Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Tonight, Richard Dawkins will speak at KU's Lied Center from 7:30 to 9, followed the next morning with a less formal Q&A. In preparation for that, here are some thoughts on The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
In responding to Atrios' comment that "When people start invoking religion in discussing issues …it's utterly meaningless to me personally," slacktivist points out that "Sectarian language isn't much use when trying to communicate with people outside of the sect." Fred continues:
This is why it's necessary for religious believers to adopt the common language of others when speaking to those outside of our particular communities. Religious language needs to be translated into intermediary terms and principles that others can understand, appreciate and engage.This is where most works of evangelism fail, and why evangelism can be so annoying. While Dawkins' book is less obnoxiously self-important than works of Christian apologetics can be, it still doesn't quite seem interested in understanding the beliefs of people who aren't Richard Dawkins. Like other works of apologetics, I expect it will serve best in appealing to those inclined to agree with it to begin with.
Alas, I am doomed not to join that elect group. Scientists like me, who do not believe it's necessary to wage war on supernatural beliefs, come in for nearly as much opprobrium as do people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Of a passage from Gould's Rocks of Ages in which Gould makes what I feel is a standard view that science and religion address non-overlapping sets of questions, Dawkins writes "this sounds terrific – right up until you give it a moment's thought." Throughout the book, any attempt at accommodation is dismissed as political posturing, "bending over backwards to be nice to an unworthy but powerful opponent." It's hard to be kind in reviewing a work that compares you to Neville Chamberlain.
Agnostics come in for similar criticism. The problem again is that Dawkins is unable to engage with the actual beliefs that other people have. Because he disagrees with Gould's, Dawkins "simply do[es] not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rock of Ages." Dawkins rejects attempts at labeling him a "fundamentalist," but this inability to recognize that other people think differently about the matter seems to define fundamentalist belief.
At times, the problem seems less like the accidental inability to appreciate how other people perceive metaphysics, and more like his is intentionally setting up straw men. In his survey of theist and supernatural beliefs, he skips Taoism entirely, and is oddly dismissive of the sort of spiritualism that Einstein and many others happily espouse. He essentially defines those beliefs away. People who have those beliefs may consider them religious, but since it isn't what Dawkins is arguing against, he advances a narrower definition of theism that even some theologians would not accept.
For Dawkins, "a theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation." A prominent theology in the last century has been "process theology." In this approach, the concept of free will is extended beyond rational beings to all of existence. God does not directly manipulate the world, God merely has the power to persuade. God does not create ex nihilo, nor does God personal intervene in the material world. Indeed, events in the material world can change the deity over time, leading to the sort of ethical progress that Dawkins demonstrates in his chapter on the inadequacy of theistic morality.
Process theology exists as a result of serious intellectual work by theologians and religious thinkers. It would have been to Dawkins' advantage to engage with the existence of such serious religious thought, rather than dismiss the idea of a deity as delusional off the bat.
Arguments that genuinely engage what people think and that offer new information, are more useful to all involved than restating the same arguments people have always made. Pointing out that the Old Testament has some weird stories and endorses morally unacceptable practices won't change anyone's mind about it.
In that sense, the most important and original section for me comes towards the end, when Dawkins raises the entirely valid point that we ought not to refer to children as "Catholic children," "Muslim children," "Jewish children," etc., any more than we would refer to them as "Keynesian children," "Monetarist children" or "Marxist children." Religion is not genetic, and a child raised in a particular religious setting should not be labeled with a particular religion until they actually are mature enough to choose a set of metaphysical commitments.
Unfortunately, that part of the book is brief, and embedded in a chapter that invests too much effort arguing that religious indoctrination is – or at least can be – as a greater violation than childhood sexual abuse. The flaw is laced through the book – bad effects of religion are offered as arguments against any sort of belief in anything supernatural, while attempts to invoke the positive that has come from such beliefs is dismissed a priori as irrelevant. "Religion's power to console," Dawkins writes, "doesn't make it true." A fair point, but not necessarily a compelling argument against religion, either.
Dawkins invests substantial effort presenting evolution as an argument against theism, that (as he says several times) the universe as we know it is unlike what we should expect from one that is designed. While it is certainly true that it is unlike some ways that it could be designed, he never actually develops the argument that a deity would be unlikely to produce a universe like our own. I would argue that he could not possibly make such an argument – a position he mocks, but only because he misunderstands it.
To understand the problem, it's worth picking up a tool from a proof of God's existence that Dawkins rightly rejects – Unwin's Bayesian approach. Unwin applies Bayes' theorem to a set of entirely subjective assessments of the probability of various things if God exists (the sensation of good, the existence of evil, religious experience and miraculous events). Unwin crunches his subjective beliefs about the probability of those things of God exists, and winds up with some large probability of God's existence. Dawkins rightly rejects this as a compelling scientific proof, but doesn't recognize that this example shows the error in treating theism as a scientific hypothesis.
