Post-Modernism and Atheism
Daniel Gibson
It seems to me that this discussion group spends an incredible amount of
time trying to rebutt theist claims: Nevertheless, it seems to me as if
it would be more valuable for us, as athiests, to discuss how the world
really functions, for our own knowledge. In that regard, this board is
pretty good on pure science and evolution, where I've seen some
powerful and interesting technical arguments. Where this board is weak
however, is in the absence of social science: There is hugely important
work being done in the fields of literary theory, sociology, etcetera that
demonstrate how our social orders are constructed and how they evolve,
the economic, linguistic, racial, etcetera factors involved.
My argument is simple: The theistic worldview can only be replaced by
a rigorous new worldview, one that offers not only explanations of how
our physical world works, but also of how our social world works. Thus,
some deeper investigation into new social thinking might benefit the
athiests in this newsgroup. Some of you might be humanists, might be
modernists in the tenor of your thought, and you probably won't accept
or understand the Post-Modern way of thinking (In as much as there is
a recognizable "Post-Modern" style...the borders are fuzzy).
Nevertheless, even seeing these alternative explanations of our social
structures and the nature of language etcetera will make you better
equiped to argue the atheist viewpoint. This stuff is hard to read, so
be prepared for a little initial confusion. Also, fair warning: These
works tend to be political, and they have a definite Left slant, but even
if you tend to the RIght, you need the rhetorical techniques they use
in your fight against Theism. Anyway, some starting points: look for
works by Jameson, Harvey, Haraway, and others.
Another field of tremendous interest to atheism, whicih I almost never
see mentioned, although I lurk here frequently is that of cognitive
science, the field which combines philosophy, psycology, biology,
and artificial intelligence in the attempt to explain or even replicate
intelligence. One starting point: Dennett's :Consciousness Explained:
Anyone elso who has an interest in this stuff is encouraged to shout it
out. Anyone who wants to flame to Hell (yipes, Theist cliche) can
feel free to do so, but I really think Post-Modern rhetorical
technique and Cognitive Science would be valuable additions to
our arsenal.
Daniel Barnaby Gibson
Petri Pihko
> On new and powerful weapons for Atheism:
> It seems to me that this discussion group spends an incredible amount of
> time trying to rebutt theist claims: Nevertheless, it seems to me as if
> it would be more valuable for us, as atheists, to discuss how the world
> really functions, for our own knowledge.
Agreed. In a world where scientists are busy with explaining everything
(to paraphrase Atkins), there is soon no room for any theistic arguments.
It all begun with Laplace and Darwin, and now we have Hawking, Dawkins,
Dennett and Atkins, among many other scientists who are not afraid to publicly
challenge the theistic expositions. For an example, see P.W. Atkins'
_Creation Revisited_ (W.H. Freeman 1992), where Atkins argues that there
is no need to assume any creator whatsoever.
> My argument is simple: The theistic worldview can only be replaced by
> a rigorous new worldview, one that offers not only explanations of how
> our physical world works, but also of how our social world works.
The problem with this approach is that many people want easy, complete
answers, even though these cannot be had. That's why religious myths
are so popular - it does not really matter if they contradict our
experience; they are nevertheless easy to believe in, and usually
accompanied with some sort of threat for those who dare to doubt too
much. However, I agree with you that we must seek answers until we
know all we can know.
> Another field of tremendous interest to atheism, whicih I almost never
> see mentioned, although I lurk here frequently is that of cognitive
> science, the field which combines philosophy, psycology, biology,
> and artificial intelligence in the attempt to explain or even replicate
> intelligence. One starting point: Dennett's :Consciousness Explained:
Did you see my posting _Consciousness: a summary of current ideas_, where
I argued strongly against dualism, a position exceedingly popular among
religions? See also comp.ai.philosophy, I'd guess most posters there
are atheists.
I think I will do some rewriting with this text and start posting it
periodically. I do not think belief in immortal souls is by any means
justified.
> Anyone elso who has an interest in this stuff is encouraged to shout it
> out. Anyone who wants to flame to Hell (yipes, Theist cliche) can
> feel free to do so, but I really think Post-Modern rhetorical
> technique and Cognitive Science would be valuable additions to
> our arsenal.
Absolutely.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ "No one here gets
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi out alive."
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi (James D. Morrison)
CARL BROCK SIDES
> Anyone elso who has an interest in this stuff is encouraged to shout it
> out. Anyone who wants to flame to Hell (yipes, Theist cliche) can
> feel free to do so, but I really think Post-Modern rhetorical
> technique and Cognitive Science would be valuable additions to
> our arsenal.
Do you really think that the "Post-Modern" (I personally find it rather cocky
of people to call themselves that, as I see the labeling of periods the job
of future intellectual historicans :-) ) rhetorical technique to be compatible
with the methodology and goals of cognitive science? The two seem to me to
mix like ammonia and clorox!!
Brock Sides
Phil. Dept.
