Richard Dawkins, Harris, and the rest

[Beeth]

First off, please don't make personal attacks against these people. I simply mentioned Dawkins etc. as examples. My question is, are these people (no matter how much you hate them) doing us leftists a favor, at least in an indirect way?

Look at it this way. A religous guy, who believes that the earth is 6000 years old or god will come back any time soon etc. etc. isnt really going to be attracted to Marxist method, which is so very different and relies exclusively on facts rather than faith. Now because of Dawkins and the like, many people may give up their superstition and become more and more rational. And surely, rational people are going to be more open to Marxism than the rest.

So at least in this indirect way, are not people like Dawkins, Harris doing us a favor - by making people more rational, are they not in fact preparing them for a rational ideology like Marxism?

[Silvr]

I think your question rests on a false assumption:

because of Dawkins and the like, many people may give up their superstition and become more and more rational

I very much doubt that any significant number of religious people have given up their beliefs as a result of reading Richard Dawkins.

[Beeth]

I think your question rests on a false assumption:


I very much doubt that any significant number of religious people have given up their beliefs as a result of reading Richard Dawkins.

Maybe not, but I am talking of fence sitters. They may be 'religious' but still have doubts and a gentle nudge may move them in the right direction.

[¿Que?]

So what if that's true? Are we not supposed to criticize them then? We are going to just act as if these egomaniacs have a monopoly on truth? I think not.

[Blackburn]

If what it takes is Richard Dawkins to get a person thinking, then I doubt that intellectual capacity is going to be that useful to humanity.

Dawkins is an awful human being. Just horrible.

This Atheist Crusade, as he terms it (In his book the God Delusion), is beyond annoying.

It certainly helps (so called rational Atheists) to blame 'religion' for 9/11 instead of looking at US/British foreign policy.

Dawkins may not be a fundie, but his behaviour is reactionary. His style of Atheism is kind of like Satanism. It defines itself as an emotional hatred of Christianity.

I've heard these Nu-Atheists drone on and on about religion and 9/11. They post pretty facebook pictures, claiming religion brought down the towers. But none think too deeply and look at US foreign policy.

Because from their standpoint the system is great. Just need to get rid of religion, and you have a utopia of Capitalism.

I've had to unfriend a few Christian friends who grew up in a fundamentalist environment. Were the annoying Christians bothering people in the street, got disillusioned, and then found Dawkins, and become New Atheists. And now bother people on Facebook about how Atheist they are.

I mean, WTF, am I the only person who explored Atheism prior to Dawkins phobia of brown people post 9/11?

Or is it just that I'm 36 and didn't grow up with Atheism being fed to me through Facebook sound bites. Imagine, back then you had to read a book or think about these concepts for yourself.

tl;dr I dislike Dawkins and I feel old.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If what it takes is Richard Dawkins to get a person thinking, then I doubt that intellectual capacity is going to be that useful to humanity.

Dawkins is an awful human being. Just horrible.

Just because you disagree with him for whatever reason, doesn't make Dawkins an "awful human being". That's the sort of appellation one gives to someone who tortures and murders others, not someone who writes popular books on atheism and evolution.


This Atheist Crusade, as he terms it (In his book the God Delusion), is beyond annoying.

I highly doubt that Dawkins refers to his efforts as an "Atheist Crusade" except in jest. Could you provide a quote and page number to back up your assertion?


It certainly helps (so called rational Atheists) to blame 'religion' for 9/11 instead of looking at US/British foreign policy.

Why can't it be both?


Dawkins may not be a fundie, but his behaviour is reactionary. His style of Atheism is kind of like Satanism. It defines itself as an emotional hatred of Christianity.

Nope, Dawkins and other New Atheists talk extensively of the lack of evidence for religious claims. That is a logical argument, not an emotional one.


I've heard these Nu-Atheists drone on and on about religion and 9/11. They post pretty facebook pictures, claiming religion brought down the towers. But none think too deeply and look at US foreign policy.

Try hanging out at a few atheist blogs and websites instead. You'll find a variety of opinions on US foreign policy, from isolationism to "glass the Middle East". But hey, why bother making proper arguments when one can instead make hasty generalisations based on one's Facebook "friends"?


Because from their standpoint the system is great. Just need to get rid of religion, and you have a utopia of Capitalism.

Whose standpoint? Again with the generalisations.


I've had to unfriend a few Christian friends who grew up in a fundamentalist environment. Were the annoying Christians bothering people in the street, got disillusioned, and then found Dawkins, and become New Atheists. And now bother people on Facebook about how Atheist they are.

I mean, WTF, am I the only person who explored Atheism prior to Dawkins phobia of brown people post 9/11?

