Nature is, allegedly, a human construct, but naturalism holds that humans are natural creations.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Spectacles on a spectacle…
Ah, the spectacle of Darwinists on the one hand undermining various human conventions on the grounds that said conventions exist merely because they promote health and longevity, yet on the other hand defending The Theory on the grounds that it's true even beyond its survival benefits.
+ + +
Nature is, allegedly, a human construct, but naturalism holds that humans are natural creations.
Nature is, allegedly, a human construct, but naturalism holds that humans are natural creations.
Labels:
Culture and News,
History of Science,
Philosophy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Were you referring to anything in particular? On it's own, this post seems more a collection of puns and hyperbole than anyting else.
I did have evolutionary theories of religion in mind, but more generally the whole genre of Darwinian origin accounts. The second sentence is a second topic that I decided to post with the Darwinian musing. No hyperbole intended, not this time.
Well, part of the problem is that "Darwinist" has no real meaning, as thenatrual meaning (devotees of Darwin, specifically) are non-existant. I don't think you would say you are a JohnPaul2ist or a Benedict16ist.
From your explanation, are you sure you're conflating a couple of different interpretations of evolutionary theory? Adaptationists would explain everything in terms of promoting survival, while other sorts would emphasize the impotance of features besides survivability.
Yes, the second sentence in particular is why ai though you were punning. The use of "nature" seems to mean a very different definition than the later "naturalism/natural".
One Brow:
I believe there are Darwinists. How else could a leading scholar of Darwinism write a book "Can a Darwinist Be a Christian?"?
I'm sure I'm clumping a number of subtly different theories but my point is to target those reductionist theories of explanation. People pray because doing so is an evolved behavior from ancestral behavior towards "numinous" natural forces, etc. Yawn. Meanwhile, people accept Darwinian theory not because we inherited such thought patterns but BECAVSE 'TIS TRVE.
I will edit the layout of the text to reflect the fact that this post is a combination of two originally separate ideas. The idea is basically that our conceptions of nature, scientists tell us, are anthropocentric fictions. Nature is not as we imagine it. Yet... yet supposedly these same scientists tell us there is an abiding linguistically separate and external System of Nature which produced everything we observe. I scratch my head.
According to this website:
Ruse defines a Darwinian (p. 28) as one who accepts three claims: (1) the fact of evolution, i.e., that organisms originated through a natural process of descent with modification from earlier forms, (2) that the path of evolution forms a branching, tree-like pattern, and (3) that natural selection is the most important evolutionary mechanism.
Are you a Darwinist, under that definition? If not, which of those claims do you reject? If yes, when you referred to "the spectacle of Darwinists", did you mean to include yourself? Did you have a different definition of Darwinist in mind? You may have answered this in the prior comment (although tht would confirm what I said about "Darwinist" having no real meaning), and feel free to ignore this if you have.
I do agree, in part, with your head-scratching at an apparent inconsistency. It is not reasonable to claim religious beliefs were inherited or passed on regardless of reality, while beliefs opposed to religion are based on reasoning. However, I would distingusih such beliefs from those that refer to scientific concepts. You can't reject the existence of God based on evidence, but you can certainly be a Darwinisn in the Ruse definition based on evidence. e're really talking about different spheres of knowlege here.
As for the second, I think there is a distinction to be be had between a conception of natural things having properties and providing capabilities, versus that of natural things directing and having goals. to say the heart offers the capability of pumping blood is to say less than sayign the heart has the purpose r function of pumping blood.
Re: Ruse, I'm afraid he goes further than that. A lot further. Ruse explicitly ties up Darwinism with some serious metaphysical commitments.
From this link:
Another kind of solution, a theological solution in the tradition of Augustine, is to argue that God knew what would happen when He created and that is enough. In one sense, I am much happier with a theological solution to a theological problem, although this particular solution did worry me because it does seem to have a kind of determinism built-in that I find antithetical to Darwinism. It may not be directed, theistic evolution, but it seems very close.
...
I think now, several years later, I am more on top of the problem. The answer lies in the fact that, since humans did evolve through natural selection, they could evolve. It was just a question of enough tries. I see no reason why God should not go on creating universes until humans appear.
So for Ruse, believing in an omniscient God - or really, just a God who knows what will result from an evolutionary process - is enough to get you kicked out of the Darwinist club. In fact, he's coming close to kicking Dawkins out merely for accepting directionality in evolution.
Anyway, it's easy to give a definition of Darwinism whereby I qualify as a Darwinist. Of course, it's also easy to give a definition of Darwinism whereby Ken Ham qualifies as a Darwinist. In fact, I wonder if many YECs couldn't qualify under those three standards given - since 'common descent' isn't required there, and the origin of the earlier forms isn't mandated, you pretty much open the door to baraminology.
Crude,
I don't find Ruse, from the comments you quoted, to be dismissive of front-loading as a reasonable position for whatever he calls a Darwinist, as opposed to uncomfortable with it, and not to his preferences. So, I don't see any real evidence from these quotes that Ruse goes further than the previous definition.
I find it difficult to se how part (1) of the definition given by Ruse is compatible with anything other than common descent, since it refers specifically to the origin or organisms. I'm pretty sure that rules Ken Ham out. As for you, I'll let you tell me.
Also, and perhaps I'm making to much of what was meant in jest, I'm not sure if this is the definition Codgitator (Cadgertator) meant in the original post.
Tossed up a reply. Codg let me know if it got caught in a spam filter or something. Otherwise I'll go through the retype hassle.
Crude:
I see no comment from you after One Brow's 10:52 AM comment, so I reckon it's retyping time.
Thanks for checking, Codg.
I don't find Ruse, from the comments you quoted, to be dismissive of front-loading as a reasonable position for whatever he calls a Darwinist, as opposed to uncomfortable with it, and not to his preferences.
Ruse says pretty explicitly that to believe the outcomes of evolution are known, and that life and evolution began with targets in mind that were met with certainty, is antithetical to Darwinism as he sees it. He even squirms a bit at Dawkins - freaking Dawkins - supplying 'directionality' to evolution.
I find it difficult to se how part (1) of the definition given by Ruse is compatible with anything other than common descent, since it refers specifically to the origin or organisms. I'm pretty sure that rules Ken Ham out.
It refers to the origin of organisms "from earlier forms". Sure, that's compatible with common descent. But it's also compatible with baraminology - the 'earlier forms' are multiple created species.
One Brow:
Find me a non-materialist Darwinian (apart from De Chardin… or Dalí…) and we can play ball.
My target in this post is materialist Darwinians.
It was T. H. Huxley who coined the term anyway, and apparently precisely in order to shore up his materialist commitments.
Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...
Find me a non-materialist Darwinian ...
Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God), Catholic.
Ed Brayton, from Dispatches from the Culture Wars, believes there is a spiritual aspect to nature.
95% of the American Academy of Sciences accept evolution, and only 50% are atheists. Tht leaves 45%.
Fully half the staff at the National Center for Science Educaiton.
Every signee of the clergy letter Project.
There is probably some overlap.
That said, I will look over your post again, with the understanding that you are referring only to materialists. Thank you for clarifying.
Crude said...
Ruse says pretty explicitly that to believe the outcomes of evolution are known, and that life and evolution began with targets in mind that were met with certainty, is antithetical to Darwinism as he sees it.
Well, Ruse isn't a prophet in my opinion, so I don't want to get too far into debating his words. I saw enough qualification in terms like "close to" to say that I don't think he completely dismisses the position as untenable. If you don't, you don't.
He even squirms a bit at Dawkins - freaking Dawkins - supplying 'directionality' to evolution.
The word itself would have troubling connotations.
It refers to the origin of organisms "from earlier forms". Sure, that's compatible with common descent. But it's also compatible with baraminology - the 'earlier forms' are multiple created species.
Well, perhaps baraminology has changed in the last few years. Last I heard, for example, there was a dog form which might have included wolves, coyots, etc. but would not have come from some previous form.
Of course, I don't think Ruse was using form in the Aristotelian sense. Is that what you meant? For Aristotelians, is there a distinct wolf form and dog form? If so, when did they acquire their distinct forms?
