"Richard Dawkins' God Delusion" is not only a fascinating battle with the book written by the famous British atheist. It is a clash of two epochs - the old atheistic school of the XIX and XX centuries, full, as it turns out, of an irrational chaos of assertions, contradictions and intolerance - with the modern Christianity of XXI century, focused on the accuracy, consistency and objectivity of the presented position. It is a confrontation of two different worldviews, philosophical (...) and biological, in a dispute about the value system based on modern scientific achievements of man. There are also other works by dr Paweł Bloch: Ateistoteles and The Great Dictator, yet still in preparation. (shrink)

In this paper we respond to three objections raised by Joshua Harris to our article, “Against a Postmodern Pentecostal Epistemology,” in which we express misgivings about the conjunction of Pentecostalism with James K. A. Smith’s postmodern, story-based epistemolo- gy. According to Harris, our critique: 1) problematically assumes a correspondence theory of truth, 2) invalidly concludes that “Derrida’s Axiom” conflicts with “Peter’s Axiom,” and 3) fails to consider an alternative account of the universality of Christian truth claims. We argue that Harris’s (...) objections either demonstrate a deficient interpretation of the relevant biblical pas- sages or are not directed at us at all. (shrink)

Der berühmte Ameisenmann E.O. Wilson war schon immer einer meiner Helden - nicht nur ein hervorragender Biologe, sondern eine der winzigen und verschwindenden Minderheit von Intellektuellen, die es zumindest wagt, die Wahrheit über unsere Natur anzudeuten, die andere nicht verstehen oder, soweit sie es verstehen, aus politischen Gründen unermüdlich vermeiden. Leider beendet er seine lange Karriere auf äußerst schäbige Weise als Partei eines ignoranten und arroganten Angriffs auf die Wissenschaft, der zumindest teilweise durch die religiöse Inbrunst seiner Harvard-Kollegenmotiviertist. Es zeigt (...) die abscheulichen Folgen, wenn Universitäten Geld von religiösen Gruppen annehmen, Wissenschaftszeitschriften von großen Namen so bewundert sind, dass sie eine ordnungsgemäße Peer Review vermeiden und wenn Egos außer Kontrolle geraten dürfen. Es führt uns in die Natur der Evolution, die Grundlagen der wissenschaftlichen Methodik, wie Mathematik mit Wissenschaft zusammenhängt, was eine Theorie ausmacht, und sogar, welche Einstellungen zu Religion und Großzügigkeit angemessen sind, wenn wir uns unaufhaltsam dem Zusammenbruch der industriellen Zivilisation nähern. Ich fand Abschnitte in 'Conquest' mit dem üblichen prägnanten Kommentar (obwohl nichts wirklich Neues oder Interessantes, wenn man seine anderen Werke gelesen hat und auf biologie im Allgemeinen ist) in der oftgestylten Prosa, die sein Markenzeichen ist, aber war ziemlich überrascht, dass der Kern des Buches seine Ablehnung inklusiver Fitness (die seit über 50 Jahren ein Standbein der Evolutionsbiologie ist) zugunsten der Gruppenauswahl ist. Man nimmt an, dass von ihm kommen und mit den articles er bezieht sich auf veröffentlicht von sich selbst und Harvard Mathematik Kollege Nowak in großen Peer-Review-Zeitschriften wie Nature, muss es ein wesentlicher Fortschritt sein,, trotz der Tatsache, dass ich wusste, Gruppenauswahl wurde fast überall abgelehnt, da mit jeder großen Rolle in der Evolution. Ich habe zahlreiche Rezensionen im Netz gelesen und viele haben gute Kommentare, aber die, die ich am meisten sehen wollte, war, dass von renommierten Wissenschaftsautor und Evolutionsbiologe Richard Dawkins. Im Gegensatz zu den meisten von Fachleuten, die in Zeitschriften nur für diejenigen mit Zugang zu einer Universität zur Verfügung stehen, ist es leicht im Netz verfügbar, obwohlanscheinend, entschied er sich, es nicht in einer Zeitschrift zu veröffentlichen, da es angemessen abscheulich ist. Leider findet man eine vernichtende Ablehnung des Buches und den acerbic Kommentar über einen wissenschaftlichen Kollegen, den ich je von Dawkins gesehen habe -- über alles in seinem vielen Austausch mit dem verstorbenen und unbeklagten Demagogen und Pseudowissenschaftler Stephan Jay Gould. Obwohl Gould für seine persönlichen Angriffe auf seinen Harvard-Kollegen Wilson berüchtigt war, stellt Dawkins fest, dass ein Großteil von "Conquest" einen unbequem an Goulds häufige Verfehlungen in "bland, unfocussed ecumenicalis" erinnert. Dasselbe gilt mehr oder weniger für Wilsons populäres Schreiben, einschließlich seines jüngsten Buches "The Meaning of Human Existence" – eine weitere schamlose Eigenwerbung seiner diskreditierten Ideen zu Inklusiver Fitness (IF). Dawkins weist darauf hin, dass das berüchtigte 2010-Papier von Nowak, Tarnita und Wilson in Nature von über 140 Biologen, die einen Brief unterzeichnet haben, fast überall abgelehnt wurde und dass es in Wilsons Buch kein Wort darüber gibt. Auch in den folgenden 4 Jahren mit Artikeln, Vorträgen und mehreren Büchern haben sie dies nicht korrigiert. Es gibt keine andere Wahl, als Dawkins trenchant Kommentar zuzustimmen: "Für Wilson nicht zu zugeben, dass er für sich selbst gegen die große Mehrheit seiner professionellen Kollegen spricht - es schmerzt mich, dies von einem lebenslangen Helden zu sagen -- ein Akt mutwilligen Arroganz." Angesichts von Nowaks späterem Verhalten muss man ihn auch einbeziehen. Ich habe das Gefühl, dass einer der fassungslosen Menschen, die man im Fernsehen sieht, interviewt wird, nachdem der nette Mann von nebenan, der seit 30 Jahren alle Kinder babysitten, als Serienmörder entlarvt wird. Dawkins weist auch darauf hin (wie er und andere seit vielen Jahren), dass inklusive Fitness mit dem Neo-Darwinismus (d.h. logischerweise folgt) entsteht und nicht abgelehnt werden kann, ohne die Evolution selbst abzulehnen. Wilson erinnert uns erneut an Gould, der Kreationisten von der einen Seite seines Mundes anprangerte, während er ihnen Trost spendete, indem er endlosen ultraliberalen marxistisch gefärbten Kauderwelsch über Spandrels, unterbrochenes Gleichgewicht und Evolutionspsychologie von der anderen ausspeist. Die Unbestimmtheit und mathematische Opazität (für die meisten von uns) der Mathematik der Gruppen- oder Mehrebenenauswahl ist genau das, was die Sanftmütigen ihnen ermöglichen wollen, dem rationalen Denken in ihren endlosen antiwissenschaftlichen Gerüchten und (in der Wissenschaft) postmodernen Wortsalate zu entkommen. Schlimmer noch, Wilsons "Eroberung" ist ein schlecht durchdachtes und schlampig geschriebenes Durcheinander voller Nonsequiturs, vager Streifzüge, Verwirrungen und Inkohärenz. Eine gute Bewertung, die einige davon im Detail ist, dass von Absolvent Gerry Carter, die Sie im Netz finden können. Wilson hat auch nichts mit unserem gegenwärtigen Verständnis der Evolutionspsychologie (EP) zu tun (siehe z.B. die letzten 300 Seiten von Pinkers 'The Better Angels of our Nature'). Wenn Sie eine seriöse Buchlänge Bericht über die soziale Evolution und einige relevante EP von einem Experten wollen, siehe 'Principles of Social Evolution' von Andrew F.G. Bourke, oder ein nicht ganz so ernster und zugegebenermaßen fehlerhafter und irrender Bericht, aber ein Muss,das Robert Trivers dennoch lesen muss—'The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life' und ältere, aber immer noch aktuelle und durchdringende Werke wie 'The Evolutionof Cooperation':Revised Edition by Robert Axelrod and 'The Biology ofMoral Systems' von Richard Alexander. (shrink)

In this essay I argue that Darwinian theory, far from supporting a philosophy of metaphysical materialism, actually calls materialism into question. Once this is recognized we see that evolutionary theory, for all its successes (which are considerable), is more limited than is generally supposed in its ability to reveal or explain the ultimate thrust of life.

Richard Dawkins tries to establish an analogy between computer viruses and theistic belief systems, analyzing the latter in terms of his concept of the meme. The underlying thrust of Dawkins' argument is to downplay the role of truth and logic in the survival of theories and to emphasize humankind's helpless liability to incurable infection by doctrines that Dawkins regards as absurd. Dawkins supplies a list of "symptoms” of mind-infection. However, on closer investigation these characteristics are (...) found to be either rather weak protection against criticism or quite virtuous. Dawkins relies on a crude justificationism that could just as well be called a mind-virus. Applying Dawkins’ own selection of the general characteristics of a good meme protector and propagator leads to the conclusion that his particular theistic examples would actually impair copyability. -/- Scientific theories are better examples of memes with high longevity, fecundity, and fidelity. A Darwinian analysis of wishful and fearful thinking as useful to hypotheses-testing and goal-seeking organisms undermines Dawkins' attribution of absolute irrational stubbornness to theists. To counterbalance Dawkins' emphasis on the propagation of the absurd, I rehabilitate the Socratic emphasis on the importance of truth and logic in rhetoric, interpreted broadly as the theory of the successful propagation of a message. I use Popper's notion of situational analysis, and an evolutionary perspective to argue that rational standards of a message enhance its copyability. I further apply Popper’s notions of World 3, 2, and 1 to memes; this helps us see the perpetuation of a doctrine as a logical task. (shrink)

I examine the central atheistic argument of Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion (“Dawkins’s Gambit”) and illustrate its failure. I further show that Dawkins’s Gambit is a fragment of a more comprehensive critique of theism found in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Among the failings of Dawkins’s Gambit is that it is directed against a version of the God Hypothesis that few traditional monotheists hold. Hume’s critique is more challenging in that it targets versions (...) of the God Hypothesis that are central to traditional monotheism. Theists and atheists should put away The God Delusion and pick up Hume’s Dialogues. (shrink)

चूंकि Gintis एक वरिष्ठ अर्थशास्त्री है और मैं ब्याज के साथ अपने पिछले पुस्तकों में से कुछ पढ़ा है, मैं व्यवहार में कुछ और अंतर्दृष्टि की उम्मीद कर रहा था. अफसोस की बात है, वह समूह चयन और phenomenology के मृत हाथ व्यवहार के अपने सिद्धांतों के centerpieces में बनाता है, और यह काफी हद तक काम अमान्य. इससे भी बदतर, क्योंकि वह इस तरह के बुरे निर्णय यहाँ से पता चलता है, यह सवाल अपने पिछले काम में कहता है. (...) हार्वर्ड, Nowak और विल्सन, कुछ साल पहले में अपने दोस्तों द्वारा समूह चयन पुनर्जीवित करने का प्रयास पिछले दशक में जीव विज्ञान में प्रमुख घोटालों में से एक था, और मैं अपने लेख 'Altruism, यीशु और दुनिया के अंत में दुखद कहानी सुनाई है कैसे टेम्पलटन फू एक हार्वर्ड प्रोफेसरशिप खरीदा है और विकास, तर्कसंगतता और सभ्यता पर हमला किया - ईओ विल्सन 'पृथ्वी के सामाजिक विजय' (2012) और Nowak और Highfield 'SuperCooperators' (2012) की समीक्षा. Nowak के विपरीत, Gintis धार्मिक कट्टरता से प्रेरित नहीं लगता है, लेकिन मजबूत करने के लिए मानव प्रकृति की गंभीर वास्तविकताओं के लिए एक विकल्प उत्पन्न करने की इच्छा से, बुनियादी मानव जीव विज्ञान और खाली स्लेटिज्म की समझ की कमी (के पास सार्वभौमिक) द्वारा आसान बना दिया व्यवहार वैज्ञानिकों, अन्य शिक्षाविदों, और आम जनता. Gintis ठीक हमलों (जैसा कि वह पहले कई बार किया है) अर्थशास्त्री, समाजशास्त्रियों और अन्य व्यवहार वैज्ञानिकों के व्यवहार का वर्णन करने के लिए एक सुसंगत रूपरेखा नहीं होने के लिए. बेशक, व्यवहार को समझने के लिए आवश्यक ढांचा एक विकासवादी है। दुर्भाग्य से, वह एक खुद को प्रदान करने में विफल रहता है (अपने कई आलोचकों के अनुसार और मैं सहमत), और जो कुछ भी आर्थिक और मनोवैज्ञानिक सिद्धांतों वह काम के अपने दशकों में उत्पन्न किया है पर समूह चयन के सड़े शव कलम करने का प्रयास, केवल अपनी पूरी परियोजना को अमान्य करता है। हालांकि Gintis एक बहादुर को समझने और आनुवंशिकी की व्याख्या करने का प्रयास करता है, विल्सन और Nowak की तरह, वह एक विशेषज्ञ से दूर है, और उन्हें पसंद है, गणित सिर्फ उसे जैविक असंभव के लिए अंधा कर देता है और निश्चित रूप से यह विज्ञान में आदर्श है. के रूप में Wittgenstein प्रसिद्ध संस्कृति और मूल्य के पहले पृष्ठ पर उल्लेख किया "कोई धार्मिक संप्रदाय है जिसमें आध्यात्मिक अभिव्यक्ति का दुरुपयोग इतना पाप के लिए जिम्मेदार है के रूप में यह गणित में है." यह हमेशा क्रिस्टल स्पष्ट किया गया है कि एक जीन है कि व्यवहार का कारण बनता है जो अपनी आवृत्ति कम हो जाती है जारी नहीं रख सकते हैं, लेकिन यह समूह चयन की धारणा का मूल है. इसके अलावा, यह अच्छी तरह से जाना जाता है और अक्सर प्रदर्शन किया गया है कि समूह चयन सिर्फ समावेशी फिटनेस को कम कर देता है (किन चयन), जो, के रूप में Dawkins उल्लेख किया है, सिर्फ प्राकृतिक चयन द्वारा विकास के लिए एक और नाम है. विल्सन की तरह, Gintis के बारे में 50 साल के लिए इस क्षेत्र में काम किया है और अभी भी यह समझ में नहीं आया है, लेकिन बाद घोटाले तोड़ दिया, यह मुझे केवल 3 दिन लग गए खोजने के लिए, पढ़ने और सबसे प्रासंगिक पेशेवर काम समझ, के रूप में मेरे लेख में विस्तृत. यह महसूस करने के लिए मन boggling है कि Gintis और विल्सन लगभग आधी सदी में यह पूरा करने में असमर्थ थे. मैं समूह चयन और phenomenology की त्रुटियों पर चर्चा है कि निकट सार्वभौमिक विफलता के विशेष मामलों के रूप में शिक्षा के क्षेत्र में आदर्श हैं मानव प्रकृति है कि अमेरिका और दुनिया को नष्ट कर रहे हैं समझने के लिए. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019) . (shrink)

Como Gintis es economista senior y he leído algunos de sus libros anteriores con interés, esperaba más información sobre el comportamiento. Tristemente, hace las manos muertas de selección de grupos y fenomenología en los centros de sus teorías de comportamiento, y esto invalida en gran medida la obra. Peor aún, ya que muestra tan mal juicio aquí, cuestiona todo su trabajo anterior. El intento de resucitar la selección grupal por sus amigos en Harvard, Nowak y Wilson, hace unos años fue (...) uno de los mayores escándalos en biología en la última década, y he contado la triste historia en mi artículo ' altruismo, Jesús y el fin del mundo-cómo el Templeton Foundation compró una Cátedra de Harvard y atacó la evolución, la racionalidad y la civilización--una revisión de E.O. Wilson ' la conquista social de la tierra ' (2012) y Nowak y Highfield ' SuperCooperators ' (2012). ' A diferencia de Nowak, Gintis no parece estar motivada por el fanatismo religioso, sino por el fuerte deseo de generar una alternativa a las realidades sombrías de la naturaleza humana, fácil por la falta de comprensión (casi universal) de la biología humana básica y el pizeísmo en blanco de científicos del comportamiento, otros académicos y el público en general. Gintis ataca con razón (como ha tenido muchas veces antes) a economistas, sociólogos y otros científicos del comportamiento por no tener un marco coherente para describir el comportamiento. Claro, el marco necesario para comprender el comportamiento es un uno evolutivo. Desafortunadamente él no proporciona uno mismo (de acuerdo con sus muchos críticos y Yo coincido), y el intento de injertar el cadáver podrido de selección de grupo en cualquier teoría económica y psicológica que ha generado en sus décadas de trabajo, simplemente invalida todo su proyecto . Aunque Gintis hace un valiente esfuerzo para entender y explicar la genética, como Wilson y Nowak, él está lejos de ser un experto, y como ellos, las matemáticas sólo lo ciega a las imposibilidades biológicas y, por supuesto, esta es la norma en la ciencia. Como señaló Wittgenstein en la primera página de la cultura y el valor "no hay denominación religiosa en la que el mal uso de las expresiones metafísicas ha sido responsable de tanto pecado como lo ha sido en matemáticas." Siempre ha sido cristalino que un gen que causa comportamiento que disminuye su propia frecuencia no puede persistir, pero este es el núcleo de la noción de selección de grupo. Además, ha sido bien sabido y a menudo demostró que la selección de grupos sólo se reduce a la aptitud inclusiva (selección de los parientes), que, como Dawkins ha señalado, es sólo otro nombre para la evolución por la selección natural. Al igual que Wilson, Gintis ha trabajado en esta arena durante unos 50 años y todavía no lo ha entendido, pero después de que el escándalo se rompió, me tomó sólo 3 días para encontrar, leer y entender el trabajo profesional más relevante, como se detalla en mi artículo. Es alucinante darse cuenta de que Gintis y Wilson fueron incapaces de lograr esto en casi medio siglo. Discuto los errores de selección de grupo y fenomenología que son la norma en el mundo académico como casos especiales de la falta casi universal de entender la naturaleza humana que están destruyendo América y el mundo. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos sistemas punto de vista puede consultar mi libros Talking Monkeys 3ª ed (2019), Estructura Logica de Filosofia, Psicología, Mente y Lenguaje en Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle 2a ed (2019), Suicidio pela Democracia 4ª ed (2019), La Estructura Logica del Comportamiento Humano (2019), The Logical Structure de la Conciencia (2019, Entender las Conexiones entre Ciencia, Filosofía, Psicología, Religión, Política y Economía y Delirios Utópicos Suicidas en el siglo 21 5ª ed (2019), Observaciones sobre Imposibilidad, Incompletitud, Paraconsistencia, Indecidibilidad, Aleatoriedad, Computabilidad, Paradoja e Incertidumbre en Chaitin, Wittgenstein, Hofstadter, Wolpert, Doria, da Costa, Godel, Searle, Rodych Berto, Floyd, Moyal-Sharrock y Yanofsky y otras. (shrink)

