Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

[markeverett49]

That is the subtitle of new book by philosopher and atheist Thomas Nagel. (He is not to be numbered among the ‘new atheists,’ however; he is an atheist but he’s a real philosopher first and one of some distinction.)

I’m including a link to the book at Amazon as well as a review of the book by philosopher Edward Feser, whose “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” is known to many here.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/aristotle-call-your-office

amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350781449&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+nagel%2C+mind+and+cosmos

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is the subtitle of new book by philosopher and atheist Thomas Nagel. (He is not to be numbered among the ‘new atheists,’ however; he is an atheist but he’s a real philosopher first and one of some distinction.)

I’m including a link to the book at Amazon as well as a review of the book by philosopher Edward Feser, whose “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” is known to many here.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/aristotle-call-your-office

amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350781449&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+nagel%2C+mind+and+cosmos

Mark, is there a special form of Materialism referred to as " Neo-Darwinian Materialism ? "
Of course many of us here reject materialism as we usually understand it. And then there others who favor it. So what’s the question?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Mark, is there a special form of Materialism referred to as " Neo-Darwinian Materialism ? "
Of course many of us here reject materialism as we usually understand it. And then there others who favor it. So what’s the question?

This is from the Amazon link, there’s more if you want to go there:

Book Description
Publication Date: September 26, 2012
The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.

Nagel’s skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.

In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.

Apparently, the atheist finally realized that some things, things particular to humans, cannot be explained without, well, God. He wrote a book saying they weren’t explained by standard biological theory. He seems to have stopped short of suggesting the answer.

If he continues down this slippery for an atheist slope, in 2015 they’ll be publishing his book about conversion to Catholicism.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Re: The sub-title from this review of Nagel’s book by Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg:

Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagel’s philosophical meditations, but his subtitle—”Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”—is highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “is almost certainly false.” The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.

Well, a guy’s gotta make a living.

 

[cornbread_r2]

This is from the Amazon link, there’s more if you want to go there:

Apparently, the atheist finally realized that some things, things particular to humans, cannot be explained without, well, God. He wrote a book saying they weren’t explained by standard biological theory. He seems to have stopped short of suggesting the answer.

If he continues down this slippery for an atheist slope, in 2015 they’ll be publishing his book about conversion to Catholicism.

If he stopped short of suggesting an answer, how can you then assume that he realized that God is the answer to human development?

 

[Sair]

Re: The sub-title from this review of Nagel’s book by Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg:

Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagel’s philosophical meditations, but his subtitle—”Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”—is highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “is almost certainly false.” The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.

I read the same review, actually - the thrust of which seemed to be that Nagel briefly erects a straw-man version of scientific materialism and spends the rest of his book arguing against it…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Mark, is there a special form of Materialism referred to as " Neo-Darwinian Materialism ? "
Of course many of us here reject materialism as we usually understand it. And then there others who favor it. So what’s the question?

O.K. I get it. Just informational. Can’t beat Feser.

 

[markeverett49]

If he continues down this slippery for an atheist slope, in 2015 they’ll be publishing his book about conversion to Catholicism.

That would be welcome news indeed! In his book “The Last Word” Nagel said that not only did he not believe in God, he did not want there to be a God. He didn’t want to live in a universe like that. It is the most straightforward expression of that attitude I’ve ever found in a contemporary, high-flown philosophy book.

I suspect Nagel will catch much flak from his peers for this. To many, it is bad form to find any fault (-publicly, at least) with the materialist word view because that would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[markeverett49]

I read the same review, actually - the thrust of which seemed to be that Nagel briefly erects a straw-man version of scientific materialism and spends the rest of his book arguing against it…

Nagel is a philosopher and not a scientist. He is writing for a general audience heavily weighted with philosophers. Sometimes philosophers see problems with scientific theories that scientists are blind to. It’s not just that scientific materialism HAS NOT explained how it is that a blind, purposeless process could evolve organic forms from in-organic ones, but the minds of human beings are PART of nature too and their ability to debate theories about the origin of life and consciousness is something that scientific materialism is unequipped to explain. (As Sertillanges said, it’s like saying a brush could paint by itself if only the handle were long enough. : o ) Or as the geneticist J. B. S. Haldane put it,“If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true. If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain, they are determined by the laws of chemistry, not those of logic.” And Haldane again, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
Nancy Cartwright is also good on this point. Scientists believe they banished Aristotle and all talk of “ends” from science but they simply call them something else and go on as before.

 

[markeverett49]

Re: The sub-title from this review of Nagel’s book by Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg:

Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagel’s philosophical meditations, but his subtitle—”Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”—is highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “is almost certainly false.” The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.

