tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post5170330731477530692..comments2023-03-26T01:39:48.669-05:00Comments on u n d e r v e r s e: On pausing to grab a robe for the EmperorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-56550145424133439712011-02-23T14:55:00.549-06:002011-02-23T14:55:00.549-06:00I'll take a harder look, but at first blush, i...I'll take a harder look, but at first blush, it looks like the people who agreed with him before, still agree with him and vice versa and nothing substantive has changed. You have a positivist who is saying that free will is an illusion, that neuroscience holds the keys to understanding morality in a comprehensive sort of way and anything religious is BS.<br /><br />Dawkins, Pinker, etc... all agree, which honestly, just isn't very shocking.<br /><br />That isn't what I'm talking about at all. <br /><br />If Harris had said something like, let's quantify morality by favorable outcomes and look, here are examples of relgious outcomes gone bad, but wait, here are 10,000 examples of religious charity, which are all clearly good... maybe there is something at least potentially good about religion after all, even if I ultimately disagree and we should really look at this closely in a certain sort of way.<br /><br />Then you'd have a ballgame, but that isn't what he's saying, and we don't.<br /><br />Maybe I'm missing your point, do you have a specific example in mind? I'm happy to take a look.Enoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-89101593506288604852011-02-21T15:33:05.529-06:002011-02-21T15:33:05.529-06:00The only part I have to spot the gnus is that the ...The only part I have to spot the gnus is that the Templeton Foundation was unsavory from the get-go, and even its most benign activities are probably whitewashing. I would recommend people research its history, funding, and organization.Marion Delgadonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-86640205440022963972011-02-19T13:12:25.894-06:002011-02-19T13:12:25.894-06:00Hope you're wrong about that tactical aproach,...Hope you're wrong about that tactical aproach, Jean. That would just be sad.underversenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-37356946318198595142011-02-19T05:46:36.246-06:002011-02-19T05:46:36.246-06:00@ E
<span>I really haven't seen that oc...@ E<br /><br /><span><i>I really haven't seen that occuring in the new atheist circle of rhetoric</i>. </span><br /><br />You haven't been looking hard enough, E. Just look at all the jibber-jabber among Gnus in the wake of Sam Harris' book on morality last year.Captain Howdynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-63768067108271168172011-02-18T18:31:44.396-06:002011-02-18T18:31:44.396-06:00Chris, I like the Midgley example. I did happen ...Chris, I like the Midgley example. I did happen to notice (!) that Jerry Coyne referred to her "superannuated lucubrations" the very same day (Feb 8) that he talked about the myth of gnu gnastiness (or some such), and how nobody ever gives any examples of incivility. That made me wonder if he is suffering from incivility blindness. He's almost simultaneously being uncivil and saying there are no examples of incivility!<br /><br />Then again maybe it's just tactical. If you say there are no examples, then someone will make a list of examples, and THEN you can use the list-making as evidence of some deep and inveterate hatred of atheists.Jean Kazeznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-87179012112829789992011-02-18T16:57:52.496-06:002011-02-18T16:57:52.496-06:00Well if it's a victory it is a pyrrhic one. I...Well if it's a victory it is a pyrrhic one. If we're right in that they are overlooking something important and true in the methods of argument, case making and rhetoric, eventually that will out. If you're right, and I certainly think you are, then the tactics we see won't be sustainable long term.<br /><br />It's a good move advocating the high road in this post. Ultimately, while we might be able to influence the gnu thinkers, we can only truly control our own behavior and expression. <br /><br />This level of self-reflection and attitude of, if not humilty, then at least recognizing potential blind spots, is exactly the kind of thing that has me rooting for you, John, Midgley and folks like Rilestone, among others. Enoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-76598944168987934462011-02-18T12:19:14.791-06:002011-02-18T12:19:14.791-06:00Agreed, E. For all the talk of priviling truth in ...Agreed, E. For all the talk of priviling truth in Gnuish quarters, it seems that victory is value that really rules the day.underversenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-57613922002493993452011-02-18T10:40:31.585-06:002011-02-18T10:40:31.585-06:00John,
