Dawkins, NOMA, and You: Inchoate musings on things I don't really grok.

[guacamole]

I want to first let people know that I haven't abandoned my reading of Dawkins, thought I have had to put it off a bit, and, for today's discussion at least, it will be less "off the cuff" due to some of my necessary background reading. I'm a bit frustrated by my laziness lately--I've wanted to read an explanation of NOMA in Stephen Jay Gould's own words, especially given, what is in my opinion, the indecent and scurrilous assertion by Dawkins, in chapter 2 that:

I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages [regarding NOMA].

Sadly for my reading project, Milo Yiannopoulos, on account of hamartia (in both the Aristotelean sense of 'miscalculation' and the Christian sense of 'sin') and hubris, decided to make his life resemble the art of a Greek tragedy, and I felt an unspeakable and daemonic urge to waggle my parts in the dance at the heathen bonfire that is Civics.

So, this is an overly long excuse that, as I have not been able to get to the bookstore or library, I haven't yet read the salient parts of "Rock of Ages." Thus, in honest disclosure, my understanding of NOMA comes from the sages at Wikipedia, and it's online sources I don't think Gould would absolve me however, noting as he does in his article from natural history: Shame on me. Ah well, I am an imperfect vessel.

end prologue

[Meh Gerbil]

I think what killed the 'atheist' vs. 'theist' debate for me was the unwillingness of many atheists to own atheism.

Some would sit back and build an entire tree of nonsense out of the assertion "there is a god" while dismissing the idea that atheism suggests any particular realities outside of "there is no god". For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view. I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor. Atheism asserts nothing and therefore results in nothing and it then follows that its impact cannot be measured. A world view with no metrics, that is enviable, but not believable.

So in many ways Dawkins is an aggressive jackass but I'll take brute honesty over lies (or perhaps more charitably, lack of self awareness). He's colliding with religion because he actually believes in and acts upon his atheism. Many others simply use atheism as an excuse to avoid having to answer to anyone or for anything whatsoever. In that usage atheism is a way to assuage guilt or obligation - not that such a use is invalid, I understand the need for an intellectual repose.

[shunyadragon]

I believe a better explanation of Gould's view of NOMA is called for.



The Baha'i view in the 'Harmony of Science and Religion' is that there is no distinct boundary between scientific knowledge of our physical existence, and Creation and Revelation from God. It is true that the nature of Methodological Naturalism is limited to the knowledge of the physical existence, but apparent boundaries, contradictions and conflicts between science and religion is the weakness of the fallible human perspective. The perspective of science simply reveals the physical nature of God's Creation, and in reality there is no clear boundary nor distinction.

I believe they do overlap, and to avoid this creates conflicts and contradictions.

Source: `Abdu�l-Bah�, Paris Talks, pg. 143

.

© Copyright Original Source

[guacamole]

I think what killed the 'atheist' vs. 'theist' debate for me was the unwillingness of many atheists to own atheism.

Some would sit back and build an entire tree of nonsense out of the assertion "there is a god" while dismissing the idea that atheism suggests any particular realities outside of "there is no god". For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view. I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor. Atheism asserts nothing and therefore results in nothing and it then follows that its impact cannot be measured. A world view with no metrics, that is enviable, but not believable.

I remember Lake George Man--I believe he passed away? I agree with your assessment of 'weak' atheism (or is that 'strong' atheism--I get confused.), and to an extent, it reminds me of milquetoast Christianity as well. If I could paraphrase your penultimate line: A Christianity that asserts nothing results in nothing and therefore it follows that its impact cannot be measured.

So in many ways Dawkins is an aggressive jackass but I'll take brute honesty over lies (or perhaps more charitably, lack of self awareness). He's colliding with religion because he actually believes in and acts upon his atheism. Many others simply use atheism as an excuse to avoid having to answer to anyone or for anything whatsoever. In that usage atheism is a way to assuage guilt or obligation - not that such a use is invalid, I understand the need for an intellectual repose.

IIRC, LGM could be an aggressive jackass at times too. (In truth, Guacamole can be an aggressive jackass at times too.) I don't mind the vigorous debate, and so I feel sometimes like the "weak" atheism is simply a refusal to strongly examine belief. Again, here I believe that your last line is interesting--consider the vacuous morality that often develops from atheism.

fwiw,
guaca.

[guacamole]

I believe a better explanation of Gould's view of NOMA is called for.

Thank you. If it were not the end of the month and the end of my budget allotment, and if "Rock of Ages" weren't 13.99 on kindle, I'd be posting quotes from it, but this is a useful reference.

The Baha'i view in the 'Harmony of Science and Religion' is that there is no distinct boundary between scientific knowledge of our physical existence, and Creation and Revelation from God. It is true that the nature of Methodological Naturalism is limited to the knowledge of the physical existence, but apparent boundaries, contradictions and conflicts between science and religion is the weakness of the fallible human perspective. The perspective of science simply reveals the physical nature of God's Creation, and in reality there is no clear boundary nor distinction.

I believe they do overlap, and to avoid this creates conflicts and contradictions.

Source: `Abdu�l-Bah�, Paris Talks, pg. 143

.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree that there are some logical mines inherent in NOMA. For one, I think it can create an irrational compartmentalism (I know there is an official term for this, but for the life of me, I cannot remember it now) between two different disciplines. What you've posted echoes the papal citations that Gould provides in several places: "Truth cannot contradict Truth."

fwiw,
guacamole

[Meh Gerbil]

I remember Lake George Man--I believe he passed away?

LGM was permanently banned for the crime of awesomeness.
There are other views but they're considered heterodox.

I agree with your assessment of 'weak' atheism (or is that 'strong' atheism--I get confused.), and to an extent, it reminds me of milquetoast Christianity as well. If I could paraphrase your penultimate line: A Christianity that asserts nothing results in nothing and therefore it follows that its impact cannot be measured.

I can agree with this up to a point.
I feel like LGM's characterization of atheism went beyond milquetoast Christianity in that the latter is merely devoid of commitment or understanding whereas the former was actually asserting the 'nothing' as the only correct understanding.

IIRC, LGM could be an aggressive jackass at times too. (In truth, Guacamole can be an aggressive jackass at times too.) I don't mind the vigorous debate, and so I feel sometimes like the "weak" atheism is simply a refusal to strongly examine belief. Again, here I believe that your last line is interesting--consider the vacuous morality that often develops from atheism.

I think LGM's aggressive demeanor was some weird parroting of Trout.

[Trout]

I think LGM's aggressive demeanor was some weird parroting of Trout.

I'm pretty sure God exists.

[Adrift]

I remember Lake George Man--I believe he passed away?

He was banned from the forum, but I've never heard reports of him passing away. Maybe you're thinking of FormerFundy?

[guacamole]

He was banned from the forum, but I've never heard reports of him passing away. Maybe you're thinking of FormerFundy?

Indeed I was.

[Carrikature]

I'm pointing this line out explicitly to answer this one:

Because they're non-competing.

The rage in the debates stems not from the overlap but the competition.

[Carrikature]

For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view. I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor. Atheism asserts nothing and therefore results in nothing and it then follows that its impact cannot be measured. A world view with no metrics, that is enviable, but not believable.

Atheism isn't a worldview in and of itself. It's simultaneously (albeit contradictorily) a major component of a worldview and a conclusion drawn from other premises. It does, however, necessarily inform every other area of interaction by dictating, in part, how those areas must be interpreted. An atheist still has a worldview, but it's not 'atheism'. I'd be inclined to argue that Christianity isn't a worldview, either, though for many it's effectively the only lens through which they view anything.

I don't think it can be argued that atheism asserts nothing, let alone that it results in nothing or that its impact cannot be measured. If you're looking to it for metrics, though, you're gnawing on the wrong thing. You know all about that, though.

[Starlight]

NOMA seems silly to me because obviously psychologists and anthropologists can study how people in various cultures make moral decisions and perform moral reasoning etc, and philosophers can analyse the logical defensibility of various moral paradigms and explore the edge cases / difficulties / paradoxes that such views could lead to.

In short I see nothing that religion can really do that science can't eventually do some sort evaluation of. So NOMA seems silly to me.

[Starlight]

I think what killed the 'atheist' vs. 'theist' debate for me was the unwillingness of many atheists to own atheism.

Some would sit back and build an entire tree of nonsense out of the assertion "there is a god" while dismissing the idea that atheism suggests any particular realities outside of "there is no god". For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view...

So in many ways Dawkins is an aggressive jackass but I'll take brute honesty over lies (or perhaps more charitably, lack of self awareness). He's colliding with religion because he actually believes in and acts upon his atheism.

I hold strongly to a variety of views I see as ultimately flowing from my atheism (utilitarianism, secular humanism, human rights, environmentalism, polically liberal social policies, left-wing / socialist economics etc).

But I acknowledge that as much as I see them as flowing from my atheism (and I think Dawkins is largely on the same page as me on those which is probably one reason I enjoy his books on atheism), not all atheists hold them.

Obviously atheism doesn't come with a handbook of teachings the way religions do (eg Bible, Quran). And since atheism is relatively new in any significant scale in the western world (looking back at census data from the 70s or so the percentage of ppl who were atheists was like 1% or something), there's not a developed cultural understanding of what atheism's logical consequences are that the average person can tap into. So while well-read and well-educated intellectuals like Dawkins and myself might conclude that atheism naturally entails a great deal more once you tease out all the various consequences, the average person in the street is not well-equipped to deduce every single indirect implication of their atheism.

[Meh Gerbil]

I hold strongly to a variety of views I see as ultimately flowing from my atheism (utilitarianism, secular humanism, human rights, environmentalism, polically liberal social policies, left-wing / socialist economics etc).

But I acknowledge that as much as I see them as flowing from my atheism (and I think Dawkins is largely on the same page as me on those which is probably one reason I enjoy his books on atheism), not all atheists hold them.

Obviously atheism doesn't come with a handbook of teachings the way religions do (eg Bible, Quran). And since atheism is relatively new in any significant scale in the western world (looking back at census data from the 70s or so the percentage of ppl who were atheists was like 1% or something), there's not a developed cultural understanding of what atheism's logical consequences are that the average person can tap into. So while well-read and well-educated intellectuals like Dawkins and myself might conclude that atheism naturally entails a great deal more once you tease out all the various consequences, the average person in the street is not well-equipped to deduce every single indirect implication of their atheism.

This is well written.
I also think you do an excellent job of explaining why there is conflict on the question.

*puts a gold star on Starlight's paper*

[Meh Gerbil]

Atheism isn't a worldview in and of itself. It's simultaneously (albeit contradictorily) a major component of a worldview and a conclusion drawn from other premises. It does, however, necessarily inform every other area of interaction by dictating, in part, how those areas must be interpreted. An atheist still has a worldview, but it's not 'atheism'. I'd be inclined to argue that Christianity isn't a worldview, either, though for many it's effectively the only lens through which they view anything.

I don't think it can be argued that atheism asserts nothing, let alone that it results in nothing or that its impact cannot be measured. If you're looking to it for metrics, though, you're gnawing on the wrong thing. You know all about that, though.

I could live with this middle ground.
It seems like a compromise built on an honest assessment.

I'd give you a gold star but I'm fresh out.