In case y'all weren't aware, Greg Nyquist has a new book out. I haven't read it yet, but am looking forward to it. It's called "Visions of Reality" and it sounds like he brings his refreshing brand of "truculent" realism to bear a variety of perennial issues. Here's the product description from Amazon:
In an age when political correctness, ideological myopia, political partisanship, and other sundry inanities have utterly mangled truth and clear insight beyond all recognition, nothing can be more to the purpose than an open and honest examination of some of the more salient issues confronting the civilized world. In Visions of Reality: Viewing Old Problems in a New Light, philosopher and independent scholar Greg Nyquist takes a fresh look at some of the central issues confronting civilized man in the twenty-first century, eschewing the conventional platitudes that have enveloped them and instead opting to go wherever the evidence leads. Essays on conservatism, democracy, moral externalities, the psychopathology of the left, economics, business cycles, and intuition all bring a fresh perspective on some of the chief problems tormenting mankind. The book concludes with two ambitious essays on the meaning of life. The essay "Realism and the Spiritual Life" attempts to give an unbiased, agenda-free account of the evidence for and against theism. The book concludes with essay "Freedom and the Spontaneous Universe," which introduces a bold conjecture that rejects the determinism implicit in the cosmologies of neo-darwinists and creationists in favor of a vision of the universe that is compatible with mankind's experience of individual initiative and freedom.
If you're a fan of Greg's writing here, or his previous book of which this blog is the namesake, "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature", I suspect you're likely to enjoy it.
30 comments:
The Psychopathology of Leftist Thought and The Democratic Farce are worth the price of the book alone.
The Democratic Farce, I liked.
The Psychopathology of Leftist Thought, not as much.
The latter resonated with me because I know people who are exactly like the leftists he's describing. Small sample size perhaps, but they seem indicative of a larger number.
Jay, I agree, but when you make that kind of commentary without discussing right-wing nuts etc. like certain kinds of libertarians, it reveals an inherent bias in thinking.
Leftists, for whatever reason, tend to think that you can treat the world like your family.
Jay: "The Psychopathology of Leftist Thought and The Democratic Farce are worth the price of the book alone."
Thanks for the kind words, Jay.
"...when you make that kind of commentary without discussing right-wing nuts etc. like certain kinds of libertarians, it reveals an inherent bias in thinking."
That's an interesting criticism. Maybe there's a point to it. Perhaps I should've done an article on the psychopathology of right-wing nutjobs. But I wonder if it's altogether fair to ascribe my failure to have done so to bias. After all, I do criticize certain elements on the right in the book: "ideological" conservatives, conspiracy theorists, free market fundamentalists, Austrian economics, etc. Moreover, a completely "neutral" book (per impossible) is probably, from a marketing point of view, unfeasible: who would read it?
Greg,
I enjoyed reading your last book, Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, it was a really good book. I can't wait to read your next book.
Do you think you'll start a new Visions of Reality blog, after you're done with this one?
Just out of curiosity, could you maybe show us the table of contents just to give us a greater feel for the book?
OK - here is my quick review of the book.
As always, Greg is an excellent stylist (though maybe not to everyone's taste) and polemicist.
Introduction
Politics
-1. True and False Conservatism
-2. Politics and the Weather
-3. The Democratic Farce
-4. Moral Externalities
-5. The Psychopathology of Leftist Thought
Economics
-6. Machiavellian Economics
-7. Notes on Business Cycle Theory
-8. The Economics Profession: An Autopsy
Philosophy
-9. In Defense of Intuition
-10. Realism and the Spiritual Life
- 11. Freedom and the Spontaneous Universe
Essay 1 presents and defends a non-ideological conservatism and contrasts it with an ideological conservatism. Since I subscribe to this view, I'm probably not the best person to ask whether this view is immune from criticism of sorts. Moreover, it is a bit odd that Nyquist cannot list a living popular conservative of the kind he defends. And whether it is fair to classify Milton Friedman (yes, he was often overboard as a libertarian, but I don't think he was closed to evidence) as an ideological conservative is open to debate.
Essay 2 argues that most people, given their inability to influence the political process, are better off treating and adjusting to political events like the weather - be very realistic in your analysis and take whatever measures you can to adjust appropriately. One of my favorite in the book, because even if such thinking isn't common knowledge, the rich and the political activists think in these terms all the time - smarter citizens should too.
Essay 3 argues that the way democracy is sold doesn't square with its actual practice nor with the reason why it is necessary and why it is relatively successful. Good stuff.
Essay 4 (moral externalities) makes the (conservative) case that many supposedly private acts have impacts in the public sphere. This fact to me seems relatively trivial and the essay becomes more of an attack on cultural trends with which Greg is displeased. The quality of the essay would have been elevated if Greg had shown how some solution he liked to the problem had taken effect in some part of the country to positive effect, but this would have exposed him to more empirical criticism than he might have liked.
Essay 5 defends an conjecture about what motivates the left. I'll let readers decide for themselves whether the essay is accurate because describing the motives of others without trying to account fully for what motivates the best of them is often dehumanizing. This does not mean that the thesis is incorrect or that there aren't good points made about some of the left's past achievements - it's just that the essay is hard to view as anything other than an insult when reviewed in totality.
Essay 6 proposes an interesting way of rethinking economics. Lots of great food for thought - don't expect lots of rigor here, but if you want insights to contemplate, you'll get more than enough for a few years.
Essay 7 argues for a revised version of the Austrian Business Cycle theory as being the best for explaining booms and busts in Developed nations. Lots of interesting insights, but lots of work remains to be done in terms of actually applying some numbers to the theory.
Essay 8 argues that modern neoclassical economics is fundamentally confused in its use of mathematical models. In my opinion, some of the attacks on economists are unfair (saying Fisher "lacked judgment", for example because he supposedly relied too strongly on mathematical models) and some of the criticisms that Greg makes have to some degree been made by behavioral economists and other schools of economics. However, the essay is interesting in its own right for many sidepoints and interesting conjectures it makes.
Essay 9 has some interesting ideas on intuition, but the main example presented is speculative and too extended. Maybe it makes sense that an essay saying that speculation can be correct uses an extended speculative example. However, the idea that relying too much on conscious logic and ignoring emotional reservations can be dangerous as well as seriously considering ideas that pop into your head but you cannot prove has great merit, though in the end, the success of such methods is usually best reviewed over time and varies from individual to individual.
Essay 10 is a defense of Nyquist's belief that realism is compatible with the spiritual life. This was by far and away my least favorite essay in the book, because I think in it, Nyquist fails to deal directly with what motivates many of the people who disagree with him. He repeatedly dismisses the claim that all we do reflects material processes in our body, which he dismisses as "promissory materialism" while failing to acknowledge that plenty of scientific research would have not been as deep without it - it's hard to find a top level neuroscientist today who doesn't subscribe to some form of this belief, which is an issue that needs to be explained, just like the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes. The evidence concerning physical correlates with reported conscious experience is also given little hearing. One would never realize reading Nyquist that most of the claims of scientists who reject the brand of psycho-physical dualism he espouses (no one doubts the existence of qualia - it's their metaphysical status as existents that is under debate). Some of the statements Greg makes about materialism are also borderline ridiculous ("The idea of predicting one's behavior is absurd because the prediction themselves would undoubtedly influence the individual's decisions." - this might be obvious to Greg, but it definitely isn't obvious to me because decisions made are also a function of the ability to use information to change behavior, not just the possession of information.) While there are some materialists who take pleasure in destroying spiritual life, others simply find their materialism a necessity for pursuing hard scientific questions to great depth. Citing Popper repeatedly, when Popper could not have been exposed to many of the advances in neuroscience today, is a bit odd.
Thankfully, this essay has better parts, including a criticism of the limitations of Darwinistic materialism and an evaluation of the evidence for and against theism. While Greg is still dismissive of the importance of atheism as a motivation for certain scientific pursuits, he is on better ground critiquing the ideas of some materialists/atheists who are so firmly convinced that God does not exist or that religion is only a source of evil. Because Nyquist is insufficiently empathetic with the views of those he is criticizing and because he doesn't launch a strong defense of religious belief of a particular brand (though his model for religion is mostly Christian monotheistic theism), he seems to be arguing with one hand tied behind his back and the essay will only appeal to those who are very sympathetic with it in the first place (I'm modestly sympathetic with the views presented and I didn't like the essay).
Essay 11 makes some broad comments about possessing free will in an ordered universe. I don't think that this succeeds because I don't think Greg has dealt honestly with the paradox of free will in earlier sections of the book. However, others might disagree.
All in all, I recommend the book strongly. My criticisms, when I look at them, are directed at issues more open to debate than hard/definite flaws. I feel better having read the book than not. Maybe if I hadn't read earlier versions of many of these essays when Greg posted them on the internet, I might have appreciated the book even more.
Xtra Laj,
Thank you.
Thank you, Laj, for that interesting and thorough summary of Greg's book. I intend to read it ASAP. He should hire you as a publicist!
While there are some materialists who take pleasure in destroying spiritual life, others simply find their materialism a necessity for pursuing hard scientific questions to great depth. I think some scientists confuse methodological naturalism, which is essential to the scientific project, with ontological naturalism, which is a different matter.
The "rules of the game" in science require always looking for a non-supernatural answer, and these rules are in place for a good reason: many phenomena would never have been understood if scientists had simply ascribed them to the will of God or written them off as miracles.
At the same time, the rules of science need not restrict anyone's thinking in a nonscientific context, where those rules don't apply. The ultimate nature, purpose, and meaning of the universe (if there is a purpose and a meaning) are not questions that science is set up to answer. Scientists who forget this fact tend to become polemicists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.
Damien, Michael,
Thanks for the kind words.
---------------------------------------
[i] I think some scientists confuse methodological naturalism, which is essential to the scientific project, with ontological naturalism, which is a different matter.[/i]
__________________________________________________
This is true, but I've become more skeptical of this position as anything other than inspiration for those who can't deny the efficacy of science, but want to defend other less successful forms of intellectual inquiry from scientific invasion in a broad way, rather than by dealing with the specifics of a particular case. While ontological materialism might be wrong, many versions of it have become more plausible over time. So I see the distinction between ontological and methodological naturalism (given its proponents, who are usually Christian religious philosophers) as being a method of giving to science with one hand what is being taken away with the other.
The main problem I have with ontological materialism (and I am guilty of this bias too, given that I am in many ways an ontological materialist) is that it doesn't always respect historical inquiry given that it is biased towards scientific inquiry and testable ideas. However, to be human is to be biased - we can't be fair to everything.
Dawkins is a different animal. I think that in any field where a person is ignorant of empirical facts or has limited experience, one has to tread carefully. Always look for the best arguments of those you are dismissing and deal with them as directly as honestly as you can. If you cannot, be relatively silent. I get the feeling that Dawkins is not a keen observer of human nature - if he was, he would be a far more careful critic of religion.
I get the feeling that Dawkins is not a keen observer of human nature - if he was, he would be a far more careful critic of religion.This almost seems like the argument from intimidation, ie, if he were [some desirable trait] he wouldn't possibly believe what he does. What specific positions of his do you disagree with?
___________________________________
The Psychopathology of Leftist Thought and The Democratic Farce are worth the price of the book alone. - Jay
___________________________________
For you maybe, for me, it would be more or less redundant info.
___________________________________
The Democratic Farce, I liked. - Laj
___________________________________
I can agree on your statement.
___________________________________
The latter resonated with me because I know people who are exactly like the leftists he's describing. - Jay
___________________________________
Me, too.
___________________________________
Moreover, a completely "neutral" book (per impossible) is probably, from a marketing point of view, unfeasible: who would read it? - Greg
___________________________________
I would, but then there probably aren't enough people like me for you to optimize the profit potential?
___________________________________
At the same time, the rules of science need not restrict anyone's thinking in a nonscientific context, where those rules don't apply. The ultimate nature, purpose, and meaning of the universe (if there is a purpose and a meaning) are not questions that science is set up to answer. Scientists who forget this fact tend to become polemicists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. - Michael Prescott
___________________________________
I can agree with your sentiment.
For what it's worth, I got banned from an atheist forum for critisizing Dawkins mostly for his methods.
___________________________________
After all, I do criticize certain elements on the right in the book: "ideological" conservatives, conspiracy theorists,... - Greg
___________________________________
So what do you disagree with your brother?
This almost seems like the argument from intimidation, ie, if he were [some desirable trait] he wouldn't possibly believe what he does. What specific positions of his do you disagree with?Jay,
I wasn't making an argument - I was stating my opinion. But if you want an insight into some of the specifics, I'll oblige.
In general, Dawkins's *empirical* criticisms of religion are misguided because there are so many different kinds of religious belief that he should have stuck with Christianity instead of "religion", but he couldn't avoid the temptation to dismiss all religions with sweeping philosophical arguments disguised as scientific arguments.
If you want to dismiss something philosophically, that is fine. However, don't confuse arguments against something as defining the true nature of that thing. To argue from "God doesn't exist" to "Belief in God is harmful" is a non-sequitur - we all believe all kinds of things that we really can't fully justify or we aren't interested in justifying which provide us with comfort.
Moreover, Dawkins should have been careful to distinguish between what is true about human nature in general and what is true about specifically religious people (though this might not have sold as many books). In the end, it is hard to find real differences between both classes of people based on generalizations about religion and secularism, all things being equal. Atheists tend to be more intelligent people as a group, which tends to explain most of the differences between atheists and religious people, and it is probably both because scientific thinking demands intelligence and that it is hard to reconcile many aspects of science with the caricature of theism that Darwin thinks most Christians hold onto.
To go from the claim that religion is false to the claim that the people who hold on to the kinds of beliefs that Dawkins despises would be better served by secular beliefs is more a rationalization than a fact that Dawkins presents no evidence whatsoever for.
If you find Dawkins' historically uninformed generalizations about Christianity truthful, I recommend you read David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions. Just read the section on Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler and the Catholic Church, which will interest you if you haven't heard that take on the issues involved (I had, but I still learned a thing or two about the details).
___________________________________
In general, Dawkins's *empirical* criticisms of religion are misguided because there are so many different kinds of religious belief that he should have stuck with Christianity instead of "religion",... - Laj
___________________________________
Indeed, that was one of my criticisms againt Dawkins in the atheist forum.
___________________________________
...but he couldn't avoid the temptation to dismiss all religions with sweeping philosophical arguments disguised as scientific arguments. - Laj
___________________________________
Indeed.
___________________________________
Atheists tend to be more intelligent people as a group,... - Laj
___________________________________
I used to subscribe to the same notion, but no longer.
Based on my experience, atheists tend be better read and maybe more articulate than Christian Fundos I've met.
But they are more interested in looking as if they are right than finding out "what is what", based on my experience.
So in that particular aspect, they're no better than Christian Fundos I've met.
Red,
I can agree with you for the most part regarding atheists, butthere is one important thing to keep in mind: the term "atheists" encompasses a very wide range of people who subscribe to all different kinds of philosophies and belief systems. It's kind of hard to describe atheists in general, because the only thing uniting them is not beleiving in God.
For example, there are atheistic socialists, atheistic objectivists, positivists, relativists, existentialists, etc. on and on. Of course, there are the militant atheists that you and Laj mentioned, but it might be mistaken to characterize all or most atheists as being this way.
Fundos, on the other hand, are much more comparable and similar as a group, as they (at least claim to) hold identical beliefs.
___________________________________
Red,
I can agree with you for the most part regarding atheists, butthere is one important thing to keep in mind: the term "atheists" encompasses a very wide range of people who subscribe to all different kinds of philosophies and belief systems. It's kind of hard to describe atheists in general, because the only thing uniting them is not beleiving in God.
For example, there are atheistic socialists, atheistic objectivists, positivists, relativists, existentialists, etc. on and on. Of course, there are the militant atheists that you and Laj mentioned, but it might be mistaken to characterize all or most atheists as being this way. - Jay
___________________________________
I understand your point, but that is why I had included the phrase, "based on my experience"
___________________________________
But they are more interested in looking as if they are right than finding out "what is what", based on my experience. - Red Grant
___________________________________
___________________________________
Fundos, on the other hand, are much more comparable and similar as a group, as they (at least claim to) hold identical beliefs. - Jay
___________________________________
Indeed.
Jay,
When I discuss atheism, I discuss it mostly in a Western context. The same with religion more often than not.
I think of religion more in the way that Pascal Boyer's excellent Religion Explained described it. There might be better explanations for religion, but Boyer will make you very comfortable with religion as a natural phenomenon - what he describes may not affect the metaphysical status of religion, but it makes it far easier to see that the many virtues and vices people ascribe to religion are just parts of human nature which can be encouraged, deterred or given meaning by religious narrative.
It's a evolutionary psychology book and it isn't the most compelling reading for people who prefer page turners as opposed to slow expository, study-motivated nuance designed to open your mind to another view, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and would rank it as highly as Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate in influencing my view of human nature.
Laj,
I would love to check Religion Explained, I'll add to my summer reading list for when the semester ends. (Very tough making time for pleasure reading during school, sadly!)
I have always felt that religion, in large part, began as a power grab. Much of life during Biblical times was unexplained by science, allowing power-lusters (perhaps sociopaths) to step in and promise the masses that if they only acted in just such a way (the behavior codes spelled out in the Bible), their souls would be saved and live on forever in Heaven.
Whatever facts of human nature the Bible's stories may illuminate, thought control and instilling obedience seems like the primary purpose of religion as it has been used throughout history and up to today.
Thoughts?
JayCross: "...thought control and instilling obedience [is] the primary purpose of religion as it has been used throughout history and up to today..."
Not necessarily. Broaden your views if you're going to paint with a broad brush. Religion wouldn't have survived this long and been so successful if it did not have as its purpose such things as providing fellowship and a useful moral order for its followers. Or maybe you didn't mean their purpose as followers, but the purpose of [insert name of imaginary societal bogeyman here]. Honestly, it's hard to untangle such accusations, rooted as they are not in fact but in what 'seems like' free-roaming and ill-informed prejudice.
Religion can be usefully viewed as a way of resolving the clash of our deep psychological needs for regularity and certainty, with the unfortunate logical result that this is not in fact possible. The main problem with religion is that it is generally unself-critical, as the more it attempts to be a "total explanation" and therefore provide total certainty, naturally it tends to veer towards totalism and authoritarianism.
The philosopher Bill Bartley is worth a look in this regard. He puts forward the idea of "metacontexts" which are all basic responses to this fundamental clash, and from which we see (broad-brush) religious styles emerge. For example, the Western response to this problem of certainty has been a retreat to commitment - a "here I stand!" attitude, regardless of the instability of the ground. The Eastern attitude has gone exactly the opposite way: a retreat to detachment - the ground is unstable, therefore it is to be rejected totally. Bartley proposes a third option, midway between the two, where our beliefs are held lightly; and always subject to the possibility of revision or criticism.
Looked at in this light, as an attempt to overcome a basic logical clash, religion becomes quite understandable (it's not all about being unable to face death; for example, Greek religions didn't really have an afterlife). And of course, religions that are self-critical and tolerant present little or nothing of a social problem, and indeed have many advantages.
___________________________________
And of course, religions that are self-critical and tolerant present little or nothing of a social problem, and indeed have many advantages. - Daniel
4/25/2009 04:09:00 PM
___________________________________
Indeed, perhaps with a qualification, "could have many advantages." depending on circumstances.
Or maybe you didn't mean their purpose as followers, but the purpose of [insert name of imaginary societal bogeyman here].I think that was pretty clear from my original comment. Furthermore, why is it such a laughable idea? The Catholic church used to sell "indulgences" which got you off the hook for sins if you paid the church money. Do you think the people who shamelessly took that money seriously thought God would pardon those sins because those people paid?
Or...
Did they know full well it was all one big sham and perpetuate it because it gave them power?
Note that I said I thought religion *primarily* started as a means of control. That doesn't preclude religion serving useful functions like creating social cohesiveness, but these are merely incidental.
Jay,
_____
The Catholic church used to sell "indulgences" which got you off the hook for sins if you paid the church money. Do you think the people who shamelessly took that money seriously thought God would pardon those sins because those people paid?
______
That was probably how the average person understood indulgences, but it isn't what the Catholic church meant or means by indulgences.
-Neil
Daniel: "Religion can be usefully viewed as a way of resolving the clash of our deep psychological needs for regularity and certainty, with the unfortunate logical result that this is not in fact possible."
True enough: but the same can be said of metaphysics and ideology. Human beings are nearly always dogmatic in their views. I tend to think that was is unique to religion is that it arises out of the aleatory interest, the element of risk and loss, of good and bad fortune. Primitive men ascribed all things to either to other men or to ghosts and spirits. The development of monotheistic religions can be seen as evolutionary upward step from this, just as naturalism is, in most but not all respects, an upward step from monotheism. There are of course many other elements of religion, particularly as an institution.
"The Eastern attitude has gone exactly the opposite way: a retreat to detachment - the ground is unstable, therefore it is to be rejected totally. Bartley proposes a third option, midway between the two, where our beliefs are held lightly; and always subject to the possibility of revision or criticism."
I wonder how accurate is Bartley's description of the Eastern attitude. Obviously it's accurate of religious elites. But is it accurate of the masses? This is the one shortcoming of all intelligent and rational assessments of religion, whether they come from Spinoza, Goethe, Matthew Arnold, George Santayana, or Bartley: they only appeal to a select minority. Meanwhile, nearly everyone else continues to be dogmatic and militant about their beliefs. And this is true whether they are "religious" in the traditional sense of the word or not.
Greg,
just as naturalism is, in most but not all respects, an upward step from monotheism. In what respects is naturalism not a step up from monotheism?
Daniel:Religion can be usefully viewed as a way of resolving the clash of our deep psychological needs for regularity and certainty, with the unfortunate logical result that this is not in fact possible. The main problem with religion is that it is generally unself-critical, as the more it attempts to be a "total explanation" and therefore provide total certainty, naturally it tends to veer towards totalism and authoritarianism.Boyer would find this overly intellectual and taking a Westernized view of religion - there are less benevolent kinds of religious belief that do not fit this mold.
What Boyer does is take different parts of what we call "religion" and see if there is some kind of human behavior that has an evolutionary basis that is suited to that particular religious behavior.
So rather than try to find one magic bullet explanation for "religion", Boyer might examine morality and look at human behavior in that context and see how it is adapted to religion using evolutionary psychology. Or look at animistic or unscientific beliefs and do the same.
It's an approach I like because you learn a lot of empirical stuff even if you might quibble with this or that aspect of the thesis and it explains why I agree with the following:
Greg:True enough: but the same can be said of metaphysics and ideology. Human beings are nearly always dogmatic in their views. I tend to think that was is unique to religion is that it arises out of the aleatory interest, the element of risk and loss, of good and bad fortune. Primitive men ascribed all things to either to other men or to ghosts and spirits.Agreed. And I think that it helps provide a very simple answer to the next query.
Jay: In what respects is naturalism not a step up from monotheism?Well, consider that many/most great scientists in the 16th to 18th century were Christians. Today, we know that the Chinese and the Japanese are more than capable of doing good scientific work. But the kind of philosophy that encourages naturalism, it could be argued, was a feature of monotheistic societies because such societies already placed objectivity in something other than human whim.
It's an argument I'm sure can be debated, but it's not without foundation.
Note that I said I thought religion *primarily* started as a means of control. That doesn't preclude religion serving useful functions like creating social cohesiveness, but these are merely incidental.Organized religion, maybe. But I think that any attempt to control or institutionalize beliefs (from Communism to Objectivism) often leads to this kind of result. You try to control messaging and behavior, so you need to seize political power etc. and find ways of punishing/controlling dissenters. Boyer makes some interesting points about this in his analysis of that aspect of religion.
However, how religion in general *started* probably has the same answer as how human societies begin and evolve. I say this because the upbringing of children by parents is still the strongest determinant of personal religious belief. I don't find any reason to think that this wasn't the case in the past.
Jay:In what respects is naturalism not a step up from monotheism?I just realized that I answered in what ways that monotheism is not a step up from naturalism in my last post.
The problem with naturalism is that there is a sense (which can be disputed but unconvincingly, IMO, though I am open to being convinced otherwise) in which it is ultimately nihilist, in that it seems to posit no transcendent meaning to human existence.
To do this, at the very least, you need some form of eschatology. Naturalism by itself does not provide one.
Post a Comment