tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post7157730308281268524..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: The Tragedy of the Secular LeftJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-65442907037386268652012-05-25T04:23:48.926+01:002012-05-25T04:23:48.926+01:00Well Josco, I can see several arguments/points in ...Well Josco, I can see several arguments/points in my post, I'll spell them out for you, since you seem to require that kind of thing:<br /><br />-The author has not considered the importance or history of altruism in our genetic development<br /><br />-Human nature is a problematic concept to which the author simply (and fallaciously - see 'reification') assumes a given characteristic - 'selfish'<br /><br />-The idea that altruism 'transcends our evolutionary inheritance' is incoherent, since altruism is part of our evolutionary inheritance<br /><br />-The motivation of the author in making the above points invites suspicion, since all his arguments are designed to make religion the redeemer of our original sins (he doesn't put it like that, but what do you make of the following passage, once stripped of its pragmatic rhetoric?<br /><br />'Unfortunately, a post-religious society lacks the most obvious tool with which to make people do unto others who are in no position to repay them. This leaves the secular left with the desire that we transcend our natures, but no lever to make us do so.')<br /><br />-The political popularity of an argument has nothing to do with whether it's true or moral<br /><br />And I'll add one more which I only hinted at earlier:<br /><br />-The concept of transcendence is incoherent: even if we desired to, we could not 'transcend' our own natures, and when we try to it ends up, like religion, looking quite a lot like 'human nature'...<br /><br />I thought it was pretty clear the first time round. well, whatever...bigginsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-89389417459407465712012-05-24T13:02:43.775+01:002012-05-24T13:02:43.775+01:00Biggins,
....what a load of piffle. Not a single ...Biggins,<br /><br />....what a load of piffle. Not a single argument or coherent point could be found in that nonsense post of yours.<br /><br />If you had actually engaged the author's text (as opposed to some imaginary strawman which apparently only exists in your mind), I would have more than likely supported you on principle (I am an Atheist and have little patience for religious slight of hand).<br /><br />But that? That was embarrassing. Try again and this time open your damn eyes while you type.Josconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-92179797305578451362012-05-20T15:30:57.081+01:002012-05-20T15:30:57.081+01:00The central argument of this post is based on an u...The central argument of this post is based on an unsubstantiated and incoherent conception of 'human nature'. Human beings are forced to look after themselves, sure, but you fail to understand that the notion of looking after one's family may extend, through various words and deeds, beyond the immediate nuclear family towards the family of humankind. The 'secular left' or whoever it is you're attacking (you're actually attacking anyone who is sensitive, intelligent and with a passion for social justice) understands that 'human nature', which you so readily cling to as if it were a concrete truth (reification fallacy, anyone?), is far from black and white. Why is altruism 'transcending our evolutionary inheritance'? This is a senseless expression, for surely altruism is part of our inheritance as well. No, the real reason why you're so keen to depict humans as selfish is so you can bring religion back through the trapdoor. 'Only God can save us' you would like to pitifully moan along with Heidegger. However, many of us in the secular 21st century don't desire to transcend our natures, because we understand the confusions inherent in the concept of transcendence. You may well be correct in the idea that peddling the horseshit of transcendence or religion is the only sensible election-winning strategy. Such is the fate of reasoned argument in the hands of populism. Christian socialism must have been the right approach, since it appealed to so many! No thanks. Some of us will let the cards fall where they may, and we believe truth and honesty takes precedence over electioneering. Judt doesn't need to defy anything except the tiring attempts of the pious to degrade human imagination and ingenuity in order to make space for their redeeming father figure.bigginsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-16851751007430400532010-04-03T22:52:18.620+01:002010-04-03T22:52:18.620+01:00I think that you're right, but this illustrate...I think that you're right, but this illustrates only the problem with taking a successful predictive model outside of fields where it was originally useful. Gene-centred models of trait distribution in populations of animals can be a highly useful mathematical tool for analysing how traits spread over time, but it's a big stretch to turn that into the straightforward causal story that's so widespread these days.<br /><br />If taken literally, it does lead to absurdities, as Mike rightly points out.<br /><br />Where is really falls down for me is the assumption of a direct and unidirectional causal link between individual genes and behaviour. Now I don't deny, as some Marxists do, for example, that there is no correlation between genetics and behaviour. There has to be, otherwise these traits could not be maintained from generation to generation.<br /><br />However, even with the single blood cells we use for experiments in the lab where I work, it doesn't seem at all obvious that there is a neat and direct causal relationship between a genotype and the living cell's complex behaviour. Even things this simple can do the unexpected.<br /><br />I suspect that the most we will ultimately be able to extrapolate from behavioural genetics will be to define the range of possible behaviour given the biological structures that genes encode. I doubt we will have many credible stories (except in special cases) of individual genes that cause animals to act in certain ways (except in the vague sense that, as was recently demonstrated, a certain gene enables speech in humans, but only if several hundred other genes are also present and working correctly).<br /><br />What I've always found odd about Dawkins and his accolytes is that when pressed he always accepts the above, then goes on happily ignoring what he just said and starts talking about selfish genes (in a very literal sense) to his heart's content. I've encountered a similar response from other supporters of the concept. It's kind of like arguing with ID theorists.Perplexed Seekernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-67166557673592885072010-04-03T19:41:28.799+01:002010-04-03T19:41:28.799+01:00Deleted and amended a post in order to add the lin...Deleted and amended a post in order to add the link at the very bottom in which Midgley discusses selfishness. <br /><br />Kin selection is problematical. There are species that do not and cannot recognize kin, even children, let alone cousins. A robin will defend its nest against a ball of red twine, so it doesn't even recognize conspecifics. David Stove critiqued this and so, IIRC, did Mary Midgley.<br /><br />When Darwinists say "we act altruistically with regard to our family because this helps us to advance the interests of our shared genes" they are using the word "because" in reverse. No human makes such calculations, let alone robins. The shared genes prosper because we act altruistically. This seems a problem only because of an unrealistic and tendentious definition of "altruism."<br /><br />All that said, I've always been tickled by the parallelism between Dawkins' "selfish gene" and "original sin," which Aquinas indeed identified with selfishness. Dawkins is very much a Calvinist preacher. :-)<br /><br />Midgley on Selfishness, in the Guardian:<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/20/religion-philosophy-hobbes-dawkins-selfishness<br /><br />As usual the devotees of Preacher Dawkins don't get it.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-38716477503869593812010-04-03T19:05:26.931+01:002010-04-03T19:05:26.931+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-73559192372363766752010-04-03T17:02:06.065+01:002010-04-03T17:02:06.065+01:00Well, it does seem that a lot of political comment...Well, it does seem that a lot of political commentators, right <i>and</i> left, seem to live in their own little fantasy worlds. I agree that as a historian Judt should have known better then to say some of the things he has said.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319161892002614759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-59121647812516905562010-04-03T15:29:01.532+01:002010-04-03T15:29:01.532+01:00Very articulate and thoughtful post, James, thanks...Very articulate and thoughtful post, James, thanks.jamierobertsonnoreply@blogger.com