Weekly Wrap-Up

Bloggingheads.tv Censors Intelligent Design Debate: Klinghoffer: "Something evidently happened behind the scenes at Bloggingheads...There's no question that simply as an interview, a piece of casual, conversational journalism, the McWhorter exchange is exemplary. It's fascinating. He admires the book, undoubtedly, even becoming passionate about it at points, but also poses challenging questions. There's nothing to apologize for here. Yet clearly he was pressured into taking it down. By whom?" Update: The Debate is back online! Update, Part 2: Yep, it's back, but not before Bloggingheads apologizes for having it! Update, Part 3: Predictably, 2 pro-Darwin Blogginghead contributors resign out of protest. Gotta love those pro-reason, pro-free inquiry Darwinists!


The Narcissism of Darwinism: Cornelius Hunter: "The National Museum of Natural History has an upcoming exhibit on evolution which will focus on 'the significant role that Darwin’s theories have played in explaining and unifying all the biological sciences.' That won't be much of an exhibit. The only area of thought in which evolutionary studies has a significant role is evolutionary studies. One could fit into a thimble the important scientific advances made possible by evolution. Evolution is the study of itself--it is, if anything, narcissistic."


The American Spectator Reviews Signature in the Cell: "When I learned that Dr. Stephen Meyer had written a new book on the evidence of design displayed in living cells, I expected to be impressed by it. I wasn’t prepared to have my mind blown—which is what happened."


Darwin's Dilemma: A new anti-Darwin DVD is coming out.


Are Rumors of God's Return Greatly Exaggerated?: "Take the God is Back duo's deployment of studies purporting to show that 'Christians are healthier and happier than their secular brethren,' citing a Pittsburgh doctor's belief that going to church added three years to someone's life and a 1997 study that religiosity reduces blood pressure. To which I can riposte with all those other studies showing even better health outcomes for owning a pet. Which may appear churlish of me."


I've also updated the following essays...


Quote of the Day (Aug. 28)


Why Game is Just the Beginning


The Miracle of Google


I've also added The New Clarion and Darwin's God to my Blog List.

-Todd

Quote of the Day

In the 20th century, a powerful confluence of evidence emerged that essentially eviscerated the creative power of Darwinian mechanisms. This is not hard to figure out.

The most “simple” cell is a marvel of functionally integrated information-processing technology. Those who propose that the Darwinian mechanisms of random errors filtered by natural selection explain all of life are living in an era gone by, a time when it was thought that the foundation of life was chemistry, physics, time, and chance.

The fossil record is a grand and ever-persistent testimony that Darwin was wrong about gradualism. Simple logic, trivial combinatoric mathematical analysis, and the monstrous problems presented by the likelihood of functional, naturally-selectable intermediates, present overwhelming evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are on their deathbed in terms of their explanatory power for anything but the utterly trivial.

In a sense I feel sorry for Darwinian fundamentalists. It must be depressing to realize that one has wasted his life defending a transparently ephemeral goal that has little to do with reality, nothing to do with real scientific investigation, and that has nothing whatsoever to recommend itself besides philosophical nihilism. - Gil Dodgen

Reason, Reductionism and Christianity: A Discussion with Talleyrand

Over the last 2 days, I've had some fruitful discussions with "Talleyrand," co-host of the pro-Game website, Seasons of Tumult and Discord. Talleyrand and his partner, Alkibiades (it took me about four times to spell that correctly), seem like open-minded, level-headed young men, so I'm happy to engage them in a dialogue.

Their essay, In Defense of Game, Part One, led to a debate on the subject of Game (naturally), but then it veered off into related subjects (Reason, Reductionism, and Christianity).

Here are some of the highlights...

Tal:

When it comes to Reductionism, you wrote, “People use that term all over the place to describe something they don’t like and yet I have not found it useful as a term or clearly defined.”

Actually, I think the term Reductionism is UNDER-utilized, and I’m trying to increase its use in my lexicon. Why? Because it’s such a comprehensive term that unites Darwinism, Materialism, and Atheism under the same philosophical umbrella.

