@ontologysue
It is truly a textbook argument from ignorance,
Ignorance has nothing to do with it, I’m suggesting the opposite, rationality, par excellance, which might require you to change your paradigm away from strict materialism. “Naive materialism” is the belief that ‘matter’ is all there is, modern science has moved beyond that assumption, it has not moved beyond rational concepts. Einstein, who was the antithesis of ignorance, said the following: “anyone seriously engaged in science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to human persons.” Scientists studying quantum particles, subatomic matter, are reaching the “rational” conclusion that the laws of nature, existence, may boil down to a universal thought, a universal wisdom, in another context, “information.” This reality is manifested in the laboratory as energy, then energy condensed, as matter. Matter cannot explain a mathematical concept, or love, beauty, purpose, intention, language or consciousness; an immaterial Mind, Intelligence can. If this paradigm is true, it is ultra-rational, the antithesis of ignorance. It does not deny or contradict the physical laws of nature, matter but simply complements the physical laws. This ultra-rational paradigm also is much more adept at understanding the mysteries of consciousness and language.
thought Stephen Pinker was more of a Psychologist and Linguist rather than a Neuroscientist? "
I haven’t read Pinker, I was quoting him from Varghese’s book. He was quoting from, “How the Mind Works,” but since I don’t have the book, I can’t verify the quote. However, in regard to what you quoted above, from his work, my gut reaction is, I have no idea what he’s calling “religious explanations.” I’m not depending on “religious explanations.” However, I’m not limiting my rational faculty to the unnatural limitations of materialism. Rationality, the ability to grasp abstract concepts, inevitably leads beyond the truths of the physical.
The Richard Dawkins quote comes from “Unweaving the Rainbow,” in context, “there doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it. Equally obscure is the origin of semantics, of words and their meanings.” I am no scientist and only approach this stuff as a layman, testing against my own existential experience of reality, which I confess is mystical, however by mystical I mean, rational. However, Chomsky, who evidently did profound studies of language, and others, have basically said human language built on syntactical rules, has no derivative from animal communications.
enny is a philosopher who has studied language in the context of natural selection; he sees no selective advantage.
Phooney:
Thanks for the link to the recent Hitchens debate, I will hopefully be able to listen to it at some point over the weekend, but I have my work Christmas party tomorrow so I might be feeling a bit rough
. I’m getting a bit wary about Hitchens at the moment though, I sometimes think he just likes to argue only for arguments sake, and he’s sometimes drinking vodka during debates, so not the greatest for clear thinking. I think he has a fantastically quick wit though, and he is at least entertaining to listen to.
Yes, I love to listen to Hitchens also, quite astute, agree with him totally on the Islamic terrorists but I think there’s some psychological issues going on with his anti-religious views; “Thou doth protest too much;” however, I truly respect his intellectual honesty. In the aforementioned debate both participants truly try to address and clarify arguments in terms of their rational merit, honestly conceding points when it’s called for.
Phooney:
Thanks for this clarification. But by who’s version of “morally reprehensible” and “improvement in character” and “virtuous” are you going by? The basic model of evolutionary morality I outlined above (as a poor layman) takes into account how our morality changes with time and consensus and encompasses why different cultures have developed similar, but slightly differently in terms of what they think is “virtuous” or “reprehsnsible” and all the shades in between.
Well, here again, I would say, your’re arguing like a true materialist; ie, there can be no absolutes, no truth. The concept of “virtue” the “Good” has been established by most philosophers from Plato to Aristotle through Kant’s moral imperative. I think human history demonstrates a much greater consensus on what “virtue” consists of, than not.