Bayes' rule essentially assesses the probability of the data you observe if your hypothesis were true times the probability of your hypothesis being true relative to the probability of getting that data somehow (the probability of the data given that your hypothesis is true times the probability of your hypothesis being true plus the probability of the data given that your hypothesis is false times the probability that your hypothesis is false). What's nice is that it allows a researcher to add his or her own subjective knowledge to the analysis up front, though enough data ought to wash out the effect of subjective bias.
What is the probability that the universe would look the way it does if there were no God? If there were? How do we assess those probabilities scientifically? God is, by definition, capable of creating anything, and without knowing a great deal more than we do about God's will, it would be the height of hubris to insist that we know what God would prefer. It is possible to assess the probability of some event due to known natural causes, but without knowing the other part of the equation, our subjective assessment of the probability of God's existence will dominate the equation.
People who approach the equation thinking that God almost surely exists will find confirmation for that belief in everything. People who think God almost surely doesn't exist will find confirmation for that belief everywhere. And people who think that it isn't coherent to attach a probability to God's existence (a category Dawkins ignores entirely) will also reject the idea that additional evidence could possibly allow someone to assign such a probability.
Having arrived at that conclusion, such a person might well take the position that it's not worth the effort to try to change people's minds about the matter. Dawkins' attempt at addressing the reason why people should care is singularly unimpressive. Chapter 8, "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?" lists a variety of cultural battles, including those over stem cells, equal rights regardless of sexuality, abortion and science in which religion has made itself a roadblock or where it has inspired violence.
The argument is that faith per se is harmful, and should be replaced by more constructive approaches to morality and metaphysics (Dawkins argues that metaphysical questions are unworthy of consideration anyway). The counterargument is that slavery ended in America thanks to religious people, and that Gandhi's and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s religious faiths were essential to their unquestionably good works. Indeed, he manages to discuss how religion drove Fred Phelps to promote his anti-gay bigotry in a protest at Coretta Scott King's funeral without mentioning that King's vocal support for gay rights was itself driven by her religious faith.
Dawkins is an important figure in the battles over science education, so it is, as RSR rightly notes, unfortunate to see his willingness to sacrifice science education in pursuit of a religious war. His attitude seems likely to turn off substantial chunks of his preferred audience, as evidenced by the largely mixed reviews from other sciencebloggers. However, it should make tonight's event quite interesting.
Comments
To be honest I am disappointed you conflate the irrational rubbish of apologetics for Dawkins pointed arguments. Even if you disagree with him there is simply no real comparison between the two.
This is also a bit misleading. Religious people acting in accordance to enlightenment thinking not the ancient texts themselves.
Then one should ask why it won't change someones mind. It should be enough. You don't need new arguments when the old will do just fine.
This is not a result of serious intellectual work. It is the pandering and fantasy of men sitting around trying to wish something into being. Dawkins is correct and your are incorrect here. Where is the evidence for this thinking? Even a shred? With none it is no more/less valid than any other theology.
How can one be a fundamentalist when one simply says produce evidence? It's a ridiculous ploy.
Posted by: Uber | October 16, 2006 1:02 PM
When Dawkins says "Religion's power to console doesn't make it true", you describe it as "a fair point, but not necessarily an argument against religion". It seems to me that that is Dawkins' key point and his most important challenge. Simply, "is it true?" The religious don't seem to be able to deal with that one.
I'm not clear on why supernaturalism is not an issue that science can talk about. Why not? Because Gould said so?
Posted by: RichardW | October 16, 2006 1:47 PM
Einstein the agnostic
stephenjaygould.com
By invoking the "Einstein the spiritualist" falsehood, you discredit your argument.
Oh, and how many Taoists do you think there are, worldwide?
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 1:54 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 1:59 PM
Slavery in the Bible
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 2:07 PM
Chapter 8, "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?" lists a variety of cultural battles, including those over stem cells, equal rights regardless of sexuality, abortion and science in which religion has made itself a roadblock or where it has inspired violence.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know the full list, but....
...often the beliefes of various fundamentalist sects (of Christianity, Islam, or whatever) are touted by the anti-religouis as examples of the societal harm of "religion."
Dawkins should spend some time going to the church I used to attend in Berkeley, the First Congregational Churce of Berkeley. The vast majority of the congregation there, and as close to a consensus as you could get among the staff (lay and ordained) would be on the "Dawkins" side of all of these things. Indeed, at times I felt irritated that being a socialist/liberal in all things had become one of the sacraments.... The fact is that, not only with slavery and the MLK civil rights stuff, many of the religious are, partly because of their religion, on all sides of various issues. That lets some of the air out of the notion that religion itself is responsibible for bad social policies. It's certain type or flavors of religion, or certain interpretations of religion, that support those sorts of things, and indeed those things also often have support from the non-religious.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 2:26 PM
To the extent that religious people were involved in abolition, they were breaking with their religious tradition and embracing enlightenment values of human worth.
