My daughter’s favourite philosophy problem…

There a tiny storm in my corner of the interwebs. Bob Wright wrote a book - The Evolution of God - and Jerry Coyne wrote a review trashing it. Then Coyne and Jim Manzi got into a blogs ‘n’ handbags  fight over it.

From what I can gather, the gist of the argument was that Coyne claimed that the fact of evolution debunks religion’s claim of intelligent design. Manzi said “no it doesn’t”. Coyne said “yes it does” etc before they spiralled off into a discussion of what the world ‘random’ means.

Anyway, the whole tedious debate was worth it to read the round-up in The American Scene. It turns out that the whole thing turns on whether religion is making factual claims or hermeneutical claims (yep. new one for me too).

We have to distinguish between factual and hermeneutical claims. Factual claims are claims about the nature and operation of reality: “how” things work, not “why.” Darwin’s theory, which is the basis of all modern biology, makes factual claims: that the various forms of life we observe on earth today came to be via the operation of natural selection on populations of organisms that experience random variation. The question, “does life have a purpose” or “are we put here for a reason” is not really a factual question; it’s a hermeneutical one, an interpretive one. The same factual claims could, potentially, sustain different hermeneutical claims. Scientists do, sometimes, noodle about with hermeneutical claims because they turn out to have factual claims buried in them, in which case they may be investigated scientifically. But if there are no such claims buried in them, then the questions aren’t really scientific.

So, if I understood that right, if religion makes factual claims, they can be debunked by science. But religion’s hermeneutical claims can only be debunked if they are in conflict with science’s claims.  The claim the universe is designed is a hermeneutical claim and cannot be debunked by science. Any particular claim that attempts to describe how the universe was designed is a factual claim and collides with science.

Stephen Gould coined a phrase for this.

Non-overlapping magisteria.

Because science and religion answer different questions, there can be no conflict.

1. Affirmative action is counter-productive.
2. So is the minimum wage.
3. And minimum standards of education.
4. Technology is uninteresting.
5. Well over 90% of science fiction is crap.
6. Checked exceptions are stupid.
7. I am afraid that pubic hair will go the way of under-arm hair.
8. C# is better than Java.
9. There is not enough testing in schools.
10. Tipping is deeply uncivilized.
11. Charities should be taxed.
12. Valentine’s Day is silly.
13. The minimum drinking age should be abolished.
14. I subscribe to over a dozen conservative blogs but no liberal blogs.
15. It’s OK for children to see naked bodies.
16. Different races probably have different abilities.
17. Ditto for sexes.
18. Christianity is a good thing.
19. Catching Exception is OK.
20. Thanking your wife when you receive your Oscar or Nobel Prize is unnecessary.
21. Star Wars was not very good.
22. Education, health care, civil liberties etc etc etc should be left to the states.
23. I’d rather time travel to the past than to the future.
24. It doesn’t matter that there are so few women in the software industry.
25. Attempts to design a balanced curriculum are harmful.
26. I don’t find babies to be cute.
27. There is nothing wrong with public fields.
28. I deeply resent the secularization of Christmas.
29. There should be no tax deductions.
30. Especially not for charities.
31. I find the Pledge of Allegiance disturbing.
32. I don’t see the point of cats.
33. America is in my top five countries.
34. So is France.
35. If you want a successful life, nurture helps but not as much as nature.
36. Or luck.
37. Roe versus Wade was  wrongly decided.
38. I love reading bible stories and singing Christmas carols.
39. Open source software terrifies and confuses me.
40. The federal government should receive funding from the states, not individuals.
41. Extreme Programming Explained changed my life. For the worse.
42. The initiative process and referendums in general are populist nonsense.
43. So are term limits.
44. The mis-perception that chimpanzees are monkeys bothers the hell out of me.
45. As does the inappropriate pluralization of offside.
46. And the incorrect use of momentarily.
47. Downloading music/movies/games is stealing.
48. Most people would be better off if they did not go to college.
49. Most would be better off starting work at 16.
50. I am ambivalent about gay marriage.
51. All income  (salary, profits, dividends, inheritance etc) should be taxed equally.
52. Schools should be ’streamed’ by academic ability.
53. Military service deserves no more honour than teaching, nursing, road-sweeping or a host of other professions.
54. The ability to spell is not that important.
55. Bad spelling infuriates me. Especially when I do it.
56. The Star Spangled Banner is my second favourite anthem.

Seven things about my more than fifty surprising things

1. Details available on request.
2. This post was inspired by a question on StackOverflow - what’s your most controversial programming opinion - but the first 20-something answers are positively mainstream. I thought I could do better.
3. If you know me well, you will be unsurprised by many of my surprising things.
4. If you don’t know me well, you will be unsurprised by many of my surprising things.
5. If you don’t know me at all, some of my surprising things might make you angry.
6. I tried to avoid obvious - or simply minority - things.
7. I censored some of my things out of cowardice.

It’s traditional when you make a list like this to tag 14 of your friends and they have to repeat the exercise. I find that tradition to be crass. If you made it this far, consider yourself tagged. Or not. Whatever.

