Comment (85)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggWhy are they throwing brickbats at God?
A campaign by eminent atheist Richard Dawkins to discredit religion makes little sense, says a Canadian ethicist.
Richard Dawkins has done more than all religious people together to put God on the current public agenda. He is on a highly publicised, international campaign to convince the world that "religion is the root of all evil". I think he’s seriously misguided, at best, and that his campaign is dangerous. Here are just a few of the reasons I think that.
Terry Eagleton, an eminent literary scholar, reviewing Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, in the London Review of Books, says that Dawkins’ writing on theology and philosophy is equivalent to someone writing on science whose sole familiarity with science is The Book of British Birds. That’s also an apt description of Dawkins’ limited discussion of ethics in his book. His ethical analysis is simplistic and unsophisticated.
Dawkins confuses religion and the use of religion – I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt intellectually and assume he does so deliberately -- in order to promote his thesis that religion is evil. Religion itself is not evil – just as science is not evil – but it can be used for evil purposes, just as science can.
Using religion to convince the 9/11 terrorists to commit mass murder by knocking down the World Trade Towers was a profoundly evil use of religion. Using airplanes to carry out that evil was a profoundly evil use of aeronautical science. However, Dawkins looks only at the evil uses of religion – never the good it effects -- and only the good uses of science – never the harms it does. A balanced ethical approach requires us to recognise both the goods and harms of both religion and science, and to try to stop the evil uses and to promote the good ones of each.
We should stop automatically associating having liberal values with being open minded and having conservative values with being closed minded – liberal people can be very close minded (as we can see with some uses of political correctness) and conservative people open minded.
The primary "way of knowing" in science is reason and reason is fundamental to the scientific method that produces scientific knowledge. Dawkins’ mistake is that he sees reason (and probably science) as the only valid way of human knowing and, consequently, as the only appropriate tool to explore non-scientific questions, such as profound ethical issues.
We have multiple ways of human knowing in addition to reason, all of which are essential to ethics. They include history (human memory) -- this is beautifully encapsulated in aboriginal people’s practice in making ethical decisions of looking back seven generations. Imagination and creativity – looking forward seven generations to try to assess the ethical acceptability of the impact of what we plan to do on future generations. Intuition -- especially moral intuition. Common sense. Experiential knowledge – including what we can know, as the gym teachers tell us, by listening to our bodies. And "examined" emotions, to name just some.
I believe that, in combination, these other ways of knowing constitute our primary decision making mechanism (what we describe as our "gut reaction") and that reason is an immensely important, but secondary in terms of its use, verification mechanism of those decisions. We use reason to make sure our gut reactions are on track, whether ethically, legally, spiritually, emotionally or in some other relevant way.
Indeed, research published in the last three weeks in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals backs this up. In an article entitled, "The Moral Brain", researchers reported that people with the reasoning parts of their brains intact, but who had damage to the emotional centres, could not make good ethical decisions.
Basic presumptions are of great importance in decision making, although often they are unidentified. They allocate the burden of proof. When there is equal doubt about an issue the basic presumption prevails. Richard Dawkins’ basic presumption is that there is no God and, therefore, that those who believe there is must prove it. But the equally valid basic presumption is that there is a God and those who don’t believe that must prove it. Because both are tenable basic presumptions, both must be accommodated in a secular society. In contrast, and, ironically, where Dawkins and religious fundamentalists are ad idem, is that each wants to impose their choice between these basic presumptions on everyone else. Where they differ is only with respect to their choice of basic presumption, which are, of course, of opposite content.
In short Dawkins – who is a fundamentalist atheist (atheism is a secular religion) and religious fundamentalists are similar in an important respect: They take an either/or approach to everything: my beliefs or yours; religion or science; reason or Faith; and so on. They then seek to reconcile what they see as the conflicts between the two elements that make up each of these pairings, by dropping one or the other of them. Dawkins’ call for the elimination of religion demonstrates such a choice on his part. But it is an extremely dangerous proposal and likely to escalate the culture clashes and "religious wars" we are seeing.
I propose that what we need to do is search for a shared ethics that can accommodate as many people of goodwill as possible. We will never find a universal ethics and we will never be able to accommodate fanatics at either end of the spectrum of human beliefs, but we can articulate and develop an approach that will accommodate many more people in a big ethical tent than is presently the case.
To achieve that will require us to change in some ways. Instead of starting from and focussing on our differences, we should start from where we agree. Starting from agreement and then moving to our disagreements, as we must, sets a different overall ethical tone than starting from disagreement.