Mustafa -- it is only the extreme "biblical authority" fundamentalists, and the virulently anti-religious such as yourself, who seem to think that a literal reading of all of the Bible should represent the true philosophy of a Christian.
That's a straw man for the argument you're trying to make. If you're arguing against Biblical authority types, then, sure, it's a reasonable argument. But that's not what we're talking about here.
It would be much more convenient for you and Dawkins and all of those who hate religion of all Christians were Biblical literalists, for then you would have opponents easy to dismiss. Alas for you, it isn't so.
The fact that some, or even many, in the 19th century used the Bible as partial justification for slavery doesn't invalidate the fact that many then and now saw slavery as anathmea to their overal religious philosophy. Religion, even Christianity, even protestant Christianty, is far from monolithic.
-Rob
Posted by: ob Knop | October 16, 2006 2:31 PM
I raise the issue of abolitionists because Dawkins accepts people's own descriptions of their religious motivations for intolerant and violent behavior, indeed objects when violence between regions of Iraq is not presented as religious. If we are to accept one group's self-description of religious motives, we can't contort ourselves to reject those same self-descriptions when they produce different results.
Mustafa claims that I discredit myself by accepting the Einstein as spiritualist argument. But Dawkins does too, he just doesn't think Einsteinian spirituality counts. "As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional." Dawkins also writes of Einstein's own self-described religiosity (p. 19) "In this sense, I too am religous, with the reservation that "cannot grasp" does not have to mean "forever ungraspable." It isn't clear that Einstein would attach the same caveat, and it is over that point that Dawkins and I disagree.
Richard says "I'm not clear on why supernaturalism is not an issue that science can talk about."
The reason is simple. By definition, the natural is bound by natural laws. It is predictable for that reason, we can test our predictions and learn about the natural in that way. By definition, the supernatural is not bound by natural laws (if it were, it would be natural). The supernatural, then is not predictable and not testable. Science occupies the realm of testability, so science cannot address the supernatural, not even the question of whether the supernatural could possibly exist.
Uber writes: "You don't need new arguments when the old will do just fine."
Clearly the old arguments don't work just fine, or religion would have died out long ago, right? These arguments are either wrong in fact or wrong in approach. I think the latter is more likely. I presume that before dismissing process theology as "not a result of serious intellectual work," Uber actually attempted to read some of the work in the field, gave it a chance, and therefore has some specific reasons for rejecting it. My breath is bated.
After all, rejecting arguments simply because they conflict with one's own beliefs is exactly what's so objectionable about fundamentalism. That ideology refers to religious movements that reject compromise, and insist on a return to fundamental principles of the movement. It's hard not to see Dawkins' uncompromising assault on faith and anyone willing to accept faith in other people as a form of fundamentalism. I stand by what I said. Dawkins dismisses questions that go beyond testability simply because he does not regard them as "legitimate." According to whom? Why is Dawkins entitled to assess what anyone else should find to be "legitimate"?
As for my reference to apologetics, the Wikipedia defines it as "The field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position," including works like Plato's Apology. Is Plato now "irrational rubbish"?
Posted by: Josh | October 16, 2006 3:02 PM
This is an argument that is always baffling. Ever single Christian sect uses the bible and it's reading in some form or another. The entire statement misses the point.
It's not a strawman. Everyone understands that certain religions, actually all, don't take everything literally. The truth is they all pick and choose which is literal and which isn't.
This is a pointless paragraph. ALL Christian sects take parts literally and ALL Christian sects take parts as metaphor. There is no consistency as to which does what.
Then they oppose their supposed divine book. You can call it whatever you like but at least pretending the bible is 100% the word of God is intellectually consistent. To ignore large swathes of it and then say they view slavery as an anathmea is either a tactic admission of the faulty view of the book or the superiority of a secular, rational worldview.
No one doubts that at all. I agree. But Dawkins arguments gain strength here not lose.
Posted by: Uber | October 16, 2006 3:09 PM
Then what is it if not bound by natural laws. Give us one simple tiny example of anything that is as such. Otherwise what are we really talking about here? Just BS correct? Why do people need to cling to the hope of the supernatural for which nothing, not a shred of evidence exists.
That which ahs not been reasoned into cannot be reasoned out of. It's got nothing to do with arguments.
This is the same BS everyone spouts in theology. Your right I could go on in a blog post about why the theology is just as stupid as any other. But until someone provides real evidence one way or the other that process theology has more merit why should one bother. It's intellectual masturbation.
Yeah right. This is fast becoming a tired old canard. Because people reject arguments with no backing or evidence they are fundies. Makes perfect sense. Prove your case. No one said the thoughts aren't interesting, just of no more value than any other.
Right. He says people buying all sorts of ideas without a shred of evidence is not an admirable quality. he says teaching your children about eternal suffering if you don't do this this or this is not admirable. And he is wrong how?
Thats fine. But you are wrong.
