The Human Question

In order for there to be science, the same proposition must be known to have been first proposed, later tested, and finally confirmed/or/rejected. In order for these propositions to be recognized as having been the subject of scientific reasoning, they must have been compared by one and the same person. In other words, I can't know know that I am confirming a hypothesis unless I knew it as an initial hypothesis, then as object of experimental testing and finally as an explanation that has been confirmed or denied. In order for the same person to compare the same proposition at different times, the he or she must keep their identity through time. But if reductive materialism were true, then identity through time would be an illusion. In fact, there would be no such thing as even a momentary identity, for the self would be an illusion. But in such case, there would be no such one to compare the initial hypothesis with its confirming evidence. Nor would there be such a thing ...

Dawkins tells us he is a "good reductionist" (each time I hear this expression, I think of Glinda asking Dorothy "Are you good witch or a bad witch?"), and he takes science as helping to demonstrate this truth. On the other hand, he also agrees that ethical reasoning is a genuine form of human rationality, even though we can't derive our ethical principles from science. I will show how his ethics and reductionism collide with each other. But before I do that let me caution that my criticism does not hinge upon human immortality or the existence of God: those are matters for another discussion. Even one who is agnostic about or hostile to those theses will find Dawkins unable to deliver himself from the horns of the following dilemma. First let me set up the premise: Ethical reasoning cannot take place unless you accept your identity through time, for there is no agency without identity. That is, we must use the word "I" and "you" ...