Why Game is Just the Beginning, Part 2

This is my second essay explaining why the popular Human Bio-Diversity (HBD) movement is incompatible with the ideals of The Mustard Seed and a rational civilization. For Part One, click here.

To quote Lawrence Auster from his original essay, Is HBD the Next Conservative Movement?, “Insofar as HBD is materialist reductionist it is a disaster for mankind, for our civilization, and for conservatism.”

Dennis Mangan rebutted Mr. Auster’s assertion on his own website.

Since then, I’ve been defending Auster by debating some of Mr. Mangan’s commenters.

For highlights, see below…

Cornelius Troost wrote...

A society fully accepting Darwinism and atheist to the core, like most of Europe, could, if it retained its Christian values, have a bright future if it held tightly to a biocon perspective reinforced by a strong sense of nationhood. Alas, the success of flaccid egalitarianism with its rabid tolerance will likely end Europe's democratic moment. Surely the mix of Darwinian reality with religious values imposed synergistically upon our moral instinct could result in creative, peace-loving countries. Whether such a model emerges is at present questionable.

I replied…

With all due respect, Sir, I think that's wishful thinking. Think about it: How could "a society fully accepting Darwinism and atheist to the core" retain "Christian values" as you advocate when Darwinian values ("survival of the fittest") are the TOTAL OPPOSITE of the Christian ethic that all souls are equal in the eyes of our Creator? Seriously, dude, there's a major contradiction there!

Also, in the interest of being factual, I wouldn't describe Europe as being "atheist" or "Darwinist." A majority of Europeans profess belief in God, and while they may say they believe in "evolution," it is almost certainly the intellectually-sloppy "theistic evolution" that many scientists and Christians are trying to propagate as a "compromise."

As I wrote in my essay, Ideas Have Consequences: "If the day should come when a critical mass of Americans believe… 1) We are nothing more than hairless apes, and 2) Free will is an illusion...Then it’s hard to see how freedom can survive more than another 1-2 generations...unless, of course, there's some sort of intellectual renaissance."

Cornelius later told me:

Todd White: It is better that you never read my book on Darwin because it would only confuse you. ID [Intelligent Design] is not science and therefore plays a game of coy philosophy trying to cast doubt on real science.Both The Skeptical Enquirer and Skeptic Magazine have refuted ID over and over. There is no alternative to the modern theory of evolution. I suggest that intelligent ID types, like you, read Jerry Coyne's book called Why Evolution is True. After reading it you will appreciate Dennis Mangan's generally wise comments.

I responded...

Cornelius: Sorry, but I'm not confused. I've read Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, Daniel Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and Francis Crick's book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, among others. The materialist theories they propagate are very convincing UNTIL one chooses to do the necessary research and explore the other side of the debate. Once a person chooses to begin a good faith investigation (nothing more, in many cases, that browsing a few anti-materialist websites) then the conclusion is obvious: The materialist paradigm has been shattered. It will not be rebuilt. And that's a good thing.

Beta Prime wrote…

This thread and the others like it can be summed up as follows:

A bunch of guys who believe in God are trying to convince a bunch of guys who either do or don't of the existence of God and why they are headed for a downfall without an acknowledgment of God. All the while, the bunch of guys who either do or don't believe in God are trying to point out that it doesn't matter if they do or don't, what matters are the unpleasant social realities we find ourselves in at the moment. Meanwhile the bunch of guys who came here to evangelize and speak up for their team take issue with how these same social realities are being characterized rather than how they can be 'annihilized'. One bunch of guys want to figure out the first step and how to take it, and the other bunch want to make sure God's at the top of the ladder. Sad thing is, that ladder may not be around for too much longer.

I replied…

Beta Prime: Unfortunately, from my perspective, you can't divorce these "unpleasant social realities" from the reductionism of contemporary culture. Reductionism is a major catalyst for the problems that concern you. And since your recommendations are also grounded in Reductionism (assuming you're an advocate of HBD), it will only delay the inevitable solution.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

I think HBDers should simply say nothing about Christianity one way or another. If social conservatives think we are advocating atheism then HBD is going to have to fight liberals and socialcons at the same time. We would have much better chances of getting what we want in terms of policy if we try to keep our differences with socialcons to a minimum, and that may involve simply keeping our mouth's shut about religion, regardless of each individual HBDers belief or non-belief in Christianity. Getting into a fight over materialism vs Christian metaphysics is not going to produce anything productive and will simply make us enemies. Whether Christianity prospers or not is in the hands of macro-social trends we can't control anyway so we might as well say "no comment" when it comes to atheism. Besides, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, if HBD atheists did have the power to get rid of Christianity would they REALLY want to exercise such power? Even Dr. Troost thinks Christianity has beneficial civilizing effects, so why tinker with something that isn't broken?

I replied…

Undiscovered Jew: The way you describe it, HBD's intentions are innocuous, even beneficial. But we - as conservatives - know you can’t judge something by its intentions, you judge them by their RESULTS. The results of accepting HBD as the main tool for public policy would be disasterous. Why? Because it would accelerate the cultural spread of reductionism, nihilism, hedonism, whatever you want to call it. There's no way conservatism can win in such a cultural landscape.