We should stop automatically associating having liberal values with being open minded and having conservative values with being closed minded – liberal people can be very close minded (as we can see with some uses of political correctness) and conservative people open minded.
We also have to stop assuming that all change in values is progress and to be welcomed, and re-value wise ethical restraint. That can require having the courage to say "no" -- which often takes more courage than saying "yes".
Dawkins’ approach of wanting to eliminate religion is also dangerous because it is an impossible goal. Probably the vast majority of people will not accept that religion should be eliminated and conflict will be exacerbated as a result. In short, in ethics and searching for values (a task which encompasses religion), impossible goals are not neutral; they cause harm. In contrast finding as much shared ethics as we can is a realisable goal and likely to reduce conflict This is not a "gently, gently" approach as Dawkins described it. It is a principled, pragmatic, ethical one.
The correct question is not whether religion can be used for evil purposes – it can. And the correct response to religion being used in evil ways is not to eliminate religion as Dawkins proposes. The correct question is: How can we best reduce, to the minimum possible, the likelihood that religion will be used for evil purposes and prevent its evil use? As an aside, as a person working on how to prevent bioterrorism, I’d add that this is the same question we are rightly asking in relation to science.
I believe that spirituality is innate to being human -- possibly new epigenetic research will show us in the future that the capacity for spirituality has a genetic base, although spirituality, itself, is not just a genetic phenomenon. Religion is one way – but not the only way -- people experience their spirituality and it’s very important they have access to that experience.
The search for meaning and the desire to belong to something larger than ourselves – the longing for transcendence – is of the essence of being human. And humans have also always searched for morality. Religion is one way – but I agree with Dawkins there are other ways -- that over vast periods of time, across all kinds of societies and cultures, humans have sought meaning, belonging and morality. Who knows, might Richard Dawkins and I agree on that, even though we strongly disagree about the role and value of religion in our contemporary societies?
Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal. Her latest book is The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit.
Jeffrey, thanks for the article re: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The author makes many excellent points about the potential pitfalls of applying the Second Law to the question of God’s existence, but he concedes that we do not understand the very early moments after the universe came into existence, at which time the Second Law of Thermodynamics itself may not even hold true. He also does not consider the Second Law to apply to the case of information (if I read him correctly). I believe that it does.
Over time (assuming time exists, which some physicists doubt), information (which in a sense is neither matter nor energy) tends to be corrupted so that it become unreadable. Now it may remain accessible for very long periods of time, but that does not change its evanescence. Life, as we know it, consists not only of matter and energy, but of information—information which is transmitted in DNA—and in the case of humans, through culture.
Edward Fredkin defined information as “a difference that makes a difference.” Therefore, if I am completely tone-deaf, I will not appreciate the virtuosity of my wife’s piano playing, and it matters not whether she plays Bach or Chopin, or whether she plays at the level of her students. But I am not completely tone-deaf, and I can in fact appreciate the beauty not only of my wife’s piano playing, but also of the composer’s creation.
What is the evolutionary advantage of any of this, one might ask? None that I can think of, but then my imagination may be too feeble.
Jane Goodall once remarked that she believed minds could speak across time. I tend to agree with her.
And that’s why I’m willing to entertain the possibility of a Mind that speaks to us across time—if we would but listen.
Dear All,
We welcome robust discussion!!! However, we remind people that personal attacks or coarse language is not in the spirit of this website.
Consequentially, I have found myself editing/deleting excerpts from both BOTH sides of this discussion, to take out the “heat” from such a welcome debate.
I would also encourage people wishing to comment to restrain adding many references and links to other sites.
This discussion will cease in a short period.
If people would like to exchange personal emails, let me know and I will arrange this if the two parties are consenting.
Kind regards,
Moderator :-)
ptt implored: “recognizing the common language problem may make it easier to assume that perhaps the frame of reference of that individual “across the divide” is so different than mine that it may be hard for them to see the “evident good sense” of what I am saying”
Point noted. My response is simple—if people insist on using science to support their contentions, they had better be logically consistent in doing so. An open mind is first required, not preference for political correctness, often used to paper over the often sloppy research methodologies of the social “sciences.” Anyone who has taken a course in research methods and statistical analysis is well aware of the pitfalls inherent in much social science research—including psychology. And so to refute the assertions made by well-meaning atheists, I prefer to use the rigour of the hard sciences.
If that makes me a hard science bigot, so be it. The rigor of physics, chemistry, and mathematics was required by my academic career—but it did not blind me to other ways of attaining insights, as with Kekule’s discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule, or Mendel’s early formulation of modern genetics. Mendel was, like other scientists of note, a Catholic priest. Which lends support to Fr. Stanley Jaki’s thesis that modern science originated in a distinctly Christian milieu.
