Re: Fwd: [asa] Is you doctor an evolutionist - if so, what then?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Iain,
>

> Let me say that I didn't at any time question Dawkins' honesty - it was
> yourself, and not I, that introduced that theme into the discussion.

Notice, however, that I did qualify it by saying "Maybe I've got you
wrong". It seems I did, in which case I apologise

>
> I think, however, that you were perhaps responding to my use of the term
> "smuggling in" as though it implied some deliberate deception on Dawkins'
> part?

actually what I said was "some form of intellectual dishonesty" which
doesn't mean the same as "deliberate deception". I think people can
be so keen to believe something, or some theory that they become less
honest and critical than they should be. This can be almost
unconscious. This is one of the reasons I take exception to the
often-expressed thought on this list that creationists are deliberate
liars. I don't think they are; but their desire to believe in the YE
paradigm leads them to be selective, almost unconsciously, about what
evidence they choose to see, and this is less than honest.

>
> If so, let me assure you that I use it as an essentially "value neutral"
> term - in this respect Dawkins' is no more dishonest than any of the rest of
> us. We all introduce ("smuggle in") assumptions which are neither obvious,
> nor demonstrated, nor consistent with our basic principles, but which are
> fundamentally necessary to bring arguments to the conclusions we desire to
> reach.

I agree - see above.

>
> So the only criticism I'm making with regard to Dawkins (of all atheism in
> general, in fact) is the common one of pointing to a perceived inconsistency
> of thought. Is this not unobjectionable?
>

But I'm not sure what inconsistency you're illustrating. I don't
think it's inconsistent to accept evolution as a scientific fact, but
to look for a better way to do things. The Dawkins/Selfish Gene line
of argument seems to be:

(1) Evolution happens, and is seen from a gene-centred viewpoint.
(2) As such it's not directed towards long term goals, but short term
adjustments that give a greater survivability.
(3) Short-term viewpoints don't necessarily give the long-term best
prospects for survival.
(4) But we now have developed intelligence - to have long term plans
and to see the long term consequences of our actions. When these long
term consequences lead to the destruction of the ecosphere, planet,
devastation, war, etc, we can do something about it.
(5) In doing all the above we are rebelling against our selfish
genes, and intelligently planning our survival into the future.

Now, where is the inconsistency there, or the smuggled in assumption?
I think the only assumption is that we want to ensure our long-term
survival.

> That Dawkins wishes to lessen the amount and degree of suffering in the
> world is laudable - but let's not be naive about the fact that Dawkins
> thinks that eradication of religion is part of his vision AND that he is not
> going to allow religious believers - that's you and me, Iain - to have any
> part in shaping or running his "Brave New World" (one should read the novel
> in order to get the point of the allusion).
>

I'm quite aware of that - as I said right at the outset, I wasn't
speaking up for Dawkins.

Best,
Iain

> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
>
> Iain Strachan wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Murray,
>>
>>> (3) when one is a thoroughgoing evolutionist of the sort Dawkins is, then
>>> one's only option IS to base ethics in evolutionary theory - either
>>> directly
>>> or indirectly. To do otherwise is to smuggle in assumptions which aren't
>>> justified on the basis of one's original starting point.
>>
>> I'm hardly one to speak up for Dawkins, but I get the feeling you're
>> doing him an injustice. I think the gist of "The Selfish Gene" is
>> that it is a call to arms - we as humans have evolved intelligent
>> thought - the ability to plan and imagine and simulate scenarios in
>> one's mind, and to take direct action against our selfish genes -
>> potentially to stop the destructive progress and endless struggle that
>> arises from the evolutionary process of blind, pitiless, indifferent
>> nature. In essence Dawkins would want us to rebel against evolution.
>> To him it is at the same time an incredibly elegant scientific idea,
>> and a horrific process that we are now intelligent enough to do
>> something about.
>>
>> Maybe I've got you wrong but you seem to imply that Dawkins can't be
>> moral without some form of intellectual dishonesty.
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.