Our regular Friday diet of suggested readings for the weekend:
The perfect Republican stump speech for the 2016 election, at the least according to Republican speechwriter Barton Swaim, who was commissioned to do this by Project 538.
Carol Rovane attempts to present a reasonable version of moral relativism. I think the article starts out well, and then goes horribly horribly wrong.
Scientific American’s John Horgan didn’t like Jerry Coyne’s latest book on science and religion.
Rebecca Goldstein reviews the new Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World, according to which the Greeks pretty much invented atheism.
Philosophy saved Andy West from poverty and drugs, and that’s why he teaches it to kids.
Footnotes to Plato 
I figured you’d like Horgan’s review! For people who have not read him, I suggest “Rational Mysticism” and “The End of Science.”
==
The GOP stump speech? Per my blog supporting at least occasional corporate socialism, the U.S. Postal Service actually worked better pre-1971 as the entirely government-owned U.S. Post Office. Western European countries show us how horrible full privatization of postal services can be. http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/11/going-beyond-bernie-sanders-defending.html
Of course, the actual speech is a mix of dogwhistles and “framing” and little else.
==
Whitmarsh is saying nothing new, of course, in one area. Socrates was accused of being an atheist. Rome accused Christians of atheism.
That said, I would somewhat disagree that Greek religion was just about civic engagement. Were that the case, among the general public and not just the intelligentsia, it would have faded from the scene long before it did. And, I think that’s a problem with the book as presented in the review: It focuses only on the intelligentsia.
For a different point of view, which shows the durability of Greek religion well into the early Christian age, I strongly recommend Robin Lane Fox’s “Pagans and Christians.” If my understanding of Whitmarsh is correct, per the review, I doubt I’ll read it. It breaks no new ground with the philosophers and attempts to cover no new ground with the common ancient Greek populace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of books, I just finished one called “Answers for Aristotle.” Massimo, do you know who wrote it? 😉
More seriously, per discussions, my one piece at Sci Sal, etc., I think we’re relatively close on issues of the will. I still wouldn’t use the label “compatibilism” because, to stand Dennett’s title on its head, I see no variety of determinism that needs being compatible to.
People going beyond the most trivial version of determinism are, IMO, either making a Wittgensteinian language hash or else a Rylian category mistake. In either case, the idea is that they don’t want to be seen as ontological dualists (which is fine and good), so call themselves determinists (not fine and good) because they think ontological monism/metaphysical naturalism implies determinism of some robust nature (which it doesn’t).
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-la-samuel-johnson-i-refute.html
LikeLike
Oh, and looking at the Whitmarsh review? What, Goldstein didn’t place a product endorsement in there? Per the editorial tagline at the end, how and why she won a National Humanities Medal, I have no idea. I thought “Plato at the Googleplex” was dreck.
LikeLike
Finally, as for new books the NYT has under review, I didn’t know Ian Kershaw had switched from WWII to WWI. This, unlike Whitmarsh, I will look for: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/books/review/ian-kershaws-to-hell-and-back-europe-1914-1949.html?ribbon-ad-idx=6&rref=books/review&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Sunday%20Book%20Review&pgtype=article
LikeLike
On Rovane’s piece, I refer to Massimo’s book, and would call moral beliefs semi-absolute. Riffing on what I have called “psychological constraints” in matters of volition, and the idea of sliding scales for individual events, some moral beliefs, like murder, are more nearly absolute, while others, spinning off from these core beliefs, are less absolute, and this is where a discipline like cultural anthropology comes into play.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, Rovane is wrong on her one contention: There is indeed disagreement, not just difference, on these issues.
LikeLike
Getting in my two cents before leaving for the weekend;
We take a top down view of morality, because it does provide the framework for society, but it does evolve upwardly and over considerable time, so just like biological features, there is a lot of evolutionary feature which might be no longer necessary, but continue to exist because there was no necessity to drop them and they are part of a larger organism. Transferring from one culture to another would be like green splicing. Yes, it might work, if it doesn’t interfere with the needs of the culture/organism.
As I keep saying, we mistake ideals for absolutes. In this case, cultural ideals for existential absolutes. Good and bad are not some cosmic duel between the forces of righteousness and evil, but that basic binary code of positive and negative. With lots of grey areas, but not often a happy medium, where the lion lays down with the lamb.
For a good book on the foundations of western culture and its organic religious basis, I can only recommend again, Gilbert Murray’s, Five Stages of Greek Religion; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30250/30250-h/30250-h.htm
LikeLike
Damn autocorrect; gene splicing.
