Science is the search for natural mechanism. Is such a search incompatible with a belief in God? The answer is no. There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who belief in God. But, there are those antireligious others who would argue otherwise.
I am concerned about the growing movement sometimes referred to as the "new atheism," backed by prominent scientists and philosophers. This group contains such authors as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell), Christopher Hitchens (God is not Great), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), and David Lewis-Williams (Conceiving God: The Cognitive Origin & Evolution of Religion). The stance of these authors against religion is aggressive and prominent, creating a renewed social zeitgeist, a spirit of the times.
The "new atheist" zeitgeist has led, in my opinion, to a coarsening of language toward religion. For example, in a May, 2010 program of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher the host said the following in a monologue:
Although America likes to think its number one, we have to admit that we're behind the developing world in at least one thing: their [non-American] religious wacko are a lot more wacko than ours. …
You think about the craziest religious wackos we have here in America – the Mormons – I'm kidding. That is not a religion. …
In fairness, Maher did not single out Mormons; he was attacking all major religious groups. Even so, my point is that there appears to be a growing license of acceptability to make derogatory statements against others' religion – even by practitioners of religion. (Religious zealots who threaten to burn the sacred works of others evidently have missed the point to the "golden rule.")
A few evolutionary scientists promote evolution by denying God in the process. The most notable scientist in this group is Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion (2006). In the book Dawkins argues (e.g., p. 188-189) that Darwinian evolution accounts for the appearance of “design” in living organisms without resort to an intelligent designer. I would agree with this statement, but Dawkins goes an inappropriate step farther -- at least from a scientific point of view. He concludes: “God almost certainly does not exist.” Such a claim goes far beyond the data. All he can really say is that god is not necessary in our equations.
While the mentioned "new atheism" books have many strong and correct ideas, they touch upon or in some cases fully embrace a fallacy. The fallacy is that science and its naturalistic approach can say something meaningful about the nonexistence of God.
Despite all the great explanatory power contained in science, it has a significant limitation. It knows nothing about God. The notion of God is not contained in its formulas. Except in the most informal sense, God is NOT part of the science vernacular.
Thus, it is bothersome when some scientists (such as Dawkins) declare: "There probably is no God." Probability is a branch of mathematics. What is the probability? Such scientists do not provide a number. They are simply knocking over a theological straw man while trying to make it sound "scientific."
The statement "There probably is no God" is a fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. The new atheists presume the statement is true because science has provided no evidence that it is false.
Admittedly, sometimes the absence of evidence CAN BE evidence. For example, there are positive electric charges and negative charges. There is no evidence of a third kind of electric charge. Massive amounts of physical data reveal no need for a "third" pole.
Similarly, naturalistic science has no need for an Atlas god to hold up the earth on his shoulders. However, scientists should NOT assume that the godlessness of their equations bears any connection to the God of systematic theology.
Richard Dawkins has correctly attacked "arguments from design." This fallacious argument usually goes something like: We cannot conceive of the evolutionary steps that originated the eye, and therefore we must conclude God created the eye without any intermediate steps. Again, such bad arguments are based in ignorance. Lack of evidence is NOT evidence against evolution. (Besides, we have considerable understanding of how the eye evolved).
Interestingly, Dawkins fell into the same logical trap by asserting that the lack of evidence for God should lead one to believe there probably is no God.
Richard Dawkins, "Why there almost certainly is no God," Huffington Post, October 23, 2006.
Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think… .
Not only should science be neutral with respect to the existence of God, but the near-universality of religion across human cultures demands an explanation by evolutionary theory. Much of religion very easily could be conceived as an adaptation for survival and reproduction. Such a finding does not require one to embrace the status quo, but it should cause scientists to hesitate before using their scientific steel to knock down figurative cathedrals.
Post Script: I wish to express my condolences for the passing of evolutionary biologist George C. Williams, one of my scientific heroes. Even so, I suspect Williams would agree very little with me about the adaptiveness of religion.
Copyright © 2010 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
25 comments:
Great post like always. (I sometimes think this blog should be required reading.)
I particularly like this quote by Collins in the article you link: "You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page."