To me a legit question has a legit answer. Your correct though in this it is an opinion. One can ask any question they choose but when one thinks you have found the answer you need to support it with something.
This is BS. To a degree I see how you see it. To me I see an attack using pricipled arguments not to enhance atheism but expose the flaws in a irrational mindset.
Posted by: Uber | October 16, 2006 3:22 PM
Josh, all religions claim that supernatural beings have an effect on the natural world (us). Therefore their effects should be measurable, if not predictable. If the supernatural has no effect on the natural world then there's nothing to talk about (except for the fact that billions of people govern there lives, to some degree or other, on the alleged existence of said beings). The scientific method can certainly help us examine the veracity of supernatural claims. I don't want to have to invoke Russell's teapot analogy.
Posted by: RichardW | October 16, 2006 3:37 PM
Totally heartly agree.
And it's funny the amount of irrationality those useless debates generate, especially from the "rational" army...
How much better it would be if Dawkins did some more science again, how I miss the good old times (in fact his BC was one of the major causes of my scientific career).
As Carl Sagan once put it, it's strange seeing how these or the others desperately want God or the universe to be stupid and uninteresting. Luckily there's more than common sense can grasp, and admitting that should not be a capitulation but a stimulus to keep going beyond. Without such an attitude science wouldnt have progressed a millimeter.
Funny how invoking different kinds of "enlightement" as miraculous neverending sources of truth is rarely recognized as superstition.
Too bad Gould is gone, but his insights will survive...
Side note: taoists cant be measured, by construction.
Question for the evening: why do people keep babbling about science without being scientists? Or for the matter about religion without understanding religion?
Posted by: Quartz | October 16, 2006 4:16 PM
1. Religion is like politics everyone has a view and they are all equal.
2. Who does understand religion?
Posted by: GH | October 16, 2006 4:25 PM
To be honest, I never understood this whole debate. If it can be proven using scientific methods, it exists. If it cant, I am confident it doesnt exist. Why should there be any urge to believe something not backed up by facts?
Posted by: Baratos | October 16, 2006 4:26 PM
Richard, do you have an actual case of a supernatural event? Just because people claim that the supernatural is possible, does not will it into existence. I have never witnessed a supernatural event, but how would you even know if it was supernatural? You argue that it is possible for something to occur that was stimulated by non-natural means, so you must have knowledge of a particular non-natural event. What was this event? Asking me to accept that there are phenomenon that cannot be explained by natural processes is meaningless if you have no examples of such a phenomenon. This is why the supernatural is a non-starter for science.
Posted by: James Taylor | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
There is a world of difference between reading the Bible literally and using the bible and its reading in some form or another. If you find that baffling, then you're of just as guilty of simple-minded thinking about reading things that may have meaning as are the Christians who insist that you must accept all of the Bible literally to be a Christian.
Yes, it is clear that you want to "blame" all Christians for the stands and behaviors of the fundamentalits, and yes, it is clear that if it were reasonable to do so your argument would be that much stronger. However, your inability to understand that there is nuance is no more an argument for a conflating of fundamentalists and all of the religions than is the inability of an ID proponent to understand an evolutionary mechanism for something an argument for ID.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 4:42 PM
Invoking free will to save your concept of God is not convincing, as free will itself is a controversial and dubious concept. I don't want to argue about it here though because even the definition of free will is highly controversial.
"There are unusual varieties of religion that are not like the religion actually believed by the vast multitudes of people on this planet" really doesn't get you anywhere. The variety of religions is not an argument for any underlying truth to the concept.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 4:44 PM
It's kinda funny that you say this:
and then this:
Does the failure of Newton's Laws to predict the precession of Mercury, coupled with the fact that we use Newton's Laws every day, devalue the worldview of science? Duh, no. Does the fact that some have used "social Darwinism" as an excuse for horrible social policies and to rationalize racist views indicate a tacit admission that the viewpoint behind biological evolution is flawed? No. Does the fact that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity don't work together indicate hypocricy on those who use one or both theories to explain and predict things? No. Is there intellectual dishonesty in the fact that science progresses, that our understanding is modified and extended as we spend more time thinking about it? No.
You seem to be expecting, or even insiting, that those you oppose hold an absoultist view, and you view it as a flaw if they don't. Yet, the scientific worldview is anything but absolutist. The greatest error is in believing that you Know Everything. That's where religions go horribly wrong, when they refuse to admit doubt or the possibility of re-interpretation. Yet now you seem to think that it is intellectual inconsistent NOT to do that.
The basic problem is that you don't really understand what religion is in the minds of many of the religious. You understand what you think it is, but what you think it is only applies to the subset that are themselves absolutists.
AND, that was what Josh's original post was about. You, Dawkins, and others rail against the thing that is religion, and if anybody tries to tell you that religion isn't exactly what you are railing against, you tell them that they are wrong about their own beliefs, or that they are intellectually inconsistent.
