Now Praise Intelligent Design

Richard Dawkins takes back the phrase 'Intelligent Design'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wXEjQ1kdU"]Richard Dawkins - Now Praise Intelligent Design - YouTube

 

Interesting talk. Thanks for posting it.

 

as others have pointed out many times, the problem with intelligent design, is that it isn't.

 

It's easy to pin Intelligent Design down as thinly veiled theism. But, how many atheists realize that positivism (god/morality as reason/free will) and environmentalism (god/morality as nature) also mimic theism?

Militant atheists are usually liberals, and liberal philosophy was essentially baked in the same mold as Christianity: Platonism. Hence the importance of not being militant.

And the same could be said of free will, the welfare state, true love, and sustainable development?

 

Wow!
That made absolutely no sense after the first sentence.
We seem to have some contradictions:

positivism has nothing to do with God or morality or free will.
Positivism = empirical knowledge
environmentalism also, nothing to do with God.
So to rewrite your second sentence without the bracket nonsense...
Atheist positivism mimics theism.
Umm what? Empirical knowledge mimics superstition?
That makes no sense either.
Those are pretty much what you call antonyms.

Well forget about that then, next sentence:
So your saying liberal atheists are basically the same as christian Platonists?
So Atheist empirical knowledge = christian anecdotal "knowledge"?
Umm no. Atheists are pretty adamant about the credibility of their knowledge actually.
So that doesn't make any sense...

and ugh, so don't be militant about it...
Another head scratcher,
sorry I just can't connect the dots on that either.

 

I'd have to agree with Relaxx on this one (that doesn't happen often)--pretty incoherent. Could you share with us how you came by these ideas? I have the impression that the underlying purpose is to attack liberalism, although even that's far from clear. Positivism, strictly speaking, is radical empiricism--whether in the sociological form introduced by Comte or the fifties and sixties "logical positivism" of A.J.Ayer--the idea that any proposition about reality, to be meaningful, must be empirically verifiable. I don't agree with that, and many philosophers have rejected it as too restrictive, but it it's hard to see how it mimics theism, which is based on faith in a transcendent reality beyond empirical validation. It makes as much sense as saying "black mimics white". When you indicate in parentheses that positivism is about reason and free will, you show a basic misunderstanding of the concept.

Then, when you get into environmentalism as "god/morality as nature, you get even harder to follow. Some eco-radicals incorporate a devotion to Mother Earth or Gaia into their ideology, but these are a minority, an to depict them as typical of the movement as a whole is to caricature it. What do you mean "militant atheists are usually liberals"? I think it's probably safe to say that most of them are secularists, and secularists are likely to oppose the agenda of the religious right. But lots of Christians like me and most Jews are liberals, so your point is obscure. Objectivists, who aere militantly atheist as all get out They follow the philosopher Ayn Rand, and are are economic and social libertarians, which puts them squarely in the Republican/conservative camp. As for liberalsim being "baked in the same mold as Christianity", that makes no sense at all. Plato was hardly a liberal. His ideas in the Republic were downright fascist. Apparently, the welfare state and sustainable development are concepts you don't like, but I can think of better arguments to make against them than that they are somehow related to Platonism. Plato wasn't much concerned with nature or material well being. He was concerned with an ideal realm beyond the material world. So trying to link him to environmentalism and sustainable development is about as ridiculous as trying to link him to positivism. Stop watching the "intellectuals" on FOX. They're rotting your brain!

 

I'd have to agree with Relaxx on this one (that doesn't happen often)--pretty incoherent. Could you share with us how you came by these ideas? I have the impression that the underlying purpose is to attack liberalism, although even that's far from clear. Positivism, strictly speaking, is radical empiricism--whether in the sociological form introduced by Comte or the fifties and sixties "logical positivism" of A.J.Ayer--the idea that any proposition about reality, to be meaningful, must be empirically verifiable. I don't agree with that, and many philosophers have rejected it as too restrictive, but it it's hard to see how it mimics theism, which is based on faith in a transcendent reality beyond empirical validation. It makes as much sense as saying "black mimics white". When you indicate in parentheses that positivism is about reason and free will, you show a basic misunderstanding of the concept. How does "free will" even enter the picture. The positivist strain of atheists tend to be determinists, giving them something in common with Christian Calvinists but not other religions.