Depuis Gintis est un économiste senior et j’ai lu certains de ses livres précédents avec intérêt, je m’attendais à un peu plus de perspicacité dans le comportement. Malheureusement, il fait les mains mortes de la sélection de groupe et la phénoménologie dans les pièces maîtresses de ses théories du comportement, et cela invalide en grande partie le travail. Pire encore, puisqu’il montre un si mauvais jugement ici, il remet en question tout son travail précédent. La tentative de ressusciter la sélection (...) de groupe par ses amis à Harvard, Nowak et Wilson, il y a quelques années, c’était l’un des principaux scandales en biologie au cours de la dernière décennie, et j’ai raconté la triste histoire dans mon article 'Altruism, Jesus and the End of the World-how the Templeton Foundation bought a Harvard Professorship and attacked Evolution, Rationality and Civilization -- A review of E.O. Wilson 'The Social Conquest of Earth' (2012) et Nowak and Highfield 'SuperCooperators' (2012).' Contrairement à Nowak, Gintis ne semble pas être motivé par le fanatisme religieux, mais par le fort désir de générer une alternative aux sombres réalités de la nature humaine, facilitée par le manque (quasi universel) de compréhension de la biologie humaine fondamentale et le slateisme vierge des scientifiques comportementaux, d’autres universitaires et du grand public. Gintis attaque à juste titre (comme il l’a fait à maintes reprises) les économistes, les sociologues et d’autres scientifiques du comportement pour ne pas avoir un cadre cohérent pour décrire le comportement. Bien sûr, le cadre nécessaire pour comprendre le comportement est évolutif. Malheureusement, il ne parvient pas à en fournir un lui-même (selon ses nombreux critiques et je suis d’accord), et la tentative de greffer le cadavre pourri de la sélection de groupe sur toutes les théories économiques et psychologiques qu’il a généré dans ses décennies de travail, n’a fait qu’invalider tout son projet. Bien que Gintis fasse un vaillant effort pour comprendre et expliquer la génétique, comme Wilson et Nowak, il est loin d’être un expert, et comme eux, le calcul l’aveugle juste aux impossibilités biologiques et bien sûr c’est la norme en science. Comme Wittgenstein l’a noté sur la première page de la culture et de la valeur « Il n’y a pas de dénomination religieuse dans laquelle l’utilisation abusive des expressions métaphysiques a été responsable de tant de péchés qu’il l’a en mathématiques. » Il a toujours été clair que un gène qui provoque un comportement qui diminue sa propre fréquence ne peut pas persister, mais c’est le cœur de la notion de sélection de groupe. En outre, il a été bien connu et souvent démontré que la sélection de groupe réduit juste à la condition physique inclusive (sélection de parents), qui, comme Dawkins l’a noté, est juste un autre nom pour l’évolution par sélection naturelle. Comme Wilson, Gintis a travaillé dans cette arène pendant environ 50 ans et n’a toujours pas compris, mais après le scandale a éclaté, il ne m’a fallu que 3 jours pour trouver, lire et comprendre le travail professionnel le plus pertinent, comme détaillé dans mon article. Il est ahurissant de se rendre compte que Gintis et Wilson n’ont pas été en mesure d’y parvenir en près d’un demi-siècle. Je discute des erreurs de sélection de groupe et de phénoménologie qui sont la norme dans le milieu universitaire comme des cas spéciaux de l’échec quasi universel de comprendre la nature humaine qui détruisent l’Amérique et le monde. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systemes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2020) et autres. (shrink)

유명한 개미맨 E.O. 윌슨은 뛰어난 생물학자일 뿐만 아니라, 적어도 다른 사람들이 이해하지 못하는 우리의 본성에 대한 진실을 감히 암시하기 위해 감히, 또는 정치적 편의를위해 공전적으로 피하는 소수의 지식인 중 한 명입니다. 슬프게도, 그는 적어도 하버드 동료들의 종교적 열정에 의해 동기를 부여 과학에 대한 무지하고 오만한 공격의 당사자로서 가장 끔찍한 방식으로 자신의 긴 경력을 끝내고 종교적 열정 있습니다. 그것은 대학이 종교 단체에서 돈을 받아 들일 때 사악한 결과를 보여줍니다, 과학 저널은 그들이 적절한 동료 검토를 피할 수 있도록 큰 이름에 의해 너무 (...) 경외, 그리고 자아가 통제에서 얻을 수 있을 때. 그것은 진화의 본질, 과학적 방법론의 기초, 수학이 과학과 어떻게 관련되는지, 이론을 구성하는 것이 무엇인지, 그리고 산업 문명의 붕괴에 가차없이 접근할 때 종교와 관대함에 대한 태도가 어떤 적절한지에 대해 설명합니다. 현대 의 두 시스템 보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. (shrink)

Desde Gintis é um economista sênior e eu li alguns de seus livros anteriores com interesse, eu estava esperando um pouco mais insights sobre o comportamento. Infelizmente, ele faz as mãos mortas de seleção de grupo e fenomenologia para as peças centrais de suas teorias de comportamento, e isso em grande parte invalida o trabalho. Pior, uma vez que ele mostra um julgamento tão ruim aqui, ele chama a questão de todo o seu trabalho anterior. A tentativa de ressuscitar a (...) seleção de grupos por seus amigos em Harvard, Nowak e Wilson, há alguns anos foi um dos maiores escândalos em biologia na última década, e eu tenho narrado a triste história no meu artigo ' altruísmo, Jesus e do fim do mundo-como o Templeton Foundation comprou uma cátedra de Harvard e atacou evolução, racionalidade e civilização-uma revisão de E.O. Wilson 'A Conquista social da Terra' (The Social Conquest of Earth) (2012) e Nowak e Highfield ' SuperCooperators ' (2012). Ao contrário de Nowak, Gintis não parece ser motivado pelo fanatismo religioso, mas pelo forte desejo de gerar uma alternativa para as realidades sombrias da natureza humana, facilitada pela (perto Universal) falta de compreensão da biologia humana e Blank Slateism (tábua rasa) de cientistas comportamentais, outros acadêmicos e o público em geral. Gintis justamente ataca (como ele tem muitas vezes antes) economistas, sociólogos e outros cientistas comportamentais por não ter um quadro coerente para descrever o comportamento. Naturalmente, a estrutura necessária para entender o comportamento é um evolucionário. Infelizmente, ele não consegue fornecer um próprio (de acordo com seus muitos críticos e eu concordo), e a tentativa de transplantar o cadáver podre de seleção de grupo para qualquer teorias econômicas e psicológicas que ele gerou em suas décadas de trabalho, meramente invalida todo o seu projeto. Embora Gintis faz um esforço valente para entender e explicar a genética, como Wilson e Nowak, ele está longe de ser um perito, e como eles, a matemática apenas o cega para as impossibilidades biológicas e, claro, esta é a norma na ciência. Como Wittgenstein famosa observou na primeira página de cultura e valor "não há nenhuma denominação religiosa em que o uso indevido de expressões metafísicas tem sido responsável por tanto pecado como tem em matemática." Sempre foi evidente que um gene que provoca comportamento que diminui a sua própria frequência não pode persistir, mas este é o cerne da noção de seleção de grupo. Além disso, tem sido bem conhecido e muitas vezes demonstrado que a seleção de grupo apenas reduz a aptidão inclusiva (seleção de parentes), que, como observou Dawkins, é apenas um outro nome para a evolução pela seleção natural. Como Wilson, Gintis tem trabalhado nesta arena por cerca de 50 anos e ainda não entendeu, mas depois que o escândalo quebrou, levei apenas 3 dias para encontrar, ler e entender o trabalho profissional mais relevante, como detalhado no meu artigo. É incompreensível para perceber que Gintis e Wilson foram incapazes de realizar isso em quase meio século. Discuto os erros de seleção de grupo e fenomenologia que são a norma na Academia como casos especiais da falha universal perto de entender a natureza humana que estão destruindo a América e o mundo. Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019), e A Estrutura Lógica da Consciência (2019) e outras. (shrink)

