After 50 years of interacting with Dawkins and his “work” I have never been impressed by any of his effortless. Despite his notoriety his scientific output has been wrong headed all along. His obsession with “genes” has been misplaced and has contributed to a great deal of meaningless research. These are some of my preliminary thoughts. I am happy for Stacy, whom I consider an eloquent contributor to faith seeking understanding, she has found Richard Dawkins to be scientifically entertaining. That has never been the case for me. In that respect I envy her. I will return to these issues later when I have more time.
Thank you for that gracious comment, Richard. A friend of mine explained to me that Thomists think of gathering knowledge more like expanding a web than moving in a straight line, and that helped a lot. I can look for truth even in an atheist biologist who is an antagonist to Christians. I suppose getting older myself has softened me... :-)
It sounds like you got the better talk! When I saw him in Newark the interviewer talked too much himself and then asked a lot of social questions rather than focusing on the book or on evolution! 😭
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that saying genes can explain all aspects of an organism is the philosophical position of reductionism? I think that’s more of a biological question—and he may very well be wrong on it (there are scientists who take other physical aspects of the organism into account).
I think it’s more-so just the thesis that genes can explain all biological-physical aspects of the organism. And it’s limited to biology. It’s not taking a philosophical position on whether organisms exist or if only atoms and such exist. I do think Dawkins is a reductionist, but I don’t think this scientific theory presupposes reductionism necessarily.
I’ve always been less keen on Dawkins’ arguments for atheism though. I do think they’re generally simplistic, and I don’t think belief in God is incompatible with belief in evolution. That said, the Problem of Evil does rear its ugly head - you can definitely bring up design flaws cause by evolution line the trachea & esophagus being close and leading to choking. Why would a good God allow this? But this is just a form of the philosophical problem of natural evil - nothing really new.
This interviewer DID do a lot of talking almost to the point of guiding the conversation more than Dawkins. If you have time and see this comment, could you say more about what you mean by "philosophical position of reductionism"? I am interested in this idea, and even as I wrote that I was wondering if I could explain what I mean by it.
What I mean by "reduction" is that something complex can be fully explained by its parts. For example, in chemistry, the water molecule and its dipole nature and consequent ability to dissolve so many other substances, form a hexagonal crystal lattice near its freezing point, and adhere to certain surfaces and move against gravity is fully explained by the quantum numbers of the electrons on oxygen and hydrogen. In the same way, I take it, Dawkins thinks the behavior of living things can be fully explained by genes.
Nevertheless, I would still say that the chemical reduction of water only works at a small scale, perhaps on the microscopic level. Once the sample is large enough and enough other factors come into play (pressure, dissolution of multiple substances, temperature, flow mechanics) with changes upon changes, there is a point where everything can no longer be explained by quantum numbers alone. Definitely at the scale Dawkins is talking about, I do not think everything about an organism can be reduced to genes, even biologically. I suppose the real question is WHY. Could it be with more knowledge? Ultimately, reductionism means we take everything back to quantum numbers or even deeper.
Yes -- the problem of evil. Another can of ugly worms.
I was calling it the “philosophical position of reductionism”, but it may be more accurate for me to say the “metaphysical” or “ontological” position of reductionism. For me metaphysical reductionism is the position that organisms, planets, etc. don’t *really* exist as independent entities. They’re more like a pile of dirt - does a pile of dirt really have independent existence or is it just a collection of specks? So on metaphysical reductionism the only thing that truly exist are atoms (or whatever physics tell us - fields or virtual particles or whatever, lol).
To say that human behavior and development can be fully explained by genes is not necessarily reductionism, in my opinion. It could be, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It’s not saying that biological organisms do not exist and that the only thing that exist are genes. Maybe it’s “reductionist” in a different sense of the word (You may say it’s reductionist to say “humans are animals and animals are only concerned with sex!” because that doesn’t take into account art, nonsexual love, and other aspects of the human experience, but that’s using “reductionism” in a different sense than metaphysical reductionism.).
I think metaphysical reductionism probably requires you to be able reduce biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics, so if you can’t do that, then reductionism is false? Although I wonder if a reductionist could still claim that even if new laws appear at greater scales that still all that truly exist ontologically are particles. Maybe.