Not all snark is created equal. I cringe at...John,<br /><br />Not all snark is created equal. I cringe at the snark of Coyne and Friar Blackford, not so much because I'm afraid of the feelings that will be hurt, but because I'm embarassed to see that kind of mean-spiritedness and pettyness in discourse that is supposed to be not only intellectually and morally elevated, but also in the defense of that elevation. A matter of taste, perhaps, and it's probably not a good sign for my objectivity that I can't think of a single Incompatiblist writer who serves as exception the rule (maybe Hitchens at his best, though he has a mean streak the size of that new planet in the Oort cloud.). Yours by contrast is much less defensive and sanctimonious. Snark on.underversenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-79420524819877060402011-02-18T09:26:56.033-06:002011-02-18T09:26:56.033-06:00Excellent post, Chris.Excellent post, Chris.John Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-39141851039114591402011-02-18T02:10:16.893-06:002011-02-18T02:10:16.893-06:00I think the frustrating aspect of this back and fo...I think the frustrating aspect of this back and forth on my end isn't just the snarkification of key players. Humor can be really effective, even devastating, in highlighting a good point in the argument. As Freud said, we laugh because it's funny, we laugh because it's true.<br /><br />I had the opportunity to be a GA in a grad school philosophy department, doing research etc..., but the conversations I overhead as the professors would blast away at each other were just amazing.<br /><br />They would pick a side (often it didn't matter much which one) and go for a full throated adversarial debate of the topic at hand. Snark was in play, and honestly, it was delightful.<br /><br />But what they also did, and almost always seemed to get to... was the occasional concession of each side as something really poignant appeared in the discussion. It really wasn't "don't you dare give an inch and die on the hill" as much as the back and forth having the potential to lead to a new thought.<br /><br />Suddenly there was something nuanced in play and both parties were pursuing it and, temporarily at least, were on the same side.<br /><br />It was often the case that what began as a "he said - she said" sort of thing led to a third way, a new thought, that wasn't just simple compromise, or synthesis, or hedging. It actually led both viewpoints to something closer to the truth. It wouldn't necessarily be settled, or somehow all problem defeating and pat... but there arose something new and good in the inquiry that was beautiful.<br /><br />I really haven't seen that occuring in the new atheist circle of rhetoric. <br /><br />It's, "prove it." Or, a seemingly deliberate misreading of the point, or a tedious focus on minutae ad nauseum, etc... or an odd stream of consciousness rant about the crusades and inquisition, but never an, "ouch, that is a good point, I have to give you that one."<br /><br />Instead of the discussions leading somewhere new, it looks like people arguing with the insane. The sphere of allowed "reality" is kept very small and tight, and nothing outside of it is allowed, no matter how compelling. It feels more like talking with someone who believes they really are Houdini, than the conversations which at some point lead to new light.<br /><br />Agreed that "look at me, I'm a poached egg" or slobbering Houdini comparisons are snark-filled and ultimately not helpful.<br /><br />In the so-called conversations I've had in the last few months, it seems like it is more about a power play and serving a pre-conceived agenda than any attempt to let reason have it's day. That recalcitrance feels unnecessary to me, and bothers me more than the attempts or attempts to limit the clever snarking.<br /><br />Ah, screw it. Calling Mary Midgley dumb and superannuated.... honestly? That just makes me want to knock someone down, and open a can of indian burns and noogies on their collective asses.Enoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-46748737603700342202011-02-17T21:23:54.131-06:002011-02-17T21:23:54.131-06:00Thanks for overlooking my subject-verb agreement p...Thanks for overlooking my subject-verb agreement problems. Now fixed. I think.underversenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-81410116773341893102011-02-17T19:51:50.412-06:002011-02-17T19:51:50.412-06:00"And yes, there's sanctimony and snark to..."And yes, there's sanctimony and snark to go around on all sides. That crack above about the 10-cent words, for example. That was jerky of me to say. It was and is an obstacle to clear vision and communication, every bit as much as the vanity of the Emperor in Anderson's story was an obstacle to his own clear sight and judgement."<br /><br />Damn! ... Just when I was crowned the King of Snark!<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/gnus_theists_are_too_willing_t.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/gnus_theists_are_too_willing_t.php</a><br /><br />Nicely done.John Pieretnoreply@blogger.com