Try listening to what Josh has to say instead of repeatedly yelling that you hate all of religion, and if somebody claims religion is something different from what it is that you really hate, shouting at them that they're wrong about what religion is.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 4:50 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 4:50 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 4:53 PM
Josh, all religions claim that supernatural beings have an effect on the natural world (us). Therefore their effects should be measurable, if not predictable.
How about the actions of those who believe in those religions, who organize group efforts around religions institutions, who perform acts in the name of their religions? All kinds of stuff, good and evil, is done by churches and in the name of religion. Many of the peopel who did those things were motiviated by their faith in their God and their perception of their relationship with their God.
Doubtless you will say this doesn't count, because you can find fully secular institutions that fit most of the description about, except for the faith stuff. And, yeah, evidence of group action when that group is organized around some philosophical pricinple is not evidence of the supernatural.
HOWEVER, if you are religious, might you see some of the good things that some do in the name of religion "the work of God?" Whether it is or it is not really that, many may see it that way, metaphorically or literally. You can't prove or disprove whether or not it really is-- for exactly the reasons Josh mentions, in that it wouldn't be supernatural if it were subject to methodological materialism. But, for those of faith, these things may be seen as God influencing the world. If you find no use or value in thinking that it is, then, fine, that's great. If you do, or if the people who do it do, then what's so bad about that? Unless they're doing bad things-- but we should be opposed to people doing bad things whether or not they are done in the name of religion.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 4:55 PM
Where did I say that? I didn't say that at all. You're making that up. I don't see that in anything that I wrote.
What I was responding to was the notion that it was counter to the religion of many to fight against slavery. Yeah, while many saw their religion as supporting slavery -- and that is bad -- also many saw their religion as demanding them to oppose slavery. All I was arguing was that the latter existed, not that the former didn't.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 4:57 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 4:59 PM
And yet again, the variety of religion is not an argument in its favor.
It is, however, an argument against condemning all of religion by condemning a subset of it. Which is really what it was all about in the first place.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 5:02 PM
Rob-
That would be a consistent position. Why would one use the bible in some form or another except perhaps as an interesting read. Outside of cultural meaning what seperates it from any otherbook? I think it is perfectly possible to be anything and believe nearly anything and be a Christian. I just don't find any of them consistent.
When did I say that?
Thats right somehow believing something without a shred of evidence is tossed aside and it becomes the other 'inability' to understand nuance that is the problem. Just produce some evidence and the debate goes away.
Then this:
These are not comparable even a little. Our understanding is modified by evidence and testing. religion presents timeless truths but I will admit your making a good case for relativism.
Religion is supposed to have timeless truths. Science is an ever increasing and growing understanding. I have no problem with re-interpretation. Just find people who can agree on one across the board and give reasons why any supernatural idea should be given credence at all.
Right, we don't understand. Strawman.
When did I say I hate all religion. Where? Point it out to me? I say religion is an irrational bunch of superstitous silliness. I even have my own faith ofr my own reasons. Your arguing what you think not what I and others are saying and frankly it's dishonest.
Posted by: Uber | October 16, 2006 5:02 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | October 16, 2006 5:34 PM
As Dawkins and others have said many times, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'm aware of supernatualism's escape clause: science can't prove supernatural beings or forces don't exist, because they are not of this world. And Dawkins says again and again that he can't disprove the existence of god. Unfortunatley, people argue that this means religion is exempt from critique. If it's true that science has nothing to say, then how can we argue against Inteligent Design creationism, for example?
I've read all of Gould, and I have to agree with Dawkins on this issue. Science can say that there is no evidence that a supernatural being is fiddling with our world, noodly appendage or not. If someone continues to claim to believe in such a being, let's ask them why. If that's impolite, well, so it goes. People get challenged on their political views all the time, why not on their supernatural claims?
Posted by: RichardW | October 16, 2006 5:36 PM
Just find people who can agree on one across the board and give reasons why any supernatural idea should be given credence at all.
You're not going to find supernatural beliefs that are widely believed across the board, because there is no "one true religion" the way there is "one true science". Science depends ultimately on nature, which has empirically been remarkably consistent (when poked enough) over the centuries, and there's no reason to suspect that that will change. Yeah, scientists have disagreements, but generally those are where the data is still sketchy. All but a few fringe scientists do, however, believe the same things about a whole lot of things.
Religion is a completely different animal. You don't see all of the religious believing the same thing. As such, there's no reason to suspect that they will all converge on an agreement of everything being the same the way that science does.
Does that make it "wrong?" It doesn't make it right, certainly. If you insist that your religion as right, and in that insistence you include things (e.g. 6,000 year old world) that are known to be wrong, then, yeah, your religion can't be completely "right" in any sense of the word. Religion is a fundmentally different beast from science, though; it does not need universal consistency and universal acceptance by all of its followers to remain viable as an intellectual endeavor. Science does, becuase we are all trying to understand the same nature. Perhaps we will use different models or express things differently, but ultimately the predictions need to be consistent. Not so with religion, because relgion is not science; it's something else.
