It's been quite a while since I have actually posted anything here. I figured I would attempt to get back into it, at least for the next while.
I often write reviews of bad Christian apologetics. To break this trend (and show that this isn't all that I read), I am going to do a few quick reviews of some books I have read recently.
The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper
I picked this book up expecting a book full of neuroscientific findings about religious belief. I was very disapointed. Much of the book is, instead, talking about the author's journey away from religious belief, and how basic science has undermined much of traditional religion. I ended up just skimming much of this, since it seemed completely irrelevant to the thesis of the book.
When the thesis is finally mentioned, and the book goes on to explain it, I found the basic idea unoriginal. Basically, a predisposition to religious beliefs evolved to lessen the anxiety humans feel about death. It might have been better if more space was devoted to exploring the evidence and the ramifications of this idea, but the book was short as it was and much of the space was wasted on the bits irrelevant to this thesis.
Overall, I can't recommend this book.
Gödel's Proof by Ernest Nagel, James R. Newman, edited and foreword by Douglas R. Hofstadter
The proof to which the title refers to, of course, is his classic proof of the incompleteness of logical systems (for more specific information, you can read about it on wikipedia). This was enormously important for the history of mathematics, extremely interesting as a logical proof, and has been (unfortunately) misused in attempts to prove all sorts of far-reaching philosophical conclusions.
The book itself presents the argument in a very easy to understand way. It gives the overall structure of the proof, without getting too bogged down in details and formality. It's quite readable (or as readable as you could expect, given the subject matter), and does a wonderful job of getting the basic structure of the proof across.
I highly recommend this to any one who is interested in logic or mathematics, especially those who have not had a chance to study Gödel's result before.
Mindfield by Lone Frank
This books talks about how the cognitive sciences, particularly neuroscience, are having an effect on other fields and on everyday life. A very good balance is achieved between depth and breadth of issues. The book looks at a very broad array of topics, but - although I may have been inspired to want to read more about a specific topic - I never felt that something was covered only superficially.
The topics the book talks about are how neuroscience can give us insight on religion, morality, happiness, social interactions, economics, marketing, and lieing. A very interesting read for anyone interested in any one of those topics.
Happiness by Richard Layard
This book was rather interesting. It looked at many scientific findings about happiness - sociological findings about the happiness of different countries through the years, the effects of various things on the happiness of the individual or a whole country, etc. He uses this to put forward some arguments on policy changes which would increase the happiness of a country, and things which affect happiness in our everyday lives.
This is a very thought-provoking book. I have a feeling many hard-core libertarians would have a lot of problems with the arguments put forward, but I would still recommend this book to them and anyone else interested in the science of happiness.
Showing posts with label book review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book review. Show all posts
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Case for a Creator - Book Review
To finally finish off my trilogy of Lee Strobel book reviews, here is my review of The Case for a Creator.
I wasn't expecting much from this book - I was expecting a rehash of tired old design arguments and intelligent design bullshit. In many aspects it was just as I expected - Lee Strobel interviewed only people who agreed with what he was setting out to prove (meaning he ignored the fact that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with much of what the interviewees were saying). He interviewed people like Mike Behe and Stephen Meyer of the intelligent design movement. This was all quite boring and old, making the majority of the book just difficult to get through.
However, there were a couple of bits which perked my interest.
The first of these interesting bits was in chapter 5, where William Lane Craig is interviewed. I knew that Craig was a big proponent of the first cause argument, but I never really understood how he could possibly make it a sound argument. Even if you grant that everything that came to exist has a cause, and the universe came to exist, all that leaves you with is some unnamed cause which you know nothing about. How could anyone possibly use this to argue for the existence of a personal, intelligent, eternal cosmic mind?
Craig also argues that there are two types of things which are timeless and immaterial: abstract objects like mathematical entities, and minds. Since the cause of the universe must be immaterial and timeless, and mathematical entities cannot create the universe, a mind must have.
Finally, he argues that if there was a mechanistic cause for the universe, there would be no reason for the universe to be finite - the sufficient condition for the universe to be created would be eternally fulfilled, meaning the universe should have been created an eternity ago. Only an agent with freedom of will could choose when to create the universe.
I was pretty amazed to read these arguments. I imagine even most theists reading them would cringe. The first argument relies entirely on a strange dichotomy. What exactly are "personal explanations"? Explanations at the level of a person's desires and preferences. This doesn't make them magical entities to be set aside from scientific explanations. Psychology is in the business of trying to understand how people work, and so this science's explanations would be personal explanations. We could make a dichotomy between baking explanations ("baking soda makes baked things fluffier, so that is why this cake came out so fluffy") and scientific explanations ("The chemical reaction between baking soda and the acids in the other ingredients are catalyzed by the heat of the oven..." etc). This would not mean that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a baking explanation, and thus the universe was created by an eternal oven.
The second argument is just silly - it first begs the question by assuming dualism. Second, it assumes this dichotomy that timeless and immaterial things must either be minds or mathematical entities.
The final argument seems pretty much incoherent, but I suppose the response to it would be that as far as we know, time started when the universe did, so in no sense would there have been conditions which were satisfied for a time before the universe. I won't touch Craig's childish notion of free-will, in order to keep things concise.
The second thing which surprised me about this book was chapter 10: Evidence of Consciousness. The chapter is full of bad arguments, doesn't bother to define what the soul is (even though it is touted as the solution to all the philosophical problems of consciousness) or how it works, and doesn't tackle any of the traditional problems with dualism. There is an appeal to near death experiences (which reminds me of The Spiritual Brain), but the real argument is that if the universe didn't start with any minds, a mindless universe couldn't create them. Consider the analogous argument: if the universe didn't start with snowflakes, there is no way it could have created them.
Well, that's it. This is probably the last Strobel book I'll read. I have now read all of the books which our local Campus for Christ group hands out. I hope they start giving out different ones - reading these Christian books can be quite fun, but I would never want to support the author.
I wasn't expecting much from this book - I was expecting a rehash of tired old design arguments and intelligent design bullshit. In many aspects it was just as I expected - Lee Strobel interviewed only people who agreed with what he was setting out to prove (meaning he ignored the fact that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with much of what the interviewees were saying). He interviewed people like Mike Behe and Stephen Meyer of the intelligent design movement. This was all quite boring and old, making the majority of the book just difficult to get through.
However, there were a couple of bits which perked my interest.
The first of these interesting bits was in chapter 5, where William Lane Craig is interviewed. I knew that Craig was a big proponent of the first cause argument, but I never really understood how he could possibly make it a sound argument. Even if you grant that everything that came to exist has a cause, and the universe came to exist, all that leaves you with is some unnamed cause which you know nothing about. How could anyone possibly use this to argue for the existence of a personal, intelligent, eternal cosmic mind?
Imagine you walked into the kitchen and saw the kettle boiling on the stove. You ask, 'why is the kettle boiling?' Your wife might say 'Well, because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they're thrown off in the form of steam.' That would be a scientific explanation. Or she might say 'I put it on to make a cup of tea.' That would be a personal explanation. (page 135)Craig goes on to explain that since whatever caused the universe can't be given a scientific explanation in the terms of the events leading up to it, the explanation for the universe must be a personal one (i.e. the cause must be a personal being).
Craig also argues that there are two types of things which are timeless and immaterial: abstract objects like mathematical entities, and minds. Since the cause of the universe must be immaterial and timeless, and mathematical entities cannot create the universe, a mind must have.
Finally, he argues that if there was a mechanistic cause for the universe, there would be no reason for the universe to be finite - the sufficient condition for the universe to be created would be eternally fulfilled, meaning the universe should have been created an eternity ago. Only an agent with freedom of will could choose when to create the universe.
I was pretty amazed to read these arguments. I imagine even most theists reading them would cringe. The first argument relies entirely on a strange dichotomy. What exactly are "personal explanations"? Explanations at the level of a person's desires and preferences. This doesn't make them magical entities to be set aside from scientific explanations. Psychology is in the business of trying to understand how people work, and so this science's explanations would be personal explanations. We could make a dichotomy between baking explanations ("baking soda makes baked things fluffier, so that is why this cake came out so fluffy") and scientific explanations ("The chemical reaction between baking soda and the acids in the other ingredients are catalyzed by the heat of the oven..." etc). This would not mean that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a baking explanation, and thus the universe was created by an eternal oven.
The second argument is just silly - it first begs the question by assuming dualism. Second, it assumes this dichotomy that timeless and immaterial things must either be minds or mathematical entities.
The final argument seems pretty much incoherent, but I suppose the response to it would be that as far as we know, time started when the universe did, so in no sense would there have been conditions which were satisfied for a time before the universe. I won't touch Craig's childish notion of free-will, in order to keep things concise.
The second thing which surprised me about this book was chapter 10: Evidence of Consciousness. The chapter is full of bad arguments, doesn't bother to define what the soul is (even though it is touted as the solution to all the philosophical problems of consciousness) or how it works, and doesn't tackle any of the traditional problems with dualism. There is an appeal to near death experiences (which reminds me of The Spiritual Brain), but the real argument is that if the universe didn't start with any minds, a mindless universe couldn't create them. Consider the analogous argument: if the universe didn't start with snowflakes, there is no way it could have created them.
Well, that's it. This is probably the last Strobel book I'll read. I have now read all of the books which our local Campus for Christ group hands out. I hope they start giving out different ones - reading these Christian books can be quite fun, but I would never want to support the author.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Case for Faith - Book Review
I meant to write this post much earlier, but somehow it got put off until now despite my having finished reading The Case for Faith days after my last post. On to the review.
