Well that's disappointing, AJ Philips, I've always respected you as an intelligent and even indulgent poster, yet you've clearly failed to understand my position, or haven't bothered to think about it. And now you dismiss it as post-modern nonsense. A nice easy out for you and all those who dismiss anything that doesn't gel with their favoured orientation.
But I'll spare myself further effort.
I don't consider myself a postmodernist btw--almost as bad as being a theist it seems!--I'm agnostic, remember.

Squeers,

>>to miss the point that words and their meanings are cultural constructs, and not direct or reliable signifiers.<<

I would have formulated this more carefully, by inserting “always” between “not” and “direct”.

Anyhow, this brings me to a question about what do you hold about constructivism, “radical” or not, in particular about “www.second order science” (c.f. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/special/second-order/ or http://www.gwu.edu/~uscs/docs/1112/wmsci_sos3.ppt) a concept that I have just recently discovered.

I think one of the differences between us two is that when I hear “science” I first think of natural science, whereas you seem to be more at home with (philosophy of) social sciences; this I respect and found often very insightful. Hence my question.

There are two characterisations of second order science which in my eyes make its epistemological approach different - and for me a more acceptable perspective - from the radical constructivism of “science studies” exposed by Sokal and leading to science wars:

(i) it “operates on the product of normal or first order science” (rather than against it, that outraged “normal” scientists during science wars)

(ii) it admits that the “idea of second order science is more relevant for the social sciences than for the physical sciences”, which explains why e.g. physicists found the claims following from its methodology not very insightful, to say the least.

Squeers,

I actually thought deeper about your response than I’ve thought about others’ in a long time, which is why I took uncharacteristically long to respond. I think I understood your position quite well; if not, by all means correct me. My main concern was that you attached meaning to atheism that simply isn’t there:

"It's a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296413)

These claims, for which there is nothing within atheism to support, were seemingly justified by what had been said earlier:

"To strip these words of their contexts and treat them merely as signifiers is again to miss the point that words and their meanings are cultural constructs, and not direct or reliable signifiers." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296388)

It is the exaggerating of what context and cultural constructs will limit that lead to the mockery of the Sokal affair. While what constitutes postmodernism can be hard to pin down precisely (to the postmodernist’s delight) Dan Dennett’s criticism of postmodernism (co-incidentally) appears to be addressing what I find wrong with what you’ve said directly above (among other comments):

"Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

Theism and atheism simply address belief in god(s). The fact that the word may be a cultural construct does not necessitate or excuse attaching the attributes to it that you have, and the “myriad of implications” drawn by others from the label are irrelevant unless we’re neurotic or want to blur simple concepts with postmodernist obfuscation.

Incidentally, agnosticism and postmodernism are not mutually exclusive either.

Hello George and thanks for the link. Reading the journal's 'aims and scope', my own position could be accommodated. I don't consider social constructivism to be a mode of idealism--all is construct--however I do think the vast majority have relinquished what 'independence' of thought they might possess.
I have a lot on today so unfortunately can't respond further as yet, but shall as soon as time permits.

AJ Philips,
my 'claims ... which there is nothing within atheism to support, were seemingly justified by what had been said earlier'.

They were justified by what I said immediately preceding, though yes I have been consistent.
I certainly have not exaggerated anything, it is you who is placing exaggerated constructions/interpretations, and innuendos, on what I'm saying.
Dennett btw is not a deity of mine, and is just as easily dismissed in this instance as that which he easily dismisses. I respect Dennett's learning, but What is so objectionable about these new atheists is the way they think they have the right to condemn challenges and alternative approaches to their orthodoxies.
But as I say above, further response shall have to wait till this evening at the earliest.
Dennett

Squeers,

Obviously what you'd said immediately before my quote of yours was the reasoning behind it, but without the context of your claim regarding cultural constructs/context, what preceded would be irrelevant to your claims regarding atheism. So I cut to the chase and saved us both time by addressing your more a priori assumption.

This is why I mistook you for a postmodernist: what does it matter what everyone thinks? Atheism isn’t just a cultural construct. The concept of not believing in a god, or the absence of a god belief, can exist on its own no matter what implications individuals may attach to it. The "myriad of implications" to which you refer does not then mean that not believing in any gods magically makes one all those other things too. Like postmodernists, you don't seem to understand that there is actually such a thing as reality that isn't just a cultural artefact and doesn't care what we think of it. Gravity is a part of that reality (cf. the Sokal affair); so is the concept of the absence of a belief in god(s), and that's what atheism describes.

You’re seemingly appealing to some sort of almost mystical collective consciousness that molds and shapes every aspect of reality, by claiming that there are no objective truths but only interpretations. Either that or you think that we're so inextricably bound by our interpretations that objectivity is impossible. But the latter wouldn’t explain why atheism must necessarily entail all the attributes you attach to it.

Again, however, there are some things in reality that are objective and don’t dependent on what we think about them. The concept of a collective conscience (if that’s what you’re appealing to) is useful in examining cultures and societies, but by applying it to the concept of ‘not believing in a god’, you are exceeding its limitations; either that, or you’re just trying to lump atheism within the bounds of what is formed by collective consciousness in order to make whatever assumptions you like about it because you don’t like, or feel threatened by, these “New Atheists”?

George,
You’re still implying an objective stance for the observer in that he may ‘sometimes’ utilise language from a qualitative remove—that the mind (which is what?) may ‘use’ words ‘remotely’ as tools. The implication being that mind/brain is ‘independent’, rather than epiphenomenal, or programed/constructed by the host culture’s conceptual universe.
My own conviction is that ‘potentially’ the mind ‘is’ at least somewhat free to discriminate, but in that case we must account for it, and that’s the problem. As a Christian this is assumedly not a problem for you as you believe in an essential entity—a soul?
This means I am not a ‘radical constructivist’, though I cannot deny that apart from genetic disposition, logic dictates that we are programmed from birth.
Ironically it’s you, AJ, who must account for the objective stance/use of language you believe you possess. The constructivism I’m talking about is banal materialism, which even your hero Dennett concedes:
“our symbolic universe is a pandemonium of competing forces (words, phrases, syntactic figures … )”. Dennett dismisses qualitative consciousness by reductively dismissing the supposition of consciousness itself as symbolic fiction, since all physical registration of data is mere discordant matter—Hume’s bundles—to be made sense of via cultural resources, and not merely ‘words’ (which are what?).
As for a/theism, I insist that the terms are meaningless outside their contexts, and I stand by my comments above, “for which [you claim] there is nothing within atheism to support”.
A stance of atheism in any era is ‘first’ political! And never some ‘disinterested’ vocable!
To be an atheist in the West today is inevitably to be associated with Dawkins and co, whether you like it or not. It is not an objective or individual posture!
And this is a fair roundup: ‘a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it.’

Sorry Banjo. will get back.