Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Holy Crap!
yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 7:18 am

I was reading Wikipedia and I saw:
Since there are a number of different theistic ideas relating to the nature of God(s), Dawkins defines the concept of God that he wishes to address early in the book. Dawkins distinguishes between an abstract, impersonal god (such as found in pantheism, or as promoted by Spinoza or Einstein[15]) from a personal God who is the creator of the universe, who is interested in human affairs, and who should be worshipped.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_god_delusion

So I seem to recall that Bertrand Russell said a lot of different things at different points, but at one point he endorsed neutral monism (if I recall correctly).

IMHO, a materialist monism or a neutral monism in the style of Russell should be able to stand up to anything Dawkins can throw at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

I'm not an expert, but Wikipedia lists Spinoza as a neutral monist.

An obvious alternative to monism is dualism, such as that of the Catholic Church, which claims that there are natural bodies and supernatural souls. I assume most people on this board will not be terribly interested in that kind of dualism, but there might be some people who want to pick nits about neutral monism versus materialist monism.

Then, if one is willing to entertain any kind of monism, whether materialist or not, one can start thinking about Immaterialism, which as far as I can tell is monistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism


So, two questions:
1) Can Dawkins disprove Spinoza's and Einstein's pantheistic "God" as well as the other "Gods"?

2) Can Dawkins address Berkeley's work in the context of its major axiom, "Esse est percipi"? (IMHO Berkeley doesn't exactly need to be disproven, since Berkeley starts with an axiom, "Esse est percipi." The lazy approach would be to say, "No, I deny your axiom, there is something that is but is not perceived, so I don't have to listen to anything Berkeley says based on that axiom."

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by Rum » Mon May 17, 2010 7:24 am

Same old story really. It isn't for Dawkins (or anyone else) to disprove any sort of god of any sort of type, conceptual construct or nature. It is for the person proposing such a thing to offer some evidence of its existence.

Welcome by the way!

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 7:43 am

Rum wrote:Same old story really. It isn't for Dawkins (or anyone else) to disprove any sort of god of any sort of type, conceptual construct or nature. It is for the person proposing such a thing to offer some evidence of its existence.

Welcome by the way!
Thanks for the welcome.

I don't know enough of Russell or Spinoza offhand to point to the book where they talk about what neutral monism means to them, but I suspect if I dig about in Russell I could find something Dawkins couldn't knock down. (Dawkins, of course, isn't a mathematician or a logician, so I don't expect him to do it personally.)

The thing is, while Russell was very, very clever, his logic sometimes adds up to a lot less than one initially suspects, because his definitions are often a lot more narrow than one initially thinks. So even if I can find a passage from Russell arguing for something that amounts to a "God," it's going to be so abstract that no church is going to be interested in worshipping it.

So the Russell angle needs me to dig through a few more of his books.

As for the Berkeley angle, though, dismissing Berkeley triggers a logical trap.

If one accepts Berkeley's "Esse est percipi," one is stuck with Berkeley's monism.

If one denies Berkeley's "Esse est percipi," one then has to explain *what* exactly exists without being perceived. At first glance, one might think one could just throw Hume at this, but I don't think anyone has done it successfully - IMHO Hume was definitely outgunned by Berkeley, but one can hope that modern empiricists have marshalled more evidence than Hume had access to.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by Rum » Mon May 17, 2010 7:50 am

Belief in any sort of god isn't about logic, it is about faith at the end of the day surely. I have no doubt that logic can lead one to a position where one can state that it is impossible to prove there isn't a god, but that totally misses the point.

And it really is a simple one and does not require resorting to high level logic. Where is the evidence?

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 8:08 am

Incidentally, it seems quite clear to me that Dawkins doesn't understand the word "pantheism," because his God Delusion contains some comments that would get an undergraduate paper flunked:
Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a
supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating
the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and
influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic
belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He
answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world
by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and
knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist,
too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities
were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the
first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly
has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in
a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural
synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the
lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in
that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or
confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene
with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the
deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than
the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the
universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism.
I find Dawkins wrong on the following points:
1) Deism is not a monolithic philosophy. There were Deists who believed, for example, a God that read thoughts.
2) Pantheism is not a monolithic philosophy.
3) Pantheism is not merely a variant of atheism.

