@ yellowjacket
‘’So are you then prepared to acknowledge that adding God to these testable mechanisms is a violation of Occam's Razor, that adding God adds no predictive value, and that the mechanisms themselves do not violate Occam's razor?’’
First of all thank you for the discussion of the other night, I must apologise for some of my spelling and punctuation – I was defeated by an I Pad auto correct function (!) I am afraid that, as a generality, people are right when they say that there is no mileage in these atheist/theist knockabouts. Sometimes, however, one senses that a degree of common ground or at least an enhanced understanding of the other’s position might be possible. So here we go:
I rather regret bringing up Occam’s razor, it was a cheap shot. I don’t actually like the concept. For example, one might imagine Von Jolly invoking it as he gave his advice to a young Max Planck in 1874 that ‘’physics was a complete science with little prospect of significant further developments.’’
I guess that one man’s ‘’testable mechanism’’ is another’s impossible ‘’flight of fancy’’. Let’s take the subject in hand of Humanism. First of all a definition – humanism is the concept that emphasises the value of the individual, while also encompassing that of a wider humanity (the human species/Homo Sapiens if you will), will that do? After engaging in a number of these debates it as become clear to me that ultimately those atheists, who profess to be Humanists, rely on a behavioural explanation rooted in the theory of Natural Selection (or Evolution, if you prefer). I freely admit to not being a biologist or, come to that a psychologist; I do however have some scientific education completed to a reasonably high level. Therefore, from a mechanistic standpoint, I tend to look for the rate limiting step. With Evolution, in my view, this has to be the gene(s) mutation(s) which is (are) said to confer the supposed advantageous change. Leaving, for the moment, aside a causative mechanism, I have many issues even correlating this to observable changes in phenotype behaviour. I could enumerate them if you like, but can do no better (and perhaps a whole lot worse!) than Richard Lewontin in this abstract:
‘’ Sociobiology is discussed as an extreme example of the adaptationist program. This program attempts to describe all aspects of living organisms as optimal solutions to problems set by the environment and by the biology of the species. Sociobiology first describes human nature by generalizing about human behavioral universals, then asserts that these traits are controlled by genes and then provides an adaptive story to explain why individuals with these traits would leave more offspring. The theory takes no account of problems of correct description and makes four errors: Arbitrary agglomeration, reification, conflation, and confusion of levels. As a result, the human behavior described bears no necessary resemblance to actual biological traits. The theory depends upon assertions of genetic control that have no basis in experimental fact. Sociobiologists have made no critical evaluation of the extremely poor knowledge of human genetics. Finally, the assumption that all characteristics are adaptations is never examined by sociobiology. There are many alternative evolutionary forces besides direct adaptation for establishment of characters. These include genetic drift, multiple selective peaks, lack of correspondence between the result of natural selection and optimal solutions, pleiotropic gene action, allometry and developmental noise. If sociobiology is to become a real science instead of idle speculation, it must abandon the tautological adaptationist program which is untestable.’’
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bs.3830240103/abstract
For a lighter version covering much of the same ground there is this –
Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwinian-Fairytales-Selfish-Heredity-Evolution/dp/1594032009
Please note that I do not deny that Evolution provides us with the best explanation that we currently have of the variety of life on Earth. I just do not subscribe to its all encompassing extension into these fields. From my perspective those who advocate this, and other flights of fancy such as evolutionary economics, are more akin to believers in ‘’Evolutionism’’ rather than empirical scientists.
I also have a more general concern. Application of the theory of Natural Selection means that every species that exists/has ever existed must have arisen from a pre-existing species through a process of genetic differentiation. From the atheist’s perspective this must therefore necessarily lead to the speciation of Homo Sapiens. This will be realised through the mechanism of proto-species which, although at first able to breed with the pre-existing species, will eventually develop and thrive separately, as a consequence of better able to interact with the pertaining environment. I can hear the voices rising in objection saying that we Humans are a special case, we have international travel etc. etc. Suffice it to say that if one were to take the theory of Natural Selection fully on board this view is no more than blind anthropocentricism. The tenets of the theory are clear that, given enough sustained environmental stress, speciation is inevitable. One can easily envisage circumstances when this might happen (I can provide hypothetical and not so hypothetical examples, if you really insist).
Moving on, from my perspective it is just a matter of pedantry to object to substitution of the word proto-species with race. Unfortunately, as described in From Hitler to Darwin by Richard Weikart this, unalloyed take on Natural Selection, has had some truly tragic consequences: for example:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwinian-Fairytales-Selfish-Heredity-Evolution/dp/1594032009
Again please don’t misunderstand me. I do not say that Darwin caused the Holocaust. I do say, however, that his, most likely maligned, ideas were employed as a justification for it. Indeed, I personally would go further and say that the industrial process of slaughter would not have happened in the absence of his unknowing and unwilling support. Please note that I realise that this is just my personal take; no one can know for sure. I am, however, rather haunted by this from the Descent of Man (and I give the full quote from a site which supposedly addresses misquotations of Darwin http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes):
‘’ The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[8]
So there you have it in a nutshell – Is a belief in Humanism compatible with the theory of Natural Selection? And, if not, have you another mechanism to propose?
That was rather a long post, my apologies. If, after reading this, you would like me to flesh out why I referenced MLK and the Prophets then I will respond. In the meantime, however, I hope that this post has at least given you some of the explanations you have asked me to provide. I realise that we will never agree, but I hope that you may at least have come to better understand my views.
New Game
)
)
)
)
)