Religion and/or spirituality deals with things that can't be proven or disproven through the scientific method. For the things that can't be proven -- if people find value in believing in them, then perhaps they are right for them. They can't be proven or disproven, but they may still be valuable. And, there may still be real intellectual thought involved in consdering many of those issues-- which is why universities generally do have departments of religious studies, why there really are thoughtful theologians out there.
You don't have to give any supernatural ideas any credence at all. If you don't see any value in them, then don't mess with them. If the success of science has obviated for you any need to think about the supernatural, that's great. You don't see any need for them. However, it's an unjustifiable leap to go from there to saying that it's wortless in an absolute sense, it's worthless for everybody, to spend cognition on it. Yeah, if your religion says somthing that directly counteracts the knowledge of humanity, then you know that's wrong. Just because it isn't subject to the scientific method, however, doesn't mean that it's completely intellectually vacuous.
There is more to human thought than pure science. No one of us really cares about all of human thought. This does not mean that somebody who cares about and thinks about and believes in something not provable that you don't belive in is delusional. It just means that there's no value in it for you.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 5:42 PM
Cutting through the arguments ad assertum ("this is BS," "you are wrong," etc.), the central argument that Uber (and Dawkins) advances is that the supernatural can't be shown to exist, so it isn't worth considering. I disagree.
That we can't show that super-strings exist doesn't make them less worthy of consideration. They, of course, are natural phenomena, and one day a test will either falsify their existence or give support for them. The same cannot be said of religion, but that's fine. At this time, both are intellectual enterprises of interest only for their own internal reasons. The same could be said of the enterprise of art history and literary studies.
I suppose some people would regard those fields of study as "intellectual masturbation," but you don't see anyone writing books encouraging people to abandon the entire enterprise of art.
Finally, I have to say that asking me to show you something supernatural in the natural world just shows that you didn't understand what you were responding to. By definition, the supernatural is not in the natural world. Some people believe it exists without evidence, others believe it doesn't exist (also without evidence), and others think that without evidence, the question of its existence is unanswerable.
My argument here is not that the supernatural does exist, nor that it absolutely doesn't. I don't fall on the single axis of probabilistic belief that Dawkins constructs, and I suspect that many other people don't either. It doesn't fall to me, then, to demonstrate that the supernatural does or doesn't exist, it falls to you to show that assigning any probability to that question is a coherent act.
As for Mustafa's objection to my treatment of Dawkins' comment that Gould's idea "sounds terrific – right up until you give it a moment's thought," yes, he does say more. My main point in that quotation was to point out the arrogant treatment of a colleague who no one would claim did not think about what he said. It's fair to disagree with Gould, but unfair to claim he wasn't thoughtful. And that approach is consistently his approach to people who see things differently. They are irrational and delusional.
Unfortunately, the rest of Dawkins' argument doesn't inspire confidence in his reason. He offers a different author's suggestion that "why anything exists at all" is a non-scientific question, then twists around to argue that in fact, the question lies beyond theologians also (though he neglects to explain why). He then proceeds to assert (not argue, not present evidence, just assert) that he does not believe theology even has a province. We can be proud that the "nyah, nyah, nyah" is left implicit. It smacks a bit too much of Rutherford insisting that all science is physics or stamp collecting. Is Dawkins any more justified in denying theology a province than Rutherford was in denying biology its?
Maybe, maybe not, but Dawkins doesn't offer any such justification. He just dismisses a colleague as unthoughtful for disagreeing with him.
Posted by: Josh | October 16, 2006 5:45 PM
Is it not possible, as Dawkins attempts to do, to criticize the phenomena of making **** up that cannot be rationally justified?
Well, sure, but that's not entirely the issue. Part of what I originally was responding to was the list of "social issues" that Josh quoted from Dawkins' book. My point there was that those social issues are not universal to any given religion, so using them to condemn all of religion is a hollow argument.
The other point I was making is how often I see people posting arguments that religion is wrong or is a bad thing by taking certain Bible quotes and reading them literally-- and then arguing that the religious who don't take the Bible literally are being intellectualy dishonest and inconsistent. Sometimes, arguments against some specific religions are posited as an argument against the very concept of religion, and they aren't the same thing.
I haven't read Dawkins' book, but it seems from Josh's review that perhaps part of what Dawkins has done is not argue against actual religion, but argue against his conception of what religion is.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 5:45 PM
I say religion is an irrational bunch of superstitous silliness.
It always cracks me up that atheists who worship science as the arbiter of all things remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that its presuppositions (i.e. that the world is a rational place that operated according to rational laws) are inherited directly from Christianity.
No doubt that's just an accident. It's a well known fact that science was well on its way to success in every other pagan culture in history. There was, of course, as any atheist will point out, a Hindu Newton, a Shinto Darwin, a Moslem Maxwell and a Mayan Einstein.
Sure.