Like Strobel's The Case for Christ, each chapter of the book deals with a different issue in an interview with a different "expert". The Case for Faith is written specifically for people who on their way to Jesus "are faced with intellectual barriers standing squarely in their path" (from the back of the book summary).
Overall, The Case for Faith was a much more enjoyable read than The Case for Christ. It serves as an interesting example of how Christian apologetics deal with different theological issues. I found it a fun (though frustrating) read. I would recommend it if someone was looking for an example of popular apologetics, but not for anyone looking for a serious look at philosophy of religion or theology. Most of the arguments are either what you would expect to hear from students in a first year philosophy course, or worse.
A quick look at each chapter:
Objection #1: Suffering Disproves God (interviewee: Peter John Kreeft)
Of course, one of the first issues the book seeks to deal with is the issue of suffering. The chapter can be summed up as follows: Free will leads to evil (what about natural disasters?), and the experience of evil often leads people to a strengthened faith. Therefore evil isn't such a bad thing, since it brings people closer to God! One could question why an omniscient being can't come up with a slightly better way of doing things, and this brings up all sorts of questions about what the interaction between free will and human psychology is (why do people become more faithful after experiencing suffering? Due to some psychological fact about humans. Why couldn't God change human psychology so that the experience of eating ice cream brought us closer to him? This no more takes away our freedom than the way things currently are.)
The best part of the chapter, or perhaps the book, occurs on page 47. I will quote it in full so I can't be accused of taking it out of context (I assume it will be hard to believe that this quote occurs in the book):
This chapter is not as interesting as the first. It can be summarized simply as: No, miracles don't contradict science, because God can do anything. That's fine with me (is this objection really supposed to be a serious one, or is this chapter just filler?). If you assume an omnipotent being that can do anything, including break natural laws, then miracles aren't too big of a problem. The problem is providing evidence that shows the assumption is warranted.
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed (interviewee: Walter L. Bradley)
Oh boy. Creationism time. This chapter isn't too fun - it is just a rehash of intelligent design propaganda without anything new. I assume that the next book, The Case for a Creator, will deal with this in depth. Since I will likely be reviewing that book next, I'll leave this stuff until then.
Objection #4: God Isn't Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (interviewee: Norman L. Geisler)
This chapter brings us back to some fun stuff. The bible describes (in numerous instances) God killing or ordering the killing of many children. Some instances: the great flood, the curse of Egypt, genocide of the Amalekites, destruction of the Canaanites, bears mauling 42 kids for calling Elisha a baldhead, etc.
This chapter deals with the genocides in the following way:
1. Children aren't innocent, because they have original sin.
2. Children who die while young get to go to heaven, so it's a good thing if they die (but don't you go kill them unless God tells you to!)
3. Children growing up in these corrupt societies (God was ordering their destruction because they were corrupt) will grow up to be corrupt, so it's really best if they die (what happened to free will?).
Somehow, I doubt many people find this sort of reasoning convincing.
Better yet is the way it deals with the story of Elisha and the bears. It is claimed that the people mauled to death were "youths", which probably means young adults. They also probably had violent intentions. Therefore, obviously, it is justifiable that God sent down bears to maul them.
Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (interviewee: Ravi Zacharias)
This seems to be another filler chapter. Summary: There is no way for a faith to include everyone, and it isn't offensive if it's the truth.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell (interviewee: J.P. Moreland)
Basically, it is claimed that God doesn't torture people in hell. At least, not actively. Hell is actually just separation from God, and this is extremely painful. But the big claim is this: everyone chooses to be separated from God. The audacious claim is made that actually, all atheists know deep down that there is a god. God gave us just enough evidence to let us know he exists but not so much that it isn't possible to claim he doesn't, so atheists have a way out. Atheists actually all disbelieve for other underlying reasons (i.e. they are being rebellious, don't want it to be true, or have a bad relationship with their father). Quite simply, no satisfactory rebuttal of the objection presented in this chapter was given.
Objection #7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence (interviewee: John Woodbridge)
This chapter is about what you would expect. The evils done by Christianity were done by misguided people, and Christianity leads people to do many good things. It's just a No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with cherry-picking the good things Christians have done or do.
Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be Christian (interviewee: Lynn Anderson)
It is claimed that it is natural to have doubts, but this is okay. This chapter doesn't really have any argumentation, it is just trying to give Christians a "stick-with-it" attitude towards their faith.
That's all. As I said, it is an interesting example of Christian apologetics. However, it seems all of the issues are either not dealt with very well, or not very serious objections to begin with.
Like Strobel's The Case for Christ, each chapter of the book deals with a different issue in an interview with a different "expert". The Case for Faith is written specifically for people who on their way to Jesus "are faced with intellectual barriers standing squarely in their path" (from the back of the book summary).
Overall, The Case for Faith was a much more enjoyable read than The Case for Christ. It serves as an interesting example of how Christian apologetics deal with different theological issues. I found it a fun (though frustrating) read. I would recommend it if someone was looking for an example of popular apologetics, but not for anyone looking for a serious look at philosophy of religion or theology. Most of the arguments are either what you would expect to hear from students in a first year philosophy course, or worse.
A quick look at each chapter:
Objection #1: Suffering Disproves God (interviewee: Peter John Kreeft)
Of course, one of the first issues the book seeks to deal with is the issue of suffering. The chapter can be summed up as follows: Free will leads to evil (what about natural disasters?), and the experience of evil often leads people to a strengthened faith. Therefore evil isn't such a bad thing, since it brings people closer to God! One could question why an omniscient being can't come up with a slightly better way of doing things, and this brings up all sorts of questions about what the interaction between free will and human psychology is (why do people become more faithful after experiencing suffering? Due to some psychological fact about humans. Why couldn't God change human psychology so that the experience of eating ice cream brought us closer to him? This no more takes away our freedom than the way things currently are.)
The best part of the chapter, or perhaps the book, occurs on page 47. I will quote it in full so I can't be accused of taking it out of context (I assume it will be hard to believe that this quote occurs in the book):
"Are there any other ways in which you believe evil works against atheism?" [Strobel] asked.Wow. This is an amazing quote. Kreeft should get some kind of an award for this. I've tried counting the number of errors/misconceptions present in this passage, but sometimes something is so far from making any sense that it isn't possible to sort out the tangled mess of assumptions being used. Here is my attempt at a short (not exhaustive) list of all of the major errors/misconceptions (if you are bored, try finding more and writing them in a comment).
"Yes, there are," [Kreeft] replied. "If there is no Creator and therefore no moment of creation, then everything is the result of evolution. If there was no beginning or first cause, then the universe must have always existed. That means the universe has been evolving for an infinite amount of time-and, by now, everything should already be perfect. There would have been plenty of time for evolution to have finished and evil to have been vanquished. But there still is evil and suffering and imperfection-and that proves the atheist wrong about the universe."
- Atheism does not imply that the universe has existed in its present form for eternity. There is simply no reason to think that if there is not a god, the universe must have existed forever.
- Even if the universe did exist forever, biological evolution is not progressive. Species tend to evolve to fit their environment, not to become "perfect". Even if a species is a perfect fit for their evironment, when that environment changes, so will they.
- Even if the universe existed forever AND evolution was progressive, there is no reason to think the end result would be perfection. The function could asymptote off at some point due to a physical restraint (i.e. there may be no physical way that organisms could evolve to not be completely prone to cancer). There is also the issue of "arms races" between species, which could go on forever, and whenever one species is ahead of the other, members of the other species suffer.
- Finally, even if the universe existed forever, evolution was progressive, and there were no physical restraints keeping organisms from reaching perfection, the universe could be cyclic. That is, it could be the case that every 20 billion years or so, the universe goes through a "big crunch", and begins in a new big bang event. There would be an eternal universe, but only a finite time for organisms to evolve.
This chapter is not as interesting as the first. It can be summarized simply as: No, miracles don't contradict science, because God can do anything. That's fine with me (is this objection really supposed to be a serious one, or is this chapter just filler?). If you assume an omnipotent being that can do anything, including break natural laws, then miracles aren't too big of a problem. The problem is providing evidence that shows the assumption is warranted.
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed (interviewee: Walter L. Bradley)
Oh boy. Creationism time. This chapter isn't too fun - it is just a rehash of intelligent design propaganda without anything new. I assume that the next book, The Case for a Creator, will deal with this in depth. Since I will likely be reviewing that book next, I'll leave this stuff until then.
Objection #4: God Isn't Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (interviewee: Norman L. Geisler)
This chapter brings us back to some fun stuff. The bible describes (in numerous instances) God killing or ordering the killing of many children. Some instances: the great flood, the curse of Egypt, genocide of the Amalekites, destruction of the Canaanites, bears mauling 42 kids for calling Elisha a baldhead, etc.
This chapter deals with the genocides in the following way:
1. Children aren't innocent, because they have original sin.
2. Children who die while young get to go to heaven, so it's a good thing if they die (but don't you go kill them unless God tells you to!)
3. Children growing up in these corrupt societies (God was ordering their destruction because they were corrupt) will grow up to be corrupt, so it's really best if they die (what happened to free will?).
Somehow, I doubt many people find this sort of reasoning convincing.
Better yet is the way it deals with the story of Elisha and the bears. It is claimed that the people mauled to death were "youths", which probably means young adults. They also probably had violent intentions. Therefore, obviously, it is justifiable that God sent down bears to maul them.
Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (interviewee: Ravi Zacharias)
This seems to be another filler chapter. Summary: There is no way for a faith to include everyone, and it isn't offensive if it's the truth.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell (interviewee: J.P. Moreland)
Basically, it is claimed that God doesn't torture people in hell. At least, not actively. Hell is actually just separation from God, and this is extremely painful. But the big claim is this: everyone chooses to be separated from God. The audacious claim is made that actually, all atheists know deep down that there is a god. God gave us just enough evidence to let us know he exists but not so much that it isn't possible to claim he doesn't, so atheists have a way out. Atheists actually all disbelieve for other underlying reasons (i.e. they are being rebellious, don't want it to be true, or have a bad relationship with their father). Quite simply, no satisfactory rebuttal of the objection presented in this chapter was given.
Objection #7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence (interviewee: John Woodbridge)
This chapter is about what you would expect. The evils done by Christianity were done by misguided people, and Christianity leads people to do many good things. It's just a No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with cherry-picking the good things Christians have done or do.
Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be Christian (interviewee: Lynn Anderson)
It is claimed that it is natural to have doubts, but this is okay. This chapter doesn't really have any argumentation, it is just trying to give Christians a "stick-with-it" attitude towards their faith.
That's all. As I said, it is an interesting example of Christian apologetics. However, it seems all of the issues are either not dealt with very well, or not very serious objections to begin with.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Case for Christ - Book Review
Campus for Christ, a club on campus here at UW, frequently hands out packages with free books by Christian apologists. These free books include The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator all by Lee Strobel. I've collected all of them and am now making my way through them. I plan to post reviews of each of them as I read them.
The first of them, The Case for Christ, argues that there is historical evidence that Christ existed and was the son of God. Quite frankly, the book is excessively dull and there isn't much in it that I feel the need to review in detail (for reasons which will become apparent).
In each chapter of the book, an expert is interviewed, with Strobel posing questions and arguments which challenge the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Each chapter has a question for a subtitle, for example chapter 5: "Does Archeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?" You can guess what the answer given to each of the questions is going to be just based on the author of the book. Since most of the claims rely entirely upon appeals to authority, you won't get much more out of reading the chapter than you would if asking for a one word answer to the questions.
Of course, appeal to authority can be necessary on many subjects, and this just happens to be one of those subjects, so the book shouldn't be criticized for relying on authorities. However, it can be criticized severely on the choice of authorities. Not a single person skeptical of the claim that Jesus is the son of God is interviewed in this book. For comparison, look at (the admittedly biased) Bullshit!'s episode on the Bible, in which the Bible is claimed to be bullshit. In this 30 minute (minus commercials) show, Penn and Teller not only interview Shermer as their skeptic, but also a Christian biblical scholar (i.e. someone who does not agree with the conclusion of the show). Bullshit! is able to do it, so why didn't Strobel? One can only conclude that the book is biased to the extreme. I'm sure there are scholars (like Bart Ehrman) who would certainly disagree with many things in that book, and so I don't see any reason to take a certain biased sampling of scholars seriously.
One of the arguments which comes up several time in the book is that the New Testament was written at a time when many eyewitnesses of the event would still be around, thus if it contained any errors, someone would have pointed it out. I am certainly not a historian and don't know what methods are acceptable in a historical analysis, but this seems to me an extremely poor argument. These books were written at a time before mass communication - even if eyewitnesses did disagree with the written accounts and even tried correcting them, it would be pretty damn hard after the writings spread beyond their immediate area. Not to mention that even eyewitnesses might believe the event happened differently than it actually did, due psychological phenomena like false memories.
One damning point of the book is in the twelth chapter, the interview with William Craig. Craig is quoted as saying, "...the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead doesn't contradict science or any known facts of experience. All it requires is the hypothesis that God exists" page 300. While I agree that magic isn't too unlikely when you believe in a magic generator (a god) who has a particular queer fancy to fulfill a particular set of prophecies, this is much like saying it is likely little gremlins stole my keys because I can't find my keys, and I believe there to be key-eating gremlins. It comes down to requiring belief in a Judeo-Christian god to even get Craig's argument off the ground.
Overall, I don't think I could recommend this book to anyone. This isn't because I just disagree with it - I would and have recommended books which I disagree a great deal with. It's just because this particular book is boring and I really don't think many people would gain anything from reading it.
The first of them, The Case for Christ, argues that there is historical evidence that Christ existed and was the son of God. Quite frankly, the book is excessively dull and there isn't much in it that I feel the need to review in detail (for reasons which will become apparent).
In each chapter of the book, an expert is interviewed, with Strobel posing questions and arguments which challenge the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Each chapter has a question for a subtitle, for example chapter 5: "Does Archeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?" You can guess what the answer given to each of the questions is going to be just based on the author of the book. Since most of the claims rely entirely upon appeals to authority, you won't get much more out of reading the chapter than you would if asking for a one word answer to the questions.
Of course, appeal to authority can be necessary on many subjects, and this just happens to be one of those subjects, so the book shouldn't be criticized for relying on authorities. However, it can be criticized severely on the choice of authorities. Not a single person skeptical of the claim that Jesus is the son of God is interviewed in this book. For comparison, look at (the admittedly biased) Bullshit!'s episode on the Bible, in which the Bible is claimed to be bullshit. In this 30 minute (minus commercials) show, Penn and Teller not only interview Shermer as their skeptic, but also a Christian biblical scholar (i.e. someone who does not agree with the conclusion of the show). Bullshit! is able to do it, so why didn't Strobel? One can only conclude that the book is biased to the extreme. I'm sure there are scholars (like Bart Ehrman) who would certainly disagree with many things in that book, and so I don't see any reason to take a certain biased sampling of scholars seriously.
One of the arguments which comes up several time in the book is that the New Testament was written at a time when many eyewitnesses of the event would still be around, thus if it contained any errors, someone would have pointed it out. I am certainly not a historian and don't know what methods are acceptable in a historical analysis, but this seems to me an extremely poor argument. These books were written at a time before mass communication - even if eyewitnesses did disagree with the written accounts and even tried correcting them, it would be pretty damn hard after the writings spread beyond their immediate area. Not to mention that even eyewitnesses might believe the event happened differently than it actually did, due psychological phenomena like false memories.
One damning point of the book is in the twelth chapter, the interview with William Craig. Craig is quoted as saying, "...the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead doesn't contradict science or any known facts of experience. All it requires is the hypothesis that God exists" page 300. While I agree that magic isn't too unlikely when you believe in a magic generator (a god) who has a particular queer fancy to fulfill a particular set of prophecies, this is much like saying it is likely little gremlins stole my keys because I can't find my keys, and I believe there to be key-eating gremlins. It comes down to requiring belief in a Judeo-Christian god to even get Craig's argument off the ground.
Overall, I don't think I could recommend this book to anyone. This isn't because I just disagree with it - I would and have recommended books which I disagree a great deal with. It's just because this particular book is boring and I really don't think many people would gain anything from reading it.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Soul Cravings - Book Review
Campus For Christ gives out a number of books free around campus. One of them is Soul Cravings, by Erwin McManus, which I took the time to read recently.
Before I get into the actual book, I want to give a warning. The book for some reason doesn't number its pages (despite having 200-300 pages), so in order to reference any part of the book, I am going to have to cite the section of the book (the sections being Intimacy, Destiny, Meaning and Seek, in that order), and then the entry number - quite a cumbersome way to cite anything, and not as accurate as a page number since the entries span 2-5 pages.
The theme of this book is that we all have "cravings of the soul", things we can't deny and which are just part of life. Of course, the only way to satisfy these cravings is to accept God and Jesus Christ. The very fact that we have these cravings is (according to the book) evidence of God's existence and that evolution doesn't work. I will quickly overview each section, then go back and look at all of the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist bullshit that is found throughout the book.
The first section of the book is Intimacy. It argues we all crave and need love. And (here it comes), we need God in order to have love: "When we are disconnected from God, we find ourselves increasingly empty of love" (Intimacy, Entry 14). The section seems to be claiming something like this: Some people have abandonment issues which makes it hard for them to love God, God is needed to feel love, we all need love, so those poor little atheists are all just sad, loveless people that have been hurt at some point in their lives.
Second section: Destiny. This section is supposed to be an uplifting section about how we can all reach our dreams if we want. Our dreams are cravings of our soul, which of course can't be explained by evolution. Life is meaningless if there is no God (Entry 17) and our souls long for god when we are "hiding in a cave" even if we are atheists (Entry 12).
The third section is entitled Meaning. It's about the soul's craving for truth. We seek truth in different ways, for example faith or reason, which are both pretty much the same thing. Philosophy apparently tells us we can't believe in an objective reality, science tells us we must believe in nothing except the material world, and so they are opposed to one another. Atheists claim they can't believe in what they can't see, yet they believe in oxygen (Entry 9).
The final section, Seek, is really just the summary of the other sections.
Now that we have a quick summary of the book, let's look a bit more closely at it, particularly the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist stuff. I will just be picking quotes from the books that convey the overall message.
"[B]y all theories of aerodynamics and physics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it can. No scientific reason why it should; it just does" (Destiny, Entry 4) which is of course, completely false (see Wikipedia on bumblebee flight).
Randy, who suffers from a form of dwarfism and was not expected to live long past birth, is quoted approvingly as saying: "'I am living proof that Darwin was wrong - or at least had a poor definition of who was the most fit to survive'" (Destiny, Entry 4). Note that Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", and the phrase refers to reproductive fitness, not necessarily physical fitness; this quote simply betrays a profound ignorance about evolution. This is one of the many, many quotes that take shots at evolution while simultaneously showing a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
"If there were no God, it would be inane for us to search for significance or to be ambitious for success" (Destiny, Entry 18). No reason is given for this, except in the previous chapter where it is claimed that if we have to die, life is meaningless for some reason.
