tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post4826728827916665349..comments2024-03-27T14:45:28.176-05:00Comments on Adventus: I'm terribly late!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-51834887037381424612013-05-09T13:24:03.553-05:002013-05-09T13:24:03.553-05:00Indeed, Mr. Sagan's argument was, and the argu...<i>Indeed, Mr. Sagan's argument was, and the argument still is, that of a man with a hammer, to whom the whole world resembles a nail. The Bible is no more meant to be the answer to all things (i.e., truly cosmological) than science is; but once you make that mistake, as many do on either side of the question, then you tumble down the rabbit hole into arguments with Mr. Sagan</i><br /><br />Indeed. That is at the root of my problems with Intelligent Design (well besides my refusal to believe that an organism with waste pipelines running through a recreational area, to reference an old joke, is intelligently designed): it's just another version of Scientism that insists scientific explanations are the only possible kind. I know I tend to lean to far toward Gould and non-overlapping magisteria to your tastes, but obviously (given your making of this statement) you have to agree 100% with Gould to agree with the position stated above.<br /><br />It's interesting that Sagan is falling victim here to Scientism, btw, given that, although AFAIK a non-believer, Sagan tended not to fall into the same traps as Dawkins, <i>et al.</i>, in matters of faith and understanding of faith. Indeed, I think part of what got Sagan in trouble with certain scientists who take themselves too seriously as well as tend toward Scientism was not only his popularizations (which didn't help him with elitist types, to bring things toward the second half of your post) but also his take on the role of faith as a part of science.<br /><br />Anyway, as to the second part of your post, it's interesting that people let their resentments toward a cultural elite change their world-view so much, and in such a way as to benefit the very real economic elite that for so long has oppressed them ... I'm not sure what to make of that, but spite, alas, seems to be part of the human condition.alberichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852752646926946626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-72919985818874278822013-05-09T07:24:17.459-05:002013-05-09T07:24:17.459-05:00I think the problem I identified is less with Lewo...I think the problem I identified is less with Lewontin's materialism than with his limitation on the idea of what "truth" is (which may be a function of his materialism, but it's not a necessary condition of materialism).<br /><br />More and more I realize Pilate's famous question is more trenchant than is credited: "What is truth?" Each group has its own, and insists its truth is paramount. Protestants reject Catholicism because the latter insists truth resides in the teachings of the church, and insists that truth is quite different from what the fundamentalist Protestants say it is.<br /><br />It's little different from the claims of atheists like Dawkins. But if there can be but one truth, is it your truth, or mine?<br /><br />I am interested, in a <i>schadenfreude</i> sort of way, in Lewontin's critiques of Dawkins. I've been assured the popular conception of the "selfish gene" didn't come from the Professor; reading this review, I'm not so sure that's true.<br /><br />Which is really interesting, because frankly, if Dawkins is such a weak thinker on matters of religious belief (he has no data and poorer reasoning), why should I respect his ideas in his field of expertise? I've known many an expert who really doesn't know very much at all. And you have to be an expert, or pay very careful attention, to get the critiques of Dawkins' religious critiques, and realize how very wrong he is.<br /><br />So, maybe.....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-20378696086005200402013-05-09T05:49:00.739-05:002013-05-09T05:49:00.739-05:00Lewontin is, after all, a materialist. He is one ...Lewontin is, after all, a materialist. He is one who admits the motives of scientists in being materialists, because to admit to any exception to their materialism will upset their world view. He is extremely honest about the practical and ultimate limits of that view and his bias is not a matter of class snobbery, which it is in just about every other materialist I've ever read, heard or met. <br /><br />He is a master of the essay-book review, the only other reviews I've ever read that are as worth reading are by Orwell. I forget if it's here or in another essay where he admits his materialism was the product of his upbringing. In all he's far more reasonable and fair about it than others I might respect as a writer, like Barbara Ehrenreich whose inherited atheism turns her into a jerk whenever something impinging, even tangentially on the area of religion, is possibly implied. <br /><br />His critique of evo-psy and Dawkins' scientific speculation is brilliant. I suspect it has played a big part in Dawkins abandonning "science" for the common retirement career of quasi-scientists, trying to kill God. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.com