University of Rochester
James J. Lippard
>On new and powerful weapons for Atheism:
>
>It seems to me that this discussion group spends an incredible amount of
>time trying to rebutt theist claims: Nevertheless, it seems to me as if
>it would be more valuable for us, as athiests, to discuss how the world
>really functions, for our own knowledge. In that regard, this board is
>pretty good on pure science and evolution, where I've seen some
>powerful and interesting technical arguments. Where this board is weak
>however, is in the absence of social science: There is hugely important
>work being done in the fields of literary theory, sociology, etcetera that
>demonstrate how our social orders are constructed and how they evolve,
>the economic, linguistic, racial, etcetera factors involved.
Well, I for one have yet to see anything labeled "post-modern" that isn't
complete nonsense. I haven't looked at much, so I welcome presentation
of something worthwhile from post-modernists, but what I have seen is
*really* bad (e.g., Derrida and deconstructionism).
>in your fight against Theism. Anyway, some starting points: look for
>works by Jameson, Harvey, Haraway, and others.
I'm not familiar with any of these. Can you give full names and some
titles?
>Another field of tremendous interest to atheism, whicih I almost never
>see mentioned, although I lurk here frequently is that of cognitive
>science, the field which combines philosophy, psycology, biology,
>and artificial intelligence in the attempt to explain or even replicate
>intelligence. One starting point: Dennett's :Consciousness Explained:
I agree with you here, about the relevance of this stuff, though I'm
not sure Dennett's book wouldn't be better titled _Consciousness
Explained Away_. (I say this as someone who is rather a fan of Dennett--I
especially like his _Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting_.)
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Brad Pierce
>In <tmcdowe1-2...@mcec-107.dynamic.trincoll.edu> tmcd...@mail.trincoll.edu writes:
>> I really think Post-Modern rhetorical
>> technique and Cognitive Science would be valuable additions to
>> our arsenal.
Sharon Crowley in her _A Teacher's Introduction to Deconstruction_
(1989), p. 53, writes:
"For a readable explication of post-modern critiques of the
sovereign self, written by a philosopher, see Vincent
Descombes, _Modern French Philosophy_ (1980)."
If you've read Descombes' book (and you're an atheist), please let me
know whether you, too, would recommend it. Thanks.
-- Brad Pierce --
Jeffrey Clark
>On new and powerful weapons for Atheism:
[justification deleted]
>Anyone elso who has an interest in this stuff is encouraged to shout it
>out. Anyone who wants to flame to Hell (yipes, Theist cliche) can
>feel free to do so, but I really think Post-Modern rhetorical
>technique and Cognitive Science would be valuable additions to
>our arsenal.
Just adding my vote, especially for Cog Science. The areas of neuroanatomy,
philosophy of mind, consciousness, semantics, artificial intelligence & logic
are all dealt with in Cog Science. It is almost impossible to be a Cognitive
Scientist and a common Theist. Most of neuroanatomy is based on the
presumption that all cognitive functions are performed by some part of the
brain. If a lesion or chemical disruption of a specific area of the brain is
performed, some set of cognitive functions are altered. So far this
assumption has not been found wanting.
One of the hot topics in AI at the moment is whether or not, given a
processor of sufficient power (ie parrallel processing speed and memory
access) can we produce a sentient program? This comes down to the
philosophical notions of the mind-brain problem. Reductionists believe that
we can reproduce the human brain to point of indistinguishable responses, as
humans are themselves nothing more than highly developed information
processors (after all evolution has had some 3 billion years to come up with
an effective design, we've only had 40 years). Gestaltians feel that humans
are more than the sum of the parts and that this intangible synergistic
combination of neuronal processes may not be reproducible by any
non-evolutionary processes or blind luck. No-one however mentions that
humans have a soul and that man-made intelligence will not be imbued by one
and therefore computers will never reach sentience, funny that.....
Jeff.
Jeff.
CARL BROCK SIDES
> Well, I for one have yet to see anything labeled "post-modern" that isn't
> complete nonsense. I haven't looked at much, so I welcome presentation
> of something worthwhile from post-modernists, but what I have seen is
> *really* bad (e.g., Derrida and deconstructionism).
Hear! Hear!
> I agree with you here, about the relevance of this stuff, though I'm
> not sure Dennett's book wouldn't be better titled _Consciousness
> Explained Away_. (I say this as someone who is rather a fan of Dennett--I
> especially like his _Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting_.)
Or as Ned Block put it in his review in the latest J. Phil., CONSCIOUSNESS
IGNORED.
-- Brock Sides
Philosophy Dept.
University of Rochester
P.S. I'm a big Dennett fan too.
CARL BROCK SIDES
> One of the hot topics in AI at the moment is whether or not, given a
> processor of sufficient power (ie parrallel processing speed and memory
> access) can we produce a sentient program?
That's a "hot topic"? I thought eveyone had decided to ignore Searle, Dreyfus,
and all their bulls**t.
> Gestaltians feel that humans
> are more than the sum of the parts and that this intangible synergistic
> combination of neuronal processes may not be reproducible by any
> non-evolutionary processes or blind luck.
"Intangible synergistic processes"?
Pardon me, but I've got go remove the proto-matter from my Genesis matrix.
Brock
NO BOB, NO SLACK.
KNOW BOB, KNOW SLACK.