Consider: A Darwinist might be a Christian, an anti-Darwin Christian might adopt the Gamer lifestyle, an Atheist might believe in objective morality (think Ayn Rand), a New Ager might believe in “Gaia” but not “God.”

Confused yet? Me too. The point is: People believe in (seemingly) contradictory things. But all of these people – whether they realize it or not – are expressing varying degrees of a reductionist premise.

Needless to say, very few of them are violent nihilists “red in tooth and claw,” but they’ve all incorporated a fair amount of soul-deadening reductionist thinking.

Hence, that’s why I like the term. It’s broad and comprehensive and tackles many different issues.

*********************************************************************************

Tal:

You raise a few points. I’ll try to address each of them, but if I forget one or two, let me know, and I’ll try again.

On Auster…Personally, I’ve found Auster to be an incredibly intelligent, articulate, and fearless spokesman for conservativism…I do disagree with him (and agree with you, I guess) that when it comes to fighting for Western Civilization in the future, Christianity will be just as much of a burden as an asset. Why? That’s a complicated subject. The blogger “Conservative Swede” has written some good things, though. I’ll provide a link below.

In fact, I should probably mention that I’m not a Christian. Please note that I’m not anti-Christian, per se. And I have no interest in trying to convert people away from Christianity. But I’m not a member of the faith. And so when people try to dismiss my views as Christian apologetics, I have to chuckle inside, because like I said, I’m not a Christian.

As for God and your statement, “I just don’t know where He is going to come from…” That’s also a tough one. I have my own opinions on God, but I’m under no illusion that they will be accepted by the majority of people in my lifetime. Knowing that, our best bet is to help facilitate a more rational and more muscular form of Christianity. I’ve written a few essays on that topic. I’ll posts links at the bottom.

As for Reductionism…I really didn’t understand your paragraph…Clearly, I have no problem with people studying science (I’m a science buff, myself); my problem comes from other people using science as a sledgehammer against spirituality. Yes, that sounds silly, right? Why would people want to do that? But that’s what they’re doing. See the Intelligent Design debate. It’s a great example.

You wrote, “Is it your position that everything should be looked at from a spiritual perspective, or as you prefer a rationally spiritual perspective?”

I only have 2 axioms.

1) Reality exists

2) Reason is the only way to discover and master Reality.

Everything flows from that. I’m confident that a person who accepts those axioms will see that Reductionism is false, and that Spirituality is a true, positive factor in our lives.

If you disagree, though, I’m happy to hear your disagreements, and potentially change my viewpoint, as necessary.

Links:

The Philosophy of Heather Manning

Why I Am Not a Christian (At Least Not Yet)

A Few Humble Suggestions to Improve the Church

Why Does Christianity Need I.D.?

Is "Conservative Swede" an Oxymoron?


*********************************************************************************

Tal:

I should probably address your question about why I don’t like Reductionism…

I think Auster’s essay explains it quite well, but I’ll elaborate…

At the risk of sounding over-dramatic, Reductionist thinking can be seen as the “gateway drug” for Darwinism, Materialism, Atheism, and Nihilism (probably in that order)…Reductionism gradually distorts a person’s rational capacity so that things like God, the soul, “the good,” etc. are seen as false, disposable, and even detrimental to a “true, authentic” life free from moral judgment.

Today, Reductionist premises are ubiquitous through our public schools, universities, mass media, popular culture, legal system, and political system…Indeed, probably the only institution in modern society that hasn’t been infected is organized religion…Thank God for that, I guess.

I am 29. I assume you’re around my age. If that’s the case, we are only the second generation to be heavily exposed to Reductionist thinking (with very little resistance from organized religion, in most cases). The first generation was lucky. They lived off the fumes of an earlier Christian/Enlightenment culture. Today, those of us who are under 30 are living off the FUMES OF FUMES.

Again, at the risk of sounding over-dramatic, our generation will either be the one that begins an Intellectual/Spiritual Renaissance, or we will be the first generation in American history to know the twin evils of anarchy and tyranny.

To quote Dostoevsky: “Without God, everything is permitted.” What was true in his time is still true in ours.

TW

The Political Consequences of Reductionism

Yesterday, Denyse O'Leary highlighted a fascinating article in last week's Hindu Times. The article - entitled Our Ideas of Brain and Human Nature are a Myth - shows the shocking political consequences of reductionism - straight from the mouth of a reductionist advocate.

Read the whole thing, but here's a few clips...

The notion of individual autonomy underpins our society, yet new research suggests this guiding principle is an illusion. It was browsing in a bookshop that got me started. I was confronted by a bank of bestsellers on the brain: how it works and how we think.

It’s not an accident that many of the biggest bestsellers in this territory are about decision-making — Blink, Nudge and The Decisive Moment. The image which comes to mind is that they are all sticks of dynamite dug in to explode the great sacred mythology of our time: namely that individual freedom is about having choices, and that progress is about the constant expansion of those choices.

Read these books and you discover that people are useless at making choices. We are lazy, imitative, over-optimistic, myopic, and much of our decision-making is made by unconscious habits of the mind which are largely socially primed [...]

It’s intriguing how much attention the thesis has attracted from many parts of the political establishment, such as policymakers in pensions, health and the environment, because often the gains from nudging seem pretty small -- it is fanciful to think it can solve the environmental crisis.

This humbling evidence of our hopeless decision-making exposes consumer capitalism as not being about millions of independent decisions of individuals expressing unique identities, but about how social norms can be manipulated to create eager shoppers. Or take the idea of introducing choice into public services; some bizarre consequences will result, such as the popularity of a hospital being determined by whether it has a car park, not the skill of medical staff.

This all may seem remote from politics, but it’s not. Some politicians argue that the regeneration of the left requires a convincing new account of what it is to be human. Are human beings self-interested creatures or are they collaborative? The right’s argument for market capitalism is rooted in the former but the research on the social brain supports the latter.

A message to the Conservative Reductionists (Gamers, HBD advocates, etc.): See what happens when you destroy human dignity and the idea that man is a rational creature with moral choice? It's not the Right that benefits; it's the Left. Why? Because if we are just hairless apes with no free will, Government - and only Government - with its endless rules, regulations, and quotas - can keep us mindless animals from harming one another.

As I wrote to Alkibiades last night...

A "rational civilization" needs only 2 things...

1) A citizenry that believes in the power of reason - i.e., that people have the intellectual and moral capacity to live their own lives with a minimum of outside coercion (coercion from a government agency or a religious body or whatever), and

2) A government that operates in a way that enables its "rational citizens" to flourish (i.e, a government of limited powers that can maintain law and order).

By those standards, which civilizations are "rational?" Not many. The United States, Israel, and the Anglosphere (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Maybe one or two others.

And obviously, all of those countries are in danger today, because the idea that reason is good for humanity - indeed, the very CONCEPT that reason even exists - is under attack.

See my essays, Ideas Have Consequences and What is the Function of Science?

-Todd

UPDATE: Lawrence Auster has cross-posted this as part of his piece, A coming clash between liberalism and Darwinism? Or a takeover of liberalism by Darwinism?

Why Game is Just the Beginning, Part 3

This is my third 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. And for Part Two, 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.”

On VFR, Gintas has a good description of blogger Dennis Mangan...

Ultimately, he's a sentimental nihilist. I'll add that I'm OK with that, if he doesn't ever become a destructive nihilist (see Dostoyevsky's Devils which foreshadowed the Russian Revolution), because he's sentimental about the civilization I want restored.

Murray Love continues the critique...

What these guys don't realize is that, by dismissing the concept of a shared, transcendent good as an irrational superstition, they risk walking in the footprints of the totalitarian movements of the last two centuries. They think that--being nice, reasonable guys--they can simply decide to preserve the bits of society that they personally find congenial. And of course, they would never countenance the unjust oppression of others in the name of their, uh ... "pragmatic explanatory tools and reform processes for stabilizing society". But history shows that such a movement--one that highlights the differences between groups of human beings without a corresponding conception of the inherent, God-given dignity of each individual--can and probably will turn to tyranny and bloodlust, given half a chance. One might say that recent history is littered with the corpses of purged technocratic nerds and their millions of victims. Or is that too strong?

Nope, not too strong, at all.

Auster continues...

This is an amazing moment, a coming to a head and a crisis of the core liberal idea of the last hundred or more years. Liberalism means you believe in your civilization, without believing in what C.S. Lewis called objective value, the idea that there is an inherent value in things that by its very nature calls forth our attraction, love, and loyalty. Liberals and materialists don't believe in objective value…neither liberals nor materialists have the ability to say, "I love my civilization (or any particular thing about my civilization) because it is inherently, objectively good and its inherent goodness calls forth my love."

The amiably incoherent view that we could call moderate liberalism or relativist conservatism has been a viable option for many people for generations. It was sustainable, so long as not too much attention was brought to bear on it, so long as it wasn't too closely questioned and not too much was asked of it. But now that the openly atheist-materialist view is gaining head and insisting on becoming socially and intellectually dominant, the in-between position of the "conservative non-believer" such as Dennis Mangan, ceases to be sustainable. He can no longer get by with saying, "I believe in my country, even though I don't believe in objective value," because it's become clear that that position cannot hold the line against nihilism. At the same time, he can't opt completely for the materialist-atheist position either, because it is more and more clear that that means he really is a nihilist and cuts the strings altogether. So all hell is breaking loose.

Mangan will reply once again that we are unfairly claiming to read his thoughts and attributing to him things he hasn't said and trying to take over his brain. Not true. There is a large philosophical drama being played out and he happens to be the locus of it at the moment. To put the discussion in terms of a mafia movie: it's not personal, Dennis, it's business--the business of our civilization.

This is perfect. Pitch-perfect.

In the same thread, Ian B. also provides another good explanation of Mangan and others…

It seems that being confronted with what they in fact are is emotionally painful to them. They want to believe that they aren't shallow, that they aren't the sort of inhuman types that nihilism is associated with after a century of atrocities perpetrated by those under its sway, because they *care* about stuff. But everybody cares about stuff, including Nietzsche himself. Caring about stuff doesn't mean you're not a nihilist, when you believe that even the stuff you care about has no ultimate meaning.

Also, back to the subject of "Game"…

I've been commenting on a new pro-Game website, Seasons of Tumult and Discord.

In the comment section to their essay, In Defense of Game: Part One, I wrote the following...

If you’re sincerely interested in helping Beta men, and if you wish to promote the Gospel of Game (or at least the parts of “Game” that have been helpful to you), here’s my humble recommendation: Distant yourself from guys like Roissy and other Gamers who hold women in contempt and want to use Game as a weapon to deceive women and sleep around. Sadly, since that’s 95% of the Gamers I’ve encountered, you would almost certainly be disappointing your constituency. But in the long-run, that’s the only way to get guys like myself who are mostly satisfied with women (the vast majority of guys, I should point out) to accept your movement.

When one of the hosts replied, “I think Roissy is used by people as an easy way of discounting everything Game has to say,” I responded...

Then condemn him! Roissy is filth. Y’all have to decide whose side you’re on. There are guys like me who are on record sympathizing with the plight of modern Beta men (I’m one myself), and would feel comfortable being part of some sort of larger “male empowerment movement,” or whatever you want to call it. See my essays, especially The Content of Their Character and What’s a Degree Got to Do With It? But I can’t endorse Game because y’all like Roissy and see him as a leader in your movement. It’s a disqualification.

[END]

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]

Reagan Quotes of the Day

"My philosophy of life is that if we make up our mind what we are going to make of our lives, then work hard toward that goal, we never lose - somehow we win out."

A few bonus quotes:

"[Evolution] has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed."

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."