out of self interest; valuing the capacity to value morally and choosing a man who loved the marginalised as the supreme human example.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2009 21:46:02 GMT unkleE said:

1. Many of the new atheists, especially the headbangers on internet forums, are scornful of philosophy. Philosophers can never agree or produce anything of value, they say, philosophy is all just mind games. Give us the hard results of scientific study. They ignore that in making that statement, and many others, they are doing philosophy themselves, but inexpertly, without rigour, and often badly.

Recently I was in a masochistic mood, so I read The God Delusion. While it's not explicit, Dawkins seems to belittle philosophy as much as theology. It's ironic that one of the "Four horsemen (stooges) of atheism" is a professional philosopher (Dennett), while the other has a philosophy degree from Stanford (Harris).

[Al Moritz]

Dec 18, 2009 21:40:25 GMT @matko said:

May 18, 2009 21:46:02 GMT unkleE said:

1. Many of the new atheists, especially the headbangers on internet forums, are scornful of philosophy. Philosophers can never agree or produce anything of value, they say, philosophy is all just mind games. Give us the hard results of scientific study. They ignore that in making that statement, and many others, they are doing philosophy themselves, but inexpertly, without rigour, and often badly.

Recently I was in a masochistic mood, so I read The God Delusion. While it's not explicit, Dawkins seems to belittle philosophy as much as theology. It's ironic that one of the "Four horsemen (stooges) of atheism" is a professional philosopher (Dennett), while the other has a philosophy degree from Stanford (Harris).

Dennett lost my respect the minute he insinuated in an article that the ontological argument was the best theism could come up with, while not mentioning the cosmological argument, for example. A pure demagogue speaking, not one interested in any truth or fairness.

[eastshore4]

Although this quote may not be true(I'm pretty sure it is though), Dennet fell out of my good graces when I read that after heart surgery, some friends of Dennet said they were praying for his recovery to which Dennet remarked "thanks, but did you slaughter a goat too?" How can someone that looks so much like Santa Claus be so nasty!?

[merkavah12]

Dec 18, 2009 23:03:27 GMT @eastshore4 said:

Although this quote may not be true(I'm pretty sure it is though), Dennet fell out of my good graces when I read that after heart surgery, some friends of Dennet said they were praying for his recovery to which Dennet remarked "thanks, but did you slaughter a goat too?" How can someone that looks so much like Santa Claus be so nasty!?

It's the beard.

With a beard like that you have but three choices in life: become a mean spirited cuss, become a celebrated recording artist, or become a Texas Ranger and dispense justice via roundhouse kicks.

[perplexedseeker]

eastshore, that is true. Even worse, all his pals congratulated him on his "extraordinary courage" for doing so. He then went on into a hymn to the glory of the technology that saved his life.

I actually tried to read some of Dennett's work on consciousness. I used to really like his work on compatibilism and free will - it actually got me through an existential crisis back when I was (unknowingly) a metaphysical naturalist (he argues it does exist even if the universe is fully determined). But I, too, lost respect for him when I encountered his criticisms of other philosophers like Chalmers, which are based purely on rhetoric and sneering condemnation. I found his smugness so unbearable I couldn't get more than a few pages.

Plus, in my opinion the sum total of all his work is an elaborate way of dodging the question of what subjective experience actually is.

[Deleted]

While it's interesting to read Dennett's theories, he's considered a maverick in cognitive science. From supporting memetics to denying qualia, he never fails to show the wacky side of materialism.

[perplexedseeker]

That's interesting. I thought he was considered quite influential. Ah, but maybe that's because I work in biology, and he's perhaps much more popular outside his own field?

Whilst memetics I've seen refuted in a dozen different ways, I'd be interested to read a full-length rebuttal to his anti-qualia thesis if you know where I can find one.

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2009 20:24:47 GMT perplexedseeker said:

That's interesting. I thought he was considered quite influential. Ah, but maybe that's because I work in biology, and he's perhaps much more popular outside his own field?

A outside lecturer at my faculty spent some time at Harvard. He told me that Dennett, with his idiosyncratic views, is far from the mainstream. No surprise at my end. His "magnum opus" Consciousness explained is a book derided by everybody, and Breaking The Spell is his worst book to date.

His popular only inside the New Atheism circle-jerk.

Whilst memetics I've seen refuted in a dozen different ways, I'd be interested to read a full-length rebuttal to his anti-qualia thesis if you know where I can find one.

I don't know any rebuttal to his anti-qualia article, but that presumes somebody takes him seriously. In contemporary philosophy of mind, least to my knowledge, everybody acknowledges qualias, reductionist or nonreductionist, besides, well, Dennett, and maybe the Churchlands.