No doubt too it's just an accident that that silly Bible was the first document in history to declare that the natural world was 'rational' in the only scientifically meaningful sense of the word. (in a little section that some rabbi had the wit to call 'The Book of Wisdom')
Speaking of child abuse, we're spoon fed the 'enlightenment' bullshit in grammar school that science began with the Greeks. But not only did the Greeks never articulate a belief that the natural world was fully rational, they never initiated a system of experiment, preferring by and large theory and philosophy over observation.
It's just an accident too, no doubt, that Galileo believed in God, and Newton believed in God (to the point he assumed it was God who supernaturally kept the solar system in balance), and Kepler, and Maxwell, and Planck...and...etc etc, and that they had the gall to believe their interest in the workings of the natural world was inspired by said, silly God.
Nothing supernatural in that, of course. We all know the human mind is motivated purely by accidents. It's just a happy accident that the univerity institution, which to this day confers the only legitmate credential of scientific graduation recognized the world over, was the creation of the medieval church, whose medieval popes granted these same institutions the charters which protected their autonomy, without which science as a self-sustaining activity is not not possible, as evidenced by the fact that it never survived anywhere else.
But I digress. Where were we. Oh yes, that silly nonsense that people teach their children in Sunday School about the world being the product of a rational mind. What a crock, huh?
Posted by: John Farrell | October 16, 2006 5:47 PM
If someone continues to claim to believe in such a being, let's ask them why.
It would, however, be a completely pointless conversation. You won't accept any value in religious beliefs without scientific evidence. The religious, meanwhile, aren't going to be able to provide scientific evidence, because that's not what religion is about.
You'd be talking past each other, completely unable to actually communicate. Unless you're willing to accept reasons for faith in a religion that aren't provable in the same way as the prediction of a scientific hypothesis, you will never be satisified with any answer that anybody religious could give you.
For you to believe what they believe, yes, that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. However, except for the purpose of convincing you, or convicing somebody else demanding scientific evidence, then the claim doesn't require the kind of evidence that you need-- what would it be used for?
I'm not trying to argue here that religion is right. I am, however, trying to argue that for some (many?), it has value. To argue that people seeing value in reigion is a bad thing requires an argument that actual societal harm comes from that. And, yeah, I fully agree that faith in certain kinds of religion -- the sort of fundamentalism that is based on a denial of modern science, or that requires you to kill everybody who doesn't follow your faith -- is horribly bad. But there are other flavors of religion out there that don't cause that kind of societal harm, and arguably do societal good. It's not for you, it may not be "right", but what's the big deal in that case? Why must all of it be banished, or condescendingly dismissed?
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 5:56 PM
John Farrell, you've convinced me. The Inquisition was precursor of the Institute for Advanced Studies.
Posted by: RichardW | October 16, 2006 6:01 PM
But not only did the Greeks never articulate a belief that the natural world was fully rational,
This statement is baldly incorrect.
Look up Thales of Miletus (sixth century BC).
The notion that science grew out of Christianity is serious historical revisionism. Yes, science as we practice it today is largely (although not entirely) an outgrowth of Western culture, and, yes, Christianity it is in the world today is largely the version that was re-exported to the world from Western culture, so in many ways the two grew up together. But the causation is not there, and indeed in Western culture there has long been a tension between the two. (Look up, for example, Galileo.)
Indeed, once upon a time, centuries ago, Islam tended to have better scientists than Christianity did.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 6:04 PM
"Unfortunatley, people argue that this means religion is exempt from critique. If it's true that science has nothing to say, then how can we argue against Intelligent Design creationism, for example?"
If IDC would stop insisting that it is science, it would be theistic evolutionism. The difference between Billy Dembski and Francis Collins is that Dembski thinks his religious beliefs are scientifically justified, while Collins is able to separate his scientific beliefs from his theological ones.
Neither does placing theology outside of science mean that it is beyond criticism. As we've discussed, evangelical Americans in the 19th century argued over the religious justifications for slavery. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought not just a political battle, he fought a theological battle within the American Christian community. Theology can and does change in response to argument and discussion.
If (as Razib argues) people are going to believe something, one way or the other, it's better that we engage these issues head-on, and counter conservative theology with more modern theologies, ones that are more tolerant of differences and less insistent on imposing beliefs on others. Try reading slacktivist or rereason (check the blogroll) and you'll find serious people engaging complex theological issues to excellent effect. Those people are more likely to convince others about the merits of letting science speak within its own realm, regardless of what they think about theological issues. And that's a win for atheists, agnostics, and theistic NOMA advocates.
Posted by: Josh | October 16, 2006 6:05 PM
John, are you claiming that the human mind is supernatural and that Christianity is the impetus for modern rational discourse. It is an interesting discussion you put forth, but entirely imperceptable through the tidal-wave of sarcasm. A clarification would be grand.