Then, when you get into environmentalism as "god/morality as nature", you get even harder to follow. Some eco-radicals incorporate a devotion to Mother Earth or Gaia into their ideology, but these are a minority, an to depict them as typical of the environmental movement as a whole is to caricature it. What do you mean "militant atheists are usually liberals"? I think it's probably safe to say that most of them are secularists, and secularists are likely to oppose the agenda of the religious right. But lots of Christians like me and most Jews are liberals, so your point is obscure. Objectivists, who are militantly atheist as all get out, follow the philosopher Ayn Rand. They're economic and social libertarians, which puts them squarely in the Republican/conservative camp. As for liberalism being "baked in the same mold as Christianity: Plato", that makes no sense at all. Plato was hardly a liberal. His ideas in the Republic were downright fascist. Or maybe you think that liberalism=Big government=totalitarian government. Are you watching too much Fox News? Apparently, the welfare state and sustainable development are concepts you don't like, but I can think of better arguments to make against them than that they are somehow related to Platonism. Plato wasn't much concerned with nature or material well-being. He was concerned with an ideal realm beyond the material world. So trying to link him to environmentalism and sustainable development is about as ridiculous as trying to link him to positivism. Basically, your thesis sounds like free association among a bunch of concepts that seem to have negative connotations to you. And "true love"? Is that a bad thing?

 

I'll bite...once. I have a feeling we won't agree on this, so I'll try to clarify it until I get the sense that we hit a circular argument.

Perhaps the fact you're a Christian makes it difficult for you to see the link among those concepts. But, to be fair, most militant atheists have the same difficulty. Not surprising given the fact their atheism is evangelical. Coming from a Nietzschean/Max Stirner background, it's all crystal clear as all those associations have been made by them over and over.

The basic idea behind it all is Platonism. The fundamental concept of it is that pure idea is good. In other words, what is abstract is morally higher than what's corporeal. Idealism, the ideal. Likewise, in Christianity: spirit over body; afterlife over this life; Holy Spirit over man.

I believe atheism at its core leads toward moral relativism, fatalism (denial of free will as basis of morality), and elitism (morality is egalitarian, universally applicable, no double-standards, liberal, etc.).

Militant atheism still smacks of residual Platonism/Christian. It still believes itself moral, evangelical, and humanitarian/egalitarian. The welfare state as an attempt to wipe out "unfair" inequalities, etc.

The link between environmentalism and Christianity should be pretty obvious to anyone who's got well-trained eyes for veiled Christian narratives (Hollywood films are essentially Biblical cliches rehatched over and over again). Pristine nature (Plato's pure idea/Christianity's Garden of Eden) fouled by sinners (man).

Lastly, as for positivism, the idea is that reason (pure idea once again) arrives at an objective, immutable, pristine "truth". Untainted by corrupting selfish perspective. It is, in the end, "fair." As fair as the good lord himself.

Even more hilarious is the Platonic/Socratic association between reason and good. If one acts based on reason, one acts morally. Somehow, killing babies is irrational. Nobody knows exactly why.

-----------------

Edit: True love; it is bad insofar as it is a false comfort. But it is good for those who need false comforts. I do not wish to convert anyone into unbelief.

 

Cherea:

You do realize that to argue circularly means to beg or petition the question, right? The context in which you used it seems to point to a different intended meaning.

Can you define 'militant atheism' for me, and perhaps provide an example of what a 'militant atheist' might say that would distinguish them from atheists in general? I'm genuinely unsure of what you mean by the term.

Can you define and provide an example of an 'evangelical atheist'? Again I know what an evangelical Christian is, but I'm unsure of how the term applies to atheists and how an 'evangelical atheist' differs from atheists in general.