One Brow:
No, I can only thank you for helping me to be more precise. My blog is mostly and online notepad, so it can be mighty cryptic at times.
So, yes, I am targeting materialist, adaptationist Darwinism.
As for the vector you and Crude are pursuing, we must keep in mind that teleology is a causal, not always "aesthetic", principle. It explains the relation of cause to effect, not the relation of mind to pattern.
Well, Ruse isn't a prophet in my opinion, so I don't want to get too far into debating his words. I saw enough qualification in terms like "close to" to say that I don't think he completely dismisses the position as untenable. If you don't, you don't.
All I can say is read the link I supplied. Ruse is not arguing merely about what he thinks is likely the case - he is laying down what he considers to be the only possible way a person can accept Christianity and evolution. He explicitly rules out any possibility of God foreseeing the outcomes of evolution. Another way of putting it is that Ruse denies you can believe in a God who is omniscient and omnipotent if you are a Darwinist.
If you don't see just what standards Ruse is laying down to be 'a Darwinian' in that entry, there's not much more I can say. It's obvious.
Well, perhaps baraminology has changed in the last few years. Last I heard, for example, there was a dog form which might have included wolves, coyots, etc. but would not have come from some previous form.
Just have a look at the Creationist Orchard figure in the baraminology wiki entry. It even says right there that it indicates a natural selection role - complete with branching trees. Just the tree goes back to an ancestor, not a universal common ancestor.
As for your list of 'non-materialist Darwinians', I think it misses the point. 'Accepting evolution' does not suffice to make a person a Darwinist. Ken Miller is a Catholic, but he's ridiculously mum about what role, if any, God (or anything 'non-material') plays in evolution. Frankly, as a TE, I see plenty of TEs who hedge like crazy when it comes to the topic of materialism. Even guys who out and out claim to reject materialism (Francis Collins) go quiet when it comes to explaining what way, if any, that impacts their views on evolution.
Crude,
I read the link. I interpret it differently than you. I don't see Ruse explicitly ruling out what God could and could not foresee.
Again, there would be a difference from saying that all currently living things came from prior living things, and all forms came from different forms. I don't see Ruse's listof three items as consistent with baraminology. Is baraminology now consistent with, say, rodent forms and primate forms coming from a common ancestral pool and therefore common ancestral form?
I'm not sure in what way a theistic evolutionist is supposed to offer authority on how God affects evolution. Such pronouncements could be nothing more than speculation.
I read the link. I interpret it differently than you. I don't see Ruse explicitly ruling out what God could and could not foresee.
How can you not, when he maintains that the only way to marry 'Christianity' and 'Darwinism' is with a God who would have to make multiple universes and check each one to see in which one anything even remotely 'man-like' showed up, if something 'man-like' was what he wanted?
Maybe you think what I'm claiming here is that "Ruse is saying that if God exists, He could not foresee the outcomes of evolution". But what I'm saying is that "Ruse is saying that if you believe God exists and foresaw/preordained some outcomes of evolution, you aren't a Darwinist". You may believe in some form of evolution by Ruse's measure, but Darwinism it ain't.
Again, there would be a difference from saying that all currently living things came from prior living things, and all forms came from different forms. I don't see Ruse's listof three items as consistent with baraminology.
"All forms came from different forms" would be a requirement that there was no origin of life. "All forms come from earlier forms" leaves one with baraminology as an open possibility.
I'm sure Ruse didn't mean to leave that open, but it falls out of your quote.
I'm not sure in what way a theistic evolutionist is supposed to offer authority on how God affects evolution. Such pronouncements could be nothing more than speculation.
Offer authority? That isn't required. But claims by atheists on how God would have (but didn't), or whether he did or did not, affect evolution is speculation as well - or at the very least, outside of science. Ah, but to recognize that is to skunk Ruse's view of evolution, and to take down Coyne's and other's along with it.
Crude,
If you have some other link to Ruse, where he makes the same point you claim he is making here in a different way, I'll be hapy to read it. I don't see the point in dispuing this passage further.
"All forms came from different forms" would be a requirement that there was no origin of life.
