tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31265055.post3775525412765714372..comments2023-09-20T14:18:32.900+02:00Comments on Obscene Desserts: Atheism Friday, follow upJCWoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02585322642151280666noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31265055.post-69865932903855653712007-08-09T17:30:00.000+02:002007-08-09T17:30:00.000+02:00Thanks for the follow-up Rob. I don't know what ha...Thanks for the follow-up Rob. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what happened to your other comment either. Sorry! <BR/><BR/>I think I have a clearer idea of what you mean now, and it is -- I think -- something very different than what McGrath was saying. <BR/><BR/>Actually, what you're saying is far more interesting.<BR/><BR/>I'm still not sure, though, whether I'd entirely agree, and -- just to keep this brief -- here's what I mean.<BR/><BR/>On one level, of course, we can talk about socio-cultural facts and things like 'taste' without reference to anything that is 'naturalistic' or 'scientific'. The statement 'I thought Ian McEwan's novel <I>Saturday</I> was an excellent novel' is valid without any reference to neuropsychology or biology or chemistry. And, based on that statement, you might make a causal link to the fact that I made sure to read <I>On Chesil Beach</I> as soon as it came out. <BR/><BR/>And we would be able to debate the merits of McEwan's writing while staying entirely outside the realm of 'science' or 'naturalism'. Many of the conclusions that resulted would potentially be worthwhile to both you and me, and meaningful (in some way) in our lives. <BR/><BR/>If this is what you mean, then I I would agree. There's no need to force natural science in where it's not necessary. The explanations that result would be fully valid. <BR/><BR/>So far, so good. <BR/><BR/>McGrath was on about other things, though, and he was denying the validity of science where it definitely <I>does</I> have a role <BR/><BR/>Additionally, I think that the naturalistic understandings -- while not <I>necessary</I> to the above issues -- have a place in talking about socio-cultural issues. I think that the sharp division between 'culture' and 'biology' for instance, is a problem, and this is the main point of the <A HREF="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg/cash/2007/00000004/00000001/art00007" REL="nofollow"> article </A> I blogged about yesterday. <BR/><BR/>I mean, there are all kinds of non-naturalistic theories around which might have something to say about something like why I like a certain author. A Freudian might say that I like McEwan because he represents a lost father figure, or a Marxist would refer to McEwan's depiction of capitalist modes of production or a discourse analysis would argue...well, something about power and discourse. <BR/><BR/>Mightn't science also have something to say? <BR/><BR/>I can only recommend <A HREF="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Literary-Animal-Evolution-Narrative-Rethinking/dp/0810122871/ref=sr_1_16/202-3146084-7350233?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186673200&sr=8-16" REL="nofollow"> <I>The Literary Animal</I> </A> as a source on such topics. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the follow up. I hope we're both talking on at least roughly the same topic now.JCWoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02585322642151280666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31265055.post-16295406498544927922007-08-09T15:51:00.000+02:002007-08-09T15:51:00.000+02:00I thought I left a comment here already, explainin...I thought I left a comment here already, explaining that you've (quite understandably, given an ambiguity in what I wrote) misunderstood the point of what I'm saying; not sure what happened to it. Anyway, you take me to be making a point about how we describe the quality of the experience of reading a novel or eating spinach. That is not what I am pointing out. What I am pointing out is that we can give causal explanations of those phenomena which are not naturalistic scientific explanations without that threatening those explanations character as causal explanations. Observing certain socio-cultural facts and stylistic features of the writing in question, for example, can give a causal explanation of my enjoyment of a certain writer. That explanation can, in conjunction with the fact that I have read things by that writer, can also explain the physical events associated with me going and getting more books by that writer. Not all adequate explanations of events in the physical world are naturalistic scientific explanations. There may be some issues around the relationship of these explanations to naturalistic scientific explanations, but that is a different question.Rob Jubbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17832981726367701536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31265055.post-72491201186659340372007-08-07T09:27:00.000+02:002007-08-07T09:27:00.000+02:00Thanks Geoff. McGrath himself in the interview say...Thanks Geoff. <BR/><BR/>McGrath himself in the interview says: <BR/><BR/>'And in this post modern age I think Dawkins is making a very important point: that all beliefs are not equally good, that we must have evidential basis, we must have rational defense.'<BR/><BR/>Indeed....<BR/><BR/>...but he says this while denying the ability of science to say anything about religion. <BR/><BR/>Now, he's being either astoundingly clever or remarkably dim. I'd bet on the latter...JCWoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02585322642151280666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31265055.post-29040281838042526622007-08-07T09:04:00.000+02:002007-08-07T09:04:00.000+02:00Great post. It's that "having one's cake and eatin...Great post. It's that "having one's cake and eating it" attitude that really irritates me. If something outside of our known world impinges in any way on our world, then it is subject to scientific investigation. Period. Handwaving it away with "ah, but it's a mystery..." simply will not do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com