Peter Williams complains that Richard Dawkins wraps his naturalism in ‘a fake finery of counterfeit meaning and purpose’. For his part, Williams has wrapped his complaint in an unoriginal and inapt analogy. The weavers in Hans Christian Andersen's fable announce that the Emperor's clothes are invisible to stupid people; almost the whole population pretends to see them for fear of being thought stupid . Fear of being thought stupid does not seem to trouble Richard Dawkins. Moreover, (...) Williams offers no reason to think that such fear motivates any of Dawkins' readers. Perhaps all we are supposed to take from the fable is that Dawkins' naturalism is obviously lacking in meaning and purpose. If that is the intended reading, then by using this analogy, Williams has given himself an unnecessarily difficult task. Surely, it would be achievement enough for him to show that Dawkins' naturalism lacks meaning and purpose. There is no reason for Williams to make the extra claim that it obviously lacks meaning and purpose. After all, there is an obvious difficulty with arguing over several pages that something is obviously the case. (shrink)

Gintis는 수석 경제학자이며 이전 책을 관심으로 읽었기 때문에 행동에 대한 더 많은 통찰력을 기대했습니다. 슬프게도,, 그는 집단 선택과 현상의 죽은 손을 행동 이론의 중심에 두고, 이것은 크게 작품을 무효화한다. 더 나쁜 것은 그가 여기에 그런 나쁜 판단을 보여 주므로, 그것은 그의 모든 이전 작품에 의문을 불러 불러 올 수 있습니다. 하버드, 노박, 윌슨에서 그의 친구들에 의해 그룹 선택을 부활하는 시도, 몇 년 전 지난 10 년 동안 생물학의 주요 스캔들 중 하나였고, 나는 템플턴 재단이 하버드 교수직을 구입하고 진화, 합리성 및 (...) 문명을 공격한 방법 - 내 기사 '이타주의, 예수 세계의 종말'에서 슬픈 이야기를 들려주었습니다. 노왁과 는 달리, 진티스는 종교적 광신주의에 의해 동기를 부여하지 않는 것 같다, 하지만 인간의 본성의 냉혹한 현실에 대한 대안을 생성하는 강한 욕망에 의해, 쉽게 만든 (거의 보편적 인) 기본 인간의 생물학과 행동 과학자의 빈 슬레이트의 부족, 다른 학자, 일반 대중. Gintis는 행동을 설명하는 일관된 프레임 워크를 가지고 있지 않은 경제학자, 사회학자 및 기타 행동 과학자를 올바르게 공격합니다. 물론행동을 이해하는 데 필요한 프레임 워크는 진화적 입니다. 불행하게도, 그는 자신을 제공하지 못합니다 (그의 많은 비평가와 나는 동의에 따라), 그리고 그가 작업의 수십 년 동안 생성 한 어떤 경제적, 심리적 이론에 그룹 선택의 썩은 시체를 접목하는 시도, 단지 그의 전체 프로젝트를 무효화. 진티스는 윌슨과 노박과 같은 유전학을 이해하고 설명하기 위해 용감한 노력을 기울이고 있지만, 그는 전문가와는 거리가 멀고, 그들처럼 수학은 그를 생물학적 불가능성에 눈멀게 하고 물론 이것이 과학의 규범입니다. Wittgenstein은 문화와 가치의 첫 페이지에 유명한 "형이상학적 표현의 오용이 수학에서와 같이 너무 많은 죄에 대한 책임이있는 종교적 교단이 없다." 자신의 주파수를 감소시키는 행동을 일으키는 원인이 되는 유전자가 지속될 수 없다는 것을 항상 명확했습니다, 그러나 이것은 단 선택의 개념의 핵심입니다. 또한, 그것은 잘 알려져 있으며 종종 그룹 선택이 단지 포함 피트 니스 (친족 선택)로 감소 것을 보여 주었다, 이는, Dawkins가 언급 한 바와 같이, 자연 선택에 의해 진화를위한 또 다른 이름입니다. 윌슨처럼, Gintis는 약 50 년 동안이 분야에서 일해 왔으며 여전히 그것을 파악하지 못했지만 스캔들이 터진 후 내 기사에서 자세히 설명 한 바와 같이 가장 관련성이 있는 전문 작업을 찾고 읽고 이해하는 데 3 일밖에 걸리지 않았습니다. 진티스와 윌슨이 거의 반세기 만에 이 것을 성취하지 못했다는 사실은 마음이 벅차다. 저는 학계에서 규범인 집단 선택과 현상의 오류에 대해 미국과 세계를 파괴하는 인간의 본성을 이해하지 못하는 보편적인 실패의 특별한 사례로 논의합니다. 현대 의 두 systems보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd ed (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드에서 자살 유토피아 망상 (2019) . (shrink)

Da Gintis ein leitender Ökonom ist und ich einige seiner früheren Bücher mit Interesse gelesen habe, erwartete ich einige weitere Einblicke in das Verhalten. Leider, macht er die toten Hände der Gruppenauswahl und Phänomenologie in die Herzstücke seiner Verhaltenstheorien, und das macht die Arbeit weitgehend ungültig. Schlimmer noch, da er hier ein so schlechtes Urteilsvermögen an den Tag stellt, stellt er all seine bisherigen Arbeiten in Frage. Der Versuch, die Gruppenauswahl seiner Freunde in Harvard, Nowak und Wilson wiederzubeleben, vor ein (...) paar Jahren war einer der größten Skandale in der Biologie in den letzten zehn Jahren, und ich habe die traurige Geschichte in meinem Artikel "Altruismus, Jesus und das Ende der Welt – wie die Templeton Foundation kaufte eine Harvard-Professur und angegriffen Evolution, Rationalität und Zivilisation -- Eine Rezension von E.O. Wilson 'The Social Conquest of Earth' (2012) und Nowak und Highfield 'SuperCooperators' (2012). Im Gegensatz zu Nowak scheint Gintis nicht durch religiösen Fanatismus motiviert zu sein, sondern durch den starken Wunsch, eine Alternative zu den düsteren Realitäten der menschlichen Natur zu schaffen, die durch das (nahezu universelle) Unverständnis der grundlegenden menschlichen Biologie und des leeren Schiefers von Verhaltenswissenschaftlern, anderen Akademikern und der breiten Öffentlichkeit leicht gemacht wird. Gintis greift zu Recht (wie schon oft zuvor) Ökonomen, Soziologen und andere Verhaltensforscher an, weil sie keinen kohärenten Rahmen haben, um Verhalten zu beschreiben. Natürlich ist das Notwendige, um Das Verhalten zu verstehen, evolutionär. Leider bietet er selbst keine selbst (nach seinen vielen Kritikern und ich stimme zu), und der Versuch, die faule Leiche der Gruppenauswahl auf alle wirtschaftlichen und psychologischen Theorien zu transplantieren, die er in seiner jahrzehntelangen Arbeit erzeugt hat, macht nur sein gesamtes Projekt ungültig. Obwohl Gintis sich tapfer bemüht, die Genetik zu verstehen und zu erklären, wie Wilson und Nowak, ist er weit davon entfernt, ein Experte zu sein, und wie sie blendet ihn die Mathematik nur für die biologischen Unmöglichkeiten, und das ist natürlich die Norm in der Wissenschaft. Wie Wittgenstein auf der ersten Seite von Kultur und Wert bekannte: "Es gibt keine religiöse Konfession, in der der Missbrauch metaphysischer Ausdrücke für so viel Sünde verantwortlich war wie in der Mathematik." Es war immer glasklar, dass ein Gen, das Verhalten verursacht, das seine eigene Frequenz verringert, nicht bestehen kann, aber dies ist der Kern des Begriffs der Gruppenauswahl. Darüber hinaus ist bekannt und oft gezeigt, dass Gruppenauswahl nur auf inklusive Fitness reduziert (Verwandtise), die, wie Dawkins festgestellt hat, ist nur ein weiterer Name für evolution durch natürliche Selektion. Wie Wilson arbeitet Gintis seit etwa 50 Jahren in dieser Arena und hat sie immer noch nicht begriffen, aber nach dem Skandal hat es nur 3 Tage gedauert, bis ich die relevanteste professionelle Arbeit gefunden, gelesen und verstanden habe, wie in meinem Artikel beschrieben. Es ist ein Irrsinn zu erkennen, dass Gintis und Wilson nicht in der Lage waren, dies in fast einem halben Jahrhundert zu erreichen. Ich diskusere die Fehler der Gruppenauswahl und Phänomenologie, die in der Wissenschaft die Norm sind, als Sonderfälle des nahezu universellen Versagens, die menschliche Natur zu verstehen, die Amerika und die Welt zerstören. Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Wer sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessiert, kann 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) sehen. (shrink)