All that being said, even if you can’t explain biology with chemistry and chemistry with physics, that makes reductionism possible, but I’m not actually sure that that necessitates reductionism. You could believe that humans are fully explained by our parts but that we’re still an entity that exists (rather than saying that only the atoms we’re made of exist).
So I don’t think Dawkins saying that human behavior/development is fully explained by genes necessitates metaphysical reductionism (even if Dawkins is a metaphysical reductionist, most likely). It may be wrong biologically, but I a non-reductionist could theoretically agree with Dawkins I think.
Okay, thank you! I see what you mean. I think I was using reductionist in a looser way than metaphysical reductionism. In Thomistic philosophy, there is a lot of talk about whether something can be reduced to its parts. Artificial things (man-made) are usually considered to be reducible to parts (the sum of its parts), such as a table that can be explained as wood made into legs and a tabletop, whereas natural things cannot be reduced to parts, such as a dog cannot be explained of legs snapped onto a torso. That's why I thought Dawkins meant the same kind of biological reductionism.
That's another problem I'm working on -- the difference between artificial and natural. The reducibility question also applies to whether something is a "substance" in the Aristotelian sense.
“tends to think you can’t have God and evolution.” A science-based society will have to get rid of God.
Interesting! ... his need to get rid of God points to some kind of nihilistic OCD.
However, it is also interesting that the CC (IMHO) needs to stop using 'Genesis' as a debarkation point to insist on Original Sin while allowing the faithful to believe in evolution. It is a dead end Gordian paradox that can only highlight the inconsistency of its own dogma vis a vis science.
Well, Dawkins is entirely correct that you cannot have God and evolution. It may be the only correct thing he's ever said, and it's entirely unsurprising that it's the one statement of his that the modern church has decided to disregard.
By the way, I wrote and published the definitive disproof of Darwinian evolution here, if anyone is interested:
Of course, we always have St Thomas's dictum that we can usually learn valuable truths even from our adversaries.
After 50 years of interacting with Dawkins and his “work” I have never been impressed by any of his effortless. Despite his notoriety his scientific output has been wrong headed all along. His obsession with “genes” has been misplaced and has contributed to a great deal of meaningless research. These are some of my preliminary thoughts. I am happy for Stacy, whom I consider an eloquent contributor to faith seeking understanding, she has found Richard Dawkins to be scientifically entertaining. That has never been the case for me. In that respect I envy her. I will return to these issues later when I have more time.
Thank you for that gracious comment, Richard. A friend of mine explained to me that Thomists think of gathering knowledge more like expanding a web than moving in a straight line, and that helped a lot. I can look for truth even in an atheist biologist who is an antagonist to Christians. I suppose getting older myself has softened me... :-)
It sounds like you got the better talk! When I saw him in Newark the interviewer talked too much himself and then asked a lot of social questions rather than focusing on the book or on evolution! 😭
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that saying genes can explain all aspects of an organism is the philosophical position of reductionism? I think that’s more of a biological question—and he may very well be wrong on it (there are scientists who take other physical aspects of the organism into account).
I think it’s more-so just the thesis that genes can explain all biological-physical aspects of the organism. And it’s limited to biology. It’s not taking a philosophical position on whether organisms exist or if only atoms and such exist. I do think Dawkins is a reductionist, but I don’t think this scientific theory presupposes reductionism necessarily.
I’ve always been less keen on Dawkins’ arguments for atheism though. I do think they’re generally simplistic, and I don’t think belief in God is incompatible with belief in evolution. That said, the Problem of Evil does rear its ugly head - you can definitely bring up design flaws cause by evolution line the trachea & esophagus being close and leading to choking. Why would a good God allow this? But this is just a form of the philosophical problem of natural evil - nothing really new.
This interviewer DID do a lot of talking almost to the point of guiding the conversation more than Dawkins. If you have time and see this comment, could you say more about what you mean by "philosophical position of reductionism"? I am interested in this idea, and even as I wrote that I was wondering if I could explain what I mean by it.
What I mean by "reduction" is that something complex can be fully explained by its parts. For example, in chemistry, the water molecule and its dipole nature and consequent ability to dissolve so many other substances, form a hexagonal crystal lattice near its freezing point, and adhere to certain surfaces and move against gravity is fully explained by the quantum numbers of the electrons on oxygen and hydrogen. In the same way, I take it, Dawkins thinks the behavior of living things can be fully explained by genes.
Nevertheless, I would still say that the chemical reduction of water only works at a small scale, perhaps on the microscopic level. Once the sample is large enough and enough other factors come into play (pressure, dissolution of multiple substances, temperature, flow mechanics) with changes upon changes, there is a point where everything can no longer be explained by quantum numbers alone. Definitely at the scale Dawkins is talking about, I do not think everything about an organism can be reduced to genes, even biologically. I suppose the real question is WHY. Could it be with more knowledge? Ultimately, reductionism means we take everything back to quantum numbers or even deeper.
Yes -- the problem of evil. Another can of ugly worms.
I was calling it the “philosophical position of reductionism”, but it may be more accurate for me to say the “metaphysical” or “ontological” position of reductionism. For me metaphysical reductionism is the position that organisms, planets, etc. don’t *really* exist as independent entities. They’re more like a pile of dirt - does a pile of dirt really have independent existence or is it just a collection of specks? So on metaphysical reductionism the only thing that truly exist are atoms (or whatever physics tell us - fields or virtual particles or whatever, lol).
To say that human behavior and development can be fully explained by genes is not necessarily reductionism, in my opinion. It could be, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It’s not saying that biological organisms do not exist and that the only thing that exist are genes. Maybe it’s “reductionist” in a different sense of the word (You may say it’s reductionist to say “humans are animals and animals are only concerned with sex!” because that doesn’t take into account art, nonsexual love, and other aspects of the human experience, but that’s using “reductionism” in a different sense than metaphysical reductionism.).
I think metaphysical reductionism probably requires you to be able reduce biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics, so if you can’t do that, then reductionism is false? Although I wonder if a reductionist could still claim that even if new laws appear at greater scales that still all that truly exist ontologically are particles. Maybe.
All that being said, even if you can’t explain biology with chemistry and chemistry with physics, that makes reductionism possible, but I’m not actually sure that that necessitates reductionism. You could believe that humans are fully explained by our parts but that we’re still an entity that exists (rather than saying that only the atoms we’re made of exist).
So I don’t think Dawkins saying that human behavior/development is fully explained by genes necessitates metaphysical reductionism (even if Dawkins is a metaphysical reductionist, most likely). It may be wrong biologically, but I a non-reductionist could theoretically agree with Dawkins I think.
Okay, thank you! I see what you mean. I think I was using reductionist in a looser way than metaphysical reductionism. In Thomistic philosophy, there is a lot of talk about whether something can be reduced to its parts. Artificial things (man-made) are usually considered to be reducible to parts (the sum of its parts), such as a table that can be explained as wood made into legs and a tabletop, whereas natural things cannot be reduced to parts, such as a dog cannot be explained of legs snapped onto a torso. That's why I thought Dawkins meant the same kind of biological reductionism.
That's another problem I'm working on -- the difference between artificial and natural. The reducibility question also applies to whether something is a "substance" in the Aristotelian sense.
I didn't know the post was duplicated. Sorry
I don't think it was. No worries.
“tends to think you can’t have God and evolution.” A science-based society will have to get rid of God.
Interesting! ... his need to get rid of God points to some kind of nihilistic OCD.
However, it is also interesting that the CC (IMHO) needs to stop using 'Genesis' as a debarkation point to insist on Original Sin while allowing the faithful to believe in evolution. It is a dead end Gordian paradox that can only highlight the inconsistency of its own dogma vis a vis science.
Well, Dawkins is entirely correct that you cannot have God and evolution. It may be the only correct thing he's ever said, and it's entirely unsurprising that it's the one statement of his that the modern church has decided to disregard.
By the way, I wrote and published the definitive disproof of Darwinian evolution here, if anyone is interested:
https://intelligentdasein.blogspot.com/2020/05/alt-wrong-paradigms-id-contra-hbd.html
Could you provide a synopsis here please? Namely, why do you think it is metaphysically impossible?