Back to Spinoza?
Here are the Conclusions to my latest knol on Richard Dawkins: the God Delusion, as well as the replies by Terry Eagleton and Richard Schröder. Comments on the knol are very welcome.
Link to knol here:
http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion-terry/xk923bc3gp4/60#edit
Conclusion
My conclusion is that Dawkins has underestimated the positive contributions of religions to human culture, in the arts, philosophy, literature, music and architecture. Religions may well have the function to bring about social coherence (as stated by Dawkins himself), and what would take over if religions should be abolished? Dawkins’ emphasis on religion might even be dangerous, if it deflects attention from other important issues. Would it be perhaps more useful to concentrate on social and economic inequalities and try to suggest recipes for their amelioration? - He considers the concept of God a scientific hypothesis that can be tested by scientific means. But, as pointed out by theological critics, God is more than that: a source of love. - From a scientific point of view, I believe that the role of natural selection, the very basis of Darwin’s interpretation of evolution, is not as important as he claims it is. According to Kauffman [2], many traits of organisms have evolved not because of natural selection but in spite of it. Stephen Wolfram’s [3] extensive computer simulations of many systems have shown that simple “rules” in programs lead to complex characters. In other words, it may not be necessary to assume lengthy processes of selection leading from simple to complex characters. These findings suggest that evolutionary patterns may fit into certain “molds”, i.e., that outcomes of evolution are to a certain degree predetermined by the laws of nature (see discussion in [9][10][11][12]), which opens the way to a Spinozistic interpretation of nature, in which a primary cause (which everybody is welcome to name God) is at the base of and determines all the rest. Of course, this does not imply the existence of a personal God who takes responsibility and care of us.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Kauffman is a crank- there is no such thing as ‘order for free’. The Second Law is not to be mocked.!
Have you read what the late Dr Clam had to say about ‘The God Delusion’?. Probably you have, I am thinking…
And, have you ever come across Simone Weil’s writings on quantum mechanics? I am trying to figure out what exactly disagreed with her about it, but I am finding the English versions of her essays on the subject pretty impenetrable and was hoping to Google someone who could explain them to me…
March 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Here is Clam’s brief go at Terry Eagleton’s feeble effort.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Chris, I cannot recall having read your posts on Dawkins and Eagleton previously, thanks therefore for drawing my attention to them. Just a few comments on them.
1) Abortion: what about the possibility that the ability of a person after birth to perceive pain and the threat of death is indeed the most important reason for not killing him/her? It must become a general principle (law) protecting even those who (your example) are killed suddenly and without pain, in order to protect humanity as a whole (most of whom would be able to perceive pain). After all, a murderer cannot foresee that his first shot will kill the victim, and once a taboo is broken, the doors to hell are open. – So, I agree on this point with Dawkins. It seems to me sheer folly to give the same protection to a three-cell embryo as to a person after death. – I would also apply this principle to animals: I would never kill an animal without reason, and the “more highly” developed it is, the stronger the reasons must be. For example, I would squash a mosquito (as potential vectors of dengue or malaria), but not a butterfly, and certainly not a bird or mammal. (Is this considered in any of the monotheistic religions?).
2) Now coming to Spinoza:
Spinoza as quoted by you:
“Definition 1.6: God I understand to be a being absolutely infinite, that is a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.
Proposition 1.11: God necessarily exists.
Proposition 1.15: Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.
Proposition 1.18: God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
Proposition 1.19: God and all the attributes of God are eternal.”
“The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus the unity of God and Nature (meaning by the
latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.”
Your interpretation:” It seems to me that Spinoza is neither a moral relativist or a pantheist. It seems to me that Spinoza teaches an austere monotheism in the Judaeo-Islamic tradition. His universe is filled not with an infinite and eternal absence, but an infinite and eternal presence,…”
Without going into details (and I have not read Spinoza in detail to go into details), I would say that I agree with you that Dawkins has not provided convincing evidence that a “God hypothesis” in Spinoza’s sense (as “the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things”) cannot be upheld. Natural selection, Dawkins’ main argument, simply does not stand up to the task. There appear to be “molds” of nature (in other words “laws”) which force evolution into certain paths. How strictly determined these “paths” are, we don’t know, but there may be “experimental” ways to find out: discovery of life on other planets and in other star systems will show how closely convergent evolution has been. (Let’s hope we, i.e. humans, survive that long to see).
March 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
1) “It seems to me sheer folly to give the same protection to a three-cell embryo as to a person after birth.”
To me, also.
But it seems also to me to be sheer folly to give them no protection at all, and draw a line at an arbitrary point, as if we believed they were then magically transformed into humans by a fairy waving a wand. I think we are beholden to give prenatal and neonatal humans a graded level of protection and concern, consistent with their natural probability of growing to a state where they can perceive pain and the threat of death.
I think the final thought experiment about what the doctor would be doing now makes the point that suffering is *not* the greatest evil inescapable, whether our morality is absolutist or relativist.
2) Of course, if the panspermia hypothesis turns out to be true, than a lot of the convergence we observe on other planets might be due to inherent limitations of the chemistry of DNA-based life, and not ‘molds’ of nature per se.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“panspermia hypothesis turns out to be true, than a lot of the convergence we observe on other planets might be due to inherent limitations of the chemistry of DNA-based life, and not ‘molds’ of nature per se.”
Quite true, but there may be (and probably are) ways to check which theory is correct.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Chris’s show me the metabolism entries are a very good counter to Kauffman’s assertions, and for me are enough to rule out geogenesis of same. I have also commented heavily on Dawk-ins a while back, and are happy to expand if there is anything particular.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Marco, Chris: I shall comment on all this in about two weeks (I hope), after my return from a trip.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Welcome back!
As by my calculations today is two weeks from March 24th…
April 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I have added a couple of comments to the relevant Knol, although I do find the nested comments a little confusing.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I have not seen the comments yet (they are not there yet), but I have removed the section on Objections to the NKS approach, because it confused the issue of defining complexity.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“Marco, Chris: I shall comment on all this in about two weeks (I hope), after my return from a trip.”
Hmm, hrmm… still no comments probing for weak spots in my ‘Origin of Life’ arguments. Going to look up Schopenhauer at lunchtime!
April 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
I replied to this on my knol: Dawkins etc.