And so it is. Science can sometimes tell us what the exact notes are (and thus I am *so* grateful to have science) but just because you have the notes in front of you doesn't mean you can "hear the music".
And you are right about Dawkins. He says God is improbable but he will never be able to demonstrate scientifically what the exact probability is. (Not that this proves anything other than it is very unscientific to state something is improbable if you can't back that statement with a number. What number is he using that tells him that it is improbable?)
Let me just suggest to Dawkins that once you have "heard the music" what once seemed improbable becomes very probably indeed. (And since he provides no number I won't either. :))
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett aren't really practicing scientists and philosophers anymore. They are popularizers of specific viewpoints they mistakenly (as you point out) believe are supported by science. S., you pointed out one of Dawkin's mistakes. It's not an aberration, it's his modus operandi.
If you haven't already, you should read Vox Day's excellent book "The Irrational Atheist," in which the author dismembers the arguments of these fellows on their own terms. The funniest thing about the book is the superabundance of thoughtless but militant atheists who've reviewed it all over the web without getting past chapter 4.
We've discussed recently on this blog the vanishing role of God in processes historically attributed to Him. The creation of Man, whole in form, from the dust of the Earth, the creation of the Earth itself by an interacting creator. Just finishing "The Grand Design" it appears God wasn't necessary to create the Universe, or at least wasn't needed much after it's initial configuration, depending on how much you buy into Hawking's argument. We've talked about the monism of the brain and how science has shown the earthly circuitry in our heads is sufficient to bring about consciousness. Science doesn't need to invoke a spirit to breath life into humanity. Indeed, our discussion of God has moved to where to should be, in bettering our lives, relationships and our earthly experience through faith. I can't say I blame Dawkins et. al. Science has opened many doors where God was traditionally thought to have presided, according to religious tradition, and found no evidence of Him, only natural process. After examining and understanding what is behind those doors, and having the expectation that many more doors will open only to display more natural processes, I can understand why someone might come to the conclusion that He doesn't exist.
Now, you are correct. Dawkins isn't listening to the music. We have seen the discussion of God focus on faith and a personal relationship. Dawkins won't ever go there.
"Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence"
This is one of my problems with Dawkins. He seems to think we should accept as a self-evident truth that if there is a God the scientific method should be able to discover Him. I think he is begging the question.
OK, just for fun you need a token atheist on this post :)
Point 1: If science has nothing to say about religion, then why applaud Francis Collins for his belief, but boo Dawkins for his skepticism? Aren't they both doing the same thing: using their scientific worldview to opine on the existence of God?
Point 2: Rather than being concerned about the criticisms of religion by atheists (some of which is well-deserved, as you admit), what about the vitriol spewed against atheists from Biblical times to the present? George H. W. Bush said atheists should not be considered as citizens. America is least likely to vote for an atheists presidential candidate than any other religious minority. People are least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist than any other religious minority. Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren claimed that if you are atheist, then you have no reason to be moral. Dostoevsky made the same claim that if there is no God, all things are allowed. Our LDS leaders and scriptures routinely single out atheists, agnostics, and secularists as a rising threats that need to be addressed.
In short, aren't we being selective in our criticism of atheists?
I think atheists like Dawkins are tired of being maligned themselves from the religious community. They have freedom of speech. They can, and should, use that freedom of speech to speak out against prejudice aimed at them from whatever source - usually the religious community.
joshuapackard,
Point 1: I'm not an expert on Collins, but reading his writings I'm not so sure his scientific views are main reasons he is a "believer" as much as the "leap of faith" he mentions is. So I think it is: Dawkins unbelief is because of science and Collin's belief stems from his willing to take a leap of faith and after "hearing the music" has come to realize science is not in contradiction.
Point 2: I admit, atheists have been very mistreated and maligned in ways they do not deserve. It is a tragedy people go so far as to classifying them as people who aren't real citizens, etc...
That said, just because they have been mistreated does not mean their message is correct. The Jews for example have been mistreated throughout history orders of magnitude more than atheists could ever dream of and it saddens me to no end to think of what they have had to go through. However, this does not mean I should run out and become a Jew nor does it mean that ignorant attacks on Mormonism by Jews are now justified.
I've read both Collins and Dawkins, and appreciate both their opinions: Neither should be criticized. Collins is saying that science and religion are compatible - fine. Dawkins is saying that they are not - fine. That is their respective opinions.
I'm just saying we should let both of them air it out. If we really do agree that scientists don't have anything to say about God (other than their own personal opinions) why criticize Dawkins while at the same time applauding Collins? Let's use the same scale to judge both.
Also, I agree that Dawkins (nor Collins) doesn't prove anything, nor is it appropriate, to bring science to bear on the probability of God's existence, pro or con. Science has nothing to say on that topic.
As to the second point, the mistreatment of atheists, Jews, or Mormons has (as you point out) nothing to do with the accuracy of their message. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I wasn't trying to say atheists are right because they are maligned. The validity of the arguments for or against God is a separate issue all together.
JoshuaPackard:
Yes, we need you. Your comments are welcome.
I would simply argue that science is neutral to God. Theists and atheists can be excellent scientists. Collins was cited as an example. Actually, Dawkins is a superior scientist too, but I think he is out of line in using science to attack religion and concepts of God.
The Book of Mormon described governments in which there were no laws against being atheists. I don't think it is fair to suggest that atheists are bad citizens. I don't believe that at all.
In fact, I believe that people should be free to determine for themselves what they think about God.
Good thoughts. Thanks.
joshuapackard,
"I'm just saying we should let both of them air it out. "
I really agree with this. Dawkins and Collins have messages that deserve to be heard. (And they should both be listened to with respect.)
This is why I applaud S. Faux for teaching an academic course where books such as the God Delusion will be read in addition to everything else, and is why I hope he will send me his syllabus.
Thanks S.Faux. I think the scripture advocating freedom of religious thought you allude to is found in Alma 30 - the chapter about Korihor. Although the first few verses (vs 7-11) do describe a system of government where people can't be judged by their beliefs only, the rest of the chapter, however, demonstrate how they arrested, bound, and tried Korihor in a kangaroo court for doing just that! Eventually he is struck dumb by God and killed despite doing no wrong other than speaking his mind. The chief judge then sends out a ominous letter to everybody warning them to repent or the same thing might happen to them. So, I'm not sure how "free" religious belief is portrayed in the BOM. It seems that freedom of religion is usually only extended to those who agree with you.
Be that as it may - I wanted bring up something else from that chapter. Alma 30:44 uses the "argument from design" as evidence for God's existence. Alma employs planetary motion and life on earth as proof of God's existence. I bring this up because Stan brought up a good point in his post about how science seems to be evicerating the argument from design - by demonstrating how the creation of the universe, our solar system, and life happens because of natural principles without the need to evoke a designer.
Do you think this is a relevant argument AGAINST God? Was Alma incorrect (or any other theist today) justified in using the argument from design? And finally, are rational arguments for God appropriate, or should believers base their beliefs on something else - like experience or faith?
I agree mightily with you Joseph Smidt about letting a variety of religious opinions be taught, without censor, in schools today. I applaud S. Faux for his approach.
joshuapackard,
"are rational arguments for God appropriate...?"
For me, the most rational approach to God is laid out by Alma in his seed analogy. Notice he claims people do not need to take up religious claims blindly but instead *insists* they should be tested.
Alma suggests that if any principle of the gospel is true or real, it will have the property that if you nourish it, you will see growth/improvement/enlargement etc... in your life.
And herein is something related to the leap of faith alluded to by Collins. The leap of faith is part of being willing, even if you cannot justify it scientifically, to exercise enough faith that you are willing to "nourish" the seed, not merely plant it in the ground. The promise is if you are willing to both plant *and* nourish, you will see growth. (And if you see no growth it must be a bad seed.)
So, Alma does not want you to believe any anything that is false and wants you to test things for yourself.
joshuapackard,
And there is just one more point I would like to make because Henry Eyring made this case to Joseph Fielding Smith.
The Throwing the baby out with the bathwater issue. (I'm not saying this is true about you for I have *no* idea what you are thinking.)