Mariusz asked Jeffrey: “What would you define then as aberration?”
His likely answer: theism. :-)
Never mind that he doesn’t refute how the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to provide a rationally persuasive case for theism. I tried to find loopholes in the Second Law, but then I learned about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and I realized that a non-theistic explanation for the observable universe would contravene Occam’s Razor.
Jeffrey also wrote: “While it isn’t normal for most bulls to be attracted in a same sex way, it does happen, and it is genuine”
So it isn’t normal for bulls to experience SSA, even if it genuinely happens. Thank you. You just made my point, which is that while SSA is real, and SSA may even have a genetic basis, that doesn’t make it normal. Take cancer—it’s real, and it can have both genetic and environmental precursors, but it isn’t normal—and it certainly isn’t healthy.
It’s like saying a person with Down’s Syndrome or trisomy 18 is “differently” abled or developmentally delayed—instead of genetically abnormal.
People who experience SSA are abnormal. Intersexuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal aberrations are abnormal. People who feel compelled to have sexual congress with children, corpses, feces, and other species are abnormal. They certainly deserve our compassion, but let’s have none of this politically correct stuff about their being as normal as the rest of us who do not feel these aberrant compulsions.
Jeffrey wrote: “Victor, you apparently don’t understand what is meant by “selfish genes”. Genes are not selfish at all, according to Dawkins. Genes are molecules...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene:
<excerpt>
selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes. An organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy.
</excerpt>
So SSA, viewed from the principle of maximal evolutionary fitness, is a definite aberration. Which is another reason why it is _objectively_ disordered. Prior to 1974, the DSM-IV identified it as such. However, political correctness, not scientific veracity, has led to SSA being reclassified. In time, given this sort of blatant disregard for facts, pedophilia, coprophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and other sexual aberrations may also be reclassified as “alternative orientations.”
Jeffrey Olsson admitted: “Same Sex attraction IS a genetically dead end attraction.”
But it is not culturally a dead end, if the meme that SSA is “normal” is forced onto the rest of the non-SSA population. People with SSA want SSA to be regarded as ontologically equivalent to heterosexual attraction, and therefore entitled to equal regard, i.e. adoption rights by same-sex couples, etc. This has serious public policy implications, especially where the welfare of children is concerned. Since all societies have as their basis the so-called “traditional” family with biological offspring, then this “synthetic” arrangement (same-sex couple with adopted children) is a novel attempt to get around the dead-end of SSA. What cannot be accomplished through biology, will be accomplished through the enforced cultural transmission of memes.
The “traditional” family is normative even for non-Christian cultures. I abhor the “techniques” used by individuals with SSA in part because these are the very techniques that cause the widespread transmission of HIV. I suggest you study the public health data.
Regards,
Victor
Victor Panlilio
I am so Glad that you can be reasoned with. Here is my response to your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports a beleif in a God. Please note that this was written by a fellow Christian.
It is also available here in it’s full version.
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
The Second Law and Creation
Now we address the context in which the 2nd law arises in creation arguments. The usual argument goes something like this: “The 2nd law says everything tends toward increasing entropy (randomness and disorder). But the evolution of life involves the development of great complexity and order. Therefore, evolution is impossible by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.” While it sounds simple, there are major flaws in this argument that render it worthless.
The Earth is Not an Isolated System
It is only in isolated systems that entropy must increase. Systems that can exchange energy with their surroundings have no such restriction. For example, water can freeze into ice (becoming more ordered and decreasing its entropy) by giving up heat to its surroundings (this increases the entropy of the surroundings, of course). In the case of the Earth, the Sun is a major source of energy, and the Earth also radiates energy into space. One consequence of thermodynamics is that, when energy comes from a “hot” source (like the Sun) and is output to a “cold” reservoir (like space), it can be used to do work, which means that “complexity” or “order” can be produced. The main point is that, for a non-isolated system, an increase in “complexity” (to the extent one can connect that concept with the thermodynamic entropy, which is far from straightforward for living creatures) does not necessarily indicate a violation of the 2nd law. A good example is the development of a human fetus into an adult; this is the production of a more thermodynamically complex system but involves no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
It is worth mentioning here that the usual reply to creationists that “the second law doesn’t apply to non-isolated systems” is not quite correct. The second law always applies; in fact, it was originally developed for non-isolated systems (the working fluid of a heat engine). The key point is that it is only in isolated systems that the second law takes the simplified “entropy must increase” form. For non-isolated systems, the second law still applies as a statement about heat flows and temperatures, just not in the form used in creationist arguments.