I don't know where you got the idea that atheists adhere to Platonism, and I certainly cannot speak for other atheists, but I know that myself and the atheists that I know personally do not adhere to Platonism. Can you provide an example of a 'Platonist atheist' and the kinds of arguments that one might make. Again I am genuinely unaware.

Can you provide the names of some films that you think are 'Christian Cliches'? I cannot think of any of the top of my head, so again I can't picture what you mean.

Again I can only speak from my own personal experience. Most environmentalists that I know personally adhere, to various extents, to Buddhism. Can you elaborate on the link between Christian doctrines and environmentalism?

 

"Evangelical atheism" has no meaning to me besides being a joke because it is an oxymoron.

Free will has nothing to do with morality... and free will has nothing to do with God. An atheist can believe in free will because the universe is not perfect, determinism is not absolute.

To quote myself...

 

Fair enough. The language in your reply is more polite this time, so I will entertain it.

As far as I know, the concept of free will is central to Christian theology. The idea being that all humans have moral choice, and consciousness of right and wrong. A right and wrong which is, furthermore, universal and immutable.

Plato's Golden Rule, later taken on by Paul The Apostle. Who based his theology on Platonism. Later on, the same Platonism would be taken on by the Jacobins; the fathers of the Republican state.

 

Militant atheists want to convert people into atheism and make the world a better place or a moral utopia by doing so. Where have I seen this before? Hmm...evangelical Christians.

See my comment about reason and Plato's pure idea. Most atheists seem to adhere to positivism and posit reason as a substitute for faith.

The Matrix. Blue pill, Red pill. Most people are sheep; there is a chosen people who can see the 'real' world, instead of the world of illusion. The sheep are to be saved. As in Christianity, this life is just a test, temptation. The afterlife is the real. Jesus saves.

But basically, any bad guy/good guy movie. Moral theme.

See my comment about The Garden of Eden.

 

I still don't get it. You seem to be distinguishing between "militant atheists", who apparently betray Platonic influences, and non-militant atheists who don't. I have no problem with the concept of "militant atheists". I think the so-called Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens) fit that description. At least some of those, Harris in particular, have a moral fervor about them that resembles evangelists in its zeal. If you're coming from a Nietzschean/Stirner background, you might find this moralistic quality to be disturbing (i.e., inhibiting). You mention you "believe atheism at its core leads toward moral relativism, fatalism (denial of free will as basis of morality), and elitism", which I take it you approve of, and seem to be saying that these "evangelical" atheists like Harris are backsliding into Platonism because they don't believe these things. In Harris' case, he is both moralistic and avowedly deterministic, but confused. I think you're off base in crediting Plato with all this. He certainly carried the pure idealism to an extreme, but most of the moralistic tendencies you deplore, including the Golden Rule, were well-entrenched centuries earlier in Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, and Confucianism. We call it civilization. I'm all for it. Yes, it would be hard to articulate a purely rational reason for not killing babies. We're just rationalizing our altruistic instincts which fortunately evolved. Basically, you've developed a subjective system of associations that has a lot of significance to you , and you've done a much better job of articulating it this time--if my foregoing summation is correct. So what?

 

You say you don't get it, and then go on to describe my viewpoint better than I possibly could. Thank you for that.

I'm crediting Plato as a matter of descent. Paulinian Christianity is a direct descendant of Plato. Likewise, Jacobin Republicanism.

Maybe Confucionism and whatever else arrived at the same philosophical place by taking different roads, but Paul's Platonism is a direct influence. Both Paul and Robespierre ("noble savages" vs. Caesars) were well-versed in Greek philosophy and had read Plato's works in particular.

I'm not so sure about Judaism. Saulinian (as opposed to Paulinian) Judaism was as much a tribe of skull crushers as Mohammedans are today. I don't think this is mere coincidence. Plato's influence was completely skipped in both cases.

Not just for me, as I've mentioned. I was first acquainted with said associations in the work of Nietzsche and later, Max Stirner.

