We conclude with Part III of Enlightenment Now, but feel free to post questions and comments pertaining to anything in the entire book or course. And perhaps (hint hint nudge nudge) you'd like to reflect here on the contrast between secular, humanistic enlightenment as represented by Pinker (and me) and the more religious variety defended by Dr. Hale. Dr. Hale's recorded lecture, Part 1... Part 2... Handouts on Kant, Pinker
- (This is actually prompted by the conclusion of ch.20.) With regard to the future of progress, are you an optimist, pessimist, meliorist, "possibilist," or none of the above?
- Was Keynes right about vested interests being less powerful than "the gradual encroachment of ideas"? What ideas in current circulation, for instance, are more powerful than Koch industries, the Sacklers, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos...?
- Are "illiberal ideas like authoritarianism, tribalism, and magical thinking" likely to remain the dominant ideas of your generation? Or will enlightened ideas of democracy, equality, reason (etc.) rebound? 349
- Do you relate more to Spock or McCoy? Was Kirk an enlightened synthesis of the two? 351
- Are subjectivity and objectivity the only categories relevant to the pursuit of truth? What about inter-subjectivity as a halfway house or happy medium between them? For instance, suppose I claim to see a pink elephant on my lawn. That's subjective. If you see it too, but a third person does not, is it objective? Less subjective? In need of further investigation?
- If ought implies can, and we agree with Pinker that we ought to be rational, can we? 353
- Why shouldn't we be confident that "better schooling and more outreach to the public by scientists" will result in a more enlightened public? 355
- Is belief in evolution really not a reflection of scientific literacy? 356
- How can we make politics less like sports fandom? Or should we? 360
- What makes an "expert" worth listening to? Would you say that Dr. Fauci is an example of a humble but credible expert? 369
- Do you agree that "a lecturer yammering in front of a blackboard" is bad pedagogy? 378
- How can we instill greater respect for science in our society? Would it help to replace Senators Inhofe (et al) with climate scientists? 387
- COMMENT?: "Science forces us to take responsibility for the welfare of ourselves our species, and our planet..." 395
- Do you think anti-evolutionists understand (or care) that Darwin was not a social Darwinist? 398-9
- Were you "taught that science is just another narrative like religion and myth"? Do you think this attitude is responsible for turning students towards non-scientific careers? 401
- COMMENT?: "Theistic morality has two fatal flaws. The first is that there is no good reason to believe that God exists..." 421 (See 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, aka Mrs. Pinker)
- COMMENT?: "The alternative to 'religion' as a source of meaning is not 'science' [but] the entire fabric of human knowledge, reason, and humanistic values, of which science is a part." 433
- Do you like Amy Schumer's "Universe"? 434
- Is Pinker fair and accurate in his discussion of Nietzsche? 443 ff.
- Is it not oxymoronic to speak of "the intellectual roots of Trumpism"? 448
- "Should humanists hold revival meetings at which preachers thump Spinoza's Ethics...? Should they stage rallies in which young men in colored shirts salute giant posters of John Stuart Mill?" 451
- Is "religion for atheists" really such a preposterous and mockable idea?
- Do you find Pinker's summary of the story of human progress ("We are born into a pitiless universe... there is no limit to the betterments we can attain if we continue to apply knowledge to enhance human flourishing") uplifting and spiritual? 452-3
My two questions from Chapters 21-23:
ReplyDelete1. "Events unfold according to God's plan. Everything happens for a reason. There are no accidents or coincidences. Nothing is inevitable. Even major events like World War II or 9/11 could have turned very differently. Randomness is often a factor in our personal lives" (pg. 370). Based upon this statement, the average American lies around the middle of agree to disagree. Thoughts on the statement? Do you agree, disagree, or lie in the middle? Can major events actually turn out differently? Is there a way for things to not be inevitable?
2. Humanism "promotes a non-supernatural basis for meaning and ethics: good without God" (pg. 410-411). Can good actually exist without God? Do the trio of manifestoes fully affirm good without God?
1. Profoundly disagree. But I'm confused about the formulation. If there are truly no accidents, then EVERYTHING that happens is inevitable; all genuine possibilities are actualized.