"Somehow we know it's not supposed to be a dog-eat-dog world. If it's all evolutionary, then we should be motivated only by survival of the fittest" (Destiny, Entry 19). What would it mean to be motivated "only by survival of the fittest"? I don't even know where his thinking has gone wrong, since I don't even know what he thinks that would mean.
"If you step back and extract the emotion and look at it objectively, you begin to realize that faith and reason have a lot in common. Oh, they come to different conclusions, but they're both trying to do the same thing" (Meaning, Entry 4). He admits that faith and reason come to different conclusions. Too easy?
"We live in a time when philosophers question even the existence of reality" (Meaning, Entry 5). No names, philosophical movements, or anything is given to back up this claim. So who are these philosophers? How is this new, considering Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, etc. all questioned the existence of reality in some way or other and lived centuries ago? It certainly isn't the case that most philosophers doubt the existence of reality, if that is what he is trying to say here...
"Our philosophers went searching for truth, and when they returned, they told us that there is no truth to be known, that nothing is true, and that all we can do is create our own truth and hope for the best" (Meaning, Entry 8). See comments about the preceding quote.
"For some, to believe in God is way too much of a stretch. They consider it an insult to their intelligence. For them believing in something they cannot see is absurd. And if you talk about the effect of God on people's lives, they will insist that secondary evidence is not good enough. It has to be primary, or it's not real. So then there is love. Some people who do not believe in God are consistent and don't believe in love either" (Seek). The implication is, if you don't believe in God but believe in love, you are inconsistent, since you can't see either! There are huge disanalogies here, plus the implication is built on a straw-man (I believe in plenty of things I can't see, and not being able to see them isn't the reason I don't believe in any gods - though if I COULD see a god, it would probably cause me to believe in it).
"[M]y nonscientific research has found a direct correlation between losing faith in love and losing faith in God" (Seek). Keyword: nonscientific.
So, overall, this book is an anti-intellectual screed that, if nothing else, helps to perpetuate silly misconceptions about atheists and anti-scientific views among Christians.
Before I get into the actual book, I want to give a warning. The book for some reason doesn't number its pages (despite having 200-300 pages), so in order to reference any part of the book, I am going to have to cite the section of the book (the sections being Intimacy, Destiny, Meaning and Seek, in that order), and then the entry number - quite a cumbersome way to cite anything, and not as accurate as a page number since the entries span 2-5 pages.
The theme of this book is that we all have "cravings of the soul", things we can't deny and which are just part of life. Of course, the only way to satisfy these cravings is to accept God and Jesus Christ. The very fact that we have these cravings is (according to the book) evidence of God's existence and that evolution doesn't work. I will quickly overview each section, then go back and look at all of the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist bullshit that is found throughout the book.
The first section of the book is Intimacy. It argues we all crave and need love. And (here it comes), we need God in order to have love: "When we are disconnected from God, we find ourselves increasingly empty of love" (Intimacy, Entry 14). The section seems to be claiming something like this: Some people have abandonment issues which makes it hard for them to love God, God is needed to feel love, we all need love, so those poor little atheists are all just sad, loveless people that have been hurt at some point in their lives.
Second section: Destiny. This section is supposed to be an uplifting section about how we can all reach our dreams if we want. Our dreams are cravings of our soul, which of course can't be explained by evolution. Life is meaningless if there is no God (Entry 17) and our souls long for god when we are "hiding in a cave" even if we are atheists (Entry 12).
The third section is entitled Meaning. It's about the soul's craving for truth. We seek truth in different ways, for example faith or reason, which are both pretty much the same thing. Philosophy apparently tells us we can't believe in an objective reality, science tells us we must believe in nothing except the material world, and so they are opposed to one another. Atheists claim they can't believe in what they can't see, yet they believe in oxygen (Entry 9).
The final section, Seek, is really just the summary of the other sections.
Now that we have a quick summary of the book, let's look a bit more closely at it, particularly the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist stuff. I will just be picking quotes from the books that convey the overall message.
"[B]y all theories of aerodynamics and physics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it can. No scientific reason why it should; it just does" (Destiny, Entry 4) which is of course, completely false (see Wikipedia on bumblebee flight).
Randy, who suffers from a form of dwarfism and was not expected to live long past birth, is quoted approvingly as saying: "'I am living proof that Darwin was wrong - or at least had a poor definition of who was the most fit to survive'" (Destiny, Entry 4). Note that Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", and the phrase refers to reproductive fitness, not necessarily physical fitness; this quote simply betrays a profound ignorance about evolution. This is one of the many, many quotes that take shots at evolution while simultaneously showing a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
"If there were no God, it would be inane for us to search for significance or to be ambitious for success" (Destiny, Entry 18). No reason is given for this, except in the previous chapter where it is claimed that if we have to die, life is meaningless for some reason.
"Somehow we know it's not supposed to be a dog-eat-dog world. If it's all evolutionary, then we should be motivated only by survival of the fittest" (Destiny, Entry 19). What would it mean to be motivated "only by survival of the fittest"? I don't even know where his thinking has gone wrong, since I don't even know what he thinks that would mean.
"If you step back and extract the emotion and look at it objectively, you begin to realize that faith and reason have a lot in common. Oh, they come to different conclusions, but they're both trying to do the same thing" (Meaning, Entry 4). He admits that faith and reason come to different conclusions. Too easy?
"We live in a time when philosophers question even the existence of reality" (Meaning, Entry 5). No names, philosophical movements, or anything is given to back up this claim. So who are these philosophers? How is this new, considering Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, etc. all questioned the existence of reality in some way or other and lived centuries ago? It certainly isn't the case that most philosophers doubt the existence of reality, if that is what he is trying to say here...
"Our philosophers went searching for truth, and when they returned, they told us that there is no truth to be known, that nothing is true, and that all we can do is create our own truth and hope for the best" (Meaning, Entry 8). See comments about the preceding quote.
"For some, to believe in God is way too much of a stretch. They consider it an insult to their intelligence. For them believing in something they cannot see is absurd. And if you talk about the effect of God on people's lives, they will insist that secondary evidence is not good enough. It has to be primary, or it's not real. So then there is love. Some people who do not believe in God are consistent and don't believe in love either" (Seek). The implication is, if you don't believe in God but believe in love, you are inconsistent, since you can't see either! There are huge disanalogies here, plus the implication is built on a straw-man (I believe in plenty of things I can't see, and not being able to see them isn't the reason I don't believe in any gods - though if I COULD see a god, it would probably cause me to believe in it).
"[M]y nonscientific research has found a direct correlation between losing faith in love and losing faith in God" (Seek). Keyword: nonscientific.
So, overall, this book is an anti-intellectual screed that, if nothing else, helps to perpetuate silly misconceptions about atheists and anti-scientific views among Christians.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Calculating God, Mindscan - Book Review
In the last few months, I’ve read two books by Robert Sawyer: First I read Mindscan and more recently Calculating God. Robert Sawyer is a Canadian science fiction writer who has won both the Nebula Award (for The Terminal Experiment) and the Hugo Award (for Hominids). More recently and of more relevance, he won the John W. Campbel Memorial Award for Mindscan.
Mindscan takes place in the not too distant future. A company has found a way to scan a brain and copy the exact neural pattern in it into a synthetic body. The procedure is extremely expensive, so the only customers to undergo the procedure are those who don’t believe they will be around any longer – generally the elderly, who want to transfer their consciousness into a body that will live on for longer. Once the procedure is done, the synthetic body is supposed to inherit everything from the biologically original, while the original goes off to live out the remainder of their days on the moon.
At the face of it, this seems no different from the standard transporter though experiments – if you step into a scanner on Mars, and it scans (and dismantles) your body and produces a completely identical self on Earth, have you been transported? What if the person on Mars isn’t dismantled, but sticks around for a while after the scan? For the “you” on Earth, it seems like you were just on Mars and are now on Earth, but to the “you” on Mars, there seems to have been no change – you’re still where you started. This is an interesting thought experiment, but one that is far too common. An entire novel on this would be far from something new and unique. Luckily, Mindscan goes beyond this, exploring some of the ethical, social and legal issues with this mindscanning technology.
The story in Calculating God is drastically different. Extra-terrestrials visit Earth, seeking scientific knowledge. It is quickly discovered that these aliens believe in God. However, their belief isn’t like our standard human belief (in fact, at one point an alien calls anyone who believes God communicates with them deluded) – for the aliens, God’s existence is a scientific theory.
This book was interesting because it sort of fleshed out the idea that God’s existence could be proved. Many atheists, when asked the question “What would it take for you to believe in God?” are sort of stumped – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is hard to come up with the sort of extraordinary evidence that would justify a claim that a god exists. The aliens have pretty good evidence – they have a unified theory of physics that pretty much necessitates an intelligent creator, and they understand intelligence enough to have a theory about how this intelligent being came about.
Sawyer’s novels tend to read more like a philosopher’s thought experiments than science fiction novels. The plot is sometimes a bit weak (particularly in Calculating God, where most of the plot could just be taken out to make – in my opinion – a much better, shorter book), but they are still fascinating and hard to put down because of the good, thought provoking parts.
Besides the tendency towards a weak plot, I have some other complaints about the books – particularly Calculating God. For example, the book claims that intelligence is an emergent property – that intelligence just emerges from a complex enough system. This is the explanation given as to how God was created – in an earlier universe (according to the aliens’ physics the universe goes through multiple, but finite, big crunches and big bangs), intelligence just came about from the complexity of the universe. In other words, random matter just floating around - without any selective pressure or reproduction - just formed into an intelligence far greater than our own. This seems extremely implausible, but I suppose it can be forgiven as a plot device which gives the God hypothesis a lot more weight.