Well, I was an atheist before Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, but I bought the book for the same reason I would buy any book - the subject interested me. If you read the people's stories of how they became atheist (you can find some HERE (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula)), you'll find that most people had doubts going as far back as childhood or early adolescence.


Or is it just that I'm 36 and didn't grow up with Atheism being fed to me through Facebook sound bites. Imagine, back then you had to read a book or think about these concepts for yourself.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[l'Enfermé]

I think Dawkins is a social conservative though, disregarding his aggressive atheism and mockery of organized religion.

[leftistman]

Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and so on promote scientific skepticism, rationality, and the rejection of religion and supernatural claims. They have nothing to do with communism or socialism.

[Paul Cockshott]

First off, please don't make personal attacks against these people. I simply mentioned Dawkins etc. as examples. My question is, are these people (no matter how much you hate them) doing us leftists a favor, at least in an indirect way?

Look at it this way. A religous guy, who believes that the earth is 6000 years old or god will come back any time soon etc. etc. isnt really going to be attracted to Marxist method, which is so very different and relies exclusively on facts rather than faith. Now because of Dawkins and the like, many people may give up their superstition and become more and more rational. And surely, rational people are going to be more open to Marxism than the rest.

So at least in this indirect way, are not people like Dawkins, Harris doing us a favor - by making people more rational, are they not in fact preparing them for a rational ideology like Marxism?

Absolutely yes, they are progressive scientists analogous to Darwin and Haeckel in the 19th C and as atheistic materialists prepare the ground of Marxism which is a variant of atheistic materialism.

[Paul Cockshott]

I think Dawkins is a social conservative though, disregarding his aggressive atheism and mockery of organized religion.

You think that, but with what evidence?

He is a liberal anti-monarchist, pro-feminism, anti the Gulf War. In the UK context that does not make him a social conservative.

[white picket fence]

dawkins, and dennett and hitchens* deal with the extreme parts of religion far better then leftist theoreticians of difference and multiculturalism.

sure, they are naively liberal, their most militants subscribe to an idiotically simplified idea of scientific rationalism, they don't really understand more nuanced forms of belief and so on, but their main subject of critique, the batshit crazy zealot ideologues of bible belt america and their counterparts in the middle east are real and dangerous.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sam Harris has some pretty shit ideas; IIRC, he supports racial profiling and torturing people for information (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/08/addressing-sam-harris/), and he is way too soft on Buddhism for my liking.

At least Hitchens had the decency to experience waterboarding for himself, and afterwards admit that it is torture.

Daniel Dennett doesn't get as much attention as I think he should, either. It's thanks to him that I came to realise that philosophers are not completely useless.

[Prinskaj]

dawkins, and dennett and hitchens* deal with the extreme parts of religion far better then leftist theoreticians of difference and multiculturalism.

sure, they are naively liberal, their most militants subscribe to an idiotically simplified idea of scientific rationalism, they don't really understand more nuanced forms of belief and so on, but their main subject of critique, the batshit crazy zealot ideologues of bible belt america and their counterparts in the middle east are real and dangerous.
The problem is that they don't allow for any nuance of any sort, if I remember correctly, then Sam Harris called all moderate religious people for "indirect supporters" of what the extremist does (Here he was talking about muslims and 9/11, even thought many american muslims civilians died during the attack).

[Alric]

by making people more rational, are they not in fact preparing them for a rational ideology like Marxism?

Yeah cause we all know that adopting Marxism as a worldview is just up the road from becoming rational. The world would all be Marxist if only it were rational enough.

[Le Libérer]

I think your question rests on a false assumption:


I very much doubt that any significant number of religious people have given up their beliefs as a result of reading Richard Dawkins.

I disagree with this statement completely. Those are in search of a reality based belief system will find themselves at Dawkins doorstep. They wouldnt be there anyway unless they are in transition. Reading Dawkins often is the final blow in the coffin of faith in a supreme being.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I disagree with this statement completely. Those are in search of a reality based belief system will find themselves at Dawkins doorstep. They wouldnt be there anyway unless they are in transition. Reading Dawkins often is the final blow in the coffin of faith in a supreme being.

I think that for more than a few people, reading Dawkins did not convert them to atheism; rather, reading Dawkins solidified and elaborated their atheism. Certainly for myself when I first read The God Delusion, there was more than one of those "oh, that makes sense" moments.

[Lynx]

The 'Science of History' thread features someone who believes that humans are selfish due to their 'selfish' genes. Dawkins' pop science has led to 'brain rot' among the population and a propaganda coup for the right.

[Ostrinski]

Dawkins, at least, is a scientist. Harris is just a lame journalist that supports the WoT.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The 'Science of History' thread features someone who believes that humans are selfish due to their 'selfish' genes. Dawkins' pop science has led to 'brain rot' among the population and a propaganda coup for the right.

Actually they were justifying their position by referencing evolutionary psychology, not the selfish gene.