Only if life is an all-or-nothing state of reality. Otherwise, there's no reason that 46% alive can't come from a form that is 45% alive.
Before you say that life is all-or-nothing, which way do you classify viruses, and on what basis? How about prions?
Offer authority? That isn't required. But claims by atheists on how God would have (but didn't), or whether he did or did not, affect evolution is speculation as well - or at the very least, outside of science.
I think you'll find even the Dawkins and the Myers of the world acknowledge that the most you can say scientifically is that there is no need of nor evidence for God's interference. I have never read them to say God could be excluded scientifically.
Ah, but to recognize that is to skunk Ruse's view of evolution, and to take down Coyne's and other's along with it.
I don't see why.
If you have some other link to Ruse, where he makes the same point you claim he is making here in a different way, I'll be hapy to read it. I don't see the point in dispuing this passage further.
Neither do I, though clearly for different reasons. ;) He can't say it much more bluntly than he did there.
Before you say that life is all-or-nothing, which way do you classify viruses, and on what basis? How about prions?
I don't even need to go down that road for this conversation. Do you really think Ruse meant to pack what you're saying into his short list - that something can be 45% alive, and I suppose everything is alive to at least a > 0% level and hylozoism is true?
C'mon.
I think you'll find even the Dawkins and the Myers of the world acknowledge that the most you can say scientifically is that there is no need of nor evidence for God's interference. I have never read them to say God could be excluded scientifically.
Myers has outright said that there can be no evidence for God in his view, and that he would conclude or hold out for a naturalistic explanation no matter what he observes.
"No need of"? What, as in logical necessity? But that's a ridiculous requirement for people willing to entertain the idea of brute faces, things happening without cause out of utter nothingness, infinite universes, etc.
No evidence of? How would they know? How can they even quantify 'evidence of God' scientifically? Freaking Intelligent Design?
As for having 'never read them say God could be excluded scientifically', you should check the title of Victor Stenger's book on this. Or see Dawkins talking about God being a scientific hypothesis and claiming the evidence excludes God.
I don't see why.
Because Ruse defines evolution as utterly unguided and non-teleological - contra Eugenie Scott at least in the NABT controversy. But if it's beyond science to declare whether evolution is or is not guided or teleological, Ruse's definition of science is unscientific and down it goes by his standards. Same with Coyne - he defines evolution as being entirely unguided, and that this is a scientific view. If it's "nothing more than speculation"...
Do you really think Ruse meant to pack what you're saying into his short list ...
I'm not going to speculate on what Ruse did or did not mean to pack. I see an interpretation for the offered passage different than you. Unless you are bringing neww evidence to bear, that's unlikely to change.
One Brow: ... acknowledge that the most you can say scientifically is that there is no need of nor evidence for God's interference.
Myers has outright said that there can be no evidence for God in his view, ...
Were you trying to disagree with what I said? Would Myers say that all of his views are scientific views?
"No need of"? What, as in logical necessity?
Empirical necessity. Science is an empirical discipline, not a formal one.
No evidence of? How would they know?
Because the curent natgural explanations give every reason for us to regard them as sufficient.
As for having 'never read them say God could be excluded scientifically', you should check the title of Victor Stenger's book on this.
The very sentence in Wikipedia: "God: The Failed Hypothesis is a 2007 New York Times bestseller by scientist Victor J. Stenger who argues that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that God's existence, while not impossible, is improbable."
Did you judge the book by its cover?
Or see Dawkins talking about God being a scientific hypothesis and claiming the evidence excludes God.
Where would I see this? You'll understand that after seeing you interpret Ruse so differently than I and Stenger so differently than Wikipedia, I have my doubts that this is an accurate depiction of Dawkins words.
Because Ruse defines evolution as utterly unguided and non-teleological
A common confusion. Mutation and variation are unguided and non-teleological. Evolution is guided and shaped by the environment. Anyone who acknowledges that some putative God could shape an environment would be acknowledging that same God could indirectly, and imprecisely, guide evolution in that matter.
For that matter, even thogh the organism does not guide evolution, some putative God co9uld simply by controlling which mutations happen and when.
Post a Comment