I did like it that Sawyer gave this God's supposed existence an explanation. One reason why the God hypothesis is (in our universe) so bad is that it has no explanatory power – it just “explains” everything by appealing to some thing (God) that is just there and used its god magic to make x, thus “explaining” x. I think offering an explanation of a god’s existence would be requisite for me to believe in it. Of course, some may complain that this “reduces” God to a natural phenomenon – but if by explaining things we reduce them to natural phenomena, I think that’s just a problem with the supernatural.
Another problem I had with Calculating God was the ambiguity about the term “God”. Just what is this God responsible for? How much of a role did this god play in the evolution of life (it is premised that He played some)? The aliens, with their advanced scientific knowledge, never answer this. Instead, the main character (Thomas Jericho, an atheist and a defender of evolution) seems to at one point concede that the intelligent design proponent/crackpot Michael Behe (who contends that the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved on its own) was right.
Even if it is fiction, I cringe at the idea of Sawyer giving Behe some credit. This is a problem with Mindscan as well – Sawyer gives much more credit to a theory than is due. In the case of Mindscan, I am talking about Penrose’s theory of consciousness which involves quantum weirdness to explain the mind. Sawyer uses this as a plot device to add a bit of weirdness (and implausibility) to the novel that it really could have done without.
Now I'm calling for a bit of reader participation:
1. What would it take for you to believe in a god?
2. If you were terminally ill, would you undergo the brain scanning procedure to copy your consciousness into a synthetic body?
Mindscan takes place in the not too distant future. A company has found a way to scan a brain and copy the exact neural pattern in it into a synthetic body. The procedure is extremely expensive, so the only customers to undergo the procedure are those who don’t believe they will be around any longer – generally the elderly, who want to transfer their consciousness into a body that will live on for longer. Once the procedure is done, the synthetic body is supposed to inherit everything from the biologically original, while the original goes off to live out the remainder of their days on the moon.
At the face of it, this seems no different from the standard transporter though experiments – if you step into a scanner on Mars, and it scans (and dismantles) your body and produces a completely identical self on Earth, have you been transported? What if the person on Mars isn’t dismantled, but sticks around for a while after the scan? For the “you” on Earth, it seems like you were just on Mars and are now on Earth, but to the “you” on Mars, there seems to have been no change – you’re still where you started. This is an interesting thought experiment, but one that is far too common. An entire novel on this would be far from something new and unique. Luckily, Mindscan goes beyond this, exploring some of the ethical, social and legal issues with this mindscanning technology.
The story in Calculating God is drastically different. Extra-terrestrials visit Earth, seeking scientific knowledge. It is quickly discovered that these aliens believe in God. However, their belief isn’t like our standard human belief (in fact, at one point an alien calls anyone who believes God communicates with them deluded) – for the aliens, God’s existence is a scientific theory.
This book was interesting because it sort of fleshed out the idea that God’s existence could be proved. Many atheists, when asked the question “What would it take for you to believe in God?” are sort of stumped – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is hard to come up with the sort of extraordinary evidence that would justify a claim that a god exists. The aliens have pretty good evidence – they have a unified theory of physics that pretty much necessitates an intelligent creator, and they understand intelligence enough to have a theory about how this intelligent being came about.
Sawyer’s novels tend to read more like a philosopher’s thought experiments than science fiction novels. The plot is sometimes a bit weak (particularly in Calculating God, where most of the plot could just be taken out to make – in my opinion – a much better, shorter book), but they are still fascinating and hard to put down because of the good, thought provoking parts.
Besides the tendency towards a weak plot, I have some other complaints about the books – particularly Calculating God. For example, the book claims that intelligence is an emergent property – that intelligence just emerges from a complex enough system. This is the explanation given as to how God was created – in an earlier universe (according to the aliens’ physics the universe goes through multiple, but finite, big crunches and big bangs), intelligence just came about from the complexity of the universe. In other words, random matter just floating around - without any selective pressure or reproduction - just formed into an intelligence far greater than our own. This seems extremely implausible, but I suppose it can be forgiven as a plot device which gives the God hypothesis a lot more weight.
I did like it that Sawyer gave this God's supposed existence an explanation. One reason why the God hypothesis is (in our universe) so bad is that it has no explanatory power – it just “explains” everything by appealing to some thing (God) that is just there and used its god magic to make x, thus “explaining” x. I think offering an explanation of a god’s existence would be requisite for me to believe in it. Of course, some may complain that this “reduces” God to a natural phenomenon – but if by explaining things we reduce them to natural phenomena, I think that’s just a problem with the supernatural.
Another problem I had with Calculating God was the ambiguity about the term “God”. Just what is this God responsible for? How much of a role did this god play in the evolution of life (it is premised that He played some)? The aliens, with their advanced scientific knowledge, never answer this. Instead, the main character (Thomas Jericho, an atheist and a defender of evolution) seems to at one point concede that the intelligent design proponent/crackpot Michael Behe (who contends that the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved on its own) was right.
Even if it is fiction, I cringe at the idea of Sawyer giving Behe some credit. This is a problem with Mindscan as well – Sawyer gives much more credit to a theory than is due. In the case of Mindscan, I am talking about Penrose’s theory of consciousness which involves quantum weirdness to explain the mind. Sawyer uses this as a plot device to add a bit of weirdness (and implausibility) to the novel that it really could have done without.
Now I'm calling for a bit of reader participation:
1. What would it take for you to believe in a god?
2. If you were terminally ill, would you undergo the brain scanning procedure to copy your consciousness into a synthetic body?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Spiritual Brain - Book Review - Summary
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Overall, as anyone who has read the rest of this review can tell, I was not impressed with this book. Even for a book I knew I wouldn't agree with, I found the thesis poorly argued, the book seemed artificially inflated with parts that didn't really fit (i.e. most of chapter 1, all of chapter 9), and the position they were arguing for was never really explained.
Many of the problems with materialism they brought up seemed to be indicative of their motivation for writing this book and were based on intuitions rather than real evidence (free will, qualia, etc), yet didn't pose a real problem for materialism. For these, I suggest the authors read "The Problem of the Soul" by Owen Flanagan (particularly the chapter on free will), which is a very good book that helps to flesh out how a materialist view of the mind is consistent with our knowledge of how our minds work in everyday life.
Many of the other supposed problems with materialism were based on shoddy evidence, and some (the placebo effect, the effects of religious experiences, or even psi) were not irreconcilable with a materialist view of the mind. It seemed the authors were more intent on attacking straw-men than any real claims. The tone of the book seemed to imply that materialists were woefully mistaken to the point of being laughable, but behind this tough façade, there was very little substance.
Whenever explaining a problem with materialism, it was rarely explained why it isn't a problem for non-materialism – except to say that non-materialist science wouldn't look for an explanation. There was never any fleshed out non-materialist theory of mind, no testable hypotheses, and by the end I was convinced that a non-materialist science of mind really meant not studying the mind at all (or at least not the hard parts).
The most pathetic part about the book was that it endorsed intelligent design and psi. It cited both of them as examples of things that the mean old materialists wouldn't accept because it didn't fit their worldview. The authors were clearly mistaking a "hidden agenda" with a healthy skepticism, and I think if the authors had a healthy skepticism, they never would have written this ridiculous book.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Overall, as anyone who has read the rest of this review can tell, I was not impressed with this book. Even for a book I knew I wouldn't agree with, I found the thesis poorly argued, the book seemed artificially inflated with parts that didn't really fit (i.e. most of chapter 1, all of chapter 9), and the position they were arguing for was never really explained.
Many of the problems with materialism they brought up seemed to be indicative of their motivation for writing this book and were based on intuitions rather than real evidence (free will, qualia, etc), yet didn't pose a real problem for materialism. For these, I suggest the authors read "The Problem of the Soul" by Owen Flanagan (particularly the chapter on free will), which is a very good book that helps to flesh out how a materialist view of the mind is consistent with our knowledge of how our minds work in everyday life.
Many of the other supposed problems with materialism were based on shoddy evidence, and some (the placebo effect, the effects of religious experiences, or even psi) were not irreconcilable with a materialist view of the mind. It seemed the authors were more intent on attacking straw-men than any real claims. The tone of the book seemed to imply that materialists were woefully mistaken to the point of being laughable, but behind this tough façade, there was very little substance.
Whenever explaining a problem with materialism, it was rarely explained why it isn't a problem for non-materialism – except to say that non-materialist science wouldn't look for an explanation. There was never any fleshed out non-materialist theory of mind, no testable hypotheses, and by the end I was convinced that a non-materialist science of mind really meant not studying the mind at all (or at least not the hard parts).
The most pathetic part about the book was that it endorsed intelligent design and psi. It cited both of them as examples of things that the mean old materialists wouldn't accept because it didn't fit their worldview. The authors were clearly mistaking a "hidden agenda" with a healthy skepticism, and I think if the authors had a healthy skepticism, they never would have written this ridiculous book.
Spiritual Brain - Book Review - Chapters 7-10
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
The last few chapters didn't have much content, so I have bundled them all together into one review.
Chapter 7
Chapter 7 talks about mysticism. Apparently materialism doesn't account for mystical experiences well enough. The authors claim the differing theories about mystical experiences are silly. By this point in the book, the routine is getting old. "Look, here's a phenomenon that's compatible with non-materialism! Those silly materialists say it's this, but that's clearly wrong! Therefore materialism is false!" The evidence provided by mystical experiences isn't particularly strong. Don't get me wrong – mystical experiences are interesting, but I doubt that all "materialist" theories are wildly wrong (as they are portrayed in this chapter) and that the only way we can account for these experiences is if something magical is going on.
Chapter 8
Do Religious, Spiritual, or Mystical Experiences Change Lives? According to chapter 8, yes. Of course there is the song and dance about materialism being at a loss for an explanation, and a lot of questionable claims about religiosity being linked with higher rates of health, morality, etc. Overall, not impressive or persuasive. These experiences might be interesting, but I don't see why it is a problem for materialism. Experiences change our lives all the time, so why wouldn't a really amazing one change the lives of some people?
Chapter 9
Chapter 9 – The Carmelite Studies – A description of the studies on nuns, which doesn't do anything for the thesis of the book. The "hard problem" of consciousness is brought up (which is the same problem as qualia, brought up earlier in the book), and it is claimed to be irresolvable in a materialist frame of reference, and yet "The hard problem ceases to be a problem once we understand the universe itself is a product of consciousness. We might expect living beings to evolve toward consciousness if consciousness underlies the universe. Consciousness is an irreducible quality." page 277. What?! What does that even mean? This is as close as the book ever gets to explaining what a non-materialist theory of mind is, and it is just a bunch of weird assertions without any content. Why is it that "the hard problem ceases to be a problem once we understand the universe itself is a product of consciousness"? Why might we "expect living beings to evolve toward consciousness if consciousness underlies the universe"? How do you know that "consciousness is an irreducible quality"? This was the only part of the chapter that had anything to do with the rest of the book, and it wasn't even explained.
The last chapter is just a few pages long and just wraps up the book without adding any new information. So… That's the end of the book. My last post in the review will just be a summary.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
The last few chapters didn't have much content, so I have bundled them all together into one review.
Chapter 7
Chapter 7 talks about mysticism. Apparently materialism doesn't account for mystical experiences well enough. The authors claim the differing theories about mystical experiences are silly. By this point in the book, the routine is getting old. "Look, here's a phenomenon that's compatible with non-materialism! Those silly materialists say it's this, but that's clearly wrong! Therefore materialism is false!" The evidence provided by mystical experiences isn't particularly strong. Don't get me wrong – mystical experiences are interesting, but I doubt that all "materialist" theories are wildly wrong (as they are portrayed in this chapter) and that the only way we can account for these experiences is if something magical is going on.
Chapter 8
Do Religious, Spiritual, or Mystical Experiences Change Lives? According to chapter 8, yes. Of course there is the song and dance about materialism being at a loss for an explanation, and a lot of questionable claims about religiosity being linked with higher rates of health, morality, etc. Overall, not impressive or persuasive. These experiences might be interesting, but I don't see why it is a problem for materialism. Experiences change our lives all the time, so why wouldn't a really amazing one change the lives of some people?
Chapter 9
Chapter 9 – The Carmelite Studies – A description of the studies on nuns, which doesn't do anything for the thesis of the book. The "hard problem" of consciousness is brought up (which is the same problem as qualia, brought up earlier in the book), and it is claimed to be irresolvable in a materialist frame of reference, and yet "The hard problem ceases to be a problem once we understand the universe itself is a product of consciousness. We might expect living beings to evolve toward consciousness if consciousness underlies the universe. Consciousness is an irreducible quality." page 277. What?! What does that even mean? This is as close as the book ever gets to explaining what a non-materialist theory of mind is, and it is just a bunch of weird assertions without any content. Why is it that "the hard problem ceases to be a problem once we understand the universe itself is a product of consciousness"? Why might we "expect living beings to evolve toward consciousness if consciousness underlies the universe"? How do you know that "consciousness is an irreducible quality"? This was the only part of the chapter that had anything to do with the rest of the book, and it wasn't even explained.
The last chapter is just a few pages long and just wraps up the book without adding any new information. So… That's the end of the book. My last post in the review will just be a summary.
Spiritual Brain - Book Review - Chapter 6
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Chapter 6 was by far the most amusing so far. It was supposed to give the uses of a non-materialist science of mind. I expected a fleshed out explanation of what exactly a non-materialist science of mind would be and how it solves the problems which materialist sciences of mind supposedly have. I couldn't have been further off.
The chapter began by talking about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and how it can in some cases be treated to an extent simply by changing the way OCD sufferers think about their compulsions. It goes on to talk about how people can often control their sexual arousal, sadness, and phobias using their minds. Then it talks about the placebo effect – another example of how thinking certain things make a difference. This is all fine, but for some reason the authors seem to think that these things are only accountable for in a non-materialist worldview, and that the evil materialists are missing out on a possible treatment by claiming that these sorts of things don't happen. I guess the authors had never heard of cognitive behaviour therapy.
Oh well, surely the rest of the chapter would show us the uses of a non-materialist science of mind, right? Wrong. The next part of the chapter talked about near death experiences. It boils down to: within a short period of time after cardiac arrest, brain activity ceases. Yet there are cases where people who have undergone cardiac arrest remember things that occurred while they were supposedly dead. The evil materialists want to deny these experiences, and would waste their time trying to find a materialist explanation for near death experiences, but a non-materialist science of mind would realize there is no such explanation. Therefore non-materialism is better.
I don't believe the claim that brain activity ceases shortly after cardiac arrest is one that all neuroscientists would accept – measurable activity ceases, but that is far from all activity. Anyhow, the near death experience reports were all based on fairly sketchy first person accounts and were far from convincing.
The next part was probably the silliest in the book so far – it started talking about psi. I don't mean they had a short little section where they mentioned psi, I mean the section directly talking about psi starts on page 166 and goes until page 178. Basically, it claims there is strong evidence supporting psi (uhhh, what?) and that "Nonmaterialist researchers have a clear advantage here because they have no hidden agenda to discredit all psi claims". I think the authors are mistaking a hidden agenda with a healthy skepticism. Even if there was strong evidence for psi (there isn't), there is no reason to think that a materialistic view of the mind is inconsistent with it. However, we would need to try to explain the mechanism that produces these psi phenomena. No explanation is given how a non-materialistic view of the mind accounts for psi. In fact, no explanation is given about what a non-materialist view of the mind is or how any of it works.
The chapter finishes up by summarizing why a non-materialist science of mind is better than a materialist one ("Nonmaterialist science avoids many unproductive projects, like trying to prove that all RSMEs [Religious, Spiritual, and/or Mystical Experiences] are traceable to a wonky neural circuit" page 179). I got the feeling that what the authors were really saying is that non-materialist science means giving up on finding an explanation for any phenomena that's difficult to explain.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Chapter 6 was by far the most amusing so far. It was supposed to give the uses of a non-materialist science of mind. I expected a fleshed out explanation of what exactly a non-materialist science of mind would be and how it solves the problems which materialist sciences of mind supposedly have. I couldn't have been further off.
The chapter began by talking about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and how it can in some cases be treated to an extent simply by changing the way OCD sufferers think about their compulsions. It goes on to talk about how people can often control their sexual arousal, sadness, and phobias using their minds. Then it talks about the placebo effect – another example of how thinking certain things make a difference. This is all fine, but for some reason the authors seem to think that these things are only accountable for in a non-materialist worldview, and that the evil materialists are missing out on a possible treatment by claiming that these sorts of things don't happen. I guess the authors had never heard of cognitive behaviour therapy.
Oh well, surely the rest of the chapter would show us the uses of a non-materialist science of mind, right? Wrong. The next part of the chapter talked about near death experiences. It boils down to: within a short period of time after cardiac arrest, brain activity ceases. Yet there are cases where people who have undergone cardiac arrest remember things that occurred while they were supposedly dead. The evil materialists want to deny these experiences, and would waste their time trying to find a materialist explanation for near death experiences, but a non-materialist science of mind would realize there is no such explanation. Therefore non-materialism is better.
I don't believe the claim that brain activity ceases shortly after cardiac arrest is one that all neuroscientists would accept – measurable activity ceases, but that is far from all activity. Anyhow, the near death experience reports were all based on fairly sketchy first person accounts and were far from convincing.
The next part was probably the silliest in the book so far – it started talking about psi. I don't mean they had a short little section where they mentioned psi, I mean the section directly talking about psi starts on page 166 and goes until page 178. Basically, it claims there is strong evidence supporting psi (uhhh, what?) and that "Nonmaterialist researchers have a clear advantage here because they have no hidden agenda to discredit all psi claims". I think the authors are mistaking a hidden agenda with a healthy skepticism. Even if there was strong evidence for psi (there isn't), there is no reason to think that a materialistic view of the mind is inconsistent with it. However, we would need to try to explain the mechanism that produces these psi phenomena. No explanation is given how a non-materialistic view of the mind accounts for psi. In fact, no explanation is given about what a non-materialist view of the mind is or how any of it works.
The chapter finishes up by summarizing why a non-materialist science of mind is better than a materialist one ("Nonmaterialist science avoids many unproductive projects, like trying to prove that all RSMEs [Religious, Spiritual, and/or Mystical Experiences] are traceable to a wonky neural circuit" page 179). I got the feeling that what the authors were really saying is that non-materialist science means giving up on finding an explanation for any phenomena that's difficult to explain.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Spiritual Brain - Book Review - Chapter 5
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
This chapter was a direct attack on the materialist view of the mind. It started out with the claim that neuroscience has undergone much change since its infancy as a science, and insinuates that the materialist neuroscience is unable to progress due to its inability to explain consciousness and the self.