Here’s a cool list of essential Life Skillz from Easily Distracted.

• The insides and workings of a computer, and how to replace and add components to one.
• How an operating system works. How to customize an operating system. File systems.
• How Internet works. How to set up a router. Internet safety and virus protection. Online commerce.
• How to operate important software applications: word processor, spreadsheet, image management, presentation software.
• Best practices for searching for information online.
• The basics of investment and personal finance.
• How to file tax returns. How to read a paycheck.
• Basics of how to start and manage a small business.
• Price comparisons and management of monthly budgets.
• Cover letters and resumes.
• Basic first aid. Proper use of medicine. Common illnesses. When to call for expert medical assistance.
• Basic cooking.
• Basic evaluation of food quality in markets. Food safety, especially cross-contamination.
• How to drive, including stick-shift. Basic auto maintenance.
• How to read a map. Knowledge of mass transit systems.
• Basic power and non-power tool operation. Safety training in tool use.
• Care of plants. How to plant, including use of shovel and other garden implements.
• How to paint interiors.
• Basics of home mechanical and electric systems.
• Basics of carpentry.
• Basic self-defense, including watching for trouble signs from other people.
• How to swim.
• How to ride a bicycle.
• Dealing with poisons, hazardous chemicals, insect bites, common irritants.
• Sewing and clothing repair.
• Legal rights, small claims courts, basic familiarity with civil and criminal provisions.
• Condom use, safe sex, reproductive health.
• Simple diagnostics and repair of appliances.
• Cleaning of home environments, clothing.
• Reuse and repurposing of household items.

It’s an odd list. I think you could get rid of about half of these if you learn this skill:

• Outsourcing. Figuring out the stuff that you don’t need to learn because someone else will do it for you.

I made this claim a couple of years ago

When we create laws to prevent immoral behavior, we make society less moral.

hoping that Jeff’s philosopher neighbor would confirm it as a well-known ethical principle. I just listened to a Ted talk by Barry Schwaltz that was on this very subject.

From the Ted talk:

Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules that deprive us of the opportunity to improvise and learn from our improvisation.

Schwaltz also talks about another topic close to my heart:  that introducing minimum standards optimizes for mediocrity.

And one for Jeff:

Incentives cause the loss of morality

Best Ted talk I have seen this year.

Tickets are on sale for next year. Palm Springs. Anyone want to go?

About ten years ago, I was very taken withThe Straight Dope, and every now and then - and against my better judgment - I go back and read it for old times’ sake.

The same things about the style of debate there that used to enchant me still enchant me - where else can you read well-argued positions both for and and against Objectivism, Free Will, Thomas Aquinas and why we should cut off the baby boomers?- and the things that frustrated me still frustrate the hell out of me.

My frustration this time revolves around how many atheists say that no amount of evidence would persuade them of the existence of God. Me? I’d be persuaded by even the slightest evidence.

On the enchanting side of the ledger, this thread about 25 reasons to not believe in God brings out the best in some Christian apologists.

Cecil himself is, of course, the master:

Also, do animals ever do it for fun?

— Concerned reader, Los Angeles

As for your second question, we must point out that, scientifically speaking, animals always do it for fun. The only critters who do it because they have to are Catholics. Take it from your Unca Cecil.

— Cecil Adams

One of my new favourite blogs, Secular Right, has an open thread on Ayn Rand.

I have never met a real life objectivist but the ones I have come across online have been batshit crazy and they are always engaged in pitched battles with batshit crazy liberals trying to live down to Rand’s caricatures. Between them they generate more heat than light. It was a pleasant change, then, to come across some mostly well-reasoned arguments for and against Rand’s fantasy land.

I made my opinion clear in my review of Atlas Shrugged. It was good to hear the case for the other side but they didn’t quite shake my first conclusion that, as adolescent budding-philosophers, they thought of themselves as Hank Rearden driving his train into Dagny Taggart’s tunnel.

Some snippets of the conversation:

Ayn Rand was the first person to define and present a rational philosophy for living in this universe. Once you read her works, you’ll have a rational philosophical base with which you can evaluate the ideas of the so called “experts” around you, in newspapers, on radio, on TV etc. You’ll come to the conclusion that these so called “experts” have massive flaws in their thinking and their ideas.

As I said, to the extent that Rand attempted moral complexity with the Rearden character, that is it. But to the extent that there is conflict in that storyline, Rand makes it a very easy choice for Rearden. Has there ever been a reader, ever, anywhere, in the history of this book who ever wondered, even for a millisecond, what choice Rearden would make?? Some precocious, but misguided eleven year-old, somewhere, maybe. No, we all know how he was going to choose, because Rand does not present Rearden with two moral positives (or moral negatives) and explores how and why Rearden would choose between them. What she wrote was not complexity, but the minimum necessary to recite on her ideas about people freeing themselves of the ideas which lead to what she saw as emotional repression.

