I had trouble posting this reply to an article at his site by Robert Ringer, “When Bad Things Happen to Innocent Bystanders.” The link will take you there.
* * *
Yes, the universe is a big and complicated place. However, the article–nicely written as usual–seems to me to be an extravagant non sequitur (or series of them). Any puzzle under the sun about human motives or the behavior of cats could be prefaced similarly.
A few of the statements in the piece that puzzle me despite all my knowledge of the physical universe:
1) “[B]ut no one has a clue as to what caused these atoms to come together in just the right way to create us.”
This assertion can only be made by treating all successful investigation into natural processes as irrelevant. We don’t know everything about how the universe works or how life works. But we know something. A good textbook on astrophysics, biochemistry, or evolution would make a good start toward dispelling the assumption that “no one has a clue” about how planets or human beings came about. That we cannot track the course of every atom or sperm cell throughout the history of the universe in order to know exhaustively how the atoms came together “in just the right way” goes without saying. But is omniscience a reasonable hope or demand or standard?
2) Life is not eternal. We are made of atoms that will remain after we die. “Strangely, those atoms are never alive in any sense that we understand, which, by secular standards of logic, makes no sense at all.”
The statement is not explained. Why does it make no sense that atoms are not alive? Life is a process of goal-directed action, the goal being preservation of the organism. Why would it “make no sense” that an organism containing carbon atoms can be alive without the carbon atoms being alive? One may as well express consternation and bafflement over the fact that a molecule of cardboard is not a box or a molecule of steel is not a car. A part is not the same as the whole or any emergent properties of the whole. A carbon atom is not an organism. Why would it “make no sense” that things that are unlike each other are unlike each other? Logic is about recognizing the identities of things and being consistent (non-contradictory) in one’s understanding of the world.
3) “What is the purpose of life?” asketh Robert Ringer. “Answer: No one has a clue.”
Really? Some persons drift purposelessly through life. But I thought that Robert Ringer had a long track record of productive achievement, including many thoughtful and engaging books and articles. Presumably, there are also many other aspects of Mr. Ringer’s life that we don’t necessarily know about, the relationships that enrich his life, the art that enriches his life, and many other things that enrich his life that are at least in part the effects of his own purposeful actions. But all the purposes that we ourselves choose and act to achieve and that give meaning to our lives are to be set aside as irrelevant, apparently. We must find “the” purpose of life–a purpose that has nothing to do with our own lives and purposes and values and striving and appreciation of things. A big fat mysterious lump of smirking Purpose that knows that we mere mortals will never figure out what it’s up to. This external alleged transcendent purpose is a figment. Do I have “no clue” as to the content of this figment (aside from the fact that it is empty)? I agree: I have no clue. But so what?
Much could be said about the original question raised by the essay, how to prevent man-made shootings (or, presumably, any other man-made evil). This question is not actually treated except to say that we know almost nothing about it. But we must know something about it, because most of us are not mass murderers, civilization has not yet expired, and there are still many life-promoting human achievements to admire and look forward to. Is the real question here how we can instantly eliminate all the bad ideas mingled with good ideas, and the effects of those bad ideas, in American culture and in cultures throughout the world? Or is the real question how we can constrain human free will so that every person will automatically value life and do only things that promote life, never anything to destroy life? If either one of these is the question, then I agree that we know nothing about the answer.
David M. Brown's Blog 
If the point of good writing (or good communication in general) is concise delivery of mental contents, then Robert ringer delivers it well and is a good writer. But man, what bad contents and how faulty he comes to them!
Your linked article shows Ringer to believe [1] that conscious is the ontological bedrock of reality; [2] that the universe is incomprehensible to man’s consciousness despite our measuring it from the scales of astronomical units to those of ångströms and femtometers; [3] that the sole method for explaining things, including one’s existence, is by means of reducing them to the material atoms; [4] that the lack of evidence is no limiting factor to speculating; [5] that human action, as guided by rational, evidential awareness of the universe and as chosen by the actor for his purpose, is not in anyone’s responsibility or will; and [6] that morality or the knowledge of right and wrong must take a cosmic, third-person, bird’s-eye perspective to determine out there what are bad things and who are innocent bystanders.
The article also shows Ringer to rely on several bad methods of thought: subjectivism, appeal to authority, division (i.e., since the whole is so and so then its divided parts must be as well), and appeal to ignorance.
As with some pastries and how they’re made, are they worth the calories? Good writings about bad contents aren’t worth reading–unless it’s an excuse to touch base with longtime friends.
Comment by Tom — September 12, 2019 @ 7:58 pm |
Thach, I agree with your overlapping criticisms of Ringer’s piece to the extent I follow them. With regard to the logical fallacies, they are all versions of somehow not starting with relevant facts and not sticking to relevant facts. There are many ways of not doing this, and many of these ways have gotten formal names. But I figure that a person untutored in logic can come up with more or less our same objections to Ringer’s argument (or spliced-together assertions) if he can distinguish between what is self-evident and what is a conclusion requiring evidence and reasoning (and intelligibility) and cares about the difference. If a hardly self-evident assertion requires that some basis in facts be elaborated, but none is provided except by way of this or that fallacy, we are being hit with the overarching Fallacy of No Basis In Reality.
Unfortunately, much of the best writing showcases some of the crappiest arguments. I can’t really agree that as a rule none of it is worth reading. It depends. Although I am providing no argument, I think that my claim that it depends is plausible prima facie.
I should counterbalance my post eventually with one acknowledging the wisdom of one of Robert Ringer’s better arguments. However, in years gone by he has gotten some public applause from me. My first published piece was a review of How You Can Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization for Reason magazine. Years later I published an interview with Robert Ringer on the Laissez Faire Books web site.
Comment by David — September 12, 2019 @ 8:44 pm |