[Lynx]

Actually they were justifying their position by referencing evolutionary psychology, not the selfish gene.
"They" used a number of sources, including Dawkins in post #16, following up with this gem in post 27 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2497443&postcount=27).

There was a time when I was willing to overlook the use of sloppy terminology by popular authors, but no longer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"They" used a number of sources, including Dawkins in post #16, following up with this gem in post 27 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2497443&postcount=27).

There was a time when I was willing to overlook the use of sloppy terminology by popular authors, but no longer.

It's a good way of determining whether someone has actually read The Selfish Gene beyond the cover title.

[Kenco Smooth]

"They" used a number of sources, including Dawkins in post #16, following up with this gem in post 27 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2497443&postcount=27).

There was a time when I was willing to overlook the use of sloppy terminology by popular authors, but no longer.

Yeah because it's entirely Dawkins fault if someone doesn't read his book but simply starts spewing off their own philosophy in his name. :rolleyes: Obviously it's the terminology and not simply people capable of understanding an argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah because it's entirely Dawkins fault if someone doesn't read his book but simply starts spewing off their own philosophy in his name. :rolleyes: Obviously it's the terminology and not simply people capable of understanding an argument.
Yes it is the terminology, as it's quite clear that the title to the book doesn't fit in with the register employed in scientific discourse. I wonder on which grounds other than promotional (after all, ideas and books are commodities) would "Self-preserving Gene" be inferior to what we have now.

[NGNM85]

Sam Harris has some pretty shit ideas; IIRC, he supports ...and torturing people for information (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/08/addressing-sam-harris/),

No, he doesn't.

For example; '…I think that torture should remain illegal… It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.’ (My emphasis.)

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

[Lynx]

Yeah because it's entirely Dawkins fault if someone doesn't read his book but simply starts spewing off their own philosophy in his name. Obviously it's the terminology and not simply people capable of understanding an argument.
I have little doubt he read the book, since he stated he has a slew of Dawkins quotes. He also acknowledges Caj's comment, yet is undeterred. Whatever the terminology is misconstrued as, it becomes bulletproof.

Yeah, thanks a million Dawkins :rolleyes:

[Lynx]

Yes it is the terminology, as it's quite clear that the title to the book doesn't fit in with the register employed in scientific discourse. I wonder on which grounds other than promotional (after all, ideas and books are commodities) would "Self-preserving Gene" be inferior to what we have now.
The old goat admits he should have named it "The Immortal Gene". But the genie is out of the bottle. Selfish genie.

[Beeth]

The old goat admits he should have named it "The Immortal Gene". But the genie is out of the bottle. Selfish genie.

The theory is that genes will do anythjng to replicate, right? In that context, isn't 'selfish gene' appropriate?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have little doubt he read the book, since he stated he has a slew of Dawkins quotes.

And you take him at his word? Why?

[Kenco Smooth]

Yes it is the terminology, as it's quite clear that the title to the book doesn't fit in with the register employed in scientific discourse. I wonder on which grounds other than promotional (after all, ideas and books are commodities) would "Self-preserving Gene" be inferior to what we have now.

That's because it's not a part of the scientific discourse. It's a book attempting to popularise science. And with that in mind it'd be downright stupid for it to be written in the 'register employed in scientific discourse'. Both 'self preserving gene' and 'immortal gene' are rather dry and lifeless next to selfish gene. Shock horror a publisher wants to promote a book. Are we now to judge authors on what we think the title means?


I have little doubt he read the book, since he stated he has a slew of Dawkins quotes. He also acknowledges Caj's comment, yet is undeterred. Whatever the terminology is misconstrued as, it becomes bulletproof.

Yeah, thanks a million Dawkins :rolleyes:

In which case he'd have read a whole book more of Dawkins' than he'd understood. And bulletproof? Maybe if you're completely ignorant of Dawkins' argument. Otherwise any attempt to misconstrue it is the easiest thing in the world to dismantle.

Idiots will always be idiots whether they have a book to completely misconstrue in their support or not.


The theory is that genes will do anythjng to replicate, right? In that context, isn't 'selfish gene' appropriate?

No, the theory is that all adaptations, even ones which apparantly benefit a group, actually become common due to their benefit to the individual and the genes which reside in them. And in the context of the time, when all kinds of nonsense about evolution 'for the good of the species' were bounding around, it actually is pretty accurate. Gene's don't proliferate for the good of some social group, but only for their own sakes (metaphorically speaking).

[Lynx]

And you take him at his word? Why?
Just go to Wikiquotes.

Here are some choice morsels:


The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.

We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.

They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.

The genes are the master programmers, and they are programming for their lives.

What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA. Just as in the primeval soup, it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world.