LikeLike
Hi Socratic,
It’s not a very good review, it’s just the usual dislike of anything from a New Atheist or scientistic perspective. A couple of points from it:
Or, rather, what gets overlooked far more often is religion’s role in the *pro*-slavery, *anti*-civil-rights and *pro*-war movements.
Can anyone remind me what the dominant religion was in America though all the slave trade era, and indeed up to the civil-rights era? What was the dominant religious opinion in the American South that fought a war to maintain slavery?
The historical fact is that religion played a huge role in *maintaining* the system of slavery, with the theological justification that the blacks place was God’s appointed order. Works such as Hector Avalos’s “Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship” are a good starting point on that.
Christendom perpetrated one of the vilest and most complete and abject systems of slavery for hundreds of years, with the majority of Christians seeing nothing wrong with it, and now Christianity wants the credit for its abolition? Amazing!
What Jerry Coyne regards as “free will” is the dualistic notion of a soul. And that certainly is a dead dodo scientifically. Coyne is entirely right about that. For Horgan to suggest that this is still an open issue is ridiculous.
(By the way, Jerry Coyne is not talking about compatibilist free-will, only about dualistic-soul free will — which is the sort of free will many religions still hanker after.)
LikeLike
Hi Massimo,
Agreed; it goes horribly wrong in trying to assign truth values to moral claims. No such scheme will ever work. Maybe someday people will give up that wild-goose chase and accept that the whole notion is misconceived.
LikeLike
RE Rovan. One day–a day that will unlikely arrive because it would not suffice timewise, I would endeavor to study how words that suggest polarities often result in obscurity rather than clarity. I mean subjective/objective, relative/absolute (semi-absolute, Socratic?), real/ideal. The usage in some articles suggests a synonymity and interchangeability that I often find confusing. Have all philologists been supplanted by linguists?
LikeLike
Thomas, agreed on obscurity. Calling matters of gray black and white can obscure the realities. So can pretending that “disagreement” is just “difference.”
Ahh, philology.
==
And, I should have figured that Coel would dislike Horgan for the same reasons Massimo and I like it. Coel click my link for my Johnson-esque refutation of determinism. It’s directly aimed at the likes of Coyne. It’s your call as to whether he’s making a Wittgensteinian language hash or whether he’s making a Rylian category mistake.
He (and those like him) ARE committing one or the other, though. (If not both.) Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Horgan essay is great. Coyne has increasingly become a parody. Thanks for the link.
Re: the perfect Republican speech, alas, one could produce something equally realistic — and absurd — for the Democrats.
LikeLike
Hi Socratic,
And it fails to refute Coyne. Indeed it is entirely compatible with determinism [where “determinism” is the doctrine that what happens at time T is a result of the state of the system at time T — 1 (there is of course the issue of quantum non-determinism, but that’s not really relevant for “free will”)].
To reply to your post:
No, of course not! What a weird question! If the growing of a tree is the playing out of a deterministic system, does that mean that, if the system is deterministic, then the tree doesn’t grow? No, of course not!
Under determinism the consciousness is a part of the determined system. It is only under a dualistic-soul conception that it is separate from the determined system, and so your question only makes sense from a dualistic-soul perspective.
(By the way believing that the behaviour at time T results from the state of the system at time T — 1 is NOT the same as saying that it results necessarily from the state of the system at time T — 10000. Given the combination of quantum indeterminacy, deterministic chaos, et cetera, that does NOT follow.)
It’s the way the world works. Things like “desires and plans” are the product of a material brain in the same way that “chess moves” are the product of a chess-playing computer.
Er, no, of course not! Consciously desiring and planning things is the physical system playing out, just as whatever goes on inside a chess playing computer is the system playing out.
Again, that question makes no sense from a deterministic perspective. It would only make sense from the perspective that the consciousness is apart from the deterministic brain-system, which is *not* the determinist position.
Sorry, I don’t see anything resembling a refutation of Coyne or of determinism in your post.
LikeLike
Coel:
“The historical fact is that religion played a huge role in *maintaining* the system of slavery, with the theological justification that the blacks place was God’s appointed order.”
A huge role is not necessarily “THE” defining role. But I’m sure you realize this already, so why not also suggest that economics and politics played major roles as well. There were in fact abolitionists who were theists and yet took issue with the notion that slavery was “theologically justified.” It is a difficult and perhaps pointless exercise to imagine being raised in another time and place and pretending to know how one might have responded to the major issues of the time and how one might have justified one’s response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Thomas,
Because I was replying to Horgan who was commenting only on the role of religion. Horgan was trying to imply that religion has had a positive role in the history of slavery and its abolition. The evidence is just as strong that it has had a negative role.