DeleteBut because (on my view) most things are NOT inevitable, there ARE accidents, contingencies, events precipitated by the action (and inaction) of human agents. Many more things are possible than will ever be actualized. We have at least a little something to say about what will be.
2. No manifesto alone can ensure the reality of what it affirms, but yes: those manifestos do affirm the humanist belief in the possibility (AND actuality, to a very large extent) of goodness on the part of people like myself who do not believe a supernatural creator deity exists. There are good and bad people at every end and point along the spectrum of human behavior. Belief/disbelief in god(s) is no predictor of where a person comes down on that spectrum. I've known good folks who evince every sort of belief, or no belief at all, in supernaturalism.
My two questions...
ReplyDelete1) Why do you think humanities have been overlooked and even eliminated first when budget cuts happen? (406)
2) Is there a reason that academia has become more politicized? (372)
1. Ultimately, because of what Richard Hofstadter calls "the anti-intellectual tradition in American life"... and because the American ethos construes pragmatic utility in tangible "cash value" terms. But that's only the beginning of an answer.
Delete2. Hasn't everything become more politicized? But why is that?
Do you agree that "a lecturer yammering in front of a blackboard" is bad pedagogy?
ReplyDeleteI am going to be honest, some of the best professors that I had were lecturers. But I got to know them as a person behind the scenes. That's what changed my opinion of them. I think that it is not a suitable method and that people should be engaged and interactive at all times. Some of my fondest memories in college for my bachelors was utilizing the Socratic method and working in groups. I have never had a teacher or a professor that walked and taught. I understand that they are coming out with walking/learning/exploring for daycares (tinkergarten).
But I say that lectures and PowerPoints are not the best pedagogy. That method tends to make a teacher look like they are playing it safe and burned out.
Some lecturers yammer, others really love to hear themselves talk, and a few others actually just converse with their classes and welcome interaction. I try to follow the latter model, but it requires a proactive student body. Those seem more scarce than they used to be. But burnout is a real thing, I've seen it at close hand. Occupational hazard.
DeleteI absolutely agree about the burnout part. I read an article about students returning to classrooms the other day, it referred to them as zoombies. In reference to tuning out during classes via zoom. It certainly makes it difficult, the classes that I did this past year over zoom I noticed the drop on participation and it seemed more exhausting. I still think educators need more than they are given.
DeleteDo you relate more to Spock or McCoy?
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I relate more to a character that was written as a human man by human men more than I relate to a half-human alien from a different planet. The characters as they are written are fictional and can be interpreted as somewhat shallow if we are looking at them from the perspective of the original series. McCoy is a hard drinking doctor who lives within the 24th century but is written by 20th century writers. McCoy is a scientist that talks about the immorality of 20th century medicine and in the next moment deriding the idea of logic which, is what brought medicine out of the dark ages of leeches and unsanitary surgical theaters in the first place. Vulcan logic can have flaws in understanding because of the human men that created the character and his interactions. Spock undergoes the pon farr every seven years where he loses both the functions of logic and the ability to obey any directives other than the biological imperative. The way I understand it the question is: Which is more important logic or morality? In this instance I would have to say that I am more inclined to follow the directives of logic however we live within a society that does not allow for logic to always dictate.
Was Kirk an enlightened synthesis of the two?
I would look to the demonstration of logic and morality in the way Kirk solved the Kobayashi Maru. In the episode Kirk decides to treat an unsolvable problem in logic by solving it the only way he knows how, he cheats. I find Kirk to be neither logical nor moral in this instance but at the same time someone else may look at the same thing and say that he is both. I think morality can be looked at as something that has to do with one's perspective. I think logic can be open to interpretation but it has less to do with perspective than morality.
I see the Spock-McCoy dilemma not as "logic vs. morality" but pure, narrow, insensate logic vs. inconsistent emotion. Those are extreme opposites. Kirk is supposed to be their sensible reconciliation, an enlightened hybrid of sound and stable rationality AND compassionate feeling. I wouldn't impugn the moral intentions of either Spock or McCoy, who (behind their superficial antagonism and bluster) do occasionally acknowledge one another's good will.