... a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness.
Endowing genes with purpose, with motives, with agency?
I could make the same claims about nuts, bolts, rivets and other fasteners.

[Lynx]

The theory is that genes will do anythjng to replicate, right? In that context, isn't 'selfish gene' appropriate?
The more useful a particular gene is in any point in time, the more distributed it will become. But genes cannot interact with their environment, only genotypes and phenotypes do. You can find many 'useful', 'successful' genes in species that have gone extinct. Genes don't "do" anything, they are a record of what worked and what didn't.

[Lynx]

That's because it's not a part of the scientific discourse. It's a book attempting to popularise science. And with that in mind it'd be downright stupid for it to be written in the 'register employed in scientific discourse'. Both 'self preserving gene' and 'immortal gene' are rather dry and lifeless next to selfish gene. Shock horror a publisher wants to promote a book. Are we now to judge authors on what we think the title means?
I was told he uses the term in his academic works as well.


In which case he'd have read a whole book more of Dawkins' than he'd understood. And bulletproof? Maybe if you're completely ignorant of Dawkins' argument. Otherwise any attempt to misconstrue it is the easiest thing in the world to dismantle.
His reply to Caj is proof enough that it is bulletproof, in his mind. And he isn't alone in using the term to push reactionary beliefs.

[¿Que?]

Absolutely yes, they are progressive scientists analogous to Darwin and Haeckel in the 19th C and as atheistic materialists prepare the ground of Marxism which is a variant of atheistic materialism.
But were Darwin and Haeckel cultural critics to the extent that these New Atheists are? Probably not, although I'd invite you to prove me wrong.

Further, I think it's worth mentioning that serious critique could be made even looking strictly at their views on theoretical science. Sam Harris, for example, thinks one can prove moral axioms through the scientific method, but to me sounds more like a pragmatic argument, based on operational definitions that can then be measured, and thus commits himself to the reification fallacy (conflating the phenomenon measured to the phenomenon in question which, particularly in the case of morality and ethics is not one in the same).

Further, the whole enterprise of modern science since the enlightenment has been a vain attempt at getting around the problem of subjectivity and the lack of a completely neutral mode of verifying claims, and that is only when such problems are acknowledged, which most of they time they are completely ignored. The result is a general conflation between predictability and explanation, where modern science tends to treat them as the same thing.

And especially from a Marxist perspective, we know that ideology is itself a product of material conditions. To ignore the ideological component in theoretical science is to me, not a very good Marxist analysis, and essentially amounts to ignoring that value presupposes all intellectual endeavors, no matter how lofty the aspirations towards unbiased neutrality may be, most notably I am referring to the value of truth over falsehood.

And just to avoid sliding completely into relativism, let me just add that everything I said I believe to be true, and thus worth considering.

[Caj]

Dawkins, at least, is a scientist. Harris is just a lame journalist that supports the WoT.

Harris is actually a neuroscientist. (Not that that makes him any more respectable; he's still an asshole.)

[Paul Cockshott]

yes, the outer boundary of science suffers from ideological residues, but what Dawkins uses to attack religion is soundly based science.

[Art Vandelay]

While I obviously have critiques of all of them, as far as the realm of religion goes, I think they do us a service. Hitch was my personal favorite and I agree with alot of what he says (my biggest gripe being that he thinks morals are innate), he was probably the best polemicist that I have ever seen. Plus the man could drink and smoke like a champ.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Dennett is by far the best of the bunch, in my view. he's a consistent materialist philosopher who really engages with, and popularizes, the mind-body problem in an analytic way.

Dawkins is indeed a real biologist, and the posterchild for the grumpy pop-atheist. he serves his purpose, although I prefer Gould to Dawkins any day. and Dawkins' feminism is tainted by a sort of chauvinism: hxxp://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/

Hitch betrayed Marxism and supported the Iraq war because he bought the neocon argument for Islamo-fascism. this was a guy who used to skewer Bill Maher on the latter's support of the Vietnam war, arguing that soldiers sent off to fight were "at the very least murdered by the state." Hitch was a motherfucker, but he was too much of a contrarian to die with integrity I guess. :/

Harris…he's the worst of the bunch. Islamophobia is even more of a joke to Harris than Hitchens. more conservative than the fallen Hitchens.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Endowing genes with purpose, with motives, with agency?
I could make the same claims about nuts, bolts, rivets and other fasteners.

Since they're not capable of self-reproduction, I don't think so. Genes don't have agency, but the appearance of agency comes from the fact that genes that are no good at reproducing themselves don't get to spread. The iterative winnowing process of natural selection has had billions of years now to search the length and breadth of genetic phase space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space), and find those genes and complexes of genes that are good at reproducing themselves.