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 8:11 am

Rum wrote:Belief in any sort of god isn't about logic, it is about faith at the end of the day surely.
What is the distinction between "faith" and "use of an axiom"? I suppose one has "faith" in an axiom if one actually considers it non-negotiable.

In a separate thread, I might comment on Quine's notions of logic, as explained in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."

Without an understanding of logic, it's not possible to define "evidence," if I understand the word correctly. Evidence has to exist in the context of some logical system. If you don't have a formalized logic, your "evidence" is so murky and ill-defined it doesn't really warrant the name "evidence."

User avatar
MrFungus420
Posts: 881
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:51 pm
Location: Midland, MI USA
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by MrFungus420 » Mon May 17, 2010 8:19 am

yourfriendrick wrote:So, two questions:
1) Can Dawkins disprove Spinoza's and Einstein's pantheistic "God" as well as the other "Gods"?
No. Nobody can.
yourfriendrick wrote:2) Can Dawkins address Berkeley's work in the context of its major axiom, "Esse est percipi"? (IMHO Berkeley doesn't exactly need to be disproven, since Berkeley starts with an axiom, "Esse est percipi." The lazy approach would be to say, "No, I deny your axiom, there is something that is but is not perceived, so I don't have to listen to anything Berkeley says based on that axiom."
Why are you fixating on what Dawkins has to say on subjects?

Just because he is well known does not make him the authority on atheism.

And, I would say that Berkeley's "axiom" is bass-ackwards. In order to be perceived, something must exist. Existence does not require being observed/perceived.
P1: I am a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect

User avatar
MrFungus420
Posts: 881
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:51 pm
Location: Midland, MI USA
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by MrFungus420 » Mon May 17, 2010 8:26 am

yourfriendrick wrote:If one denies Berkeley's "Esse est percipi," one then has to explain *what* exactly exists without being perceived. At first glance, one might think one could just throw Hume at this, but I don't think anyone has done it successfully - IMHO Hume was definitely outgunned by Berkeley, but one can hope that modern empiricists have marshalled more evidence than Hume had access to.
What's the problem?

If "esse est percipi" is valid, then the planet Pluto did not exist prior to about 1840.
P1: I am a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect

User avatar
MrFungus420
Posts: 881
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:51 pm
Location: Midland, MI USA
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by MrFungus420 » Mon May 17, 2010 8:29 am

yourfriendrick wrote:Incidentally, it seems quite clear to me that Dawkins doesn't understand the word "pantheism," because his God Delusion contains some comments that would get an undergraduate paper flunked:
It was not written for "philosophers". It was written to be accessible to just about anyone. So, out of necessity he simplified some of the concepts.
P1: I am a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by Rum » Mon May 17, 2010 9:19 am

yourfriendrick wrote:
Rum wrote:Belief in any sort of god isn't about logic, it is about faith at the end of the day surely.
What is the distinction between "faith" and "use of an axiom"? I suppose one has "faith" in an axiom if one actually considers it non-negotiable.

In a separate thread, I might comment on Quine's notions of logic, as explained in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."

Without an understanding of logic, it's not possible to define "evidence," if I understand the word correctly. Evidence has to exist in the context of some logical system. If you don't have a formalized logic, your "evidence" is so murky and ill-defined it doesn't really warrant the name "evidence."
Thanks for telling me that I don't know what 'evidence' is. Are you suggesting that without a training in formal logic (I did a module at college about 30 years ago..logic 101, as it happens - all of which has long since evaporated) we can't know what evidence is? The consequences of that are rather paralysing don't you think?

If you have come here to argue that logic and reason does not lead inexorably to atheism you are barking up the wrong tree I can assure you.

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 10:49 am

MrFungus420 wrote:
yourfriendrick wrote:Incidentally, it seems quite clear to me that Dawkins doesn't understand the word "pantheism," because his God Delusion contains some comments that would get an undergraduate paper flunked:
It was not written for "philosophers". It was written to be accessible to just about anyone. So, out of necessity he simplified some of the concepts.
He didn't just simplify the concepts, he published demonstrably untrue claims.