People often cherry-pick items to claim for the credit of religion; any proper assessment needs to weigh up all aspects.
LikeLike
Coel,
“Horgan was trying to imply that religion has had a positive role in the history of slavery and its abolition. The evidence is just as strong that it has had a negative role”
I don’t think you are reading Horgan charitably. He is saying very explicitly that it is people like Coyne who do the cherry picking, imputing only negatives to religion while ignoring the positives. That’s precisely what is wrong with New Atheism discourse, and what ultimately undermines its credibility.
For a mirror example, see Dawkins denying that there have ever been atheist regimes that have done awful things. When he is reminded of Stalinism or Maoism he plays the “no true Scotsman” card, which is of course fallacious, and also available to the religious (“they are/were not real Christians”).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Massimo,
There is nothing wrong with putting forth a case for the prosecution. It’s not as though society lacks for positive comments about religion! New Atheism is deliberately a counter-balancing critique and advocacy, rather than a dispassionate assessment.
I think that you are mis-reading Dawkins’s reply (which is the same reply as many other atheists give). He is not saying that they were not atheists, nor that they were not “true atheists”, he is saying that they were not motivated by atheism.
Which is true. Atheism is a label for a *lack* of belief; people are motivated by beliefs that they *do* hold, not beliefs that they don’t hold.
The motivating factor of Stalinism or Maoism was a totalitarian communist ideology that would not tolerate any other loyalty. The fact that Mao persecuted largely atheistic Tibetan Buddhism shows that it wasn’t belief in gods (or otherwise) that was relevant, it was the presence or absence of non-communist ideologies and loyalties that was relevant.
The fact that Maoist and Stalinist regimes were atheistic was thus a consequence of their communist ideology, not the cause of it.
Thus Dawkins does not deny that atheists such as Stalin and Mao did awful things, rather, he denies that it was a significant motivating factor. Indeed, Stalin happily promoted and used religion when it suited him, such as in WW2.
LikeLike
Massimo, speaking of 538, HERE is one for you: “Not even scientists can easily explain p-values.” https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-even-scientists-can-easily-explain-p-values/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Massimo, re Stalin, I stopped counting the number of Gnus who said variations on: “Stalin was a seminarian, so he can’t be an atheist.” In that case, I can’t be either. Nor John Loftus. Nor Ryan Bell of “A Year without God.” Nor many others.
The more subtle claim ‘but Stalin reopened the churches in World War II.” Well, yes, better that than Nazi capture or a coup. People can use all sorts of “tools” all the time.
It’s that intellectual anti-rigor that leads me to generally look at Gnus with “minimum high regard.”
Coel, if the shoe fits …
As for atheist motivation? Tosh.
At least some of the persecutions of both Stalin and Mao were driven by atheism. As for your “reopened the churches,” see above.
If you don’t believe that’s a belief, or a “system” that causes motivations, double tosh. Rot. Rubbish. Tommyrot. Other British English words you may choose.
Let’s use Htichens’ “antitheism.” It is a belief that religion is generally pernicious until proven otherwise, and thus must be circumscribed, even eradicated. It’s a belief that religion is a mental illness.
And, Gnus believe this. And, because it’s non-factual, it’s part of a belief system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Socratic,
No they weren’t. Lack-of-belief never drives anything. Now, if you want to claim (as you then say) that they were driven by *anti-theism* then that’s a better argument, But it still isn’t really true. Such communists were anti-theist because theism was a non-communist loyalty, and they could not tolerate that. They also persecuted just about everything else that was non-communist. Non-communist unions were not allowed, non-communist schools were not allowed, et cetera.
So, the more sensible analysis is that the persecutions were driven by totalitarian communist ideology, and that they were anti anything that was non-communist. The anti-theism was just one part of that.
Anyhow, the overlap between these communist beliefs and the beliefs of the New Atheists is pretty minimal (I struggle to think of any NA who is a communist — Maryam Namazie perhaps, if she counts as NA), so this is all pretty irrelevant to NAism.
Quotes please for prominent NAs arguing for the “must be circumscribed, even eradicated” in any sense other that they would like to peacefully persuade people to be non-religious.
LikeLike
I never said Gnus and communists’ belief systems overlap that much.
As for “circumscribed”? I’ll start with a guy named Coel, saying he favors the French laïcité over the Anglo-American standards on religion in the public square. (Hear the petard?) As for “eradicated”? You can read the likes of P.Z. Myers yourself.
As for religion as mental illness, your hero Dawkins said it himself: http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/08/22/richard-dawkins-and-the-sinking-ship-of-new-atheism/
Otherwise, we’re back to “tommyrot” on your denial that “lack of belief” drives anything. As noted, Gnus positively believe, in general, in antitheism. (Read Camus, “The Rebel,” for an excellent take on the mindset behind this.)
Beyond that, you know well what Marx said about religion, and beyond what he said about an opiate of the masses. In orthodox or quasi-orthodox Marxism, religion has always been a matter of special concern.
Given that you forgot about your own petard on “circumscribed,” along with trying to wish away other things, I doubt I’ll argue this issue with you more.
LikeLike
Coel:
“any proper assessment needs to weigh up all aspects.”
LOL. This is generally the pivotal point on each side of the argument, no? It is clear that in weighing “up all the aspects” different scales are being employed depending on the side being taken and the “aspect” being weighed.
LikeLike
Hi Socratic,
Talk about religion “in the public square” is vague, and often deliberately so. People who use the expression are often wanting special privileges for religion. But expecting religion to be treated the same as any other opinion (as I do) is not asking for it to be “circumscribed”.
That’s not a quote.
Exactly, Atheism (lack of belief) does not drive anything. Anti-theism does. The distinction is actually important.
By the way, if that’s the extent of your quotes that New Atheists believe that “religion … must be circumscribed, even eradicated” (in any sense other than a desire for religion to die out by peaceful persuasion), then I’m not that impressed.
LikeLike
Coel, Socratic,
I’m enjoying your exchange. Two things:
a) keep it civil and constructive, please
b) the quotes game is a bit silly. One can keep asking for specific quotes while ignoring the broader context, and at any rate one can always cherry pick quotes, or discard them as “not representative” — just something to keep in mind, in case anyone thinks that producing a given quote, or one’s opponent failing at doing so, is a trump card that closes the discussion
LikeLike
Hi Massimo,
You are right about quotes and their limitations. But, while New Atheists think that society would be better without religion, and would like to persuade society to be less religious (and write books with that aim), I’ve never seen the prominent NAs advocate that the state should suppress religious belief. Most of the NA ilk strongly support freedom of expression (including religious freedom) and as models point to Scandinavia, where religion has largely died away, not from active suppression, but simply through people stopping believing it and stopping encouraging their kids to believe it.
LikeLike
Agreed on all counts, Massimo.
1. Coel: Gnu Atheists are generally antitheists. It is a generalization, not a stereotype, and therefore of reasonable accuracy. I do note that you didn’t explicitly deny that Gnu Atheism can be reframed as antheism.
2. Massimo: I hadn’t realized that Dawkins had made the mental illness claim way back when; so, for 40 years, this has been a theme of his. He’s very much an antitheist, Coel.
3. Coel: No, I think you ARE asking for it to be circumscribed. To take a parallel, since France bans the khimar, yarmulke, crucifix, etc., in schools, do you favor Britain banning the wearing of Arsenal or Man U jerseys in schools? If not, why don’t you? If not, why do you then claim Laïcité is not ‘circumscribing” of religion?
(Have I mentioned before how much I love analogies? 🙂 )
4. Massimo and Coel: Agreed in general on quotes and quote-mining. That said, I think Massimo would agree that the likes of PZ, if not using the word “eradicate,” have repeatedly espoused ideas of that nature.
4A. Agreed on quotes in another way.
First, it puts the burden of proof on the wrong side in an issue.
Second and related, it leaves the burden-shifter always ready to trot out the “no true Scotsman” or similar.
So, 5. Per the above, Coel, in previous discussions on Sci Sal, including the ones with your Laïcité comment, you’ve seen this all discussed before.
LikeLike
As for my crack above about Goldstein, here’s why, in a very detailed review, I 2-starred “Plato at the Googleplex”: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/971370653
LikeLike
Socratic: Excellent review. I’ve never understood the gushing over Goldstein. She has always struck me as both a mediocre writer and a mediocre philosopher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Socratic,
Many British schools do have that sort of dress code, and I have no problem with it. Many British schools require a school uniform, and it’s a fairly sensible policy.
On PZ: nowadays I disagree with him on lots (especially since he went utterly bonkers) but I’m not aware of him ever advocating the state suppression of religion.
I wish that more people would take the NA position of supporting free expression, of which religious freedom is part, instead of all these “hate speech” restrictions. There’s currently a prosecution going on in the UK of a preacher for describing Islam as “Satanic”, and — sadly — much of the media and nation see nothing wrong with that prosecution.
LikeLike