The more useful a particular gene is in any point in time, the more distributed it will become. But genes cannot interact with their environment, only genotypes and phenotypes do. You can find many 'useful', 'successful' genes in species that have gone extinct. Genes don't "do" anything, they are a record of what worked and what didn't.

Genes interact with the environment via organisms. Genes "do" a hell of a lot, they code for the proteins out of which organisms are made. Lateral gene transfer means that genes can survive the extinction of any particular organism.

[Ocean Seal]

First off, please don't make personal attacks against these people. I simply mentioned Dawkins etc. as examples. My question is, are these people (no matter how much you hate them) doing us leftists a favor, at least in an indirect way?

Look at it this way. A religous guy, who believes that the earth is 6000 years old or god will come back any time soon etc. etc. isnt really going to be attracted to Marxist method, which is so very different and relies exclusively on facts rather than faith. Now because of Dawkins and the like, many people may give up their superstition and become more and more rational. And surely, rational people are going to be more open to Marxism than the rest.

So at least in this indirect way, are not people like Dawkins, Harris doing us a favor - by making people more rational, are they not in fact preparing them for a rational ideology like Marxism?
1. No that's idealism.
2. Look at it this way. A religious guy living in Afghanistan who doesn't really like the Taliban, but hates the US occupation is getting the living fuck bombed out of his home with the support of the Nu atheists simply because he's religious and apparently his religion is worse than that of others (Crusader mentality).
3. I will make personal attackss and Harris and co are scum.

[Paul Cockshott]

Just go to Wikiquotes.



Endowing genes with purpose, with motives, with agency?
I could make the same claims about nuts, bolts, rivets and other fasteners.

Where the hell else do you think agency comes from?

That is a point made very clearly by Dennet in 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. It is the fact that genes reproduce that is at the basis of all agency.

Nuts, bolts etc do not reproduce copies of themselves.

[Paul Cockshott]

Dennett is by far the best of the bunch, in my view. he's a consistent materialist philosopher who really engages with, and popularizes, the mind-body problem in an analytic way.

Dawkins is indeed a real biologist, and the posterchild for the grumpy pop-atheist. he serves his purpose, although I prefer Gould to Dawkins any day. and Dawkins' feminism is tainted by a sort of chauvinism: hxxp://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/

Hitch betrayed Marxism and supported the Iraq war because he bought the neocon argument for Islamo-fascism. this was a guy who used to skewer Bill Maher on the latter's support of the Vietnam war, arguing that soldiers sent off to fight were "at the very least murdered by the state." Hitch was a motherfucker, but he was too much of a contrarian to die with integrity I guess. :/

Harris…he's the worst of the bunch. Islamophobia is even more of a joke to Harris than Hitchens. more conservative than the fallen Hitchens.

I agree with your ordering, Dennet is probably the most serious materialist philosopher writing just now. Hitchins was a liberal imperialist appologist. I dont know who on earth this bloody Harris people talk about is.

[Lynx]

Since they're not capable of self-reproduction, I don't think so. Genes don't have agency, but the appearance of agency comes from the fact that genes that are no good at reproducing themselves don't get to spread. The iterative winnowing process of natural selection has had billions of years now to search the length and breadth of genetic phase space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space), and find those genes and complexes of genes that are good at reproducing themselves.
The outcome of a process is often called a product. The product of evolution are those organisms (phenotypes) that have survived and may or may not continue to survive into the future.
Genes cannot replicate without additional molecular 'machinery', nor can they interact with the external environment by themselves. They contain information, which code for proteins and other molecular processes and are identified as such.
As information segments, genes are passive. They can be read, and carried about by organisms, but they cannot do any of these things by themselves.


Genes interact with the environment via organisms. Genes "do" a hell of a lot, they code for the proteins out of which organisms are made. Lateral gene transfer means that genes can survive the extinction of any particular organism.
That the information contained in genes is indispensable is not in dispute. But of what significance is their distribution? Snippets of useful code (genetic or computer) will be found in wide variety of applications, both current and obsolete. Even legacy code persists despite the problems it may cause.
Any building block that is interchangeable will become more distributed than the products it can assemble. Genes, computer code, and fasteners are examples.
The manufacturers of fasteners, and the writers of computer code have agency, motivation, and purpose. What does the process of evolution have? Iteration is one property, contingent events may be another... but nowhere do we anthropomorphize as Dawkins has done.

[Lynx]

Where the hell else do you think agency comes from?

That is a point made very clearly by Dennet in 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. It is the fact that genes reproduce that is at the basis of all agency.

Nuts, bolts etc do not reproduce copies of themselves.
You can argue with Noxion as to the definition of agency. The fact that genes reproduce is a contributing factor to the process of evolution, but by no means the only factor, or the most 'important'.

We may as well deify Jupiter for protecting Earth from solar bombardment, or supernovas for creating the relatively rare elements necessary for life.

Maybe this Dennet is due for some excoriation.

[Paul Cockshott]

You can argue with Noxion as to the definition of agency. The fact that genes reproduce is a contributing factor to the process of evolution, but by no means the only factor, or the most 'important'.

We may as well deify Jupiter for protecting Earth from solar bombardment, or supernovas for creating the relatively rare elements necessary for life.

Maybe this Dennet is due for some excoriation.

This is nothing to do with deification but the problem of arriving at a materialist explanation for the existence of purposeful activity ( which is what I take it you mean by agency ).
If you dont explain this in Darwinian terms, what alternative materialist explanation do you offer?

[Peoples' War]

The only good atheist is a good christian. Read some Ernst Bloch.

[Lynx]

This is nothing to do with deification but the problem of arriving at a materialist explanation for the existence of purposeful activity ( which is what I take it you mean by agency ).
By that definition, animals would have agency. I believe Noxion has stated elsewhere that animals do not possess agency? Not human agency, in any case.

If you dont explain this in Darwinian terms, what alternative materialist explanation do you offer?
Would you characterize the formation of gravel deposits through glacial or geological processes as purposeful activity?
Why characterize the process of evolution as being purposeful? This is what proponents of intelligent design attempt to do.

[Paul Cockshott]

By that definition, animals would have agency. I believe Noxion has stated elsewhere that animals do not possess agency?

And if he has said it it must be true. Why are humans so special then?
Do they have imortal souls and animals have none?

This whole business of making humans something special is an idealist hangover from religious world views, and the demolition of that view and its replacement by materialism was the great achievement of Darwin.
I seriously suggest that you read Darwin's 'Descent of Man' and his 'Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals' and you will see how misguided it is to attempt to break humans from our mammalian heritage.





Would you characterize the formation of gravel deposits through glacial or geological processes as purposeful activity?
Why characterize the process of evolution as being purposeful? This is what proponents of intelligent design attempt to do.

It is not evolution itself that is purposeful, it is the operation of systems subject to natural selection that is purposeful. The component parts of an organism or super-organism are purposeful in that they act to cause organism and then the genetic heritage of the organism to survive. Agency in human organisations exists for the same reason.

[Lynx]

And if he has said it it must be true. Why are humans so special then?
Do they have imortal souls and animals have none?
You will have to ask him. It is sufficient that animals are able to act within the world they live in for them to have agency. Their actions do not have to be purposeful, or non-instinctual.


This whole business of making humans something special is an idealist hangover from religious world views, and the demolition of that view and its replacement by materialism was the great achievement of Darwin.
I seriously suggest that you read Darwin's 'Descent of Man' and his 'Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals' and you will see how misguided it is to attempt to break humans from our mammalian heritage.
Is this a critique of Marxists who are overly humanist?
No disagreement here, however there are other concepts within which humans may be regarded as special.


It is not evolution itself that is purposeful, it is the operation of systems subject to natural selection that is purposeful. The component parts of an organism or super-organism are purposeful in that they act to cause organism and then the genetic heritage of the organism to survive. Agency in human organisations exists for the same reason.
Biological interactions can be analyzed in terms of effects, rather than purpose. What is the effect of amensalism, competition, or commensalism? What effect does it have on the participants and on the immediate environment?
What is the effect of natural selection?
What is the effect of homeostasis?

That a process can result in gravel deposits or a biosphere does not bestow purpose upon either. These are 'natural' outcomes, as opposed to outcomes that are fabricated.

What is the purpose of natural selection?
What is the purpose of homeostasis?
What is the purpose of a toaster?

The first two answers would rely heavily on "explanations", while the last one would be more or less a statement of fact.

And, as stated above, agency does not require purposefulness by my definition; I included each term in an earlier post because I do see 'purpose' as distinct from 'agency'.

[Paul Cockshott]

1.What is the purpose of natural selection?
2.What is the purpose of homeostasis?
3.What is the purpose of a toaster?
1 - no purpose
2 - to prevent the denaturing of protein
3 - to char the surface of bread

It is sufficient that animals are able to act within the world they live in for them to have agency. Their actions do not have to be purposeful, or non-instinctual.

Rember the context here, criticism leveled at Dennets theory of agency and purpose. Animals do not require to act non instinctively to act purposefully. The purpose of a lioness stalking an antelope is to obtain food. The purpose of a bear breaking into a campsite is the same. Are these learned or instinctive behaviours? It does not matter they are purposeful in both cases.

[Lynx]

2 - to prevent the denaturing of protein
Sorry, what is the purpose of ecological homeostasis?


