Just starting, but Dennet used a great nugget. He said whe can make eyeglasses for the soul. That we have artificial vitues as well as biological virtues.
As you watch the conversation in Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0, it might help to know about one of the sources that was helpful to me in formulating the agenda, assembling the cast of characters, and setting the tone for the meeting. I quoted this passage from Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover (who directs the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King’s College, London):
“Now we tend to see the Enlightenment view of human psychology as thin and mechanical, and Enlightenment hopes of social progress through the spread of humanitarianism and the scientific outlook as naïve...One of this book’s aims is to replace the thin, mechanical psychology of the Enlightenment with something more complex, something closer to reality...another aim of the book is to defend the Enlightenment hope of a world that is more peaceful and humane, the hope that by understanding more about ourselves we can do something to create a world with less misery. I have qualified optimism that this hope is well founded...”
I say Amen to that. If Enlightenment 1.0 took a thin and mechanical view of human nature and psychology, I think Enlightenment 2.0 can offer a much ‘thicker’ and cognitively richer account - less naïve and also, perhaps, less hubristic. If there’s one thing we’ve learned - particularly from cognitive neuroscience - it is that we need to have some strategic humility about the hobby horses we are inclined to ride.
-Roger Bingham
Director, The Science Network
zarcus - 04 December 2007 06:34 AM
If you want to download the video’s - FireFox add on - Fast video download
Fast Video Download 1.3.1.4 Homepage
by rpoccMeucmep
Save embedded video files from video-hosting servers such as YouTube
Fast Video Download can save embedded video files from following video-hosting servers:
AG.ru, Angry Alien, Current.TV, Daily Motion, Google Video, iFilm, My Space, Streetfire, YouTube, V-Social.
* Just in ONE click on the status-bar or custom toolbar icon, FVD immediately open the regular “Save As” dialog with already placed video title and extension.
Zarcus thanks for calling attention to this whole WWW site.
I just finished the first part. It is good to see David Sloan Wilson made an appearance at this event and that Scott Atran has returned. The problem that I see immediately is David S. Wilson was simply not given enough time. This is extremely unfortunate for several reasons, but the most in my opinion is because we are talking about science. What I mean here is that prevailing theories of strict “selfish gene” and “meme” theory is being openly challenged and for many who watch these videos that is a new thing. David S. Wilson has been labeled an “apologist” by some which is also a failure to understand and in this regard Dennett and Dawkins have made it possible for people to readily dismiss scientific understanding by maintaining unscientific “meme” and overly strict “selfish gene” explanations then misrepresenting the entire field that David works within.
What David S. Wilson said as part of his closing is very close to what I have been trying to say.
David said: ~"My complaint about this movement [speaking of the “new atheism"] if we want to call it a movement, is not that it’s offensive, not that it needs to be said, but that its just such bad science, and that this matters."~
I can predict how this will be received, but it is in part what Atran was trying to tell Harris last year. There is a level of honesty that needs to come out of these discussions and I just haven’t seen it over the last year, because, I think, when you filter science through ideas of having a conclusion in mind and wanting to label the “evidence” on your way to the conclusion in the most pejorative sense, then you end up with a sever case of confirmation biases and then wanting to label those that are actually working toward many of the same goals.
It reminds me of Richard Feynman’s, Cargo Cult Science, seeing that I just read it again recently and posted on this forum to dweather, because as Richard so forthrightly says, once we are honest with ourselves then it becomes easy to be honest with others. There is more then inquiry, there is requestioning, criticizing, and debate, these not only go into the external sphere, but to ourselves. When there are calls to not openly criticize, to “not stand in the way”, to label to easily, then we are not being honest, with others or to ourselves.
Zarcus I was in that 1974 graduating class at Caltech that heard Feynman give his Cargo Cult speech. It was very unusual-- usually your commencement speaker comes from outside the university but our class had been Feynman-fans...David Brin was class of 1973.
I followed up on your other link for David Sloan Wilson at
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9135 where he talks about “why Dawkins is wrong about religion”. I was irritated by Wilson’s comment that there are two topics for atheists, (a) that God doesn’t exist and (b) what is religion good for. He completely dismisses topic (a) saying it is boring, he knows that God doesn’t exist, and he’s only interested in topic (b) where he finds disagreement with Dawkins. I happen to think that topic (a) is a really interesting topic and was disappointed when Dawkins wandered around in topic(b) for what seemed like a long time on the audio God Delusion.
At 3/4 of the way through (this is starting to look like a journal, I apologize), I want to express my appreciation to Michael Shermer for getting his ire up and speaking out and holding to - claims need to be challenged.
I would like to quote Harris in his comments toward David Sloan Wilson that was part of the panel discussion.
“there is a difference between a sphere of discourse that encourages rigorous self honesty and peer criticism that purifies deceit and self-deceit and a kind of discourse that doesn’t do that, and in fact does the antithesis of that, and in fact makes it a sacred principle to immunize people from criticism, and people like yourself are collaborating in that immunity by saying we shouldn’t criticize religion, we should be slow to criticize religion”
This is a very serious charge, and one that is simply bullshit. This is what Harris was saying to Atran last year. It is this mentality that works against the very things he is talking about. Harris, and unfortunately Richard D., have taken this position which is mistaken and speaks past what is actually being communicated, which is about science. To say that D.S. Wilson is a collaborate because he openly criticizes Harris, Dawkins etc., is the irrational defensiveness I have been hammering on. It simply should not be tolerated. This charge is cast each time someone throws out who is an “apologist” in the freethought or scientific community without justification. It was done to Shermer after his “rational atheism” piece and it will keep happening because they do not know what they are talking about, in this case Harris.