Note: Mr. Auster has kindly recommended my essay, Sex with Blondes and Darwin.

Additionally, I sent Mr. Auster the following email (which hasn't been published)...

Lawrence,

You may already be aware of this, but David Brooks is working on a book that - at least judging by his columns - will be his personal attempt to use materialist science (including the less controversial parts of HBD) to create a larger social/political theory.

See Brooks' column, The End of Philosophy.


What are the political implications of Brooks' "End of Philosophy?"

He described it at the AEI panel, Genes, Neuroscience, and Free Will.
Scroll to the 1 hour, 4 minute mark.

Here’s my rough transcript...

The thing I get from this whole revolution in neuroscience is 2 things: The one: It vindicates – and this is pleasing to conservatives who like Burke – it vindicates epistemological modesty. It says: ‘We don’t know. And a lot we will never know. And we have to understand how little we know about human affairs and how little our ability is to plan human behavior.’ The second thing is more pleasing to liberals in many cases, especially in the policy world. It vindicates Oprah. It vindicates the importance of love; of cushy connections; of social connections; and of emotional contact from one person to another in shaping how our minds are wired. And to me, that leads to a much more communitarian direction in policy. To me, it leads to more childhood public policies, and things like that. But in a gushier, more communitarian direction…We are Burkeans on Oprah at the end of the day.”

In my essay, Doubts Above Dave, I wrote:

This new idea that morality requires mindlessness - literally, the suppression of the mind - and our only moral duty is to "follow our feelings" - has been around for a long time. Indeed, for decades, we've been exposed to the idea that we should "just do it." But never - as far as I know - has anyone tried to use science to prove that "just doing it" is better than "thinking about it rationally!" Yet, if that is the aim of Brooks and scientists such as Michael Gazzaniga, then they are stepping on VERY thin ice.

[END]

Weekly Wrap-Up

Darwin Movie Coming Out: "Real life couple Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany will kick off the Toronto International Film Festival with the life story of Charles Darwin...The movie centers on Darwin's struggle between science and God as he refines his theories amid his wife's deep religious conviction and grief over the death of his young daughter." The trailer can be seen here.

Enron and Darwinism: A Perfect Fit: A TV series about the notorious Enron Corporation. One viewer writes: "Of interest to me was the unapologetically explicit philosophy of Darwinism which was prevalent at Enron from top management to commodity traders."


David Brooks Criticizes Evolutionary Psychology. But within a materialist framework, of course. For more on Brooks, click here, here, and here.


What do Mike Gerson, Dr. Francis Collins, and Neville Chamberlain have in common? David Klinghoffer explains.


Ayn Rand Revival Gathers Pace in U.S. Universities, Despite Detractors: "Sales of Atlas Shrugged have tripled this year, and Dr Gotthelf, along with Bill Brewer of the University of Warwick, is editing a collection of 20 essays on Ms Rand."


This should be a good book. They need to reduce the price, though.

Reason, Morality, and Progress

I've started watching this panel discussion, Darwin 200: Evolution and the Ethical Brain, moderated by our old buddy, David Brooks. The purpose of the panel is quite clear: to expand upon the ideas found in Brooks' Apr. 6 column, The End of Philosophy - namely, that people are not rational when it comes to ethical decision-making. In their opinion, if there is such a thing as "morality," it is an "instinct" created by literally millions of years of evolutionary pressure. Something just feels "right" or "wrong" and that's the end of it.

But is it? When it comes to morality and emotion, there are few things more morally critical and emotionally powerful than race and gender. And yet, we have witnessed some astonishing (and positive) changes in just a few generations.

Take race.

According to Gallup, in 1948, only 4% of Americans approved of marriages between whites and blacks. By 2007, that number had reached 77%.

Take homosexuality.

In the 1973 NORC survey, 73% of Americans agreed that “homosexual relations are always wrong.” By 2002, that number has dropped to 55%. And among 18-29 year olds, that number was only 48%.

Gee that’s interesting…If you believe the evolutionary psychologists, morality is an emotional instinct and a product of literally millions of years of mindless environment…but these poll numbers suggest another possibility…that morality can change – and change quite rapidly – due to reason – a heightened understanding of what is truly "right and wrong” – not just what is personally useful for our "sperm competition."

This is a good thing. We should be proud of our species’ ability to adapt and improve. There’s a lot of evidence to support it. So why do the evolutionary psychologists insist on using skewed data to dehumanize us?

-Todd

**UPDATE, AUG. 20, 2009**

From Ryan Sager’s new article, The Gay Gap...

As contentious as the debate over gay marriage can get sometimes, I’ve always taken comfort in one simple fact: This is a generational battle, and that means the younger generation wins… eventually.

We all know there’s a gap between how old folks feel about same-sex marriage and how young folks feel. What you might not quite grasp is just how tremendous that gap is. A new paper (”Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness” [PDF]) by Jefferey Lax and Justin Phillips puts it in a bit of perspective.

Just how big is the gay marriage age gap? Between the under-30 crowd and the over-65 crowd: 35 percentage points.