 

I don't care if Christians even invented the term free will or morality. Empathy and compassion far predate Christianity. This is essential for the evolution of social humans. The golden rule and commandments against killing and stealing are clearly taken from intrinsic empathetic morals, the naturally true morals. Only the psychopathic are strangers to these intrinsic feelings.

So when true morality is intrinsic to social caring humans, then what is Christian morality? It is perversion of morality in every sense. It is conditioned brainwashing to attach illogical loopholes to intrinsic empathy. Original sin and forgiveness through Jesus is the main theme of Christianity. The subconscious message is you are EXPECTED to sin and then be forgiven. It is a cycle of immoral behavior and dismissing bad behavior and transferring punishment of bad behavior. The whole system is designed to accommodate breaking your own moral codes while feeling righteous at the same time. After all, God is the ultimate immoral character.

Religion is a loophole to intrinsic empathetic social humans. So one group can wage otherwise unconscionable bloody warfare on another group, without being completely psychotic. Because warriors still have to return home and care for their families. Religion provides all the excuses to break your own moral codes and feel justified and get a good night sleep in blood stained lands. The winners of every battle, living on and re-enforcing these traits with every generation.

 

Fair enough. I'll let the above post speak for itself as an example of what I'm talking about.

 

Needless to say, I disagree with both of you. Relaxx's theory of "natural morality' strikes me as naive, and his characterization of Christian "perversion" of morality is a grotesque distortion of reality. Any genetic disposition toward altruism which humans may have inherited through evolution is woefully inadequate on its own to keep us out of trouble. Paleolithic hunters and gatherers could rely on kinship and face-to-face relations to reinforce social norms. Like other species, humans are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of others who bear their genes. But as societies grew to larger agricultural communities, then states, then empires, other means had to be invented. One challenge was how to keep people honest when no one is looking. Hence the development of supernatural agents, and later philosophical systems of idealism like Platonism. Religion has played an integral part in this process.

Relaxx's description of Christianity is in stark contrast to the Christian communities I know. Sure there are nuts who might meet the description, but I don't think most Christians have the attitude that they can do as they please as long as they mutter the right formulas and go thru the motions of repentance.

Relaxx says that only psychopaths don't respond to this natural inclination toward morality. Of course, there are plenty of those out there, often in positions of power and influence. The Bernie Madoffs of the world are unlikely to be reached by religious or ethical appeals. But should they be legitimated by a philosophy? It seems to me that that's exactly what Stirner, and to a lesser extent Nietzsche, were trying to do, the motto being "Help yourself"; selfishness uninhibited by the restraints of morals or law. Politically, this has a following among "individual anarchists", or what Bookchin calls "lifestyle anarchists". On the right, objectivist followers of Ayn Rand come close, although I suspect Cherea would consider them too moralistic. The justification is always that true geniuses,"supermen", wealth creators, etc., should not be inhibited by the rules that bind us ordinary slobs. It's a free country, but anyone acting on these principles might expect some resistance from those of us who think morality is a good thing.

 

Yes, even though I identify with Ayn Rand, libertarians, and the Old Right more generally; the moralistic part is what turns me off about Ayn Rand.

I am currently very interested in anarcho-capitalist David R. Barker. Although I don't typically identify with anarchism (again, too moralistic), I sometimes see common ground.

Especially the giving up on false comforts. Including the comfort of the state, relationships, and of reason. Religion, I don't even take seriously enough to include on my list. Which is not to say that those things can't be temporarily employed. But, keeping in mind their inherent uncertainty and fallibility.

I identify most of all with the tenants of the Old Right, both in their laissez faire appeal and their matter-of-fact acceptance of the facts of life (hierarchy, self-interest, competition, etc).

 

I feel like i'm the only atheist here,
in this atheism subforum...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBV3eqvQPJs"]The Problem With Religion (Richard Dawkins) - YouTube

 

Damn,that's sad seeing those kids "inculcated".