Dal momento che Gintis è un economista senior e ho letto alcuni dei suoi precedenti libri con interesse, mi aspettavo qualche più intuizione sul comportamento. Purtroppo, fa le mani morte della selezione di gruppo e della fenomenologia nei pezzi centrali delle sue teorie del comportamento, e questo invalida in gran parte l'opera. Peggio ancora, dal momento che mostra un tale cattivo giudizio qui, mette in discussione tutto il suo lavoro precedente. Il tentativo di resuscitare la selezione di gruppo da parte (...) dei suoi amici ad Harvard, Nowak e Wilson, alcuni anni fa è stato uno dei maggiori scandali della biologia nell'ultimo decennio, e ho raccontato la triste storia nel mio articolo 'Altruismo, Gesù e la fine del mondo: come la Templeton Foundation ha acquistato una cattedra di Harvard e ha attaccato Evolution, Rationality and Civilization - Una recensione di E.O. Wilson 'The Social Conquest of Earth' (2012) e Nowak and Highfield 'SuperCooperators'). A differenza di Nowak, Gintis non sembra essere motivato dal fanatismo religioso, ma dal forte desiderio di generare un'alternativa alle cupe realtà della natura umana, reso facile dalla mancanza (quasi universale) della comprensione della biologia umana di base e dello slateismo in bianco degli scienziati comportamentali, di altri accademici e del pubblico in generale. Gintis attacca giustamente (come ha fatto molte volte prima) economisti, sociologi e altri scienziati comportamentali per non avere un quadro coerente per descrivere il comportamento. Naturalmente, il quadro necessario per comprendere il comportamento è evolutivo. Purtroppo, non riesce a fornire uno se stesso (secondo i suoi molti critici e io concordo), e il tentativo di innestare il cadavere marcio di selezione di gruppo su qualsiasi teoria economica e psicologica che ha generato nei suoi decenni di lavoro, invalida semplicemente il suo intero progetto. Anche se Gintis fa uno sforzo coraggioso per capire e spiegare la genetica, come Wilson e Nowak, è lontano da un esperto, e come loro, la matematica lo acceca alle impossibilità biologiche e, naturalmente, questa è la norma nella scienza. Come Wittgenstein notoriamente ha notato sulla prima pagina di Cultura e Valore "Non esiste una denominazione religiosa in cui l'uso improprio delle espressioni metafisiche è stato responsabile di tanto peccato come ha fatto in matematica." È sempre stato chiaro che un gene che provoca un comportamento che diminuisce la propria frequenza non può persistere, ma questo è il nucleo della nozione di selezione del gruppo. Inoltre, è stato ben noto e spesso dimostrato che la selezione di gruppo riduce solo alla forma fisica inclusiva (selezione dei parenti), che, come ha notato Dawkins, è solo un altro nome per l'evoluzione per selezione naturale. Come Wilson, Gintis ha lavorato in questa arena per circa 50 anni e ancora non l'ha afferrato, ma dopo lo scandalo è rotto, mi ci sono voluti solo 3 giorni per trovare, leggere e capire il lavoro professionale più rilevante, come descritto nel mio articolo. È da capo giro rendersi conto che Gintis e Wilson non sono stati in grado di raggiungere questo obiettivo in quasi mezzo secolo. Discuto gli errori di selezione di gruppo e fenomenologia che sono la norma nel mondo accademico come casi speciali della quasi universale incapacità di comprendere la natura umana che stanno distruggendo l'America e il mondo. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

Richard Dawkins has popularized an argument that he thinks sound for showing that there is almost certainly no God. It rests on the assumptions (1) that complex and statistically improbable things are more difficult to explain than those that are not and (2) that an explanatory mechanism must show how this complexity can be built up from simpler means. But what justifies claims about the designer’s own complexity? One comes to a different understanding of order and of simplicity (...) when one considers the psychological counterpart of information. In assessing his treatment of biological organisms as either self-programmed machines or algorithms, I show how self-generated organized complexity does not fit well with our knowledge of abduction and of information theory as applied to genetics. I also review some philosophical proposals for explaining how the complexity of the world could be externally controlled if one wanted to uphold a traditional understanding of divine simplicity. (shrink)

In this chapter, Logan Paul Gage examines the only real attempt to disprove God’s existence by a New Atheist: Richard Dawkins’s “Ultimate 747 Gambit.” Central to Dawkins’s argument is the claim that God is more complex than what he is invoked to explain. Gage evaluates this claim using the main extant notions of simplicity in the literature. Gage concludes that on no reading does this claim survive scrutiny. Along the way, Dawkins claims that there are no (...) good positive arguments for God’s existence. Gage attempts to show that Dawkins’s argument depends upon distinctively philosophical assumptions that do not appear to withstand scrutiny. (shrink)

Two popular, yet highly controversial concepts of non-human agency from two different fields of knowledge are compared in this essay: the theory of the Selfish Gene, introduced into neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins, and Actor-Network Theory, as brought forward in Science & Technology Studies by Bruno Latour. It is argued that the two theories, despite all apparent differences, share key motifs and motivations when they try to forward knowledge in their respective fields by adopting a vocabulary that (...) aims at metaphorical redescriptions of the origins of intentionality – in both senses: as purposefulness of action and as meaning. (shrink)

Sejak Gintis adalah ekonom senior dan saya telah membaca beberapa buku sebelumnya dengan bunga, saya mengharapkan beberapa wawasan lebih ke dalam perilaku. Sayangnya, ia membuat tangan yang mati seleksi kelompok dan fenomenologi ke dalam inti dari teori perilaku, dan ini sebagian besar membatalkan pekerjaan. Lebih buruk lagi, karena ia menunjukkan penilaian buruk seperti di sini, itu mempertanyakan semua pekerjaan sebelumnya. Upaya untuk membangkitkan kembali kelompok seleksi oleh teman-temannya di Harvard, Nowak dan Wilson, beberapa tahun yang lalu adalah salah satu skandal (...) utama dalam biologi dalam dekade terakhir, dan aku telah menceritakan kisah sedih dalam artikel ' altruisme, Yesus dan akhir dunia-bagaimana Yayasan Templeton membeli Profesor Harvard dan menyerang Evolution, rasionalitas dan peradaban--sebuah review dari E.O. Wilson ' The sosial penaklukan bumi ' (2012) dan Nowak dan Highfield ' Supercooperator ' (2012). Tidak seperti Nowak, Gintis tampaknya tidak termotivasi oleh agama fanatisme, tetapi oleh keinginan yang kuat untuk menghasilkan alternatif untuk realitas suram sifat manusia, dibuat mudah oleh (dekat Universal) kurangnya pemahaman tentang Biologi manusia dasar dan slateism kosong dari perilaku ilmuwan, akademisi lain, dan masyarakat umum. -/- Gintis benar serangan (seperti yang telah berkali-kali sebelumnya) ekonom, sosiolog dan ilmuwan perilaku lain karena tidak memiliki kerangka yang koheren untuk menggambarkan perilaku. Tentu saja, kerangka yang diperlukan untuk memahami perilaku adalah evolusi satu. Sayangnya, ia gagal untuk menyediakan satu dirinya sendiri (menurut banyak kritikus dan saya setuju), dan upaya untuk mengentalkan mayat busuk kelompok seleksi ke apa pun teori ekonomi dan psikologis ia telah menghasilkan dalam dekade kerja, hanya membatalkan seluruh proyek. -/- Meskipun Gintis membuat upaya gagah berani untuk memahami dan menjelaskan genetika, seperti Wilson dan Nowak, ia jauh dari seorang ahli, dan seperti mereka, matematika hanya membutakan dia ke ketidakmungkinan biologis dan tentu saja ini adalah norma dalam ilmu pengetahuan. Seperti yang terkenal Wittgenstein dicatat pada halaman pertama budaya dan nilai "tidak ada denominasi agama di mana penyalahgunaan ekspresi metafisik telah bertanggung jawab atas begitu banyak dosa seperti dalam matematika." -/- Itu selalu jelas bahwa gen yang menyebabkan perilaku yang menurunkan frekuensi sendiri tidak bisa bertahan, tapi ini adalah inti dari gagasan pemilihan kelompok. Selain itu, telah terkenal dan sering menunjukkan bahwa kelompok seleksi hanya mengurangi kebugaran inklusif (pilihan kerabat), yang, seperti yang telah dicatat Dawkins, hanyalah nama lain untuk evolusi oleh seleksi alam. Seperti Wilson, Gintis telah bekerja di arena ini selama sekitar 50 tahun dan masih belum menggenggam itu, tapi setelah skandal pecah, aku butuh waktu hanya 3 hari untuk menemukan, membaca dan memahami pekerjaan profesional yang paling relevan, seperti yang dijelaskan dalam artikel saya. Adalah pikiran membingungkan untuk menyadari bahwa Gintis dan Wilson tidak mampu untuk mencapai hal ini dalam hampir setengah abad. -/- Saya membahas kesalahan seleksi kelompok dan fenomenologi yang merupakan norma dalam akademisi sebagai kasus khusus dari kegagalan Universal dekat untuk memahami sifat manusia yang menghancurkan Amerika dan dunia. -/- Mereka yang ingin komprehensif up to date kerangka perilaku manusia dari dua systems tampilan modern dapat berkonsultasi buku saya 'struktur Logis filsafat, psikologi, mind dan bahasa dalam Ludwig wittgenstein dan John Searle ' 2nd Ed (2019). Mereka yang tertarik pada tulisan saya lebih mungkin melihat 'berbicara monyet--filsafat, psikologi, ilmu, agama dan politik di planet yang ditakdirkan--artikel dan review 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) dan bunuh diri utopian delusi di 21st Century 4th Ed (2019) -/- . (shrink)

Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great, and Sam Harris’ The End of Faith were published from 2004 to 2007. The new atheism was widely spread by these books. Compared to other atheisms, the particularity of this movement is rooted in its motivations, which are in a sense mostly cultural and political, rather than strictly circumscribed to philosophical issues. The goal of this note is to characterize the new atheism through (...) the arguments given by the four referred books. (shrink)

(in lieu of abstract, first paragraphs here) For philosophers, reading Richard Dawkins is often a frustrating experience. Many of Dawkins’ writings treat important philosophical topics, such as the existence of God, the meaning of life, the relationship of randomness to order. Dawkins has original ideas, but he lacks the philosophical training and vocabulary to articulate these ideas properly and to develop them coherently. In Believing in Dawkins, Eric Steinhart sets himself an ambitious task: to use (...) the writings of Dawkins to present a coherent, naturalistic alternative to religious metaphysics, specifically to Christian theism. Using an architectural metaphor, he summarizes the project of Believing in Dawkins as follows -/- It is helpful to think of the Dawkinsian texts in architectural terms. His fragmentary sketches for spiritual naturalism are like architectural drawings. Sometimes they depict little windows, while other times they portray enormous spires reaching towards the stars. The edifice is vast. But these architectural diagrams are often unclear, incomplete, and inconsistent. I want to clarify them, fill in their missing parts, and resolve their conflicts. So I’m using his writings to construct a novel building. … To fit his fragmentary plans into a coherent and self-supporting structure, I will add some large-scale frameworks (10). -/- Steinhart’s wide-ranging book covers many topics: complexity, ontology, possibility, humanity, spirituality, among many others. He does not sneak theism into Dawkins’ writings. In fact, Steinhart argues that many practices and ideas that he uses to construct the edifice of Dawkins’ spiritual naturalism have been hijacked by theism, such as the notion of an afterlife, sacredness, holiness, and even the notion of gratitude. (shrink)

This paper is a critique of Richard Dawkins’ “argument from improbability” against the existence of God. This argument, which forms the core of Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, provides an interesting example of the use of scientific ideas in arguments about religion. Here I raise three objections: (1) The argument is inapplicable to philosophical conceptions of God that reduce most of God’s complexity to that of the physical universe. (2) The argument depends on a way of estimating (...) probabilities that fails for the probability of an entity that creates natural laws. (3) The argument supposes that complexity arises from past physical causes; however, some forms of complexity known to mathematics and logic do not arise in this way. After stating these three criticisms, I show that some of these same considerations undermine Dawkins’ critique of agnosticism. I close the paper with some remarks on Dawkins’ conception of God. (shrink)

Studie recenzuje díla: Richard DAWKINS, Boží blud: Přináší náboženství útěchu, nebo bolest? Praha: Academia 2009, 480 s. ; HANUŠ, J. - VYBÍRAL, J., Dawkins pod mikroskopem: Diskuse nad knihou Richarda Dawkinse Boží blud. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury 2010. Cílem textu je poukázat na debatu vyvolanou českým vydáním Dawkinsova díla Boží blud, jejímž nejdůkladnějším příspěvkem je vydání knihy Dawkins pod mikroskopem.

Dawkins’ Ballet In the Garden of Theology. A Critical Assessment of Richard Dawkins’ Epistemological Theses On Theistic Beliefs From The God Delusion. Part I My paper presents a detailed analysis and assessment of Richard Dawkins’ epistemological theses from The God Delusion concerning the nature of religious belief, the existence of God and treating belief in God as a scientific hypothesis. In the first part of the article, I am interpreting Dawkins’ statement that atheism deserves (...) respect as an epistemic achievement. I suggest that rationality of that assessment depends on Dawkins’ success in arguing that science shows that God does not exist. My second aim is to show that the real object of Dawkins’ attack is not some abstract theistic hypothesis, as he suggests, but the Western ethical monotheism, mainly the Christian faith in God. If I am right, then his rejection of thus interpreted theism is not enough to justify his more general thesis that God hypothesis is false or improbable. The first part of the paper prepares the ground for the second, with criticism of Dawkins’ reasoning to the conclusion that almost certainly there is no God. (shrink)

This chapter uncovers the complex negotiations for authority in various representations about futures of life which have been advanced by different branches of the sciences, and have culminated in the emerging concept of life as algorithm. It charts the historical shifts in expertise and representations of life, from naturalists, to mathematical modellers, and specialists in computation, and argues that physicists, game theorists, and economists now take a leading role in explaining and projecting futures of life. The chapter identifies Richard (...) Dawkins and Max Tegmark at the forefront of the concept of life as algorithm: the first inspired by game theory as a means to study evolution; the second proposing that a materialist basis of life could place humans and artificial intelligence on an equal footing. Through close reading of their respective texts, the chapter demonstrates that both thinkers consider life as an algorithm programmed to achieve success in survival and reproduction. (shrink)

Dawkins’ Ballet in the Garden of Theology. A Critical Assessment of Richard Dawkins’ Epistemological Theses on Theistic Beliefs from the God Delusion. Part II My paper presents an analysis and assessment of Richard Dawkins’ assumption from his book The God Delusion that there are no reason against treating belief in God as a scientific hypothesis, because even if the God existence is not disprovable, we could and maybe should ask if His existence is probable or (...) highly improbable. My first aim is to examine Dawkins' argumentation against if he is aware multiple possible ways interpretation of the claim that religious belief in God, construed as the hypothesis that existence of Creator may be treated as a scientific kind of hypothesis. My second aim is to show a nature of relation between his scientific God-hypothesis and his criticism of Thomas Henry Huxley agnosticism. I maintain that the he can't treat his probabilistic account of theism/atheism controversy as a ground for possible evidence for his controversial claim, that scientific knowledge could solve the problem of God's existence. As the matter of facts , things are just the opposite. I argue for claim that his construal of belief in God in terms of probabilistic scientific hypothesis is normatively weak and he can't use it in argumentation against rationality of belief in God even if he would be succesfully show that God-hypothesis is very weak and improbable explanation of origins and complexity of life. (shrink)

In this article, we examine in detail the New Atheists' most serious argument for the conclusion that God does not exist, namely, Richard Dawkins's Ultimate 747 Gambit. Dawkins relies upon a strong explanatory principle involving simplicity. We systematically inspect the various kinds of simplicity that Dawkins may invoke. Finding his crucial premises false on any common conception of simplicity, we conclude that Dawkins has not given good reason to think God does not exist.

The most public-facing forms of contemporary Darwinism happily promote its worldview ambitions. Popular works, by the likes of Richard Dawkins, deflect associations with eugenics and social Darwinism, but also extend the reach of Darwinism beyond biology into social policy, politics, and ethics. Critics of the enterprise fall into two categories. Advocates of Intelligent Design and secular philosophers (like Mary Midgley and Thomas Nagel) recognise it as a worldview and argue against its implications. Scholars in the rhetoric of science (...) or science communication, however, typically take the view that Darwinism isn't a worldview, but a scientific theory, which has been improperly embellished by some; they uphold the distinction between is and ought and argue that science is restricted to the former. This prompts an is–ought problem on another level. I catalogue the ways in which Darwinism plainly is a worldview and why commentators' beliefs that it ought not to be distorts their analysis. Hence, it is their own worldview that precludes them from accepting Darwinism's worldview implications. (shrink)

While it may remain difficult for the student of modernity to understand the weight of Paley’s teleological arguments for nineteenth century British scientists, the idea of a design in nature and the implication of a designer nevertheless provided lasting explanatory power amongst competing hypotheses until up to Darwin. As Richard Dawkins points out, it was reasonable for English scientists to maintain telic 'causes' in the explanation of biological origins until the observations of Paley were ascribed to a natural (...) mechanism as evidenced by Charles Darwin. When viewed in the light of contemporary debates on the possibility of evolution by natural selection in opposition to purposeful intervention, it is useful, then, to understand clearly why not long ago scientists moved away from this very line of reasoning to accepting the Darwinian picture of “descent with modification” by natural selection. As Bacon was right to point out, the scientific dialogue is dependent on an agreement on method, and this change in reasoning, it seems fair to say, signifies a most important distinction of biological investigation between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that ought not to be neglected by any thoughtful historian of science. (shrink)

Richard Dawkins has argued on several occasions that bringing up your child religiously is a form of child abuse. According to Dawkins, teaching children about religion is fine (it helps them to understand cultural references, for instance), but indoctrinating children – by which Dawkins means any form of education that teaches religious beliefs as facts – is morally wrong and harmful. Dawkins is not alone: the American theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, for instance, recently argued that (...) teaching Young Earth Creationism (henceforth YEC) is a form of child abuse. Here, I want to focus on the role of parents in instilling religious beliefs in their children, especially beliefs that are incompatible with science, such as YEC. Instead of using the rather laden term “child abuse,” I want to tease apart two questions: Are YEC parents harming their children, and is what they do morally wrong? (shrink)

Pope Francis takes the Big Bang as supplying empirical evidence for God’s existence, going so far as to credit God’s will as the force behind natural selection. So if natural selection is the emanation of divine will, then so too is what Richard Dawkins calls the “selfish gene” underlying it. The trouble is that the natural forces of self-interest may win out over the better angels of our nature, spelling disaster for the human species—and the planet sustaining it. (...) For the drive of individual self-interest is the main fuel of capitalism, which has become the dominant global economic paradigm. And this unbridled self-interest is arguably most responsible for widespread environmental degradation. Therefore, if humanity should ultimately expire as a direct result of its evolutionary adaptations, it won’t exactly be a ringing endorsement of the architect of life, the universe, and everything. (shrink)

The so-called “New Atheism” is a relatively well-defined, very recent, still unfold- ing cultural phenomenon with import for public understanding of both science and philosophy. Arguably, the opening salvo of the New Atheists was The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published in 2004, followed in rapid succession by a number of other titles penned by Harris himself, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens.

Few address the extent to which William James regards the neo-Lamarckian account of “direct adaptation” as a biological extension of British empiricism. Consequently few recognize the instrumental role that the Darwinian idea of “indirect adaptation” plays in his lifelong efforts to undermine the empiricist view that sense experience molds the mind. This article examines how James uses Darwinian thinking, first, to argue that mental content can arise independently of sense experience; and, second, to show that empiricists advance a hopelessly skeptical (...) position when they insist that beliefs are legitimate only insofar as they directly correspond to the observable world. Using his attacks on materialism and his defense of spiritualism as examples, I particularly consider how Darwinian thinking enables him to keep his empiricist commitments while simultaneously developing a pragmatic alternative to empiricistic skepticism. I conclude by comparing his theory of beliefs to the remarkably similar theory of “memes” that Richard Dawkins uses to attack spiritualistic belief—an attack that James anticipates and counters with his pragmatic alternative. (shrink)

New Atheists and Anti-Theists (such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hutchins) affirm that there is a strong connection between being a traditional theist and being a religious fundamentalist who advocates violence, terrorism, and war. They are especially critical of Islam. On the contrary, I argue that, when correctly understood, religious dogmatic belief, present in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is progressive and open to internal and external criticism and revision. Moreover, acknowledging that human knowledge is finite (...) and that humans are fallible and have much to learn, dogmatic religious believers accept that they ought to value and seek to acquire moral and intellectual virtues, including the virtues of temperance and reasonability. (shrink)

Tarihte herhalde çok az soru Tanrı’nın varlığı sorusu kadar sık sorulmuş, çok yanıtlanmış ve verilen birbirinden farklı onca yanıta rağmen kesin bir sonuca ulaştırılamayıp tartışılmaya devam etmiştir. Yine de geçmişe dönüp baktığımızda bu soruya verilen farklı yanıtların farklı uygarlıkların inşa edilmesine, bazılarının yıkılmasına, acımasız çatışmalara ve her şeye rağmen kucaklaşmalara da vesile olduğunu görüyoruz. Tanrı var mı? Varsa onu nasıl bilebiliriz? Tanrı yoksa her şey mubah mı? İnsan aklı ilahi olanı kavrayabilir mi? Tanrı’nın varlığı ahlaklı olmanın şartı mı? Evren akıllı (...) bir tasarımcının imzasını taşıyor mu? Bu kitapta felsefeci William David Beck, bu sorulara tarihte verilen yanıtları ve bu konudaki tartışmaları ele alarak meselenin genel ve tarihsel bir tablosunu bize sunuyor. Platon, Aristoteles, Marcus Aurelius gibi Eski Yunan ve Roma düşünürlerinden Anselmus, Thomas Aquinas, Augustinus ve Yahudi-Hıristiyan geleneğine, Doğu’nun bilgelerine, İbni Rüşd, Fârâbî ve Gazzâlî gibi İslam düşünürlerinden Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Max Tegmark gibi Batılı modern ilahiyatçılara, bilim insanlarına ve Yeni Ateizm hareketine kadar uzanan bir çizgide “Tanrı var mı?” sorusuna verilen çeşitli yanıtları ve bu yanıtlara sunulan akılcı gerekçeleri ortaya koyarak soruya felsefece bir yanıt vermenin nasıl bir iş olduğunu da gösteriyor. (shrink)

The article deals with the concept of metaparasite in the cultural and communicative sphere. Relying on the memetic theory of R. Dawkins and the cognitive framework proposed by K. Anokhin, the authors explore the dynamics of metaparasitism and the ability of the metaparasite to change its environment beyond the original context. The article also considers the challenges that have emerged in the post-truth era, embodied in such phenomena as fake news, etc., and emphasizes the need to find effective responses (...) to threats to psychological and sociocultural security. The article formulates a set of communicative techniques aimed at ensuring safety for both the communicator and the recipient, and presents the feedback system as a key component of any rational system. Based on the results of the study, the authors propose a strategy aimed at protecting society against the harmful effects of metaparasites. (shrink)

Ever since Darwin a great deal of the conceptual history of biology may be read as a struggle between two philosophical positions: reductionism and holism. On the one hand, we have the reductionist claim that evolution has to be understood in terms of changes at the fundamental causal level of the gene. As Richard Dawkins famously put it, organisms are just ‘lumbering robots’ in the service of their genetic masters. On the other hand, there is a long holistic (...) tradition that focuses on the complexity of developmental systems, on the non-linearity of gene– environment interactions, and on multi-level selective processes to argue that the full story of biology is a bit more complicated than that. Reductionism can marshal on its behalf the spectacular successes of genetics and molecular biology throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Holism has built on the development of entirely new disciplines and conceptual frameworks over the past few decades, including evo-devo and phenotypic plasticity. Yet, a number of biologists are still actively looking for a way out of the reductionism–holism counterposition, often mentioning the word ‘emergence’ as a way to deal with the conundrum. This paper briefly examines the philosophical history of the concept of emergence, distinguishes between epistemic and ontological accounts of it, and comments on conceptions of emergence that can actually be useful for practising evolutionary biologists. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Why Gaia?Massimo Pigliucci (bio)The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet, Michael Ruse, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. 272 pages.“The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet tells a story that comes out of the 1960s, a story that reflects all of the beliefs and enthusiasms and tensions of that decade.” So begins Michael Ruse’s fascinating, if at times puzzling, exploration of James Lovelock’s famous idea that our (...) planet is, in a serious scientific sense, a living organism with a tendency of taking care of (her)self. But why tell this particular story, especially considering that Gaia hardly makes an appearance in today’s scientific or philosophical publications, and doesn’t even seem quite that popular with the lay public as it used to be? Because, as Ruse tells us near the end of the book, at the onset of chapter seven: “the paradox that set us on our path [is] why the scientific community reacted so negatively to the Gaia hypothesis, whereas the public reaction was so positive.”As it turns out, there is a good answer to that conundrum, one that Ruse himself lays out clearly in the last chapter of the book, and which makes the reader wonder why this should count a paradox at all. But we will get there in due time. First, the basics: the so-called Gaia hypothesis is the brainchild of iconoclastic inventor-turned-independent-scientist James Lovelock, who later got significant help in elaborating (and promoting) his ideas from another iconoclast, biologist Lynn Margulis. By the time you get to the end of Ruse’s engaging book, however, you won’t have gained a particularly good understanding of what the hypothesis actually consists. But that’s not Ruse’s fault, it is Lovelock’s (and Margulis’). At times it sounds like the entirely uncontroversial claim that the Earth’s [End Page 117] biosphere is a somewhat homeostatic system—i.e., a biophysical system that is resistant to major changes, at the least within a certain range (the planet’s atmosphere, after all, did change dramatically early on, increasing its oxygen content as a result of the evolution of photosynthetic organisms—the anaerobic life forms that had up to that point been dominant did not appreciate the novelty). At other times the claim is downright preposterous: the Earth literally is a living organism (according to Lovelock) (Chapter 7),1 a finding that allegedly puts in question the whole Darwinian view of biological evolution (according to Margulis) (Chapter 7), a position that can only be characterized as nonsense on stilts. At yet other moments, Gaia is presented as just a metaphor to help us wrap our minds around the complexities (and homeostatic properties) of the world’s ecosystems (Chapter 8). It is this never-ending oscillation between the trivial and the bizarre that has led the majority of scientists to write off Gaia, to the chagrin of Lovelock, Margulis, and a large number of New Age tree huggers from the 1960s.Indeed, the scientific reaction to Gaia was swift and ranging from the condescending to the unforgiving. Evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith—never one to mince words—called it “an evil religion” (Chapter 2). Another evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould (whose own disagreements with Maynard Smith became legendary) said that “Gaia strikes me as a metaphor, not a mechanism” (Chapter 2). Ecologist Robert May, who eventually became president of the Royal Society, called Lovelock “a holy fool” (Chapter 2). The highly respected theoretical biologist W.D. Hamilton said that in order for the hypothesis to work, it would require “treaties between Neptune and Zeus, a Gaian Interpol, conventions about bills of lading for chemical transport by air and water, and so on” (Chapter 7). Finally, Richard Dawkins accused Lovelock of committing the fallacy of “the BBC theorem,” assuming (or wishfully thinking) that the world is a harmonious place, just like in naive BBC nature documentaries (Chapter 2).You get the gist: pretty much from the beginning, and with very few exceptions, the scientific establishment rejected Gaia on the grounds that it is not a scientific hypothesis at all, and that its main tenets actually go against pretty... (shrink)

This paper examines the role of awe and wonder in scientific practice. Drawing on evidence from psychological research and the writings of scientists and science communicators, I argue that awe and wonder play a crucial role in scientific discovery. They focus our attention on the natural world, encourage open-mindedness, diminish the self (particularly feelings of self-importance), help to accord value to the objects that are being studied, and provide a mode of understanding in the absence of full knowledge. I will (...) flesh out implications of the role of awe and wonder in scientific discovery for debates on the relationship between science and religion. Abraham Heschel argued that awe and wonder are religious emotions because they reduce our feelings of self-importance, and thereby help to cultivate the proper reverent attitude towards God. Yet metaphysical naturalists such as Richard Dawkins insist that awe and wonder need not lead to any theistic commitments for scientists. The awe some scientists experience can be regarded as a form of non-theistic spirituality, which is neither a reductive naturalism nor theism. I will attempt to resolve the tension between these views by identifying some common ground. (shrink)

It is said that science, since the Enlightenment, had advanced with an ever-increasing intensity to reinvent and develop the way we see ourselves and our relationship with the world. The nascent scientific worldview then brought about a profound change in the conception of man’s place in the universe, and among the findings of the major scientific revolutions, it was that of Charles Darwin which proved to be most impactful. What sets him apart from his predecessors who attempted to explain the (...) evolution of life is his discovery of natural selection, the theoretical mechanism that supposedly underlies the evolutionary process. Even beyond the scientific field, Darwin’s achievement remains prominent up to this day as it has come to be utilized by twenty-first-century intellectuals who champion nonchalant diatribes against the enterprise of faith and religious belief, considered to be in conflict and wholly irreconcilable with the truths that science has unearthed. This led to the emergence of a movement that professes close allegiance to science and downright disdain for religion – New Atheism. This paper aims to analyze the ‘conflict’ between Christianity and evolution as narrated by neo-atheists, having evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins as their foremost representative. Such evaluation employs Alvin Plantinga’s epistemological critique of naturalism, complemented by Teilhard de Chardin’s conception of evolution as ‘hominization’ and ‘complexification.’ Although De Chardin’s thought historically precedes Plantinga’s, the compatibility of their analyses suggests the scientific, philosophic, and even theological concord of Christianity and evolution. (shrink)

Is capitalism inherently predatory? Must there be winners and losers? Is public interest outdated and free-riding rational? Is consumer choice the same as self-determination? Must bargainers abandon the no-harm principle? Prisoners of Reason recalls that classical liberal capitalism exalted the no-harm principle. Although imperfect and exclusionary, modern liberalism recognized individual human dignity alongside individuals' responsibility to respect others. Neoliberalism, by contrast, views life as ceaseless struggle. Agents vie for scarce resources in antagonistic competition in which every individual seeks dominance. This (...) political theory is codified in non-cooperative game theory; the neoliberal citizen and consumer is the strategic rational actor. Rational choice justifies ends irrespective of means. Money becomes the medium of all value. Solidarity and good will are invalidated. Relationships are conducted on a quid pro quo basis. However, agents can freely opt out of this cynical race to the bottom by embracing a more expansive range of coherent action. (shrink)

Defenders of intellectual property rights argue that these rights are justified because creators and inventors deserve compensation for their labour, because their ideas and expressions are their personal property and because the total amount of creative work and innovation increases when inventors and creators have a prospect of generating high income through the exploitation of their monopoly rights. This view is not only widely accepted by the general public, but also enforced through a very effective international legal framework. And it (...) is endorsed by most academic researchers and commentators in this field. In this essay, I will show that the classical arguments for the justification of private intellectual property rights can be contested, and that there are many good reasons to abolish intellectual property rights completely in favour of an intellectual commons where every person is allowed to use every cultural expression and invention in whatever way he wishes. I will first give a short overview of the classical arguments for the justification of intellectual property as they are usually stated. We will then discuss the question of whether the creator or inventor deserves his de jure monopoly, by using John Christman’s categories of income and control rights to analyse property rights. The aim here is to show that it does not make sense to create control rights for abstract objects, as they are not scarce, and that there is no logical connection between the surplus which may be generated through income rights and the labour which has been put into a cultural artefact or an invention, and therefore it is not justified to grant monopoly rights on the basis of Lockean natural rights arguments for self-ownership and the just appropriation of worldly resources. As it is possible to reject Christman’s property rights categories, I will then go on to show on the basis of Richard Dawkins’ postulation of the ‘meme’ and Ludwik Fleck’s theory of the ‘thought collective’ that creative processes should be interpreted as interpersonal or collective processes, and therefore it is not justified to grant intellectual property rights to individuals on the basis of the idea that the individual who has put labour into the creative work or the invention should be the one to whom the contents of the work belong exclusively. As it is still possible to postulate the utilitarian argument that intellectual property rights are just because they increase the amount of creative works and inventions, I will argue in the last chapter that, from a libertarian as well as from an egalitarian point of view, the justification of intellectual monopoly rights on utilitarian grounds cannot be maintained. Therefore it is time to abolish the current global intellectual property law regime in favour of an intellectual commons for the good of all human beings and societies. (shrink)

Here I review Robert Trivers' 2011 book _The Folly of Fools_, in which he advocates the evolutionary theory of deceit and self-deception that he pioneered in his famous preface to Richard Dawkins' _Selfish Gene_. Although the book contains a wealth of interesting discussion on topics ranging from warfare to immunology, I find it lacking on two major fronts. First, it fails to give a proper argument for its central thesis--namely, that self-deception evolved to facilitate deception of others. Second, (...) the book lacks conceptual clarity with respect to the focal term "self-deception.". (shrink)

Ever since the publication of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, a book for the lay reader that popularized the ideas of influential evolutionary biologists like William Hamilton and George Williams, there has been much discussion of so-called "universal Darwinism". Dawkins' dual aim was to reduce evolutionary phenomena to the level of the gene, while at the same time abstracting the Darwinian process of natural selection of "replicators" and making it into something that would apply beyond the domain (...) of biology. (shrink)

Neo-Darwinism, through the combination of natural selection and genetics, has made possible an explanation of adaptive phenomena that claims to be devoid of metaphysical presuppositions. What Bergson already deplored and what we explore in this paper is the implicit finalism of such evolutionary explanations, which turn living beings into closed and static systems rather than understanding biological evolution as a process characterized by its interactions and temporal openness. Without denying the heuristic efficiency of the explanation resting upon natural selection, we (...) analyze what it leaves out and what remains to be explored: the unpredictability of the evolutionary process. We will therefore study the role of contingency in evolution, as Stephen J. Gould proposed, but we will also consider the causality specific to the living world that makes it impossible to reduce it to a simple algorithm, as proposed by Daniel Dennett among others, but that it is really a creative causation, or dialectical spiral. (shrink)

A discussion of the recent prominence of 'new atheism' and 'Christian nationalism' in the United States.

Abstract: Without directly taking sides in the design/anti-design debate, this paper defends the following position: the assertion that biological evolution “is” design-free presupposes the possibility to model biological evolution in a design-free way. Certainly, there are design-free models of evolution based on cumulative selection. But “to model” is a verb denoting “modeling” as the process leading to a model. So any modeling – trivially – needs “previous human design.” Nevertheless, contrary to other scientific activities which legitimately consider models while ignoring (...) the process leading to them, evolution theory must take into account the human activity of modeling required by its corresponding models. (shrink)

Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory. It has never been updated for the computer age, despite the fact that the subject matter can only be investigated with the aid of computers. Come on biologists! Get programing!