Or, try this on for size, at the state level: If people over 65 in each state made the laws, 0 states would have gay marriage; if people under 30 made the laws, 38 states would have gay marriage.

What does it mean? Well, it means the overwhelming majority of states are likely to have gay marriage laws in most of our lifetimes.

Doubts About Dave

On Mar. 27, I praised New York Times columnist David Brooks, who wrote a fascinating piece called Neural Buddhism. In his article, Brooks took a close look at the relationship between science and society and observed that “over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism” and that “science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other.” While For that reason, I speculated that “Brooks and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues.”

Then, literally a week later, Brooks published a follow-up column about the same topic, entitled, humbly enough: The End of Philosophy. After reading Brooks' latest piece, I'm reminded of an old quote: "some things are so dumb only an intellectual could believe them‏!"

Brooks' column opens innocently enough...

Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy, and the approaches of millions of people since, is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.

Well, not exactly, Dave. Since the days of Kant, the leaders of the philosophical movement have been working to undermine - NOT advocate - the moral superiority of reason. But the goal of "thinking through moral problems" is still a worthy one, right? Not to Dave...

One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, “Human,” is that “it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.”

This is a bizarre quote that begs several questions: How does one define "moral reasoning?" How does one define "proactive moral behavior?" What is the evidence that "helping other people" constitutes "proactive moral behavior?" And what are these studies, by the way? Can't Brooks spare a single paragraph to give us an example?

Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know. Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain...In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. Or as Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia memorably wrote, “The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and ... moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.”

Needless to say, I do not share Brooks' viewpoint. I believe that morality is a product of the mind - NOT intuition. Can Brooks honestly believe that moral decisions - which, as the title of Brooks' column points out, have been a weighty subject matter for literally thousands of years - can be reduced to mindless preferences like the taste of food? Yet there it is above: "Moral judgments are like that." But are they? In The Mustard Seed, Brian Raises states...

"Feelings are a part of life – but they’re ultimately unreliable. And a life philosophy that is based on feelings is equally unreliable. What is reliable? Reason. Intelligence. Judgment. The power of the mind. The individual mind."

Later on, Brian says...

"The power to think – and by that, I mean the power to think rationally - is the power to grow, and to be everything you wish to be, including your highest manifestation: pure love."

Like all the fakers of philosophy, Brooks rings the Bell of Darwin, which in their mind, raises the credibility of their position immeasurably. According to Brooks, "the nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that...we are all the descendants of successful cooperators."

I don't have the time or patience to deconstruct this Darwinian nonsense (if you're interested in an earlier post on this topic, click here). The point is: Brooks is wrong. Wrong factually. Wrong morally. Wrong in every way. But the effort to use "science" as a way to justify false beliefs is especially nefarious. As I've pointed out before, bad ideas become extremely powerful when they are ultimately wedded to the logic of "science."

This new idea that morality requires mindlessness - literally, the suppression of the mind - and our only moral duty is to "follow our feelings" - has been around for a long time. Indeed, for decades, we've exposed to the idea that we should "just do it." But never - as far as I know - has anyone tried to prove that "just doing it" is better than "thinking about it first" - at least not scientifically! Yet, if that's what Brooks and these scientists - Michael Gazzaniga and others - are trying to accomplish - then they are stepping on very thin ice.

I hope they think about the personal and social consequences of such a philosophy. They better be sure they're right about it. Damn sure.

-Todd

2010: The Start of a Major National Debate

On May 23, 2008, The New York Times ran David Brooks' column Neural Buddhism. This piece - which touches on several themes from The Mustard Seed - rose all the way to Number One on the list of most emailed NYT articles.

Brooks condenses so much brainfood into so few words, I have to re-post the whole piece...

In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died,” in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.

To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion is an accident.

In this materialist view, people perceive God’s existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.

Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material and “the soul is dead.” He anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument over whether God exists.
Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible.

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.

If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships.

Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions.

Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love.

Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.

Wow! That's a lot of good stuff to chew on! And if you like all that, you're gonna love this: Brooks is writing an entire book about "the brain, neuroscience, sociology, politics, and the intersection thereof."

This is great news for me personally, because as I mentioned above, Brooks is covering a lot of the same topics that I'm interested in - the validity of organized religion, consciousness studies, bridging the gap between science and faith, etc, etc. Furthermore, there's reason to believe that Brooks and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues.

Finally, based on the popularity of his original column, it's likely that Brooks' book will become a major best-seller, and perhaps even the catalyst for one of those major cultural debates that America's Elite dives into every few years (think back to Tom Friedman's book, The World is Flat). In previous books, Brooks has shown himself to be a sharp observer of the American Scene, and the future of the "American Idea." So we should be optimistic about the content of his newest enterprise. I think it will spark a lively, much-needed debate about some of the most important issues facing human beings individually and society at large.

The book comes out in 2010. Mark your calendars.

The battle is just getting started...

-Todd

**UPDATE, JUL. 22, 2009**

In The American Scene, Michael Brendan Dougherty writes…

“If neural Buddhism comes, it will be an invitation for American religion to move away from its emotionalism (and obscurantism) and back to serious theological reflection. I can’t wait.”

Neither can I.