The LDS gospel is *so* much more than the confusion around the creation and intelligent design. (And this was the main idea Eyring was trying to drive home to Smith who at the time kept dwelling on evolution in his speeches in writings.) Is it worth throwing away all those seeds, so many of which have so much value, because there is so much confusion concerning the creation and intelligent design?
Now, I want to respect S. Faux's blog and not cause a never ending discussion so I promise to stop now but I will suggest two things:
1. This should not be a gospel of blind faith but one where people should test each seed with the realization that exercizing enough faith to "nourish" may be required to see results.
2. Be careful, when coming across a seed you perceive as bad, that you don't throw away all the rest of the seeds because this particular seed seems like such a major hang up. It just might be you are throwing way a the baby with the bath-water.
Sounds like you take a pragmatic approach to the gospel. Per Alma's seed analogy, if it works for you then it's a good seed.
I can probably find a lot of agreement with you here. The only problem is that people find different pragmatic solutions - different seeds if you will. So, I like the argument of Alma's seed. However, we have to be willing to give other people the freedom to choose a different "seed," even to reject our own, if it works for them. In short, the "argument from experience" works if people can have their own experiences. My atheism or scientific naturalism works for me the way Mormonism works for you. I'm the opposite of Collins because I use to believe (I really nourished the seed too) but in the end it didn't work. I am not saying that religion is bunk either. It just didn't work for me. So the seed FOR ME wasn't good, but it can be good for others. I think that is a healthy approach.
But when people say they have the "only true seed" (I would include both fundamentalist religions AND dogmatic New Atheists here) then I think that is a very myopic and unimaginitive view that leads to huge problems.
I just want to make clear that I'm atheist, but that I take issue with many of the "New Atheists" who can be overly dogmatic. In this regard I think they act like many of the fundamentalists they criticize. The criticisms leveled against them (as S. Faux takes aim above) are deserved sometimes. But I do agree with many of their arguments and criticisms in general.
joshuapackard,
Well, I for one am glad you are making these comments. And furthermore, though you may not consider yourself LDS nor desire in any way the honor I am going to bestow: I think your honesty and your willingness to study out this issues carefully and give respectful feedback will end up making a valuable contribution to Mormonism as I believe all honest attempts at providing helpful feedback will be found to be valuable.
You know what they say about small and simple things.
I've read several of Dawkins' books, including The God Delusion. Although I don't agree with him on some things, I enjoy seeing his mind at work, and I don't think he deserves some of the hostility he receives. In fact, I think some of the hostility is bluster in the face of daunting arguments. However, I haven't read the book Ben recommended, so I'll have to have a look at it.
But I've often wondered if at some deeper level Mormons have the ability to bridge some differences with him.
For example, after reviewing Dawkins' claim that he thinks there is probably an alien race that has become so powerful that they would seem like gods to us, Lincoln Cannon at the Mormon Transhumanist Association observed:
---quote---
“Eternal progression” is what Mormons call that (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution. “God” is what Mormons call those god-like extraterrestrials that didn’t start that way. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably gods – at least, that’s what Dawkins is telling Mormons, whether he intends so or not.
---end quote---
Terryl Givens also thinks that we have more in common with atheists than meets the eye.
Jared*:
I have studied Dawkins for about the last 34 years or so, and I am a big fan of his science. But, I draw the line on his systematic attacks on religion. I think his anti-religious zeal harms science, and makes it harder for religious individuals to embrace evolution.
Wow! Dawkins did suggest if there is an intelligent designer out there it only makes sense it is a super-intelligent alien race.
There you go joshuapackard, except it looks like Joseph Smith beat him to the idea *somehow*. :) (Except I bet Joseph would claim He is more glorious than anything Dawkins has imagined.)
Okay, once again I promise I will stop.
S. Faux: As I've said above, I also dislike the zeal with which Dawkins disagrees with religion. I think it hurts atheism :) But like the zeal of a "loving" parent who corrects his wayward children with too much "sharpness" sometimes, I think Dawkin's zeal is motivated by his love of science (albeit misguided at times).
