HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » After ‘New Atheism’, let’...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:50 AM

After ‘New Atheism’, let’s re-humanise humanism

In his latest selection of essays, Raymond Tallis puts the case for wonder against the deterministic pseudoscience of modern atheists.



by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick

In his latest collection of essays, philosopher, physician and polymath Raymond Tallis covers a characteristically wide range, including McEwan and Chekhov, baldness, literary pornography and time travel. ‘Philosophy should begin and end in wonder’, runs Tallis’ opening line and, as he begins with a defence of philosophy and ends with a defence of atheism, and though there are more wonders to be found in the 26 intervening chapters, this review will concentrate on these two essays.

Tallis takes off from the polemic against ‘scientism’ launched in his last book, Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity. In that work, he challenged the fashionable attempts to explain all human life in terms of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, and the associated denial of human agency and elevation of anti-humanist prejudices. As he ironically sums up the apologetic ideology of ‘neurotruistics’ proclaimed in a thousand banner headlines: ‘The latest findings of neuroscience confirm what we already know.’ Here, Tallis begins with the claims of physicists to have arrived at a theory of everything, noting that they ‘can get away with metaphysical murder because their technologies are practically so useful’ (not something that the biologists, surveying the hubris of the Human Genome Project and the ‘decade of the brain’, can claim). Quite apart from the problem that the two most comprehensive theories of the material world put forward by physicists – relativity and quantum mechanics – are incompatible, much of the natural world, including matters such as the relationship between the living cell and the organism, our relationship to our own bodies, vision, memory, language, remain beyond scientific explanation.

As Tallis observes, the scientific gaze ‘chills as it amazes’, while philosophy ‘seeks to achieve most directly the state of wonder to which art brings us by indirection’, inviting us ‘to be surprised and puzzled by the things that lie closest to hand’. In place of the dogmatic certitudes of scientism, Tallis recommends a philosophy that ‘can be truly adult wondering, something that remains in touch with reality but puts into question what we accept without question, enabling a widened sense of possibility that is equally remote from the passive saucer-eyed wonder of the child and the idle wondering of the idly curious or even the narrow active institutionalised wondering of scientific inquiry’. This is the approach that Tallis pursued most fruitfully in 2011’s Michelangelo’s Finger: An Exploration of Everyday Transcendence, which examines the historic significance of the pointing finger, now more familiarly symbolised by those spongy hand extensions waved by Olympics ‘Games Makers’ than by the famous mural in the Sistine Chapel. In further essays in this collection, on consciousness, memory and time, Tallis, starting from the mundane, seeks to discover the transcendent.

In ‘Why I am an atheist’, Tallis briskly dismisses the familiar ‘bad’ reasons advanced by the popular ‘New Atheists’ – including claims of a lack of ‘evidence’, catalogues of the evils committed by religious institutions, the alleged obstructiveness of religion towards science, and the concern that religious doctrines scare people, especially children. His first ‘good reason’ is that ‘God unites in his person a risibly odd combination of properties’. Tallis argues that a concept of God that conflates ‘metaphysics and morality, physics and politeness’ certainly reflects ‘local and historical human preoccupations’, but amounts to an ‘ontological monstrosity’. He accepts that, though the existence of God cannot be demonstrated – or disproved – by logical argument, ‘we can place limits on a possibility’. For Tallis, a God who is minimal (and infinite), unchanging (yet engages in action), unbounded (yet distinct from creation), a being (but not brought into being), omniscient, omnipotent and good is an impossible entity.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/reviewofbooks_preview/13093/

12 replies, 948 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply After ‘New Atheism’, let’s re-humanise humanism (Original post)
rug Nov 2012 OP
Peregrine Nov 2012 #1
rug Nov 2012 #2
skepticscott Nov 2012 #3
rug Nov 2012 #4
skepticscott Nov 2012 #5
rug Nov 2012 #6
humblebum Nov 2012 #9
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #7
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #8
Jim__ Nov 2012 #10
rug Nov 2012 #11
bananas Nov 2012 #12

Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:59 AM

1. pseudoscience of modern atheism?

If there is anything pseudoscientific it is philosophy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:00 AM

2. You do realize that science flowed from philosophy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:36 AM

3. And astronomy

flowed from astrology. And chemistry from alchemy.

What was your point again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:40 AM

4. You need to work on what you think is connected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:03 PM

5. Are you saying that

chemistry didn't flow from alchemy? Your favorite font of wisdom, Wikipedia, disagrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:31 PM

6. Yes, there were inquiries into chemistry before during and after alchemy.

http://www.3rd1000.com/history/contents.htm

You confuse a wrong turn with causation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:20 AM

9. So what then is the philosophy of atheism? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:04 PM

7. Just have to quote this part...

"...much of the natural world, including matters such as the relationship between the living cell and the organism, our relationship to our own bodies, vision, memory, language, remain beyond scientific explanation. "

Uhm, all of this has already been given scientific explanations, quite well supported theories, so much so that some of this was taught in my high school biology textbooks from well over a decade ago now. So I don't see how any of it is "beyond scientific explanation" sounds like someone ignorant of science putting their head in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:06 PM

8. Also, the way this defines philosophy is atrocious, basically to maintain wonder through...

willful ignorance. How fucking stupid is that? Also, why the fuck do they think there is any lack of wonder in KNOWING rather than guessing and then pretending you are deep?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:08 AM

10. A conversation with Raymond Tallis about this book.

A podcast by Philosophy Now - it runs for a little over 50 minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:12 AM

11. Thank you.

Bookmarked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:33 PM

12. Thanks, looks like there are some good conversations there. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread