Freedomain Radio

It's really amazing to me how learned this man is, indeed, he's staggeringly brilliant in my humble opinion-- and yet so misinformed in the area of philosophy and morality.

Gotta get those juicy research grants, ooo yeah baby!

good video, thanks for posting, its cool how when he talks about using scientific thought to outline and develop moral philosophy it brushes so close on what we're doing here.

Just from this video, it's clear to me that he knows Peter Singer's argument inside-and-out, is aware of the work that Frans deWaal is doing around the identification of the origins of moral consciousness, and knows how to make a utilitarian argument from morality. What's more, from this video, it's also clear that he's aware of the inherent problem in "flag planting" - arbitrarily assigning a specific biological feature the "specialness" of moral protection - and, that he understands the necessity for logical consistency in arguing morals.

So, I would say he is at least as informed about morality - and probably significantly better informed - than most scientists, and perhaps even some philosophers.

It's true that he offered no strong opinion one way or the other, on any of the ideas that he presented in that video. However, I'd say this is a strength rather than a fault of his. In the book "The God Delusion", Dawkins openly states that he's not going to pretend to be a moral philosopher, that he's perfectly happy to defer to the philosophical voices of the day, and that he had a personal preference for Peter Singer's work. While he did go on to offer speculative theories about the "moral zeitgeist", I actually really appreciated his humilty in admitting that he doesn't have a great answer.

Same with this video: He's basically just running you through a list of the major things he's aware of. You could say he's avoiding the anxiety or the responsibility of having to choose a moral standard for himself by taking the "aloof" position, and maybe that's true. I don't know. But, I don't think it's reasonable to say he's misinformed.

He does have a pretty clear moral stance on government and taxation though...

fingolfin:

He does have a pretty clear moral stance on government and taxation though...

Well, sure.

I didn't say he was *right*.

I was just pointing out that he's anything but misinformed. Indeed, his admission in that video, to the necessity for logical consistency, exposes are pretty glaring error in his thinking around the state.

But it's not for lack of knowledge. This guy is about as well read on moral philosophy as any scientist I've ever heard speak on the matter.

So, perhaps his claim that he's only competent enough to defer to the moralists, is a kind of cowardice, but I'll bet you if someone pointed out this error to him earnestly, he'd take it seriously.

GregG:

fingolfin:

He does have a pretty clear moral stance on government and taxation though...

Well, sure.

I didn't say he was *right*.

I was just pointing out that he's anything but misinformed. Indeed, his admission in that video, to the necessity for logical consistency, exposes are pretty glaring error in his thinking around the state.

But it's not for lack of knowledge. This guy is about as well read on moral philosophy as any scientist I've ever heard speak on the matter.

So, perhaps his claim that he's only competent enough to defer to the moralists, is a kind of cowardice, but I'll bet you if someone pointed out this error to him earnestly, he'd take it seriously.

Hey,

I have to admit finding this admiration of Dawkins on any level very uncomfortable. It is a fault, and due to a complete lack of brilliance that he makes the stated comments. I believe that saying it's humble to support violence and claim a superior group of people are responsible for understanding and living morality, to be even more indefensible than the Ron Paul position.

If he is well read on Moral Philosphy, but has not formed an opinion (about using violence), then he is not brilliant; and as the opinions he holds are immoral and he wishes to defer admitting it, he is not humble. This is not to say he wouldn't earnestly consider the problems of statism if confronted with them (even more directly than he is every day) - I personally doubt that he would, given his arrogance and child like arguments in any situation where he is questioned on such issues he is unprepared for - but even if he eventually came around, he'd never be brilliant or humble, the man takes money from state television, while Anarchist literature existts in the world, and refuses to make reasoned decisions.

I find similar issues with worship of Stephen Fry, even here (with similar claims of, "if only he was aware of anarchism", in complete contradiction of their state opinions), despite the fact that these are two quintessential public intellectuals, state funded priests of the modern age and should be considered culpable for any opinion they offer on issues related to morality; which they both do constantly. I know we have atheism in common; but even the most intellectually deprived people can understand Newtonian Physics 300 years after it's conception, and I will not sing praise for them until they dare make there criticisms in a time when it wasn't a majoirty opinion, as it is in Britain.

I apologise if this seems a little on the offensive, I have rewritten it, and apologise for my earlier, though unposted response which was embarassingly passive aggressive, The worship of these modern day priests is something I hear often, and it's a little distressing to find the same in my comfort zone.

Thanks,

James

If Dawkins and Fry are "priests" that are "worshipped" then you might as well throw Stefan Molyneux in there as well.  I don't think it's true, though.  Lots of people have some public or celebrity figures which they admire and look to for their opinions.  That's not the same as worshipping them.  The guy out there in the limelight isn't going to agree with your own convictions 100%.  You can't argue against every negative facet of the established order if part of you is dependent on it.  I think these guys should be challenged on their statism, but there's probably plenty of things I haven't woken up to yet either.  I can't complain too hard that their shirts aren't 100% anarchist white, cause they're swimming around in a lake of dirty statist water.  I just like to watch them harpooning the Jesus fish while they're at it.

nathanm:

If Dawkins and Fry are "priests" that are "worshipped" then you might as well throw Stefan Molyneux in there as well.  I don't think it's true, though.  Lots of people have some public or celebrity figures which they admire and look to for their opinions.  That's not the same as worshipping them.  The guy out there in the limelight isn't going to agree with your own convictions 100%.  You can't argue against every negative facet of the established order if part of you is dependent on it.  I think these guys should be challenged on their statism, but there's probably plenty of things I haven't woken up to yet either.  I can't complain too hard that their shirts aren't 100% anarchist white, cause they're swimming around in a lake of dirty statist water.  I just like to watch them harpooning the Jesus fish while they're at it.

Hey,

Apologies, I wasn't clear on reasoning. The reason Stefan Molyneux wouldn't be included is because people reason as to why he is intelligent, they don't state it. I'm not saying being praised makes you a priest, but when I hear 50 people a year state that Stephen Fry is "sooo intelligent" without good reason (usually for his pompous tone or some clever sounding point) and are defensive when you question it. These are the people who work or have worked for a state television network, and reenforce the ideas of state. They have no excuse for not having considered Anarchism, and cannot claim ignorance to knowledge, only to reason.

It is worship, because as I gave reason for above, there is no rational reason to state Dawkins as "Brilliant", he quite cleary has severe intellectual defecit, and only speaks on topics which are majority opinion here in Britain. They're also both extremely statist, to a point that means they disagreed with even the most basic form of Libertarianism (Thatcherism) in the 80's when both were already speaking on related topics. They have also both made comments on support of the NHS, meaning they have considered the issue, and still sought to publicly refer to everyone who doesnt support it as a "right wing nutjob". The same sort of quotes can often be found from Dawkins, in areas which he claims to have considered. If you want to find statists to consider brilliant, I'd look at people questioning Theism in a time when the Catholic church ruined there lives for it, or as far back as Socrates. At least the questioned at least one system which had actual power.

Thanks,

James

Greg 'El Greggymeister" Greggles:

So, perhaps his claim that he's only competent enough to defer to the moralists, is a kind of cowardice, but I'll bet you if someone pointed out this error to him earnestly, he'd take it seriously.

@ Greggles von Gregglton
Yes indeedy, it'd be interesting to see I think. Somebody calmly but rationally scrutinizing his misperception concerning the supposed moral legitimacy of governments and taxation. 

@ others
With these guys you just take the good stuff, throw out the garbage. But as for Stef, I never see or hear any garbage and I believe he's well worked through any potential emotional resistance to the truth... 

Agalloch:

there is no rational reason to state Dawkins as "Brilliant",

 @GregG: Thanks for those examples of his mediocrity! Not a single innovative idea, just three good books extending areas already in heavy development. Also, perhaps we have different definition of brilliant? Brilliance is an optimal position, not simply a high quality one.

If this is brilliant, you need to experience the human mind, people have done some great things. Einstein was Brilliant, I'll give you that socialist.

Its a bit silly arguing about if someone is "brilliant" or just "highly intelligent" or a "genius"  This isn't a bad thread, lets not ruin it arguing about petting things like this. I think it's obvious He is a person of above average intelligence, we can just leave it at that.

 Hey,

GregG, I'm sorry you deleted your post instead of simply editing it, I can understand why you have given that your response granted you the power to define brilliant despite having no brilliant work yourself, but denied me the inverse; However, "What is Brilliant?" is worth discussion. I am also sorry if my post was worded in such a way as to make you need to be defensive about Richard Dawkins, perhaps mine did the exact opposite, I do tend to have a natural incline to distrust public intellectuals that I will try to notice.

On Brilliance, I don't simply wish to say that all statists are not Brilliant, so I presented Einstein, who was a massive socialist, but who had never studied the state. Dawkins on the other hand has a video in this very post discussing moral philosophy, but continues to actively support extreme levels of statism. In a video this same week he used the statement, "What University have you studied Biology at?". He may be brilliant in his own field (Though I don't personally belief so, however I moved from Biology to Physics at degree level so I'm no authority) but a Brilliant person does not seek to comment on other fields without considering them. He makes reference to, and we all agree, that he has extensive knowledge on the subject, and yet presents an immoral position, and has attacked the moral position (perhaps not as fervently as Britains so-called "Public Treasure"), but in a manner which shows extreme intellectual dishonesty no less.

Dawkins is also the member, supporter, financier and chairs numerous organisatons which lobby government. A Brilliant person would no doubt have studied the optimal solutions before doing so, he either has not (and isn't Brilliant) or have and has chosen immorality (in which case, I wouldn't choose to use the term). He also has a special place in the possibility for self-education having written a book on religion; as every argument against religion can easily be applied to the state. He chooses not to, though, and instead he uses his time thinking about statism and how to enforce more efficient methods of it, hence the paper I read recently on his "ideas" to reform the jury system.

Thanks,

James