Josh, I have never been able to apply a probability to either existence or non-existence which is why I honestly call my position agnostic. Neither argument can be sustained. The common atheist argument is by Occam's Razor but that really doesn't produce a meaningful result. We humans are so prone to err and hubris I can only conclude that we have no idea at all about God.
Posted by: James Taylor | October 16, 2006 6:08 PM
I just want to reiterate Rob's comment that "I'm not trying to argue here that religion is right. I am, however, trying to argue that for some (many?), it has value. To argue that people seeing value in religion is a bad thing requires an argument that actual societal harm comes from that."
And that evidence can't be cherry-picked, ignoring good things that come from faith.
I'd also like to introduce a new phrase into the discussion, based on a distinction borrowed from Barbara Forrest when she spoke at KU: "personal revelation." Personal revelation is typically taken as the evidence on which religion operates. Science, in Forrest's analysis, is based on our shared experience of reality, religion on an individual's personal revelation. That the latter is subjective makes it hard, if not impossible, for people to even communicate about it, let alone to subject it to empirical tests.
Posted by: Josh | October 16, 2006 6:20 PM
The answer is 42.
Posted by: James Taylor | October 16, 2006 6:32 PM
Josh, I will check out the blogs you refer to. However I question the tactic of replacing conservative theology with a more moderate theology when the basis for both is nonsensical. This, I concede, is a matter of opinion. There are plenty of people arguing for that tactic, and they have been arguing it for years. I can't say that it has shown much success in the U.S. I'm glad that Dawkins is presenting another alternative.
Regarding Dawkins' "arrogant" treatment of Gould, did you ever hear Gould talk about Dawkins? I thought that Dawkins was being rather gentle, considering.
Posted by: RichardW | October 16, 2006 7:14 PM
As does religion. We are part of this world and so is religion.
Thats fair but if religion makes claims such as about floods, dead men rising etc. These things happen in the natural world not the supernatural.
Then:
So then how does ANY theology shed any light whatsoever on it?
That is simply baloney. And there is little rational in alot of Christian thought. And I'm not an atheist.
Posted by: Uber | October 16, 2006 7:39 PM
However I question the tactic of replacing conservative theology with a more moderate theology when the basis for both is nonsensical.
The thing is, many would disagree with you that the basis is nonsensical.
As such, you have to ask yourself what the real goal is. If your goal is to defeat supernatural thinking, then, yeah, the tactic is senseless. If the goal is to engender a broad public understanding of and acceptance of science, then the tactic can be quite helpful.
Consider : on the one hand, you offer people an option between accepting the wrong things about the world their faith claims, or rejecting faith altogether in favor of nothing but philosophical naturalism. On the other hand, you offer people the option to see that one can maintain one's faith without having to deny truths about the natural world learned through science.
The black/white option will win fewer people over. If a line is drawn in the sand -- you MUST reject religion to accept science -- many are going to conclude that science is hostile and threatening to them. If, on the other hand, you allow for people of faith to maintain their faith while still being smart about science, you will probably win more over than you will telling them that the very basis of some of their most important beliefs is nonsensical.
So, as to whether or not the tactic makes sense -- what is your real goal?
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 8:12 PM
I will defend Dawkins' view that belief in supernaturalism and organized religious hierarchies is largely pernicious.
First of all, unnatural/supernatural ways of thinking about the world are not limited to ID/creationist attacks on evolution. There is huge belief in psychics, astrology, faith healing, appearances of the Virgin Mary--even on cheese sandwiches!--stone statues that burst into tears, in exorcism, ghosts, prayer, Loch Ness and other lake monsters, life after death, crop circles, body meridians, laying on of hands, foot-ology, raptures, tarot cards, Nostradamus, book of Revelation, red heifers appearing in Israel, alien abductions, feng shui, magnetic bracelets, secret codes in the Bible, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums to connect with the dearly departed---all stuff related to supernaturalisms. The list of irrational nonsense is endless. We are in an age of belief in silly things. Many are relatively harmless, but it is a sign of an unhealthiness in our society. And, this is, I think, related to fear.
Secondly, organized religious groups, like other organizations, have as their real purpose the propagation of the organization, adding members, and advancing their influence. The Catholic objection to family planning/birth control is a perfect example--it is clothed in "morality" but its real objective is adding more Catholics. I do not claim that they are hypocrits; this is probably an unconscious motivation that gets twisted into a moral issue, such being the nature of human minds to fool ourselves, especially when there is a strong desire to "belong" to an organization. Our tribal needs.
I agree that religious motivations have done some good for some people. The example of slavery is not one that favors Biblical believers, because they used the Bible to justify slavery for hundreds of years. The ideas of the Enlightenment and Darwin and Lyell did more to undermine slavery than any religious organization.
And urban living. Urban living provides insulation and anonymity from tribal village pressures where everyone is compelled to believe the same. The notion of diversity/pluralism only prospers in an urban-like environment. And rejection of god-beliefs, unnatural/supernatural explanations expands with greater education.
Posted by: Ellery | October 16, 2006 8:28 PM