I have been in a very strict minority in my opinions on this over more then a year and I see more then ever that not only do I see my predictions of this irrational defensiveness and incoherence maintained, but these charges will primarily go unquestioned by many.
Let me add to that briefly. Since I see with the current claims of: “you’re just telling us to shut up”: I would like to make clear this is not what I am saying at all, though I am sure it will be interpreted that way. I am saying this garbage needs to be challenged, these are direct claims and should be in no way immune to rational inspection.
I agree with you here—this is “Harris nonsense” and look forward to all of these beyond belief videos. Wish they were *.mp3’s…
Without making excuses this is a human error that others have made (in fact you’ve made that point from the beginning, that you saw a pattern of behaviour here which mimics other examples).
I’ll have to go back and read over the article to better grasp what you’re getting at here, Jackson. The God question, I think is inherently interesting. I also think there are many areas of study that either relate directly or indirectly to the question. Arguments for so-called “proofs” of God’s existence, to me personally are tiring, they deftly avoid coherence and generally bound themselves into confirmation biases so tightly that scientific discovery, where to us looks reasonably in line with a “no God” hypothesis, is forced to fit a conclusion. So, at one end, it is boring, but what we discover through science is fascinating and may relate to the god question.
But, I will give what you say more thought and look back over the piece. The reason I came to the forum just now was to quickly, while I was thinking of it, was in the panel discussion with D.S. Wilson and Dan Dennett, Dan mentions a defense of his position ("meme" theory), in it he states that: “99 out of 100 virus’ aren’t awful”. So, my question is: “do you think he’s referring to “meme” virus’ or biological virus’, or both?
I agree it is in some sense boring like other superstitions. From the point of academic articles in journals there might not be a lot to say.
IfDennett means biological virus—one could actually be factual about those, and it wouldn’t surprise me that the ratio is 99.9 to 100 since, like red dwarf stars, we don’t notice them (and they would be undercounted in a survey of viruses. This is an interesting point). In regard to memes I don’t know how one can catalogue them so this becomes more a point of rhetoric.
I agree with you here—this is “Harris nonsense” and look forward to all of these beyond belief videos. Wish they were *.mp3’s…
Without making excuses this is a human error that others have made (in fact you’ve made that point from the beginning, that you saw a pattern of behaviour here which mimics other examples).
I’m guessing there will be torrents of the conference up soon. I tried the Google download and was unsuccessful for the most part.
I finally made it to Harris’ talk at about 5:30 in the morning. It was basically a condensed version of what I have read or heard him say many times. But, I think because of the format with his important points highlighted as they were makes for easier appraisal. As with his books, there are many things I agree with Sam on, but as with his claim to Wilson, there are problems. But, since I’ve been reading, writing, an openly criticizing religion for most of my life there are parts to his ideas that I don’t need to go back over. But, one of the problems I see with his continuation of claiming that going under the banner of any so-called “maligned” nomenclature, such as Skeptic, Humanist being a detriment is that you end up narrowly focusing on what you perceive they actually do. It is true that “atheistic” and “skeptical” communities and individuals are viewed very skeptically in the U.S., but the fact remains that these communities, such as Humanist/Skeptic, are actually for many things. Their function is not a primary vehicle to criticize religion or a response to “supernaturalism”. Though, it appears that perhaps they’re going that way (save for Skeptic mag.), which is partly why I do not identify myself as a Humanist any more, there is still no reason to think changing public perception is not possible. In fact it could be argued it has slowly begun but with some glaring examples where we find ourselves at a disadvantage. The part I agree with Sam on here is that taking in consideration of political realities is very important.
The idea that criticizing one part of Harris’ arguments somehow weakens the full “skeptical community” is both spurious and unfortunately true. When evolutionary scientists disagree on a nuance of evolutionary theory, trying to extent Darwin’s theory and explain things like variations in the rate of speciation, this gets picked up by anti-evolutionists, misinterpreted (I think) and used as an argument for alternate theories. Of course the evolutionists agree on the basic ideas of Darwin and the criticism is spurious.
But the solution isn’t for scientists not to critically review others’ work. And the solution isn’t for people to ignore holes in Harris’ logic. In fact over time this should enhance the intellectual and moral integrity of skepticism etc., because of its willingness to accept review of its ideas.
I think Sam Harris is good at grandstanding and he needs to be careful of what he grandstands about.
I think Sam Harris is good at grandstanding and he needs to be careful of what he grandstands about.
I haven’t seen 2.0, but certainly Harris did a bit too much grandstanding in 1.0. I like a lot of what he’s written, but it’s not like he’s always right or anything. He would do well to sit down and have an honest discussion with other scientists and historians on these matters. And I mean without the name calling. Not to say he was the only one involved in name calling; there was plenty of nonsense in 1.0 to go around. But he got in more than his fair share.