I've just been looking at a selection of what Einstein actually wrote about God. Not only did Dawkins fail to go to the original sources (Dawkins credits a single book in shaping his notion of what Einstein said), Dawkins used Einstein to justify claims that Einstein frequently repudiated while he was alive.
From Einstein by Walter Isaacson. © 2007 by Walter Isaacson. To be published by Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Einstein replies to an interviewer:

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."
Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -2,00.html

But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.
In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -3,00.html
Dawkins doesn't just simplify concepts - he gets them wrong.

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 10:51 am

Rum wrote:
yourfriendrick wrote:
Rum wrote:Belief in any sort of god isn't about logic, it is about faith at the end of the day surely.
What is the distinction between "faith" and "use of an axiom"? I suppose one has "faith" in an axiom if one actually considers it non-negotiable.

In a separate thread, I might comment on Quine's notions of logic, as explained in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."

Without an understanding of logic, it's not possible to define "evidence," if I understand the word correctly. Evidence has to exist in the context of some logical system. If you don't have a formalized logic, your "evidence" is so murky and ill-defined it doesn't really warrant the name "evidence."

Thanks for telling me that I don't know what 'evidence' is.
Are you suggesting that without a training in formal logic (I did a module at college about 30 years ago..logic 101, as it happens - all of which has long since evaporated) we can't know what evidence is? The consequences of that are rather paralysing don't you think?

If you have come here to argue that logic and reason does not lead inexorably to atheism you are barking up the wrong tree I can assure you.

I wrote in general that if there is no understanding of logic, there can be no definition of evidence.

Nowhere did I write "Rum has no understanding of logic."

However, if you want personalize sentences that are written impersonally, don't bother with my posts, go ahead and read and math book - you should be able to interpret it as an ad hominem attack.

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 10:52 am

MrFungus420 wrote:
If "esse est percipi" is valid, then the planet Pluto did not exist prior to about 1840.
If you mean that seriously, I'm going to guess that you haven't read Berkeley, and you don't intend to start now.

yourfriendrick
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by yourfriendrick » Mon May 17, 2010 10:54 am

Dawkins, God Delusion, p. 20:

My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein
and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is
why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin
with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of this book I
am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most
familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of
the Old Testament.
As previous posts have mentioned, Dawkins is wildly misrepresenting Einstein, so he's factually wrong. But in addition to that he's avoiding the basic definitions that are necessary to squeeze any kind of sense out of his text.


Right, so what are the Vedas talking about when they say "Tat Tvam Asi"? Supernatural or natural?

Presumably Hinduism's Brahman is supernatural - right? But what is it about Brahman that makes it natural or supernatural?

Presumably Plato's monistic "reality" is "natural" - but just as with Brahman, what is it that makes it natural or supernatural?

In short, does Dawkins use "natural" to mean "material"? It certainly looks like he does.


p. 36:
But that is not the way of this book. I decry supernaturalism in
all its forms, and the most effective way to proceed will be to concentrate
on the form most likely to be familiar to my readers - the
form that impinges most threateningly on all our societies. Most of
my readers will have been reared in one or another of today's three
'great' monotheistic religions (four if you count Mormonism), all of
which trace themselves back to the mythological patriarch
Abraham, and it will be convenient to keep this family of traditions
in mind throughout the rest of the book.
This is as good a moment as any to forestall an inevitable retort
to the book, one that would otherwise - as sure as night follows
day - turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe
in is a God that I don't believe in either. I don't believe in an old
man in the sky with a long white beard.' That old man is an
irrelevant distraction and his beard is as tedious as it is long.
Indeed, the distraction is worse than irrelevant. Its very silliness is
calculated to distract attention from the fact that what the speaker
really believes is not a whole lot less silly. I know you don't believe
in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so let's not waste any
more time on that. I am not attacking any particular version of God
or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything
supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be
invented.
But Dawkins apparently can't or won't define what he thinks he means by supernatural or natural. (He could just define one of the two, and then the other would fall into place.)

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Berkeley, Russell's neutral monism, Einstein's pantheism

Post by Trolldor » Mon May 17, 2010 2:29 pm

How about, instead of referencing wikipedia, you provide us with excerpts of Einstein and Russel, with references we can trace down (to works and his own writings, not to websites) so that anything in your OP has substance behind it. Until then quiet, because you haven't presented anything other than a premise.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests