Michael Ruse is a prominent philosopher. His academic career has included a lot thinking about the relationship between Christianity and science. He has written a lot about the connection between Darwinism and ethics. In a recent article, he describes himself as "an atheist Darwinian evolutionist ..."
The article is about what Ruse sees as excesses by some other prominent atheists, and he names some of them: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, Edward O. Wilson. Actually, he calls these people, and they would probably agree, Humanists. These Humanists, and others, Ruse says, are too enthusiastic. In other words, they are actively trying to convert others to their views, and ignoring weaknesses of their position. At least some of these four, and others, are advocating a sort of religion based on science.
Ruse points out some serious weaknesses. For one thing, he says ". . . there is no simple line from evolutionary biology to the ethical life, and there is no guarantee that an alternative secular religion will lead us there." I agree. Ethics has to be based on something, and Darwinism doesn't provide such a foundation, whatever the scientific merits of Darwinism.
Another serious weakness is that science has limitations. Ruse says that science can't answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Does life have a purpose." Indeed. The Humanists claim that those questions can be answered by science, or that they aren't important, which is ridiculous.
Ruse makes a powerful case, and it's more powerful because of his prominence, and his own atheism.
For more about Dawkins, see here and here.
* * * * *
In another article, Gary Gutting, writing in Salon, claims that Richard Dawkins has departed from ideas with firm foundations. The question Gutting considers is the question of whether God exists. Dawkins does not, I believe, claim to have disproved God's existence beyond all doubt, but he clearly believes that he has made some strong arguments against His existence. Gutting, a philosopher who apparently believes in God, himself says that "I myself think that there’s no argument that decisively establishes that God exists." But that's by no means the same as proving that He doesn't.
(Gutting is apparently a solidly competent philosopher, but he's not much of a biologist -- he seems to think that tortoises are amphibians . . .)
Gutting concludes that there is a serious case to be made for theism. Therefore, either Dawkins doesn't understand that, or he does, and has chosen to pretend that there is no such serious case.
I conclude by quoting Hebrews 11:3 "By faith, we understand that the
universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has
not been made out of things which are visible." (World English Bible, public domain) My own belief is that Gutting is correct -- there is no decisive argument for the existence of a creator God. But I can logically and legitimately believe that He does exist, and so can you, even if Dawkins doesn't.
See also here.
I thank Jim Stump, of BioLogos, for pointing me, and other readers, to these articles.
Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because it is public domain. I am grateful.
License
I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Big Bang, second edition
I understand that there are conservative Christians who reject the
idea of a Big Bang. I suppose that most of these, at least the ones who
can give a good reason for such rejection, do so either because they
believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or because, in
their minds, the Big Bang is associated with evolution, which they
reject.
As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.
I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.
The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.
Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.
As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.
What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (There is good evidence, generally accepted, for at least some types of evolution. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one race, or ethnic group*, since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which, if he had, would prove naturalism.
The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.
If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. Knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.
It's not the Bible, but the movie, God's Not Dead, was generally well-received by the conservative Christian community. (The more recent movie, Do You Believe? was made by the same group, and there was also a God's Not Dead 2.) See here for my review of God's not Dead. In that review, I point out that the fictional main Christian character accepts the ideas that God used the Big Bang, and evolution to bring the world to its current state, in his defense of the existence of God.
As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).
Some Christians, and others, claim that atheists/naturalists have no ground for finding purpose and meaning in life, or in existence. This article claims they do, indeed, have reason for meaning and purpose.
This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.
Notes
The paragraphs beginning "It's not the Bible," and "Some Christians, and others," were added on February 3, 2016.
*Note added, December 23, 2015. This originally was "type," rather than "race, or ethnic group." As I understand it, that original wording led to the first comment below. Sorry for the confusion that caused.
Note added, August 1, 2013. Commenter Laginestra (see below) points out that the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of the the universe. In other words, it doesn't specify where the universe, if it began with a big bang, came from. The universe had to be present, in some form, before there could have been a big bang. However, most people, including me at times, don't realize that, or don't make that distinction. Stephen Hawking is one scientist who has attempted to explain the origin of the universe. I thank the commenter for that important distinction.
Added, May 17, 2014. Here's a good article on the history of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang. The article also considers the possibility of multiple universes.
Added, May 29, 2014. Here's a good article the history of the idea of a Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, apparently an atheist, believed in a steady-state universe, one which didn't need some sort of start, apparently for religious reasons. (He was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.) Hoyle is responsible for the term, "Big Bang," which was meant to be a mockery of the idea.
On January 23, 2017, the post was slightly edited for English usage mistakes.
As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.
I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.
The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.
Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.
As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.
What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (There is good evidence, generally accepted, for at least some types of evolution. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one race, or ethnic group*, since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which, if he had, would prove naturalism.
The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.
If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. Knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.
It's not the Bible, but the movie, God's Not Dead, was generally well-received by the conservative Christian community. (The more recent movie, Do You Believe? was made by the same group, and there was also a God's Not Dead 2.) See here for my review of God's not Dead. In that review, I point out that the fictional main Christian character accepts the ideas that God used the Big Bang, and evolution to bring the world to its current state, in his defense of the existence of God.
As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).
Some Christians, and others, claim that atheists/naturalists have no ground for finding purpose and meaning in life, or in existence. This article claims they do, indeed, have reason for meaning and purpose.
This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.
Notes
The paragraphs beginning "It's not the Bible," and "Some Christians, and others," were added on February 3, 2016.
*Note added, December 23, 2015. This originally was "type," rather than "race, or ethnic group." As I understand it, that original wording led to the first comment below. Sorry for the confusion that caused.
Note added, August 1, 2013. Commenter Laginestra (see below) points out that the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of the the universe. In other words, it doesn't specify where the universe, if it began with a big bang, came from. The universe had to be present, in some form, before there could have been a big bang. However, most people, including me at times, don't realize that, or don't make that distinction. Stephen Hawking is one scientist who has attempted to explain the origin of the universe. I thank the commenter for that important distinction.
Added, May 17, 2014. Here's a good article on the history of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang. The article also considers the possibility of multiple universes.
Added, May 29, 2014. Here's a good article the history of the idea of a Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, apparently an atheist, believed in a steady-state universe, one which didn't need some sort of start, apparently for religious reasons. (He was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.) Hoyle is responsible for the term, "Big Bang," which was meant to be a mockery of the idea.
On January 23, 2017, the post was slightly edited for English usage mistakes.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Do physical laws explain the origin of everything?
Physicists have been looking for a "Theory of Everything" for a long time. No such theory has been universally accepted, to this point.
A recent book, A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, begins by stating that the author is no fan of a supernatural creator. (p. xi) Then, it goes on to say that "The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science . . . can address and is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing." (p. xiii) And there is an afterword by Richard Dawkins, no less, who congratulates Krauss on his answer to the question of the subtitle, and also writes that
We may not understand quantum theory (heaven knows, I don't), but a theory that predicts the real world to ten decimal places cannot in any straightforward sense be wrong. Theology not only lacks decimal places: it lacks even the smallest hint of connection with the real world.
I found it most interesting that Dawkins referred to heaven, which, he says, he doesn't believe in. But never mind. The New York Times published a review of Krauss's book, which review mentions Dawkins, as well. The author of the review does not question the laws of quantum mechanics, which Krauss believes explain our very existence. But he does write:
Nor, says the review, do the laws explain why those very laws exist. (Krauss has no such explanation, either, and says so.) In other words, we still do not know, from a scientific standpoint, why there is something, rather than nothing. I don't think we ever will. As the writer of Hebrews put it: 11:3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible. (World English Bible, public domain) By faith, not by experiment. Dawkins and Krauss have faith, but it's a faith that there is no meaning, no purpose, to the existence of the universe. Those of us who believe in a supernatural Creator believe that they are wrong, but we can't prove it.
I have previously written on the weirdness of modern physics, here and here.
Thanks for reading.
A recent book, A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, begins by stating that the author is no fan of a supernatural creator. (p. xi) Then, it goes on to say that "The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science . . . can address and is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing." (p. xiii) And there is an afterword by Richard Dawkins, no less, who congratulates Krauss on his answer to the question of the subtitle, and also writes that
We may not understand quantum theory (heaven knows, I don't), but a theory that predicts the real world to ten decimal places cannot in any straightforward sense be wrong. Theology not only lacks decimal places: it lacks even the smallest hint of connection with the real world.
I found it most interesting that Dawkins referred to heaven, which, he says, he doesn't believe in. But never mind. The New York Times published a review of Krauss's book, which review mentions Dawkins, as well. The author of the review does not question the laws of quantum mechanics, which Krauss believes explain our very existence. But he does write:
But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
In other words, Krauss has not really explained nearly as much as he, nor Dawkins, think that he has.
Nor, says the review, do the laws explain why those very laws exist. (Krauss has no such explanation, either, and says so.) In other words, we still do not know, from a scientific standpoint, why there is something, rather than nothing. I don't think we ever will. As the writer of Hebrews put it: 11:3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible. (World English Bible, public domain) By faith, not by experiment. Dawkins and Krauss have faith, but it's a faith that there is no meaning, no purpose, to the existence of the universe. Those of us who believe in a supernatural Creator believe that they are wrong, but we can't prove it.
I have previously written on the weirdness of modern physics, here and here.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Richard Dawkins and 400 years of the King James Bible
I thank Julana for bringing these matters to my attention.
There is a 2011 Trust: Celebrating 400 years of the King James Bible, which has an on-line presence, even early in 2010. I am not sure of all that this organization is about, but they do have video of various persons reading from the KJV. As Julana pointed out, one participant is Richard Dawkins, who is reads from The Song of Songs.
I do not agree with Richard Dawkins on all points. He is a militant atheist. But I appreciate the fact that he took part in this project. I also have problems with those who claim that the King James Version is the only legitimate English Bible. The main problem is that English, itself, has changed. In fact, it has changed enough that the King James Version that we have in our house, that we access on-line, that the 2011 Trust celebrates, and that the Gideons distribute, is the version of 1769, not 1611. But I appreciate the KJV.
That version has had a great deal of positive influence on my life, and the lives of many others. It is worth celebrating.
Thanks for reading. Thanks for the links, Julana.
There is a 2011 Trust: Celebrating 400 years of the King James Bible, which has an on-line presence, even early in 2010. I am not sure of all that this organization is about, but they do have video of various persons reading from the KJV. As Julana pointed out, one participant is Richard Dawkins, who is reads from The Song of Songs.
I do not agree with Richard Dawkins on all points. He is a militant atheist. But I appreciate the fact that he took part in this project. I also have problems with those who claim that the King James Version is the only legitimate English Bible. The main problem is that English, itself, has changed. In fact, it has changed enough that the King James Version that we have in our house, that we access on-line, that the 2011 Trust celebrates, and that the Gideons distribute, is the version of 1769, not 1611. But I appreciate the KJV.
That version has had a great deal of positive influence on my life, and the lives of many others. It is worth celebrating.
Thanks for reading. Thanks for the links, Julana.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Dawkins argues from chance
I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, which will be the last in the series, unless there are comments that need to be addressed in a full post, or unless I simply decide to post on the subject (It's my blog!) I wish to discuss Dawkins' central argument for the non-existence of God.
Dawkins discusses the Anthropic Principle. This has to do with the apparently very narrow constraints that astronomical facts, properties of matter, and physical laws place on the existence of life as we know it. For example, if the earth were a little closer to the sun, there wouldn't be enough liquid water for life. If the earth were a little further from the sun, there wouldn't be enough, either, because so much of it would be ice. But, of course, we are here! Why? One response is that there is a supernatural God who has planned things that way. Richard Dawkins will have none of that explanation, of course. I agree with him that this is an unprovable idea, and I believe that there is even scriptural proof that it is unprovable, but I believe it, nonetheless. Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (ESV) Note that this says "by faith." Although the verse does not say that it is impossible to prove this, I think it means that. (I also believe that it is impossible to disprove it, and Dawkins, to his credit, does not make that claim. He does think that he has gotten very close, though!)
Why does Dawkins think he has gotten so close? He has done the opposite of believing in divine planning. Here's what he says, in reference to six physical constants, as discussed by astronomer Martin Rees, in his book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 2000:
I won't go through the rest of Rees's six numbers. The bottom line for each of them is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside which life would not have been possible. How should we respond to this? . . . The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants . . . so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. . . . As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed . . . (p. 143)
Say what? In the first place, it is not clear, at least to me, that God would have to be as improbable as such a combination of numbers, and I'm not alone. Of course, to a theist, God isn't improbable at all. The probability of His existence is 1.0. In the second place, assuming that God's existence is extremely improbable, how does Dawkins explain our existence? He claims -- I am not making this up -- that there are a great many universes, with many combinations of properties, and we just happen to live in one with a suitable combination. To quote Dawkins:
The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly unprobable in the same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each of these universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence. (p. 147)
So, let me get this straight. The existence of a supernatural God is highly improbable, but the existence of multiple universes is not?
Multiple universes have not been scientifically proved, or disproved. Richard Dawkins is asking us to forsake belief in a supernatural creator, in favor of belief that we are living in one of an infinite number of possible universes. He also wants us to accept that the latter possibility is orders of magnitude much simpler, and more probable, than the possibility of a supernatural Creator. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with God.
Here's my previous post on Dawkins.
Thanks for reading. I made some editorial changes on June 25, 2011.
Dawkins discusses the Anthropic Principle. This has to do with the apparently very narrow constraints that astronomical facts, properties of matter, and physical laws place on the existence of life as we know it. For example, if the earth were a little closer to the sun, there wouldn't be enough liquid water for life. If the earth were a little further from the sun, there wouldn't be enough, either, because so much of it would be ice. But, of course, we are here! Why? One response is that there is a supernatural God who has planned things that way. Richard Dawkins will have none of that explanation, of course. I agree with him that this is an unprovable idea, and I believe that there is even scriptural proof that it is unprovable, but I believe it, nonetheless. Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (ESV) Note that this says "by faith." Although the verse does not say that it is impossible to prove this, I think it means that. (I also believe that it is impossible to disprove it, and Dawkins, to his credit, does not make that claim. He does think that he has gotten very close, though!)
Why does Dawkins think he has gotten so close? He has done the opposite of believing in divine planning. Here's what he says, in reference to six physical constants, as discussed by astronomer Martin Rees, in his book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 2000:
I won't go through the rest of Rees's six numbers. The bottom line for each of them is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside which life would not have been possible. How should we respond to this? . . . The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants . . . so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. . . . As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed . . . (p. 143)
Say what? In the first place, it is not clear, at least to me, that God would have to be as improbable as such a combination of numbers, and I'm not alone. Of course, to a theist, God isn't improbable at all. The probability of His existence is 1.0. In the second place, assuming that God's existence is extremely improbable, how does Dawkins explain our existence? He claims -- I am not making this up -- that there are a great many universes, with many combinations of properties, and we just happen to live in one with a suitable combination. To quote Dawkins:
The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly unprobable in the same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each of these universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence. (p. 147)
So, let me get this straight. The existence of a supernatural God is highly improbable, but the existence of multiple universes is not?
Multiple universes have not been scientifically proved, or disproved. Richard Dawkins is asking us to forsake belief in a supernatural creator, in favor of belief that we are living in one of an infinite number of possible universes. He also wants us to accept that the latter possibility is orders of magnitude much simpler, and more probable, than the possibility of a supernatural Creator. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with God.
Here's my previous post on Dawkins.
Thanks for reading. I made some editorial changes on June 25, 2011.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: The tooth fairy
I have been posting on The God Delusion, a book by Richard Dawkins.
In this book, Dawkins explicitly says that he is trying to convert people to atheism. How well did he do? It's hard to say. The book has sold millions of copies, and, presumably, most of the people who purchased it read at least some of it. Others, like me, are using library copies of the work. Perhaps some of these people have been converted to atheism. Probably many more have found their atheism strengthened.
How does Dawkins attempt to convert? His plan is straightforward. He attempts to show that the classic proofs of God's existence are inadequate. He attempts to show that the chance that there really is a God is very small. He attempts to show that religions could exist, even prosper, for purely naturalistic reasons. He attempts to show that belief in God is not just misguided, but dangerous.
I wish to muse about Dawkins' treatment of religion. Although he is opposed to belief in any God, or gods, Dawkins concentrates on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. As I understand him, this is because he thinks that those religions are those most influential in Western thought, or at least those that people who speak English are most likely to pay attention to.
Dawkins has occasionally compared belief in a supernatural God to belief in the tooth fairy. Alister McGrath has taken Dawkins to task on this. Dawkins has even said that ignorance of theology is not a problem, because "Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content." (This was before the publication of The God Delusion, which book indicates that Dawkins does have at least some knowledge of Christian theology, although some critics have said that he doesn't have much such knowledge.) It could be that Dawkins is correct, and that there is neither a God nor a tooth fairy. But belief in a God is often not the same as belief in the tooth fairy. Unfortunately, some people will fight to the death, or commit cold-blooded murder, based on what they say is a belief in God. No one murders because she believes in the tooth fairy. It is also true that there have been many cases, some prominent, most not so much, of people coming to belief in a God as adults. I've never heard of an adult who came to believe in the tooth fairy.
Dawkins discusses a number of attempted proofs of God's existence. One that he leaves out is fulfilled prophecy. I would suppose that Dawkins thinks that there is no such thing, and he may be right, but Jews and Christians believe that the Bible sets forth a number of such prophecies, made by a person speaking for God, which came true. Two such examples are prophecies that the descendants of Abraham would inherit the land of Canaan, and that they would live in Egypt for over 400 years, but return to Canaan, and control it. There are many more such prophecies, including some which have yet to be fulfilled.
Dawkins discusses a comment by C. S. Lewis, who said:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: What One Must Believe to Be a Christian. New York: Macmillan, 1952. pp. 56-57. I doubt if Dawkins ever read this himself, but if he did, he missed the point. Dawkins writes:
A common argument, attributed among others to C. S. Lewis (who should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or insane or a liar: 'Mad, Bad or God.' . . . A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. (p. 92).
Dawkins is correct that this is a possibility. But if Jesus had been mistaken about this, then He wouldn't be worth being called, and followed, as Lord, any more than He would have been worth that submission if He had been a raving lunatic.
In a previous post, I described how an atheist scientist criticized some of Dawkins' attempt to explain the existence of religions, assuming that supernatural beings do not exist.
A review of the The God Delusion in the New York Times includes the following statement: "Despite the many flashes of brilliance in this book, Dawkins’s failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience."
A review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books is scathing: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
The God Delusion is an important book, but it has some serious weaknesses in its treatment of Christianity.
Thanks for reading.
In this book, Dawkins explicitly says that he is trying to convert people to atheism. How well did he do? It's hard to say. The book has sold millions of copies, and, presumably, most of the people who purchased it read at least some of it. Others, like me, are using library copies of the work. Perhaps some of these people have been converted to atheism. Probably many more have found their atheism strengthened.
How does Dawkins attempt to convert? His plan is straightforward. He attempts to show that the classic proofs of God's existence are inadequate. He attempts to show that the chance that there really is a God is very small. He attempts to show that religions could exist, even prosper, for purely naturalistic reasons. He attempts to show that belief in God is not just misguided, but dangerous.
I wish to muse about Dawkins' treatment of religion. Although he is opposed to belief in any God, or gods, Dawkins concentrates on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. As I understand him, this is because he thinks that those religions are those most influential in Western thought, or at least those that people who speak English are most likely to pay attention to.
Dawkins has occasionally compared belief in a supernatural God to belief in the tooth fairy. Alister McGrath has taken Dawkins to task on this. Dawkins has even said that ignorance of theology is not a problem, because "Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content." (This was before the publication of The God Delusion, which book indicates that Dawkins does have at least some knowledge of Christian theology, although some critics have said that he doesn't have much such knowledge.) It could be that Dawkins is correct, and that there is neither a God nor a tooth fairy. But belief in a God is often not the same as belief in the tooth fairy. Unfortunately, some people will fight to the death, or commit cold-blooded murder, based on what they say is a belief in God. No one murders because she believes in the tooth fairy. It is also true that there have been many cases, some prominent, most not so much, of people coming to belief in a God as adults. I've never heard of an adult who came to believe in the tooth fairy.
Dawkins discusses a number of attempted proofs of God's existence. One that he leaves out is fulfilled prophecy. I would suppose that Dawkins thinks that there is no such thing, and he may be right, but Jews and Christians believe that the Bible sets forth a number of such prophecies, made by a person speaking for God, which came true. Two such examples are prophecies that the descendants of Abraham would inherit the land of Canaan, and that they would live in Egypt for over 400 years, but return to Canaan, and control it. There are many more such prophecies, including some which have yet to be fulfilled.
Dawkins discusses a comment by C. S. Lewis, who said:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: What One Must Believe to Be a Christian. New York: Macmillan, 1952. pp. 56-57. I doubt if Dawkins ever read this himself, but if he did, he missed the point. Dawkins writes:
A common argument, attributed among others to C. S. Lewis (who should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or insane or a liar: 'Mad, Bad or God.' . . . A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. (p. 92).
Dawkins is correct that this is a possibility. But if Jesus had been mistaken about this, then He wouldn't be worth being called, and followed, as Lord, any more than He would have been worth that submission if He had been a raving lunatic.
In a previous post, I described how an atheist scientist criticized some of Dawkins' attempt to explain the existence of religions, assuming that supernatural beings do not exist.
A review of the The God Delusion in the New York Times includes the following statement: "Despite the many flashes of brilliance in this book, Dawkins’s failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience."
A review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books is scathing: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
The God Delusion is an important book, but it has some serious weaknesses in its treatment of Christianity.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Two published criticisms of Dawkins
I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, I shall briefly consider two published criticisms of the book, which, it seems to me, are from sources that must be taken seriously.
The first is by Antony Flew. Flew, as Dawkins put it, ". . . announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity . . ." (p. 82). The conversion was from atheism. Dawkins not only implied that Flew had become senile (why else mention his age?) but criticized him for accepting an award related to Intelligent Design. (See here for my own problems with the Intelligent Design movement.)
Flew responded. His strongest criticism is this: "But an academic attacking some ideological position that he believes to be mistaken must, of course, attack that position in its strongest form." Flew says that Dawkins has not done this, in particular in respect to the beliefs of Einstein. Indeed, comparing the use of quotations from Einstein (see the index in The God Delusion, which index is excellent) with those in the Wikipedia article on "Albert Einstein's religious views" is interesting. Dawkins claims that Einstein's statements that seem to indicate that he was a deist ". . . are pantheistic, not deistic . . .." (p. 18.) The Wikipedia article on Einstein's religious views quotes Einstein as explicitly saying that he was neither a pantheist nor an atheist. For some reason, they do not give documentation for that quotation, but this may be at least a secondary source. I have previously posted, discussing Dawkins' tendency to find that prominent individuals were atheists, when the persons he found such denied it. Flew's criticism seems well-founded, in the case of Einstein, at least.
The New York Times publishes reviews of important books. They published a review of The God Delusion, by Jim Holt, who was presumably a well-qualified reviewer. In his review, he criticizes Dawkins in a number of ways. Holt, according to the note at the end of the review, was working on a book on the existence of God. He said that "The least satisfying part of this book is Dawkins’s treatment of the traditional arguments for the existence of God." Holt has other important criticisms of The God Delusion, and I will deal with some of them in further posts, God willing. (One of the criticisms has already been considered, in this post.)
Thanks for reading.
The first is by Antony Flew. Flew, as Dawkins put it, ". . . announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity . . ." (p. 82). The conversion was from atheism. Dawkins not only implied that Flew had become senile (why else mention his age?) but criticized him for accepting an award related to Intelligent Design. (See here for my own problems with the Intelligent Design movement.)
Flew responded. His strongest criticism is this: "But an academic attacking some ideological position that he believes to be mistaken must, of course, attack that position in its strongest form." Flew says that Dawkins has not done this, in particular in respect to the beliefs of Einstein. Indeed, comparing the use of quotations from Einstein (see the index in The God Delusion, which index is excellent) with those in the Wikipedia article on "Albert Einstein's religious views" is interesting. Dawkins claims that Einstein's statements that seem to indicate that he was a deist ". . . are pantheistic, not deistic . . .." (p. 18.) The Wikipedia article on Einstein's religious views quotes Einstein as explicitly saying that he was neither a pantheist nor an atheist. For some reason, they do not give documentation for that quotation, but this may be at least a secondary source. I have previously posted, discussing Dawkins' tendency to find that prominent individuals were atheists, when the persons he found such denied it. Flew's criticism seems well-founded, in the case of Einstein, at least.
The New York Times publishes reviews of important books. They published a review of The God Delusion, by Jim Holt, who was presumably a well-qualified reviewer. In his review, he criticizes Dawkins in a number of ways. Holt, according to the note at the end of the review, was working on a book on the existence of God. He said that "The least satisfying part of this book is Dawkins’s treatment of the traditional arguments for the existence of God." Holt has other important criticisms of The God Delusion, and I will deal with some of them in further posts, God willing. (One of the criticisms has already been considered, in this post.)
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: memes and group selection
I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, I discussed Dawkins' explicit atheist bias.