The attack on materialism begins with qualia. Qualia are, to put it simply, the way experiences feel. It seems counterintuitive that qualia arise from the buzz of neurons, and therefore (the claim goes) it is unlikely that the mind is just a product of the brain. The authors don't mention that there are property dualists, who are materialists that believe there are two properties of substances, the physical properties and the mental properties, and it is the mental properties that give rise to qualia. However, I would say that the intuition of qualia are just misleading – the intuition is that we don't feel like "just" a bunch of neurons, but how do we know what it would feel like to be a bunch of neurons? Furthermore, there is no explanation given as to how a magical spirit solves the problem of qualia.
Next up is the self. At the opening of the section about the self, a curious thing occurs.
"The average neuron, consisting of about 100,000 molecules, is about 80 percent water. The brain is home to about 100 billion such cells and thus about 1015 molecules. Each neuron gets 10,000 or so connections from other cells in the brain." (page 111)
Note the incorrect math – 100,000 * 100,000,000,000 = 1016 not 1015 – and as PZ Meyers points out, other things don't seem to add up: "I hit the comment about 10,000 synaptic connections to a single cell and wondered why the authors didn't see the obvious: you mean there are about 10 molecules, total, for each synapse? That's complete nonsense. You can't even make the contents of a single synaptic vesicle with that."
What's even stranger is that this calculation doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the section – it seems like a completely pointless tangent meant to impress you with big numbers.
Anyhow, the section about the self is complete rubbish. "Within each neuron, the molecules are replaced approximately 10,000 times in an average life span. Yet humans have a continuous sense of self that is stable over time." (page 113). So what? Patterns, memories and design can be kept stable while single parts are replaced. I fail to see how this is an issue for materialists.
Next up is, once again, free will. The fact that they think that free will is a serious problem for materialists (but not, for some unspecified reason, for non-materialists) really does a lot to explain the motivation behind the book. Anyhow, I think I already addressed free will in enough depth in the chapter 1 review, so I have nothing else to add here about it.
On pages 120-123, six fundamental weaknesses of materialism which it is supposedly powerless to address are given. They are:
1. Current materialist accounts aim to preserve materialism rather than account for the evidence.
2. Materialism leads to major disconnects in thinking.
3. Materialism leads to hypotheses that can never be tested.
4. Promissory materialism leads to the promotion of impractical projects in the indefinite future to avoid grappling with current issues.
5. Taken seriously, materialism undermines our capacity to eventually understand the human mind and the human brain,
6. Materialism is out of step with modern physics.
None of these assertions are backed up with any evidence worth mentioning. It should be noted that if you replace "materialism" with "non-materialism" in 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, you get sentences much more likely to be true. 4 is just a silly claim.
So overall, the case against materialism brought up in this chapter is based on a couple of misleading intuitions and 6 seemingly untenable assertions. No non-materialist solution is given for any of the supposed problems with materialism.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
This chapter was a direct attack on the materialist view of the mind. It started out with the claim that neuroscience has undergone much change since its infancy as a science, and insinuates that the materialist neuroscience is unable to progress due to its inability to explain consciousness and the self.
The attack on materialism begins with qualia. Qualia are, to put it simply, the way experiences feel. It seems counterintuitive that qualia arise from the buzz of neurons, and therefore (the claim goes) it is unlikely that the mind is just a product of the brain. The authors don't mention that there are property dualists, who are materialists that believe there are two properties of substances, the physical properties and the mental properties, and it is the mental properties that give rise to qualia. However, I would say that the intuition of qualia are just misleading – the intuition is that we don't feel like "just" a bunch of neurons, but how do we know what it would feel like to be a bunch of neurons? Furthermore, there is no explanation given as to how a magical spirit solves the problem of qualia.
Next up is the self. At the opening of the section about the self, a curious thing occurs.
"The average neuron, consisting of about 100,000 molecules, is about 80 percent water. The brain is home to about 100 billion such cells and thus about 1015 molecules. Each neuron gets 10,000 or so connections from other cells in the brain." (page 111)
Note the incorrect math – 100,000 * 100,000,000,000 = 1016 not 1015 – and as PZ Meyers points out, other things don't seem to add up: "I hit the comment about 10,000 synaptic connections to a single cell and wondered why the authors didn't see the obvious: you mean there are about 10 molecules, total, for each synapse? That's complete nonsense. You can't even make the contents of a single synaptic vesicle with that."
What's even stranger is that this calculation doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the section – it seems like a completely pointless tangent meant to impress you with big numbers.
Anyhow, the section about the self is complete rubbish. "Within each neuron, the molecules are replaced approximately 10,000 times in an average life span. Yet humans have a continuous sense of self that is stable over time." (page 113). So what? Patterns, memories and design can be kept stable while single parts are replaced. I fail to see how this is an issue for materialists.
Next up is, once again, free will. The fact that they think that free will is a serious problem for materialists (but not, for some unspecified reason, for non-materialists) really does a lot to explain the motivation behind the book. Anyhow, I think I already addressed free will in enough depth in the chapter 1 review, so I have nothing else to add here about it.
On pages 120-123, six fundamental weaknesses of materialism which it is supposedly powerless to address are given. They are:
1. Current materialist accounts aim to preserve materialism rather than account for the evidence.
2. Materialism leads to major disconnects in thinking.
3. Materialism leads to hypotheses that can never be tested.
4. Promissory materialism leads to the promotion of impractical projects in the indefinite future to avoid grappling with current issues.
5. Taken seriously, materialism undermines our capacity to eventually understand the human mind and the human brain,
6. Materialism is out of step with modern physics.
None of these assertions are backed up with any evidence worth mentioning. It should be noted that if you replace "materialism" with "non-materialism" in 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, you get sentences much more likely to be true. 4 is just a silly claim.
So overall, the case against materialism brought up in this chapter is based on a couple of misleading intuitions and 6 seemingly untenable assertions. No non-materialist solution is given for any of the supposed problems with materialism.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Spiritual Brain - Book Review - Chapters 2 - 4
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 are not nearly as noteworthy (or as long) as chapter 1, and just seem to address some of the perceived threats against "nonmaterialism". As such, I have just grouped them all together for this review.
Chapter 2 – The God Program
This chapter talks about two researchers who attempted to explain religiosity via genetics. I won't comment much. First is the case of Matthew Alper, who seems to make an argument that religiosity is evolutionarily beneficial and therefore it is likely to have been selected for. Apparently his theory is flawed due to his lack of evidence. I don't know enough to comment.
Next up is Dean Hamer, author of "The God Gene". According to "The Spiritual Brain", Hamer's evidence is questionable. The authors also point out that there is definitely no single god gene. However, Hamer explicitly points this out in his book, that there is unlikely to be a single gene controlling religiosity. The authors seem to be criticizing the media's sensationalizing of scientific findings more than the science itself.
Chapter 3 – The God Module
This chapter's thesis is just that temporal lobe epilepsy does not explain all religious experiences, and things are more complicated than there simply being a "god module" in the brain that, when stimulated, creates religious experiences.
Chapter 4 – The God Helmet
Michael Presinger has a "god helmet" which can induce experiences of a sensed presence. The authors admit that his research shows that the experience of a sensed presence can be manipulated by experiment, but deny Presinger's conclusion that such an experience may be the fundamental source for phenomena attributed to visitations by gods, spirits, and other ephemeral phenomena. The authors argue that the media has blown these results out of proportion (because they are in on the big bad materialist conspiracy that wants to turn everyone atheist). The authors also argue that suggestibility was not accounted for in some of the experiments, so Presinger's evidence is pretty weak.
Many of the complaints the authors make seems to be more against the media hype around certain discoveries as well as the research itself. Perhaps the research isn't as sensational as the media makes it out to be, but their arguments for completely disregarding the studies are questionable.
Even if we accept the authors' arguments (which we probably shouldn't, considering the credibility issues), all this means is that religious experiences are complicated and there is no single answer for them. I think genes, brain disorders, and magnetic manipulation of temporal lobes all help to explain spirituality, though I don't think any single one of those completely explains them. I don't doubt that there are pieces missing, but the leap to assuming that they are caused by magical spirits is a bit unfounded.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 are not nearly as noteworthy (or as long) as chapter 1, and just seem to address some of the perceived threats against "nonmaterialism". As such, I have just grouped them all together for this review.
Chapter 2 – The God Program
This chapter talks about two researchers who attempted to explain religiosity via genetics. I won't comment much. First is the case of Matthew Alper, who seems to make an argument that religiosity is evolutionarily beneficial and therefore it is likely to have been selected for. Apparently his theory is flawed due to his lack of evidence. I don't know enough to comment.
Next up is Dean Hamer, author of "The God Gene". According to "The Spiritual Brain", Hamer's evidence is questionable. The authors also point out that there is definitely no single god gene. However, Hamer explicitly points this out in his book, that there is unlikely to be a single gene controlling religiosity. The authors seem to be criticizing the media's sensationalizing of scientific findings more than the science itself.
Chapter 3 – The God Module
This chapter's thesis is just that temporal lobe epilepsy does not explain all religious experiences, and things are more complicated than there simply being a "god module" in the brain that, when stimulated, creates religious experiences.
Chapter 4 – The God Helmet
Michael Presinger has a "god helmet" which can induce experiences of a sensed presence. The authors admit that his research shows that the experience of a sensed presence can be manipulated by experiment, but deny Presinger's conclusion that such an experience may be the fundamental source for phenomena attributed to visitations by gods, spirits, and other ephemeral phenomena. The authors argue that the media has blown these results out of proportion (because they are in on the big bad materialist conspiracy that wants to turn everyone atheist). The authors also argue that suggestibility was not accounted for in some of the experiments, so Presinger's evidence is pretty weak.
Many of the complaints the authors make seems to be more against the media hype around certain discoveries as well as the research itself. Perhaps the research isn't as sensational as the media makes it out to be, but their arguments for completely disregarding the studies are questionable.
Even if we accept the authors' arguments (which we probably shouldn't, considering the credibility issues), all this means is that religious experiences are complicated and there is no single answer for them. I think genes, brain disorders, and magnetic manipulation of temporal lobes all help to explain spirituality, though I don't think any single one of those completely explains them. I don't doubt that there are pieces missing, but the leap to assuming that they are caused by magical spirits is a bit unfounded.
The Spiritual Brain - Book Review - Chapter 1
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Before I start the review, I want to make a couple comments of my impression of the book after reading the first chapter. The style is quite annoying – it seems to have tangents running off of tangents, and only slightly relevant quotes scatter the pages. It really seems that the authors were just trying to make the book long. The entire first chapter seems like a bunch of straw man fallacies mixed in with irrelevant tangents. The book seems to lack a coherent structure – a huge improvement could be made if the sections that should be grouped together were categorized under a larger section title. Now, on to the content.
Right off the bat, I was quite concerned about the treatment the author gives to free will. "Let us progress, [fans of materialism] say, toward a more humane system that both expects less of humans and blames them less for their failures – failures they can't help anyway, really" (Page 2). The example given of this is that the Center for Naturalism explicitly denies the existence of free will.
Denying free will is not in any way the same as expecting less of humans or not blaming them for their failures, but the authors seem oblivious to this (more about free will near the end of this chapter's review). Perhaps a somewhat childish treatment of free will is warranted in a non-philosophy book, so let's move on to some of the more serious theses of this chapter.
The book brings up that a lot of people claim to be spiritual ("Not many people have enough faith to be atheists", page 6 – I didn't realize it took faith to lack a belief), and materialists need to explain that. Fair enough. The book focuses its gaze on the field likely to offer an explanation: evolutionary psychology.
Bringing up altruism (as it is "usually, though not always, related to spiritual beliefs"), an attack is laid on evolutionary psychology. Well, perhaps it is not so much an attack as an assertion that evolutionary psychology is wrong. The treatment of evolutionary psychology is extremely naïve – the authors seem convinced that a single example of people helping other people who aren't related constitutes a fatal blow for evolutionary explanations of altruism (pages 10-11), and thus evolutionary psychology can't possibly explain human nature.
The next part of the book I found very strange. It spends quite a few pages on the relation between humans and chimpanzees, including a surprisingly lengthy tangent about chimpanzees not being able to breed with humans. The entire point of this lengthy tangent is to try to show how different humans are from chimps.
After a naïve romp through Artificial Intelligence, the authors turn their attention to gathering evidence against materialism. And that's when it happened. The authors cited intelligent design as an example of evidence that the evil materialistic scientists dogmatically ignore. Mentioning Guillermo Gonzalez and Richard Sternberg (both of whom had their stories explored in Expelled, so you can read about them here). The book paints a picture of some giant materialist conspiracy where scientists are all out to protect their fragile little naturalistic framework, despite the evidence. At this point, the credibility of the authors dropped significantly.
Finally, on page 29, the authors decide they should provide some support for the spiritual nature of humans. The support lasts about a page, and a good portion of that is taken up by the random quotes they decided to throw in. It boils down to the authors claiming that since people don't use the words "mind" and "brain" interchangeably, they can't be the same thing, and since people feel free, they must have free will, and if they have free will, they must have a soul.
Not all materialists deny free will – compatibilists accept that we live in a universe determined by laws and random chance, but claim free will is compatible with such a universe. Others deny free will gives us anything we can't have anyways – the ability to choose is not equivalent to the ability to choose freely, because every choice we make is constrained by our tastes and the result of our choices. If our choices were not constrained (i.e. free), and our choices were arbitrary, they would lack any sort of significance. It is only when you add constraints (and take away metaphysical "freedom") that choices are worth making. Denying free will is not the same as denying that people make choices – on the contrary, in some views it is the only way to make choices have any meaning.
So, in summary, I am not impressed yet. There is no serious argument put forward for spiritualism, nor is there a serious criticism of any materialist claims. The authors simply appeal to folk-psychological ideas of the self and free will to back up their assertions. Hopefully future chapters will flush out the argument.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
Before I start the review, I want to make a couple comments of my impression of the book after reading the first chapter. The style is quite annoying – it seems to have tangents running off of tangents, and only slightly relevant quotes scatter the pages. It really seems that the authors were just trying to make the book long. The entire first chapter seems like a bunch of straw man fallacies mixed in with irrelevant tangents. The book seems to lack a coherent structure – a huge improvement could be made if the sections that should be grouped together were categorized under a larger section title. Now, on to the content.
Right off the bat, I was quite concerned about the treatment the author gives to free will. "Let us progress, [fans of materialism] say, toward a more humane system that both expects less of humans and blames them less for their failures – failures they can't help anyway, really" (Page 2). The example given of this is that the Center for Naturalism explicitly denies the existence of free will.
Denying free will is not in any way the same as expecting less of humans or not blaming them for their failures, but the authors seem oblivious to this (more about free will near the end of this chapter's review). Perhaps a somewhat childish treatment of free will is warranted in a non-philosophy book, so let's move on to some of the more serious theses of this chapter.
The book brings up that a lot of people claim to be spiritual ("Not many people have enough faith to be atheists", page 6 – I didn't realize it took faith to lack a belief), and materialists need to explain that. Fair enough. The book focuses its gaze on the field likely to offer an explanation: evolutionary psychology.
Bringing up altruism (as it is "usually, though not always, related to spiritual beliefs"), an attack is laid on evolutionary psychology. Well, perhaps it is not so much an attack as an assertion that evolutionary psychology is wrong. The treatment of evolutionary psychology is extremely naïve – the authors seem convinced that a single example of people helping other people who aren't related constitutes a fatal blow for evolutionary explanations of altruism (pages 10-11), and thus evolutionary psychology can't possibly explain human nature.
The next part of the book I found very strange. It spends quite a few pages on the relation between humans and chimpanzees, including a surprisingly lengthy tangent about chimpanzees not being able to breed with humans. The entire point of this lengthy tangent is to try to show how different humans are from chimps.
After a naïve romp through Artificial Intelligence, the authors turn their attention to gathering evidence against materialism. And that's when it happened. The authors cited intelligent design as an example of evidence that the evil materialistic scientists dogmatically ignore. Mentioning Guillermo Gonzalez and Richard Sternberg (both of whom had their stories explored in Expelled, so you can read about them here). The book paints a picture of some giant materialist conspiracy where scientists are all out to protect their fragile little naturalistic framework, despite the evidence. At this point, the credibility of the authors dropped significantly.
Finally, on page 29, the authors decide they should provide some support for the spiritual nature of humans. The support lasts about a page, and a good portion of that is taken up by the random quotes they decided to throw in. It boils down to the authors claiming that since people don't use the words "mind" and "brain" interchangeably, they can't be the same thing, and since people feel free, they must have free will, and if they have free will, they must have a soul.
Not all materialists deny free will – compatibilists accept that we live in a universe determined by laws and random chance, but claim free will is compatible with such a universe. Others deny free will gives us anything we can't have anyways – the ability to choose is not equivalent to the ability to choose freely, because every choice we make is constrained by our tastes and the result of our choices. If our choices were not constrained (i.e. free), and our choices were arbitrary, they would lack any sort of significance. It is only when you add constraints (and take away metaphysical "freedom") that choices are worth making. Denying free will is not the same as denying that people make choices – on the contrary, in some views it is the only way to make choices have any meaning.
So, in summary, I am not impressed yet. There is no serious argument put forward for spiritualism, nor is there a serious criticism of any materialist claims. The authors simply appeal to folk-psychological ideas of the self and free will to back up their assertions. Hopefully future chapters will flush out the argument.
The Spiritual Brain - Book Review
This is part of a book review. Here are all of the parts of this review:
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
A while ago I was looking through some of the books in a Coles, and a particular book caught my eye: "The Spiritual Brain" by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary. Being interested in religion, superstition, and cognition, it isn't surprising that the title stood out to me. The subtitle, "A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul", intrigued me further. I've read many books on philosophy of mind, but I had never seen a serious argument for substance dualism (as opposed to property dualism, which is a common subject in books on consciousness and is completely separate from the idea of spirits/souls).
The fact that it was a neuroscientist authoring the book surprised me – as I understand it, the majority of neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, and philosophers of mind are quite convinced there is no such thing as a soul.
Anyhow, I decided to give this book a try. It should be interesting. I will be doing my reviews one blog post per chapter, and adding the posts as I read.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapters 2-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapters 7-10
Summary
A while ago I was looking through some of the books in a Coles, and a particular book caught my eye: "The Spiritual Brain" by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary. Being interested in religion, superstition, and cognition, it isn't surprising that the title stood out to me. The subtitle, "A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul", intrigued me further. I've read many books on philosophy of mind, but I had never seen a serious argument for substance dualism (as opposed to property dualism, which is a common subject in books on consciousness and is completely separate from the idea of spirits/souls).
The fact that it was a neuroscientist authoring the book surprised me – as I understand it, the majority of neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, and philosophers of mind are quite convinced there is no such thing as a soul.
Anyhow, I decided to give this book a try. It should be interesting. I will be doing my reviews one blog post per chapter, and adding the posts as I read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