Bingo. No one in Rearden’s family has any redeeming values. They were rotten through and through. Most people Rand would call “altruists” would have advocated Rearden dumping the lot of them, too.

In toto, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism offers individuals certainty—which feeds their ambition and results in their happiness. Her philosophy will add years to man’s existence and has jump-started an entirely “new ball game” in his continuing accumulation of knowledge.

I just flipped through the first 150 pages of the paperback of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and confirmed my memory: there are no “speeches,” yet, though in its thousand-some pages ‘Atlas’ contains a number of them, e.g., one on love and sex, another on the soul of an artist, another on the moral meaning of money, and, of course, a very long one outlining Rand’s entire system of philosophy.

These are tightly integrated with the action of the story which is actually an otherwise lean and fast-paced mystery of epic scope, containing effective thrills and chills — and much subtle, beautiful and profound poetry, so often missed by many who think they already know what to expect.

i just did a word count, John Galt’s speech is 32,000 words long. I’m not sure in what universe that’s considered “lean” and “fast-paced.”

Did you ever seriously think that Francisco was not putting on a show at being the playboy? That Dagny would end up with Galt? That Rearden would enjoy sex with Dagny? That Lillian would reject the Rearden metal bracelet? Is there any morally ambiguous characters in the whole book? Did anyone ever question whether one of the characters was an antagonist or a protagonist? Even for a second? If she printed the strikers’ words in a different color like they do with Jesus in some bibles, I don’t think she would have been that much more obvious than she was.

The thread was not completely batshit-crazy-free but I’d tried to avoid quoting them.

I’ll let Officer Barbrady have the final word.

There are so many things which is pedestrian, substandard, ridiculous, and nonsensical about the characterizations, the plot, the theme, and the dialogue that it is difficult to know where to start.

It convinced Officer Barbrady to never read another book again.

Michael Shermer has a review of Stuart Kauffman’s Reinventing the Sacred.

I’ve often wondered about the attempts to either explain phenomena like conscsiousness, free will and intelligence in terms of physics, chemistry and biology. Kauffman has written a book about it and claims that

such phenomena “cannot be deduced from physics, have causal powers of their own, and therefore are emergent real entities in the universe.” This creative process of emergence, Kauffman contends, “is so stunning, so overwhelming, so worthy of awe, gratitude and respect, that it is God enough for many of us. God, a fully natural God, is the very creativity in the universe.”

Excuse me, I have shopping to do.

In today’s NY Times, David Brooks’s column seems almost enlightened but there is an undercurrent of dishonesty about it.

He characterizes the debate about the Nature of God as being between two groups of fundamentalists. One group - the assertive atheists - believes that there is no evidence for gods or souls and that the nature of religious experience can be explained by neuroscience and evolutionary accidents. The other group believes that understanding the brain …merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

David puts himself firmly in the second camp by using the arguments from the first camp almost verbatim. That’s a neat trick if you can pull it off and he nearly got away with it. I had to read the article three times to untangle the threads.

I don’t want to get too snarky on David because, aside from the fact that he is every liberal’s favourite conservative, he is making an argument that both Einstein and Spinoza have used before him. I wish I understood that argument better because, to me, it seems to advocate both having your cake and eating it.

David (and Albert, and Baruch) seem to be saying that atheists have it all wrong because they don’t acknowledge the transcendental nature of love and the laughter of children and the Gilmour’s solo at the start of Shine on You Crazy Diamond. I can’t speak for all atheists but, I do. Really, I do. I just think that transcendence comes from within not from some external entity.

Just three weeks ago, I wished I knew how Alan Kay felt and Lo! Alan Kay left a comment (Alan Kay!!!!-Ed). Today, I wish I knew what David Brooks means. If he leaves a comment, I’ll pledge allegiance to his God (the God which is in the laughter of children). (If Baruch or Albert leave a comment, I’ll take up the cloth-Ed).

Anyway. Go read the article because it’s very good despite the dishonesty. Pretend you didn’t see the bit where he juxtaposes Selfish Genes with deep instincts for fairness, empathy because David clearly knows better and it was probably an inside joke or meant ironically or something.

Here’s the best bit which he probably lifted straight from the New Atheist Manifesto(tm)…

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

…except that last bit. I believe in the laughter of children too. I just don’t think we enhance our understanding by calling it God.

By the end of the article, David seems to be channeling Sam Harris but the important thing is that David is not taking sides. He’s too clever for that. Too clever by half.

and….

The price of freedom is tolerating behavior by others that may be undignified by our own lights. I would be happy if Britney Spears and “American Idol” would go away, but I put up with them in return for not having to worry about being arrested by the ice-cream police.

and…

Worst of all, theocon bioethics flaunts a callousness toward the billions of non-geriatric people, born and unborn, whose lives or health could be saved by biomedical advances. Even if progress were delayed a mere decade by moratoria, red tape, and funding taboos (to say nothing of the threat of criminal prosecution), millions of people with degenerative diseases and failing organs would needlessly suffer and die. And that would be the biggest affront to human dignity of all.