Rember the context here, criticism leveled at Dennets theory of agency and purpose. Animals do not require to act non instinctively to act purposefully. The purpose of a lioness stalking an antelope is to obtain food. The purpose of a bear breaking into a campsite is the same. Are these learned or instinctive behaviours? It does not matter they are purposeful in both cases.
Or they are strategies, with varying probabilities of success.
Or motivated behaviors, signaling and signaled by hunger.
Or biological interactions, with effects upon participants and the environment.

Which analysis do you prefer?

[Lynx]

Even a fictional character like Yogi Bear has agency.
Dawkins' fictional character, the selfish gene, is incapable of what Yogi Bear was endowed with by design.

[Lynx]

1 - no purpose
2 - to prevent the denaturing of protein
3 - to char the surface of bread
Note that answer 1 invalidates the question: What is the purpose of natural selection? Validating the question would require an answer in the form of an explanation.

Answers 2 and 3 validate the questions and are factual, rather than explanatory.

4. What is the effect of natural selection?

Validating this question should require answers that are factual, rather than explanatory.

[Paul Cockshott]

You are touching on the general issue of teleology. Darwinism repudiates teleology as applied to the entire process of natural selection. Its effect however is to create ecosystems.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't it obvious?

If natural processes can give rise to entities that are apparently designed, like conch shells (pseudo-design or "designoid"), then surely it's not much of a stretch for biological systems to arise with a pseudopurpose, with self-reproduction being the motor for producing and sustaining complex biological systems that have no innate purposes beyond furthering themselves and their components.

[Paul Cockshott]

What you call pseudopurpose is surely the only kind of purpose that exists once you reject divine teleology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What you call pseudopurpose is surely the only kind of purpose that exists once you reject divine teleology.

My understanding is that real purpose involves ratiocination on some level; when purposeful beings such as humans build stuff, they often think about it before actually doing so; they draw up blueprints and floor-plans, they conduct assessments of what is needed and of the conditions pertaining to wherever they intend to build. It is this ability to make mock-ups of reality in our heads or on paper that enables us to create complex artifacts without relying, as evolution does, on re-jigging older patterns.

[Paul Cockshott]

My understanding is that real purpose involves ratiocination on some level; when purposeful beings such as humans build stuff, they often think about it before actually doing so; they draw up blueprints and floor-plans, they conduct assessments of what is needed and of the conditions pertaining to wherever they intend to build. It is this ability to make mock-ups of reality in our heads or on paper that enables us to create complex artifacts without relying, as evolution does, on re-jigging older patterns.

How do you know that other mamals and some birds do not plan in their heads what they are going to do. Look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg
you may of course have seen it.

Where you are certainly right is that other animals do not draw up blueprints of written plans. And it is these that allow a social division of labour to achieve complex tasks.

But if you define purpose in this way, one that requires an objectively existing material representation of the planned action, then you are restricting purposeful activity to what can be achieved by literate civilisations, which seems overly restrictive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How do you know that other mamals and some birds do not plan in their heads what they are going to do. Look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg
you may of course have seen it.

Looks like purposeful intelligence at work to me. I don't see what else it could be; it's not like natural selection would have given crows an instinctive ability to bend wires in order to solve puzzles.


Where you are certainly right is that other animals do not draw up blueprints of written plans. And it is these that allow a social division of labour to achieve complex tasks.

But if you define purpose in this way, one that requires an objectively existing material representation of the planned action, then you are restricting purposeful activity to what can be achieved by literate civilisations, which seems overly restrictive.

Except I didn't define purpose thus. The purposes of non-human vertebrates, judging from what they do, are more simple and immediate than most human purposes but are no less real for that. Invertebrates are kind of borderline I'd say, since most of them seem to behave on instincts programmed by natural selection, although the cephalopods can display intelligent behaviour (navigating mazes, opening jars and containers of food tied with string etc) as well as a handful of other invertebrates such as the Mantis Shrimp. Then you've got such things as plants and fungi which might as well be organic machinery.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The more useful a particular gene is in any point in time, the more distributed it will become. But genes cannot interact with their environment, only genotypes and phenotypes do. You can find many 'useful', 'successful' genes in species that have gone extinct. Genes don't "do" anything, they are a record of what worked and what didn't.

That is very well put. It is easy to get stuck in a teleological miasma with this stuff. Oddly enough, Workers Vanguard has a decent article relevant to this discussion in its latest issue entitled, A Marxist Critique of the "New Athiests."

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1007/newatheists.html

Enjoy.

[¿Que?]

What's interesting to me is the whole "social organization" thing, and how a million different blueprints for a million brilliant plans cannot compare to a single poorly executed and poorly designed plan in action. If that makes any sense.

[Jason]

If what it takes is Richard Dawkins to get a person thinking, then I doubt that intellectual capacity is going to be that useful to humanity.

Dawkins is an awful human being. Just horrible.

This Atheist Crusade, as he terms it (In his book the God Delusion), is beyond annoying.