I now wish to muse about a concept Dawkins uses, namely the concept of a meme, a concept which Dawkins originated, or at least brought to prominence, in his The Selfish Gene. Dawkins says that religion is largely useless, or worse, but acknowledges that the fact that most people subscribe to some sort of religion. If religion gives people a disadvantage, why hasn't natural selection operated against people who have one? Dawkins has an explanation. He says that religion is a meme.
So what is a meme? Well, according to Dawkins, a meme is a unit of culture -- a song, or a way of clothing oneself -- that can be replicated and passed along from person to person. It seems pretty clear that some songs, and some ways of clothing ourselves, can, indeed, be passed along to others, even though they aren't our descendants. Often this is done quite rapidly. Dawkins believes that various religious ideas are memes. He cites some examples: believing in a life after death; being specially blessed if you die a martyr's death for your religion; non-believers should be punished, even killed; belief in a supreme being; and others. (pp. 199-200).
Religious ideas, at least some of them, seem to run counter to what would be expected if natural selection operates as most scientists think it does. For example, being celibate, like Catholic priests are supposed to, or many female Protestant missionaries have done, would seem to work strongly against passing your genes on to the next generation. There is a branch of biology that concerns itself with apparent altruistic behavior. There are several possible explanations for it, all compatible with natural selection, which explain, in one way or another, how sacrificing oneself may really help the sacrificer's genes to be passed on. For example, going to war, and risking death, may make it more likely that your siblings, or other relatives, will survive to pass on genes that they share with you. It is difficult to see how becoming a celibate Protestant missionary helps that person's kin be more successful in passing on genes that they share with her, however.
Dawkins method of dealing with religious behavior that doesn't seem to give an advantage is to explain it as a meme -- something passed on by cultural replication, which can, he believes, be independent of natural selection for genes.
David Sloan Wilson is an evolutionary biologist, an expert on group selection. (There doesn't seem to be an article on him in the Wikipedia, but several of the references cited in the meme article in the link above were authored, or co-authored, by Wilson.) He is an atheist, and, therefore, agrees with Dawkins in many things. But he has two problems with Dawkins, as I read him.
The first problem is that Dawkins is not consistent with how he deals with group selection. How does group selection relate to the topic at hand? The Wikipedia article on the subject gives the example of viruses in a rabbit. If there is a group of viruses infecting rabbit A, and a different group infecting rabbit B, and the first group is genetically programmed to be virulent, and kill the rabbit quickly, then few or none of them will get the chance to pass themselves on to other rabbits. The entire group will be selected against, with respect to group B. It is possible that religious ideas are selected for in that way. A group that consistently works together to defend itself would probably be selected for more strongly than a group that doesn't cooperate. A group that is honest with each other might be less prone to stress and injury than one that deceives.
Says Wilson: One of the sleights of hand performed by Dawkins in The God Delusion, which takes a practiced eye to detect, is to first dismiss group selection and then to respectfully cite the work of Richerson and Boyd—without mentioning that their theory of cultural evolution is all about group selection. - Wilson, "Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Dawkins is Wrong About Religion," eSkeptic, July-Dec 2007.
Wilson's second problem is that he has studied religious behavior, and finds that much of it is of considerable practical value.That means that it should be selected for. People practicing, for example, refraining from smoking, for religious reasons, should be more likely to leave offspring than people who smoke.
So, Wilson, an important atheist scientist, has problems with Dawkins' science, and his characterization of religion.
Thanks for reading.
I now wish to muse about a concept Dawkins uses, namely the concept of a meme, a concept which Dawkins originated, or at least brought to prominence, in his The Selfish Gene. Dawkins says that religion is largely useless, or worse, but acknowledges that the fact that most people subscribe to some sort of religion. If religion gives people a disadvantage, why hasn't natural selection operated against people who have one? Dawkins has an explanation. He says that religion is a meme.
So what is a meme? Well, according to Dawkins, a meme is a unit of culture -- a song, or a way of clothing oneself -- that can be replicated and passed along from person to person. It seems pretty clear that some songs, and some ways of clothing ourselves, can, indeed, be passed along to others, even though they aren't our descendants. Often this is done quite rapidly. Dawkins believes that various religious ideas are memes. He cites some examples: believing in a life after death; being specially blessed if you die a martyr's death for your religion; non-believers should be punished, even killed; belief in a supreme being; and others. (pp. 199-200).
Religious ideas, at least some of them, seem to run counter to what would be expected if natural selection operates as most scientists think it does. For example, being celibate, like Catholic priests are supposed to, or many female Protestant missionaries have done, would seem to work strongly against passing your genes on to the next generation. There is a branch of biology that concerns itself with apparent altruistic behavior. There are several possible explanations for it, all compatible with natural selection, which explain, in one way or another, how sacrificing oneself may really help the sacrificer's genes to be passed on. For example, going to war, and risking death, may make it more likely that your siblings, or other relatives, will survive to pass on genes that they share with you. It is difficult to see how becoming a celibate Protestant missionary helps that person's kin be more successful in passing on genes that they share with her, however.
Dawkins method of dealing with religious behavior that doesn't seem to give an advantage is to explain it as a meme -- something passed on by cultural replication, which can, he believes, be independent of natural selection for genes.
David Sloan Wilson is an evolutionary biologist, an expert on group selection. (There doesn't seem to be an article on him in the Wikipedia, but several of the references cited in the meme article in the link above were authored, or co-authored, by Wilson.) He is an atheist, and, therefore, agrees with Dawkins in many things. But he has two problems with Dawkins, as I read him.
The first problem is that Dawkins is not consistent with how he deals with group selection. How does group selection relate to the topic at hand? The Wikipedia article on the subject gives the example of viruses in a rabbit. If there is a group of viruses infecting rabbit A, and a different group infecting rabbit B, and the first group is genetically programmed to be virulent, and kill the rabbit quickly, then few or none of them will get the chance to pass themselves on to other rabbits. The entire group will be selected against, with respect to group B. It is possible that religious ideas are selected for in that way. A group that consistently works together to defend itself would probably be selected for more strongly than a group that doesn't cooperate. A group that is honest with each other might be less prone to stress and injury than one that deceives.
Says Wilson: One of the sleights of hand performed by Dawkins in The God Delusion, which takes a practiced eye to detect, is to first dismiss group selection and then to respectfully cite the work of Richerson and Boyd—without mentioning that their theory of cultural evolution is all about group selection. - Wilson, "Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Dawkins is Wrong About Religion," eSkeptic, July-Dec 2007.
Wilson's second problem is that he has studied religious behavior, and finds that much of it is of considerable practical value.That means that it should be selected for. People practicing, for example, refraining from smoking, for religious reasons, should be more likely to leave offspring than people who smoke.
So, Wilson, an important atheist scientist, has problems with Dawkins' science, and his characterization of religion.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Dawkins' bias
Some time ago, I posted on a book by Alister McGrath, who criticized Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I received some comments on that post. One of those comments said that I had mistakenly said that Dawkins claimed to have proved that God doesn't exist. The commenter was correct, and I was mistaken. I apologize.
I have since read The God Delusion, and wish to comment on what Dawkins actually said in the book.
First, as Dawkins admits, this is a book of advocacy. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." (p. 5) There's nothing wrong with advocacy, but it should not be confused with unbiased scholarship (if there is any such thing).
Dawkins shows his bias occasionally. He claims that several prominent thinkers, including some of the founding fathers (38-9), were atheists, although they called themselves deists.
One of the most remarkable statements in The God Delusion is this: "I simply do not believe that Gould could have possibly meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages." (57) See this Wikipedia article on Gould's book. What Stephen Jay Gould wrote was that religion and science each have a valid place, and are useful for different things. Dawkins doesn't bring any evidence to support his belief that Gould didn't mean what he said. Why should Gould have written a book with a central claim that he didn't believe? Gould was a scientist with impeccable credentials, and also perhaps the most important communicator of science to the public in the US at that time. His stature, and experience, were surely such that he had no need to write something he didn't want to. That would almost be the equivalent of someone saying that Dawkins really is, say, a closet Buddhist. It's hard to imagine anyone saying that Gould wrote a book that he didn't believe in, and, I'm afraid, claiming that he did shows Dawkins' strong bias. Here is a short excerpt from Gould's book:
I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values-subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science.* Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballentine, 1999, pp. 4-5.
And here is a quotation from an essay by Gould, written earlier, that presents the same idea:
I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion…If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" Natural History 106:16-22; 60-62, March, 1997. Quote is from pages 61 and 62.
I can't believe (because of my own bias, perhaps) that a tenured scientist who had the ear of the public, had written several well-received books, and had written that he is not a religious man, should have been so afraid of stating atheistic beliefs, that he wrote positively about the validity of religious thought.
Why would Dawkins say that people who claimed not to be atheists were, in fact, atheists? Well, one reason, of course, is that, just as some conservative Christians claim that all the Founding Fathers had beliefs compatible with theirs, either in spite of the evidence, or without examining it, Dawkins wants to show that the beliefs of prominent people were compatible with his. He wants this to be true so badly that he makes unsubstantiated claims. In fairness, there is another reason that has some validity, namely that atheists may be afraid to be labeled as such, especially in the US. Dawkins mentions that. But I don't accept that as an explanation for Gould's book, nor do I accept that all Founding Fathers who said that they were deists were actually atheists, but were afraid to say so.
As this Wikipedia article on Deism puts it (accessed February 2, 2010): Currently there is an ongoing controversy in the United States over whether or not the country was founded as a "Christian nation" based on Judeo-Christian ideals. This has spawned a subsidiary controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.
Note that the article does not even mention that they might have been atheists.
So Dawkins is biased. That's common, in books of advocacy, and forgivable, but it means that Dawkins' claims in this book should be treated with considerable skepticism.
I close this post (I expect there will be a few more on this subject) with a confession, or retraction. In an earlier post, I said that Dawkins claimed that he had proved that God does not exist. For the few who read this blog, including the previous post, I'm sorry. I was carried away by my own bias, and shouldn't have been. Dawkins did not really say that. He does say that he has good evidence that God does not exist, but does not make the stronger claim.
Thanks for reading.
*Lest there be any doubt, I disagree with Gould. I believe that, if we could interpret scientific and Biblical evidence correctly (and we have problems with both) they would agree. I can't prove that, but I believe it.
I have since read The God Delusion, and wish to comment on what Dawkins actually said in the book.
First, as Dawkins admits, this is a book of advocacy. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." (p. 5) There's nothing wrong with advocacy, but it should not be confused with unbiased scholarship (if there is any such thing).
Dawkins shows his bias occasionally. He claims that several prominent thinkers, including some of the founding fathers (38-9), were atheists, although they called themselves deists.
One of the most remarkable statements in The God Delusion is this: "I simply do not believe that Gould could have possibly meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages." (57) See this Wikipedia article on Gould's book. What Stephen Jay Gould wrote was that religion and science each have a valid place, and are useful for different things. Dawkins doesn't bring any evidence to support his belief that Gould didn't mean what he said. Why should Gould have written a book with a central claim that he didn't believe? Gould was a scientist with impeccable credentials, and also perhaps the most important communicator of science to the public in the US at that time. His stature, and experience, were surely such that he had no need to write something he didn't want to. That would almost be the equivalent of someone saying that Dawkins really is, say, a closet Buddhist. It's hard to imagine anyone saying that Gould wrote a book that he didn't believe in, and, I'm afraid, claiming that he did shows Dawkins' strong bias. Here is a short excerpt from Gould's book:
I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values-subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science.* Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballentine, 1999, pp. 4-5.
And here is a quotation from an essay by Gould, written earlier, that presents the same idea:
I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion…If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" Natural History 106:16-22; 60-62, March, 1997. Quote is from pages 61 and 62.
I can't believe (because of my own bias, perhaps) that a tenured scientist who had the ear of the public, had written several well-received books, and had written that he is not a religious man, should have been so afraid of stating atheistic beliefs, that he wrote positively about the validity of religious thought.
Why would Dawkins say that people who claimed not to be atheists were, in fact, atheists? Well, one reason, of course, is that, just as some conservative Christians claim that all the Founding Fathers had beliefs compatible with theirs, either in spite of the evidence, or without examining it, Dawkins wants to show that the beliefs of prominent people were compatible with his. He wants this to be true so badly that he makes unsubstantiated claims. In fairness, there is another reason that has some validity, namely that atheists may be afraid to be labeled as such, especially in the US. Dawkins mentions that. But I don't accept that as an explanation for Gould's book, nor do I accept that all Founding Fathers who said that they were deists were actually atheists, but were afraid to say so.
As this Wikipedia article on Deism puts it (accessed February 2, 2010): Currently there is an ongoing controversy in the United States over whether or not the country was founded as a "Christian nation" based on Judeo-Christian ideals. This has spawned a subsidiary controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.
Note that the article does not even mention that they might have been atheists.
So Dawkins is biased. That's common, in books of advocacy, and forgivable, but it means that Dawkins' claims in this book should be treated with considerable skepticism.
I close this post (I expect there will be a few more on this subject) with a confession, or retraction. In an earlier post, I said that Dawkins claimed that he had proved that God does not exist. For the few who read this blog, including the previous post, I'm sorry. I was carried away by my own bias, and shouldn't have been. Dawkins did not really say that. He does say that he has good evidence that God does not exist, but does not make the stronger claim.
Thanks for reading.
*Lest there be any doubt, I disagree with Gould. I believe that, if we could interpret scientific and Biblical evidence correctly (and we have problems with both) they would agree. I can't prove that, but I believe it.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Alister McGrath on Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is an important writer, with solid scientific credentials. He is the author of a number of books (see the link in the previous sentence). He happens to be an outspoken atheist. One of his books is The God Delusion. The title apparently describes Dawkins' belief and message. (I haven't read the book, although I have read some other books by Dawkins, and found them worthwhile.)
The first book I finished reading in 2010 was The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath, with some assistance from his wife, Joan McGrath. It is a short book (96 pages plus additional scholarly apparatus), easy to read, and focused, from InterVarsity Press. The focus is to show that Dawkins, a scientist, is an atheist fundamentalist, relying not on evidence, but on his own beliefs, in his passion to show that there is no God. McGrath has a doctorate in science from Oxford University, so knows a little something about that field.
Dawkins, says McGrath, has confused his presuppositions with his conclusions, and is acting much like, say, Muslim fundamentalists, who are not willing to even listen to any doctrine that does not agree with their own. Based on McGrath's evidence, and my previous knowledge of Dawkins, I agree. The most damaging item cited by McGrath is Dawkins' reaction to Rocks of Ages, by the late Stephen Jay Gould, a well-credentialed scientist who was also a splendid popularizer of science. In Rocks of Ages, Gould proposed that science and Christianity did not need to be in conflict -- they examine phenomena that don't interact. (I think Gould was wrong about the non-interacting part, but correct that science and Christianity do not need to be in conflict, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.) But Dawkins says, according to McGrath: "I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages." (p. 34 of McGrath, quoting p. 57 of The God Delusion.) I can just imagine Dawkins' reaction to, say, Billy Graham writing that he simply does not believe that Dawkins could possibly meant it when he said that God didn't exist.
McGrath has also written Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. It is a longer book, with the same purpose. Currently, I have no plans to read it, nor The God Delusion. I will quote from the Wikipedia article on the book, which gives part of Dawkins' response to it, in particular to the charge that Dawkins doesn't know very much about Christianity:
Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?
In The Dawkins Delusion, McGrath has met that criticism, saying, approximately, that, for example, you may believe astrology to be totally false, but that if you were writing a 400+ page book denouncing it, you should have most of your facts right.
McGrath is not totally anti-Dawkins, by any means. He says that he considers Dawkins' The Selfish Gene to be a fine book. (I agree.)
God cannot be proved, or disproved, in anybody's laboratory. He is apprehended by faith (See Hebrews 11:3) and then, as a result of this faith, we can see Him, or at least His work, in molecules and mountains, gnats and galaxies.
Thanks for reading.
The first book I finished reading in 2010 was The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath, with some assistance from his wife, Joan McGrath. It is a short book (96 pages plus additional scholarly apparatus), easy to read, and focused, from InterVarsity Press. The focus is to show that Dawkins, a scientist, is an atheist fundamentalist, relying not on evidence, but on his own beliefs, in his passion to show that there is no God. McGrath has a doctorate in science from Oxford University, so knows a little something about that field.
Dawkins, says McGrath, has confused his presuppositions with his conclusions, and is acting much like, say, Muslim fundamentalists, who are not willing to even listen to any doctrine that does not agree with their own. Based on McGrath's evidence, and my previous knowledge of Dawkins, I agree. The most damaging item cited by McGrath is Dawkins' reaction to Rocks of Ages, by the late Stephen Jay Gould, a well-credentialed scientist who was also a splendid popularizer of science. In Rocks of Ages, Gould proposed that science and Christianity did not need to be in conflict -- they examine phenomena that don't interact. (I think Gould was wrong about the non-interacting part, but correct that science and Christianity do not need to be in conflict, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.) But Dawkins says, according to McGrath: "I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages." (p. 34 of McGrath, quoting p. 57 of The God Delusion.) I can just imagine Dawkins' reaction to, say, Billy Graham writing that he simply does not believe that Dawkins could possibly meant it when he said that God didn't exist.
McGrath has also written Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. It is a longer book, with the same purpose. Currently, I have no plans to read it, nor The God Delusion. I will quote from the Wikipedia article on the book, which gives part of Dawkins' response to it, in particular to the charge that Dawkins doesn't know very much about Christianity:
Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?
In The Dawkins Delusion, McGrath has met that criticism, saying, approximately, that, for example, you may believe astrology to be totally false, but that if you were writing a 400+ page book denouncing it, you should have most of your facts right.
McGrath is not totally anti-Dawkins, by any means. He says that he considers Dawkins' The Selfish Gene to be a fine book. (I agree.)
God cannot be proved, or disproved, in anybody's laboratory. He is apprehended by faith (See Hebrews 11:3) and then, as a result of this faith, we can see Him, or at least His work, in molecules and mountains, gnats and galaxies.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Morality of Richard Dawkins
I have read In Defence of the Soul, by Keith Ward. He argues that a completely materialistic view of life makes no sense, and points out that some of those who have argued for such a view are inconsistent:
When the destroyers of the soul have done their work, they usually turn back from the moral consequences of their theories, and end with a rather lame and totally unconvincing attempt to reinstate a modified version of traditional morality. We have seen this in Jacques Monod, in Erich Fromm and Karl Marx in slightly different ways. A particularly clear example can be found on the last page of Richard Dawkins' very entertaining book, The Selfish Gene. Having argued for 214 pages that human life is totally governed by the genes, 'unconscious, blind, replicators', he now says, in the last sentence or two, 'It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another . . .' This is suitably tentative, but his last sentence reads: 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'* The questions this raises are obvious. How can rational, responsible, altruistic, purposive, conscious conduct be accounted for on such a materialist theory? Why should he hope that altruism is possible, unless he really does have a basic sense of moral obligation? And isn't it odd to see morality as a rebellion against our true natures, instead of as a fulfilment of their potentialities? Keith Ward, In Defence of the Soul. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 1998. p. 161.
*cites Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976) p. 215.
Thanks for reading.
When the destroyers of the soul have done their work, they usually turn back from the moral consequences of their theories, and end with a rather lame and totally unconvincing attempt to reinstate a modified version of traditional morality. We have seen this in Jacques Monod, in Erich Fromm and Karl Marx in slightly different ways. A particularly clear example can be found on the last page of Richard Dawkins' very entertaining book, The Selfish Gene. Having argued for 214 pages that human life is totally governed by the genes, 'unconscious, blind, replicators', he now says, in the last sentence or two, 'It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another . . .' This is suitably tentative, but his last sentence reads: 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'* The questions this raises are obvious. How can rational, responsible, altruistic, purposive, conscious conduct be accounted for on such a materialist theory? Why should he hope that altruism is possible, unless he really does have a basic sense of moral obligation? And isn't it odd to see morality as a rebellion against our true natures, instead of as a fulfilment of their potentialities? Keith Ward, In Defence of the Soul. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 1998. p. 161.
*cites Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976) p. 215.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Antony Flew on The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, was a best-selling book. The title pretty much explains it.
In the December, 2008 issue of First Things, Antony Flew, who recently converted from atheism to deism, and is mentioned in The God Delusion, responds, in a page or two, to Dawkins. Two things that he says struck me.
First, Flew says that Dawkins is a bigot -- that is, one who is intolerant of other beliefs.
Second, Flew writes that Dawkins is, as a consequence of his bigotry, guilty of an academic sin:
"But an academic attacking some ideological position that he believes to be mistaken must, of course, attack that position in its strongest form." Flew argues that Dawkins has not done that -- he has misrepresented the case for God.
Thanks for reading.
In the December, 2008 issue of First Things, Antony Flew, who recently converted from atheism to deism, and is mentioned in The God Delusion, responds, in a page or two, to Dawkins. Two things that he says struck me.
First, Flew says that Dawkins is a bigot -- that is, one who is intolerant of other beliefs.
Second, Flew writes that Dawkins is, as a consequence of his bigotry, guilty of an academic sin:
"But an academic attacking some ideological position that he believes to be mistaken must, of course, attack that position in its strongest form." Flew argues that Dawkins has not done that -- he has misrepresented the case for God.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Sunspots 144
Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:
Science:
From Edge's annual series of questions posed to various interesting people, the question that begins the year 2008 being "What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" a response from Richard Dawkins, which begins thus:
When a politician changes his mind, he is a 'flip-flopper.' Politicians will do almost anything to disown the virtue — as some of us might see it — of flexibility. Margaret Thatcher said, "The lady is not for turning." Tony Blair said, "I don't have a reverse gear." Leading Democratic Presidential candidates, whose original decision to vote in favour of invading Iraq had been based on information believed in good faith but now known to be false, still stand by their earlier error for fear of the dread accusation: 'flip-flopper'. How very different is the world of science. Scientists actually gain kudos through changing their minds. If a scientist cannot come up with an example where he has changed his mind during his career, he is hidebound, rigid, inflexible, dogmatic! It is not really all that paradoxical, when you think about it further, that prestige in politics and science should push in opposite directions.
Politics:
A proposal to end the oil addiction of the US.
Sports:
Brenda Frese, coach of Maryland's women's basketball team, is due to have twins in March. This has changed the way she coaches . . .
Christianity:
Katherine has discovered that there is a UK version of the NIV English Bible. (Seems appropriate!)
Bonnie has, as one comment says, "opened a can of worms," on gender roles and the Fall (among other things). Read the post, and the comments which follow.
Bonnie has another post on gender roles, later.
This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.
Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.
Image source (public domain)
Saturday, March 31, 2007
News I wish I had seen
Lest there be any doubt, this is a pre-April Fools' Day post. (I try to reserve Sunday for more devotional items) It's also a post-Van Gogh's birthday post.
You read it here first (and probably won't read it anywhere else, ever):
1) Wal-Mart, Macy's, J. C. Penney, Sears, Lands' End, and other prominent makers and suppliers of women's clothing have agreed that, since a 28 inch waist is a 28 inch waist, no matter whose belt you are wearing, that they will work toward making womens' clothing sizes uniform. If you wear a 10 from Ross's, a 10 from Talbot's will fit, they say.
2) Richard Dawkins has announced that he believes that there is credible evidence for a God.
3) Taking a page from Northern Ireland, Sunnis and Shiites have come to an amicable agreement on sharing oil revenues in Iraq, and Israelis and Palestinians have agreed on a just and amicable settlement of their differences. Most people expect to see a viable democracy in Iraq, with representation from Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, within six months, and also expect to see an independent Palestinian state, which has full diplomatic recognition of Israel, within the same time.
4) A consortium of health insurance companies have announced that they will work with Congress and the President on a smooth transition to universal health coverage in the U. S.
5) President Bush announced that he was sorry for the time and effort spent in the "War on Terror" in Iraq, while Osama Bin Laden, the stated original motivation for the attack, has been largely ignored. The President announced that there would be a renewed search for Bin Laden. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards made a joint statement saying that they accepted the apology, and promised to back the President in this renewed venture.
What news do you wish you had seen?
Thanks for reading.
You read it here first (and probably won't read it anywhere else, ever):
1) Wal-Mart, Macy's, J. C. Penney, Sears, Lands' End, and other prominent makers and suppliers of women's clothing have agreed that, since a 28 inch waist is a 28 inch waist, no matter whose belt you are wearing, that they will work toward making womens' clothing sizes uniform. If you wear a 10 from Ross's, a 10 from Talbot's will fit, they say.
2) Richard Dawkins has announced that he believes that there is credible evidence for a God.
3) Taking a page from Northern Ireland, Sunnis and Shiites have come to an amicable agreement on sharing oil revenues in Iraq, and Israelis and Palestinians have agreed on a just and amicable settlement of their differences. Most people expect to see a viable democracy in Iraq, with representation from Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, within six months, and also expect to see an independent Palestinian state, which has full diplomatic recognition of Israel, within the same time.
4) A consortium of health insurance companies have announced that they will work with Congress and the President on a smooth transition to universal health coverage in the U. S.
5) President Bush announced that he was sorry for the time and effort spent in the "War on Terror" in Iraq, while Osama Bin Laden, the stated original motivation for the attack, has been largely ignored. The President announced that there would be a renewed search for Bin Laden. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards made a joint statement saying that they accepted the apology, and promised to back the President in this renewed venture.
What news do you wish you had seen?
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)