You mention that you think Dawkins is preventing religious people from accepting evolution. I think it's actually religion that prevents them from accepting it. There are clear lines of demarcation along religious lines of whether or not you believe in religion. I don't think we can blame Dawkins, or atheists like him, for the fact that only 22% of LDS think evolution is the best explanation for human origins. Rather, I would say that religion, or a literal belief in scripture or revelation, is the culprit.
Statistics show that belief in evolution divides most strongly on whether one views the Bible as the word of God. I think scientists like Collins or Kenneth Miller are doing great work in trying to convince their religious friends that evolution is legitimate. I think you are doing a fine job as well. But I wouldn't blame Dawkins.
Joseph Smidt: I thought Dawkins "theology" sounded similar when I read it :). Except I don't see why we should worship any highly advanced alien life forms? Respect and admiration - yes. Worship - no.
Correction
In my second paragraph, the line should have read "There are clear lines of demarcation along religious lines of whether or not you believe in EVOLUTION."
Sorry - that was sorta an important mistake.
JoshuaPackard:
Of course, you are right that there are religious barriers to the acceptance of evolution. I readily admit that.
Quite often evolutionary science is stereotyped as being anti-religious. My ability to overcome that stereotype is impeded by Dawkins et al.
I would like to argue that evolution is neutral to religion. I would like religious science students to not be frightened by evolutionary studies. Dawkins makes my job much more difficult. True, he is not the only problem.
I wish evolutionists would stop attacking the "God is good" doctrine. What needs to be attacked is nature, NOT God. Nature is not always good. Science can make that statement. Involving God in that proposition is a demeaning and unjustified leap.
In the evolution course I am currently teaching, I would estimate that at least half the students have a strong religious orientation. Fortunately, they are very open to evolutionary ideas. But, I suppose the self-selection brought about by class registration yields little more than a biased sample of student attitudes.
To me, the good news is that religion usually adapts to strong science. There is no science with more overwhelming formalized evidence than evolution. Cultures evolve, but it takes time.
I agree that culture and religion adapt, slowly, to strong science. I'm sure we'll see the acceptance of evolution go up as scientists take it upon themselves to educate the public in a way they can understand. I see this happening now.
You say "I wish evolutionists would stop attacking the 'God is good' doctrine. What needs to be attacked is nature, NOT God." But how can you separate the two? I think this was the problem that Charles Darwin, and many other people, have had as well. Once you understand the gross cruelty and inefficiency of evolution by natural selection, it's hard to understand how God could sanction it (if indeed He did).
If God used evolution to design all life on earth, and evolution is such a cruel process (being "red in tooth and claw"), then it seems too easy to connect the dots and say that God somehow doesn't care about life the way we do. How can they juxtapose an all-loving, all-knowing God with the cruelty of nature? Tough issues. But I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts about this apparent paradox. Maybe a good topic for another interesting blog post?
Josh:
Concerning the issue of "God is good" versus "nature is bad:"
I am NOT a Genesis literalist, but I think the symbolic and figurative lessons are real. For example, from the fall of Adam & Eve we learn that the nature of this earth and its universe is anything but idyllic. One purpose of the story of Adam and Eve was to teach why the world is such a harsh existence, even though God is still good.
Teeth decay; hearts fail; hair falls out; starvation occurs; cancers grow in brains; etc. etc. It's a long list.
Latter-day Saints have the fairly unique perspective that the fall of Adam & Eve was intended. We exist in this naturalistic world for a purpose -- in part, because living individuals must experience pain and death in order to have the qualities necessary for a glorified & eternal existence.
A naturalistic experience, such as we now have, truly requires a mountain of faith in order to believe in God.
Although I do NOT believe in Intelligent Design associated with special creation, I do believe there are elements of design. That is, by design we were intended to live in a naturalistic universe that operates lawfully. Science does not teach me much more than the proximate and penultimate purposes of life. However, religion teaches me the ultimate purpose.
Yes, I may need to expand these ideas into a blog. But before I do, I have a data-based colloquium on evolution to present before the faculty -- I better set my priorities.
Thanks for your deep analysis and your challenges. The way you think is similar to my own, but we come to different conclusions -- at least on some aspects of religion.
Post a Comment