A couple things here. First, Nagel not only is a philosopher, and a good one; to suggest he is writing for people with no serious philosophic interests is a non-starter. Second, we’ve all known that Darwin’s theory is obviously wrong about some things. (It is crucial to Darwin’s theory that a) infant mortality is always high and b) all organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible. Both of these claims–necessary to Darwin’s theory–are false about human beings. Out and out false.) But to the bigger thing—how people evolved who can put forward a theory such as Darwin’s and discuss it rationally–is something scientific naturalism cannot even HOPE to explain because the only way a person—such as yourself, for example–can believe a theory based upon evidence and reasoning is for Darwinism to be FALSE. (If your thoughts are wholly determined, there is no reason to think any of them true. On Darwin’s materialistic view, truth CANNOT influence ANYTHING because it is immaterial.)

 

[tonyrey]

A couple things here. First, Nagel not only is a philosopher, and a good one; to suggest he is writing for people with no serious philosophic interests is a non-starter. Second, we’ve all known that Darwin’s theory is obviously wrong about some things. (It is crucial to Darwin’s theory that a) infant mortality is always high and b) all organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible. Both of these claims–necessary to Darwin’s theory–are false about human beings. Out and out false.) But to the bigger thing—how people evolved who can put forward a theory such as Darwin’s and discuss it rationally–is something scientific naturalism cannot even HOPE to explain because the only way a person—such as yourself, for example–can believe a theory based upon evidence and reasoning is for Darwinism to be FALSE. (If your thoughts are wholly determined, there is no reason to think any of them true. On Darwin’s materialistic view, truth CANNOT influence ANYTHING because it is immaterial.)

Irrefutable! I’ve been waiting for a long time for some one to explain how biological machines are capable of insight… No one has ever done so…

 

[tonyrey]

I suspect Nagel will catch much flak from his peers for this. To many, it is bad form to find any fault (-publicly, at least) with the materialist world view because that would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

They have already crticised him harshly!

 

[empther]

Julie Mae’s post:

Originally Posted by cornbread_r2
The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.

Well, a guy’s gotta make a living.

When Bishop Sheen was a young priest studying in London, some philosopher wrote a bestseller called God and Time, or something like that, wherein he claimed God was an evolving God who grew greater in time.
Sheen went to see this guy and explained that God was infinite, unchanging and all that. The guy said he’d never thought of it that way. Sheen asked him if he’d read the works of Aquinas.
His answer: “No and I don’t think I will. You become known in this world not through truth but through novelty, and my theory is novel.”
:bigyikes: :banghead:

 

[tonyrey]

Re: The sub-title from this review of Nagel’s book by Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg:
Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagel’s philosophical meditations, but his subtitle—”Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”—is highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “is almost certainly false.” The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.

Ad hominem which does not refute his reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

I read the same review, actually - the thrust of which seemed to be that Nagel briefly erects a straw-man version of scientific materialism and spends the rest of his book arguing against it…

Have you read his book?

 

[Julia_Mae]

(It is crucial to Darwin’s theory that a) infant mortality is always high and b) all organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible.

I’m not a philosopher but human evolution was my main field of study and this is not correct.

1st, it is not necessary for infant mortality to be high, in fact, it would be deadly for species that have few and widely-spaced young. Evolution operates by a variety of pressures, and selective pressures, that keep the population of one species from exploding relative to other species, which is necessary for the survival of all species. That’s just observation, not theory.

2nd, selection works in terms of “fitness,” a term which does not mean the biggest and baddest survive, it is a term referring to the “fit of the individual with their environment.” In this case, selection favors the fittest who will have the most babies who will grow up to have the most babies. Individuals with low fitness have few offspring or have those which do not survive to reproductive age.

Darwin, to the extreme irritation of those who would like to be the smartest paleoanthropologist in the room, was pretty much completely correct as far as he could explain the derivation of species without genetics.

 

[tonyrey]

Mark, is there a special form of Materialism referred to as " Neo-Darwinian Materialism ? "
Of course many of us here reject materialism as we usually understand it. And then there others who favor it. So what’s the question?

You seem to be implying that materialism is compatible with theism! Does “others” include “some of us here”?

 

[tonyrey]

…Darwin, to the extreme irritation of those who would like to be the smartest paleoanthropologist in the room, was pretty much completely correct as far as he could explain the derivation of species without genetics.

Including homo sapiens?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Including homo sapiens?

What did you have in mind? Darwin was a product of his culture, remember,as are we all.