It certainly helps (so called rational Atheists) to blame 'religion' for 9/11 instead of looking at US/British foreign policy.

Dawkins may not be a fundie, but his behaviour is reactionary. His style of Atheism is kind of like Satanism. It defines itself as an emotional hatred of Christianity.

I've heard these Nu-Atheists drone on and on about religion and 9/11. They post pretty facebook pictures, claiming religion brought down the towers. But none think too deeply and look at US foreign policy.

Because from their standpoint the system is great. Just need to get rid of religion, and you have a utopia of Capitalism.

I've had to unfriend a few Christian friends who grew up in a fundamentalist environment. Were the annoying Christians bothering people in the street, got disillusioned, and then found Dawkins, and become New Atheists. And now bother people on Facebook about how Atheist they are.

I mean, WTF, am I the only person who explored Atheism prior to Dawkins phobia of brown people post 9/11?

Or is it just that I'm 36 and didn't grow up with Atheism being fed to me through Facebook sound bites. Imagine, back then you had to read a book or think about these concepts for yourself.

tl;dr I dislike Dawkins and I feel old.


The Nu-Atheists encourage people to question authority. Beyond that, they are useless to a communist struggle. As the poster stated, their explanations for social and historical problems are way too simplistic. In fact, upon close examination, are rather stupid.

[zoot_allures]

Firstly, I don't think that rationality is about what you believe. Rather, it's about how you think about your beliefs, or more precisely, how you justify them. I have an extremely permissive approach in that regard: in my view, rationality simply refers to linking propositions together inferentially. There aren't "right" or "wrong" kinds of rationality. It's simply a cognitive process where we're thinking about propositions in a particular kind of way.

(So just for example, the argument "If Frank Zappa is dead then the moon is made of cheese / the moon is made of cheese / therefore 2+2=5" is in my view totally rational.)

So I don't agree that "giving up superstition" means you'll also become "more and more rational", nor I do agree that the most rational people will necessarily be attracted to leftism and Marxism. I don't even agree that maximizing rationality is necessarily a good thing.

As for whether reading Dawkins, Harris, etc, will lead people to be more open to Marxism or other kinds of radical leftism - well, that's a simple empirical question, albeit one which I imagine would be extremely hard to get any reliable results on. My suspicion is that the answer is probably "no". As far as I can see, there's nothing in their work that would encourage people to engage in any kind of radical analysis of imperialism, capitalism, etc - and in fact, some of them (especially Harris and Hitchens) promote extremely reactionary views on US foreign policy.

I mean, Ayn Rand was a stringent atheist, too. Will reading her nudge people towards Marxism?

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "Four Horsemen". Dan Dennett is by far the most interesting, but that's primarily for his fascinating (though in my opinion often absurd) contributions to philosophy of mind. Richard Dawkins is interesting as a biologist but I'm not keen on his work in other areas. Christopher Hitchens... well, I guess he's at least somewhat entertaining as a speaker and writer. Sam Harris is, to put it bluntly, an ignorant moron.

[Luís Henrique]

I have little doubt he read the book, since he stated he has a slew of Dawkins quotes. He also acknowledges Caj's comment, yet is undeterred. Whatever the terminology is misconstrued as, it becomes bulletproof.

Yeah, thanks a million Dawkins :rolleyes:

This.

Even if the only problem in Dawkins' book was its title (and this is far from true), it still is a huge problem. Scientists have to try to avoid gross misinterpretations of their works, which means avoiding confusing terminology that facilitates such misinterpretations.

In Dawkins case, it is glaring that a Darwinist biologist should understand the problems with social-Darwinism, and keep his writings free of any terminology that might lead people in such a way.

But Dawkins is a great mispeaker; he seems to talk - and write - without thinking about how it could be interpretated, and then whine about the fact that he was misinterpretated.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Jogiches]

New Atheists are the worst atheists.

- An Atheist.

[Jason]

As for whether reading Dawkins, Harris, etc, will lead people to be more open to Marxism or other kinds of radical leftism - well, that's a simple empirical question, albeit one which I imagine would be extremely hard to get any reliable results on. My suspicion is that the answer is probably "no". As far as I can see, there's nothing in their work that would encourage people to engage in any kind of radical analysis of imperialism, capitalism, etc - and in fact, some of them (especially Harris and Hitchens) promote extremely reactionary views on US foreign policy.

The whole take of Harris is: "Muslims are barbarians that need to be controlled or wiped out by civilized westerners." To be fair, in one part of his book he states that westerners were once barbaric (even stating fairly recent 19th century examples), but had grown out of it. But that conclusion is very easy to criticize. Take Vietnam, for example, it's easy for racist westerners to paint the Vietnamese savages while ignoring all the napalm and bombs dropped on thier nation. So has the west really grown out of barbarism?