Materialism and the Fallacy of Abstractionism

A few brief comments on the fallacy of treating ideas as if they were physical objects.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'His [Dennett's] second suggestion is that religion could be a memetic symbiont
or parasite, which benefits itself at the expense of humanity. This is an intriguing concept, but largely a pointless one since there is absolutely no evidence that memes even exist and the idea smacks of confusing metaphor with reality.' [1.]

- I don't find this idea even remotely interesting. What we see here is the sad legacy of the Greeks; namely abstractionism. This is intellectual nonsense. Religion isn't a person, it's a word and an abstraction. He's confusing an abstraction (an idea) with reality. He's abandoned (with most of the modern world) the real for the abstract; abandoned the 'Hebrews' for the Greeks; abandoned theology for philosophy.

- To refer to an idea as a parasite is to make a category mistake. Parasites are living organisms, words are not. [On the other hand there's truth to the comment the 'priesthood' benefits at the expense of the general populace; but this by now is a trite observation.] The source of this continuing error is that in our day ideas (thoughts) are increasingly seen in physical terms, as referring solely to chemical reactions in the brain. It's my belief that we will never get rid of abstractionism as long as our elite thinkers are mired in the swamp of reductionism.

- The ancient Greeks were (in the main) materialists, and this is what gave rise to abstractionism. Plato's 'forms' can be seen as an early version of the 'meme' idea; or vice versa I suppose. As Augustine said, the forms only make sense if they're ideas in the mind of God. (i.e. ideas in the mind of a living and eternal Person) Being materialists the Greeks emphasized ideas over reality, the impersonal over the personal. (eg. we see the 'good' of the Greeks vs. the holy character of the Creator)

- Greek thinking fizzled out because being abstract it wasn't grounded in reality. (That's an exaggeration I know.) It does absolutely no good to talk about abstract ideals like the 'good' and 'justice' as there's no way to give them absolute definitions. (Only the verity of biblical creation can give a basis for true definition.) Humanist definitions just go round and round (in cycles) in the ever chaging fashions held by philosophers. What is out today will be back in tomorrow.

On a related note; [from an interview with Dennett]

2. "Tell us the story from your new book about the ant and the blade of grass.
"Suppose you go out in the meadow and you see this ant climbing up a blade of grass and if it falls it climbs again. It’s devoting a tremendous amount of energy and persistence to climbing up this blade of grass. What’s in it for the ant? Nothing. It’s not looking for a mate or showing off or looking for food. Its brain has been invaded by a tiny parasitic worm, a lancet fluke, which has to get into the belly of a sheep or a cow in order to continue its life cycle. It has commandeered the brain of this ant and it’s driving it up the blade of grass like an all-terrain vehicle. That’s how this tiny lancet fluke does its evolutionary work'' - Dennett

- Is this a true picture? How does Dennett (or anyone) know this? Wouldn't they have to get inside the 'mind' of an ant to know this? Wouldn't they in fact have to be god to know this? This appears to be storytelling to me. (Does the ant not climb blades of grass if it doesn't have this parasite feeding on it?) Why shouldn't we rather just assume this is some kind of instinct, some kind of programming? Why adopt the fantasy like story about cars? Wouldn't Occam's rule suggest we cut out the 'possession' story? (How does a parasite know anything about cows? how does it know it can find access to a cow by climbing a blade of grass?) This subject falls well outside any limited expertise I have, so I'm merely asking some questions here; but it does sound fanciful in the extreme. Dennett has gone well past description (the main focus of the scientific program) and has tried to reconstruct an event from the inside. All we see is an ant climbing a blade of grass. (Even if an ant afflicted by this parasite acts differently, climbing blades of grass, this still doesn't mean the parasite is purposefully using the ant by somehow commandering its movement mechanisms.)

3. Is religion, then, like a lancet fluke?
"The question is, does anything like that happen to us? The answer is,
well, yes. Not with actual brain worms but with ideas. An idea takes over
our brain and gets that person to devote his life to the furtherance of that
idea, even at the cost of their own genetics. People forgo having kids, risk
their lives, devote their whole lives to the furtherance of an idea, rather
than doing what every other species on the planet does—make more children and grandchildren.'' - Dennett

- Dennett has no warrant that I can see for making this claim. This strikes me as nothing but empty bluffing. Ideas aren't anything like parasites (apart from a poetical sense) and so his 'argument' collapses before it starts.

- Can there be a more revolting (repellent) view of human existence? (That some people find this 'idea' (picture) of life appealing is beyond my ability to understand; but then some people are attracting to ugliness and perversion aren't they?) This is an example of what christian thinkers mean when they speak of the death of man; of how the reductionism inherent in materialism leads relentlessly to the death of man. A human being being driven' the way a parasite drives an ant (if we accept the validity of that scenario) isn't a man at all; not in the way commonly assumed for millenia.

- I doubt very much if people devote their lives to ideas. The c. claims to be devoting himself to god, the Marxist claims to be devoted to the people and so on. Even if these claims are largely professed rather than honest, it would appear to be far closer to the truth to say that they're devoted to themselves and their own well being rather than to ideas.

- Dennett is another example of a materialist who pretends he doesn't have a religion; that e. materialism doesn't have all the attributes of a religion. (In fact it's a wview like Christianity and all the rest, and has no special status vis a vis other wviews.)

4. 'If Dennett’s weak logic merely provided some ironic amusement. With regards to his parable of the parasitic ant, it threatens to become problematic when he attempts to solve the dilemma of moral origins by positing an evolved free will that gives humanity the opportunity to usurp the Blind Watchmaker of natural selection and begin to guide its own evolution. [4.]

- I can't see that a materialist has any intellectual right to speak of free will. Surely if all is matter, everything moves in terms of cause and effect. (Even thoughts.)

- I don't see how Dennett can escape his car analogy here. If materialism is true then man must be 'driven' by some kind of material force, and cannot have free will. i.e. man cannot guide his own evolution. If he thinks he's guiding it, he's merely deluding himself, as he's being used as a car by some unknown entity. (A parasite perhaps?) Here we see another instance of how m.s refuse to take their own ideas seriously. Whenever the implication is something they don't like they just toss it aside. (This isn't the way 'science' is supposed to be done is it Daniel?)

- Dennett affirms free will (without warrant) because he's a political activist. i.e. it doesn't make much sense to condemn certain political practices and suggest we adopt others if we have no free will. So the materialist must quietly set aside his worldview when he gets up to make a stump speech.

Notes;
1. Vox Day/The Irrational Atheist/192
2. Slack, Gordy. “Dissecting God.” Salon. 8 Feb. 2006.
3. "
4. " p. 197
5. - Dennett's model of human existence has found expression in several sf novels. A recent one was by Carol Emshmiller (The Mount), an older one was by Heinlein (Puppet Masters). I haven't read either one, but offer this as evidence of how 'evolutionary' speculation has entered the popular imagination.
6. Here's an example of what I mean by abstractionism;
"The civilized world seems almost certain, sooner or later, to follow the example of Russia in attempting a Communist organization of society. I believe that the attempt is essential to the progress and happiness of [M]ankind during the next few centuries, but I believe also that the transition has appalling dangers. I believe that, if the Bolshevik theory as to the method of transition is adopted by Communists in Western nations, the result will be a prolonged chaos, leading neither to Communism nor to any other civilized system, but to a relapse into the barbarism of the Dark Ages." - Bertrand Russell/Vox Day/Irrational Atheist/254
[Russell, Bertrand. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (New York, 1920), 169]
- That's one of the worst (not to mention idiotic) examples of abstractionism I've ever come across. There is no such thing as mankind. Mankind is an abstraction; and is thus incapable of any feeling whatsoever, let alone happiness. Since an abstraction isn't a person, it can't make progress. This is mere twaddle. (The numerous idiocies this brilliant man delivered to the world are beyond comprehension.) What happens under communism (totalitarianism might be a better word) is that the individual (the family, the group) gets sacrificed (by the elite) to various abstractions, to various ideas. (We might as well call these ideas gods.)
- Russell had little idea of what was necessary to the progress and happiness of his butler let alone what was necessary for the well being of the entire human population. This is a case of egomania; a malady intellectuals are extremely prone to. These are delusions of grandeur. The man didn't have a clue what he was talking about. (Had he forgotten he's just a trousered ape, and that his thoughts are merely chemical reactions.)
- Where materialism is abstract, Christianity (with its doctrine of creation( is concrete. It's not 'mankind' that needs to be saved, but each man and woman on an individual basis. (Each person will answer to God; not the human race.) Christianity respects the individual, while materialism treats the individual as superfluous, and as having no importance. [i.e. mere matter is interchangeable]