• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • (sub)Text
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

The Amazing Mr. Tallis: On Atheism, Free Will, and Everything Else

September 1, 2010 by Wes Alwan 5 Comments

(Watch on YouTube).

I first became familiar with Raymond Tallis a few months ago, when I was exploring my fury at post-Saussurean thinkers such as Lacan and Derrida. I saw a reference somewhere to a book called Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory. After finding a copy – hard to find at a reasonable price even online – I bought it without review primarily because such engaged critiques (as opposed to off-handed dismissals) of postmodernism are rare.

I was delighted to find that Tallis seemed to the rare sort of academic, much less academic literary theorist, who is at the same time a superb writer and careful thinker, with a serious grasp of both literature and philosophy (analytical and continental).

Recently I was further surprised to find out that Tallis is not in fact a humanities professor but a doctor and researcher in gerontology, specifically the neurology of old age. His publications include “The Clinical Neurology of Old Age,” “Brocklehurst’s Textbook of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology,” “Epilepsy in Elderly People,” “Increasing Longevity,” and “Restoring Neurological Function.”

The plot thickens: Tallis is not merely a marauding scientist gone to war with the worst specimens of the humanities, a la Alan Sokal. As much as he is concerned with challenging obfuscatory postmodernism, Tallis is just as concerned with challenging ill-informed philosophical speculations based on neuroscience, materialist conceptions of mind, what he calls “Darwinitis” (as in evolutionary psychology), and scientism generally. His books on such topics include “Why the Mind is Not a Computer,” “The Explicit Animal: A Defense of Human Consciousness,” “Michelangelo's Finger: An Exploration of Everyday Transcendence.” Lest we assume that there are crypto-religious motivations here (since he obviously can’t be attacked as fuzzy and anti-science), Tallis also argues for atheism and is not, to use his own words, “a creationist nutter” or opponent of evolutionary theory.

Finally, visiting his website ((http://www.raymondtallis.com) and unfamiliar with his work, one might suspect that Tallis is some sort of self-promoting, dabbling savant. But as I think I’ve made clear, that’s simply not the case. And I’m left— even as I’m gratified by the fact that I share with him a similar set of varied preoccupations—to envy his polymathy: the same guy had the time to write both “The Cortical Topography of Swallowing Motor Function in Man” and “The Enduring Significance of Parmenides.” And just to rub salt in the wound: "Tom McAlindon, professor emeritus of literary theory at the University of Hull, says that "if he'd concentrated solely on poems he'd be a leading poet in England today"." (See The Guardian's 2006 profile on him, The Ardent Atheist).

Tallis is also an entertaining debater. In the video above he argues for atheism at a debate hosted by the Birbeck Philosophy Society. His rebuttal to the pro-theism argument of his (worthy) interlocutor begins at 25:25. Interestingly, he is at pains to distinguish good and bad reasons for atheism. Bad reasons, typically advanced by “new atheists,” include:

  • Lack of empirical evidence (there are non-empirical forms of evidence, and people do not agree on what constitutes evidence in this case).
  • The historical evils engaged in by religious institutions and their members (these evils are not relevant to the existence of God and even if they were, it could never be shown whether the effect of religion on human behavior is a net loss or a net gain -- you can’t run course of history twice, once with religion and once without).

But Tallis is not an agnostic. According to him, there are good reasons to be an atheist. It’s just that they are logical, not empirical, and come down to the fact that the notion of God is self-contradictory. The transcendent God cannot be squared with the personal God; God’s “being” with the fact that he was not brought into being; his intelligence with the fact that he has nothing in common with intelligent beings in the world. And so on. In general, he is not even thinkable as a determinate and self-consistent entity, and so need not be conceded even as a possibility by the would-be agnostic. I’m not sure that this argument works, but it’s a line of thought that deserves serious consideration.

As the debate goes on, Tallis will argue that morality does not require God. But that does not—not!—mean we can derive an ought from an empirical is, or fall into the trap of “Darwinitis,” and the illusion that evolution is going to somehow supply us with a warrant for our values. He refers rather to Fichte and the transcendental grounds of objective morality in the recognition of the consciousness of the other (a pre-Hegelian elaboration on Kant, and it is worth noting here that Kant does not require God to establish morality either, yet does not resort to an appeal to empirical fact). One audience member nicely sums up his conception of human beings as involving a “spark without the divine.”

So while Tallis thinks the world—including both consciousness and matter—are fundamentally mysterious, he is "not obliged to imprisonment in a thrilling intuition of transcendent possibility arising out of my sense of the unknown, in a ragbag of stale, confused, contradictory, and often but not always malign beliefs, culminating in inconceivable logical possibilities.” Despite the fact that this debate still leaves me an agnostic, that is very nicely put.

See also this Philosophy Bites episode in which Tallis discusses Parmenides, the video below from a debate on free will, and other videos here.

(Watch on YouTube).

By: Wes Alwan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Reviewage

Comments

  1. Geoff says

    September 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Tallis is also a regular contributor the magazine ‘Philosophy Now’. I have some memory of his argument for atheism, and I think I recall him describing god as an ontological nightmare, or words to that effect. Issue 73, according to the website.

    Reply
  2. Wes Alwan says

    September 1, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Thanks Geoff — that magazine was next on my list of things to review.

    Reply
  3. suraj sharma says

    September 2, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    Alas.
    Finally, I thought a talk that would make me see the point behind Atheism, but as usual, it didn’t.

    Tallis, much to my disappointment, falls for the same trap as Dawkins and confuses the transcendental “being” for the transcendental signifier and then goes on to dismiss the being (and does a rather unconvincing job at that too).

    As regarding his claim that morality does not require god- its totally correct, but I’m afraid its irrelevant and further proves my point that Mr. Tallis is holding the telescope from the wrong end. For you see, morality may or may not require a god to exist, but “God” is the reason why MAN requires morality.

    Reply
  4. Wes Alwan says

    September 3, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Thanks Suraj — could you elaborate on your points? I’m not familiar enough with them to understand them based on those brief references.

    Thanks,

    Wes

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. The Guardian on Raymond Tallis | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    […] See Wes’s 2010 blog post on Tallis. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Geoff Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Evan Hadkins on Ep. 296: Heidegger Questions Being (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Tony L on Science, Religion, and Secularism Part XXV: Charles Taylor—The Protestant Reformation and the Rise of the Disciplinary Society
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on PREVIEW-Ep. 295: Kant on Preventing War (Part Three
  • Evan Hadkins on PEL Nightcap June 2022
  • Wayne Barr on PEL Nightcap June 2022

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2022 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in