DeleteYou rightly notice that Kirk is also a pragmatist and a rule-bender, doing whatever works to resolve a situation. I don't see him as amoral, but he definitely repudiates moral formulae in favor of expedience.
Anyway, the Trek dynamic especially in TOS is a terrific scaffolding upon which to enact passion plays about humanism and its applications in a universe not always sympathetic to humans. Like our own.
My response to:
ReplyDeleteIs “religion for atheists” really such a preposterous and mockable idea?
I enjoyed this TED talk and am adding de Botton’s book “Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion” to my reading list. The concept of taking the best things from religion and applying them to create a sort of optimal secularism is such a no-brainer to me. I don’t think it’s preposterous or mockable at all and seems like a perfectly reasonable way of being. We can learn from the example of religion even if we don’t believe any of its doctrines. Why shouldn’t we?
I particularly liked how de Botton (a non-believer) does not attack religion as ridiculous or demean believers in any way. As he says, there is no need to dismiss the whole of religion or ridicule it. Instead, he gives religion credit for many productive concepts that can benefit atheists and advocates for “stealing” the best parts of it. His stance that it doesn’t have to be either/or and that there can be “harmonious disagreement” between religious and non-religious people is about as reasonable as it gets.
A few of my favorite points:
• Sermons gives guidance while lectures give information. De Botton says we need to get back to the sermon because we DO need guidance. I agree, no one is above this.
• Non-believers can replace scripture with culture.
• Can atheists believe there is “something bigger than us?” Yes. Why does it have to be accompanied by some sort of mystical being? The Universe is large, and we are tiny. Non-believers can have spiritual moments without believing in a spirit.
• Aspects of religion that atheists would do well to adopt and adapt include the repetition of concepts, using time/calendars and ritual to remind us of concepts and figures, using art as a didactic tool, forming communities and institutions to reduce isolation and build scale and might.
His stance is quite similar to William James's in "Varieties of Religious Experience"... it IS the individual's experience, and not creeds or dogmas etc., that they both regard as the central impulse behind religiosity and spirituality.
DeleteOne of my favorite secular sermons: Bertrand Russell's "A Free Man's Worship"...
"Non-believers can have spiritual moments without believing in a spirit"-- Indeed! "Spirit" means breath. There's nothing inherently supernatural about breathing.
You might be interested in checking out "Sunday Assembly" in Nashville sometime... (I'll post some info above)
How can we instill greater respect for science in our society?
ReplyDeleteIf we compare the respect for scientific knowledge in our society today with the respect for scientific knowledge 100 years ago I would say that our respect for scientific knowledge has become greater although there are those that refute scientific findings on the basis of alternative agendas. I had a conversation with an academic who is also clergy. I asked him specifically if it wasn't abusive to young children to introduce the concept of hell at such an impressionable age. Hey replied that I wouldn't find any of that in his teaching but that wasn't the question that I asked. I didn't get a satisfactory answer but at the same time I didn't push I just planted the seed that morality can look very different to people who believed different things. The way that we understand the world from our early childhood can be very difficult to change as we grow older. If we wish to instill a greater respect for science in our society it may be important to look at fictionalized stories as just that. One thing I think maybe a factor that could help in transitioning citizens to understanding the impact of science on our population would be if the military were more adamant about the risk to humans and specifically Americans from the effects of climate change. Explaining storm forecasting and other real world situations and how our actions have repercussions might be more believable to some parts of the population if the message came from a military leader.
Would it help to replace Senators Inhofe (et al) with climate scientists? 387
Senators represent a small fraction of the will of the people in the United States. The job of senators in most cases is to follow the will of the most powerful interests within their state. Inhofe represents a state where fossil fuels are present, so energy has a disproportionate influence on a senator from Oklahoma than the displaced indigenous people of the southeast whose descendants reside in that state today. Looking at a population-based representation in the Senate would be more equitable to more of the population but it would be less equitable to smaller states in the United states. Putting a climate scientist up for election in Oklahoma would be a waste of money well at the same time I understand that creating a likelihood that more legislation to lessen the likelihood of fossil fuels impacting our environment over time is a necessary occurrence if we are to slow the present state of global warming. I seriously doubt that Al Gore would win in Tennessee today just one state over.
Bertrand Russell again, this time in "Why I Am Not a Christian":
Delete"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment."
https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
"The job of senators in most cases is to follow the will of the most powerful interests within their state." Oh NO! That may be the reality of how many of them approach their job, but the true job of senators is to represent the will of the people, and balance it with their own informed and judicious tutelage as members of committees tasked to inform themselves and thence the people as to what will best serve the interests of them ALL--not the special and powerful interests.
"Putting a climate scientist up for election in Oklahoma would be a waste of money"-- Not doing so may ultimately be the waste of our planet. I agree that Oklahoma is unlikely to elect an advocate for environmentalism so long as our system allows powerful special interests to be disproportionately represented in our system. But I hope we never concede that present reality as permanent or acceptable.
How much of moral behavior is just a matter of perspective?
ReplyDeleteNone of it is "just" a matter of perspective. But all of it is influenced by the various perspectives (interpretations, opinions, attitudes) that we bring to our choices. Beware the "nothing but" form of reductionism. Things are almost always more complicated than that allows.
Delete1. What’s your reaction to the idea of a “multiverse” (page 424) with another version or doppelgänger of you that is currently going about their lives in another universe? I find that fascinating to think about.
ReplyDelete2. On page 438-439 Pinker says that “Many irreligious societies … are among the nicest places to live in the history of our kind … while many of the world’s most religious societies are hellholes.” This statement made me laugh and gave me pause. What do you think Christians might say in defense of religious countries (like the U.S.) who fall behind more secular societies in health and happiness?
1. Fascinating, unnerving, entertaining... when depicted, for instance, in sci-fi like Trek's "Mirror Mirror," with the evil parallel universe, ruthless (but still "logical") Spock. As a practical/philosophical matter, the multiverse hypothesis underscores the fact that our various choices contribute to the determination of alternative possible worlds. So, we should always try to actualize the possibilities that contribute to a more enlightened future.
ReplyDelete2. In my experience, they say they just don't believe it. They are denialists about the Swedens and Denmarks of the world, and about the fact that our country too often resembles the dictatorial theocracies we say we despise.
1. Rather than replacing all decision makers with scientists, how can we integrate more scientific knowledge into the people already in those positions? pg. 390
ReplyDelete2. What prevented you from pursuing a degree in the field of science? Did you feel that science had been demonized when attempting to decide on a college program? (pg. 401-402)
What prevented you from pursuing a degree in the field of science? Did you feel that science had been demonized when attempting to decide on a college program?
DeleteFor myself, science was never portrayed in a positive light. Rather, it was portrayed in a negative light. Much of this was due to the background I was raised in. I was taught that anything related or correlated with science was wrong or the thought behind it was incorrect. This affected the perceptions I formed with science. I believe that to a certain extent that this could have prevented me from pursuing a degree in science. Now that I am an adult and have a more enlightened perception on science, I am happy with the program I have chosen!
1. I wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for incumbent members of Congress to acquire scientific literacy. We really are going to have to elect science-minded candidates... not necessarily scientists, but minimally we must stop electing science denialists and illiterates.
Delete2. Stories like Nat's are so sad. As Carl Sagan said, science is not perfect BUT it't the best thinking-tool we have. Science has indeed been demonized, to the extent (eg) that teachers of biology have explicitly denied evolutionary science. We see chickens coming home to roost, during the pandemic, as anti-vaxx sentiment has resulted in entirely-preventable illness and death on a tragically large scale.
Why shouldn't we be confident that "better schooling and more outreach to the public by scientists" will result in a more enlightened public? 355
ReplyDeletePeople will only accept what they want to believe. Even if we attempt to increase outreach from scientists, it is still possible that their words will not be accepted.
With this in mind, the next questions that need to be asked are about our education system. This system is arguably outdated and in need of practices that are more applicable to today's children. Once this has been attempted, then we will be able to start integrating better scientific practices and outreach.
People only accepting "what they want to believe" is a clear result of an educational failure, and should be correctable in time if we set ourselves the task. "Better schooling and outreach" has to include explicit instruction in critical thinking and logic. Outreach and better practices have to proceed in tandem, and there's no time to lose.
Delete