An Internal Inconsistency
Some creationists assert that advanced (especially human) life represents a decrease in entropy which violates the 2nd law, and they therefore invoke intervention by God, who is outside the laws of thermodynamics. They also, however, generally assert that this particular “intervention” stopped with the creation of man, and that (with the exception of the occasional miracle) God has allowed things to develop in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and other physical laws since then.
These two assertions are, however, mutually inconsistent. The reason is that the thermodynamic entropy is strictly an additive quantity. If the 2nd law has not been violated as the number of humans grew from two to 6 billion, it is ridiculous to assert that it was violated in the comparatively minuscule change from zero to two. If we say that the first two humans represented a violation of the 2nd law, the logical conclusion would be that God must be continually intervening in violation of the 2nd law in order to increase the number of humans on Earth. While God is certainly capable of this, there is no evidence to suggest that such violations are happening as complex life forms like humans reproduce and increase in number. [NOTE: All this is not to say that God’s creation of human life was not miraculous. My only point is that the specific assertion that the existence of human life in and of itself violates the 2nd law is unfounded.]
What About the Universe?
An occasional creationist response to the first flaw mentioned above is to say that, while the Earth is not an isolated system, the universe as a whole is. However, this does not help the argument they are trying to make. Astrophysicists, using data such as the cosmic background radiation, have verified that the universe has obeyed the second law of thermodynamics very well since the time of the big bang. The 2nd law predicts that something small and hot should become larger and colder, and that is just what has happened. The existence of some ordered life in a little corner of the universe like ours is a drop in the bucket - when the whole system is considered (which one must always do in thermodynamics), there is no violation of the second law in the development of the universe.
So what about “before” the inception of the universe? Can it be said that bringing into existence the hot, pointlike early universe from nothing was a violation of the 2nd law? While that argument has a certain appeal, and I believe the creation of the universe to have been miraculous, I think a 2nd-law argument is inappropriate here as well. The 2nd law is an attribute of the physical universe, describing how systems go with time. Modern physics tells us that the physical universe is not just space but also contains time as a fundamental dimension.
The process by which all that came to be is NOT something that can be addressed by the laws (including the laws of thermodynamics) characterizing the resulting universe.
My main purpose here is to dissuade my fellow followers of Christ from pursuing incorrect arguments based on a lack of understanding of the second law. One might ask whether it is really important for Christians to think about entropy in a mature manner. For many, it probably isn’t. But for those who engage in apologetics, and for those who might find themselves defending the faith to those who are scientifically literate, I think it is important for three reasons.
The first is that, by abandoning these errors, we can focus more effectively on legitimate arguments for the faith. While I do not subscribe to the notion that one can arrive at Christianity through pure reason, I do believe that it is reasonable in all respects. With regard to origins, there are reasonable arguments that the universe and human life did not come about through random Godless chance. But none of these arguments is based on thermodynamics, and it can only confuse the issues and obscure God’s truth when the 2nd law is inappropriately dragged in.
The second reason is the special responsibility to truth we have as people of God. There is no room for falsehood in God’s kingdom, even in the defense of the Gospel. We should be diligent in our efforts to avoid bearing false witness, whether the victim is our next-door neighbor or Ludwig Boltzmann. Worldly politicians or marketers may say “I don’t mind using a little falsehood as long as it helps persuade my audience,” but that is unacceptable for a Christian. We who serve the God of truth should make a special effort to cleanse our words of all falsehood.
Finally, there is the Christian witness to the world. A small but not insignificant segment of the world is scientifically literate. It is tragic that many think of Christians only as “those people with the crackpot arguments about a young Earth and entropy” and do not even consider the Gospel because they think it requires them to believe things they know to be as silly as a flat Earth. The myth that Christianity is for stupid people is widespread, and part of the blame must rest on some Christians. This harm to our witness will only be overcome if Christians refocus their message on central truths (like the fact that God created everything) rather than trivial side issues (like how He did it), and repudiate those arguments (like the misuse of the 2nd law) that are simply incorrect. Many will still reject and belittle Christ and those who follow Him. But if the world is going to laugh at us, let it at least be for a central doctrine like the Cross or the Resurrection, or for our insistence on loving everybody, not for mistaken pseudoscientific arguments on peripheral issues.
Thanks to Allan H. Harvey
Jeffrey Olsson
To Victor Panlilio,
I did the same as you, I googled “incidence of homosexuality in primates” and FOUND THAT THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE AFFIRMS MY STATEMENT. How could you have missed it?
From a book called “Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies of the Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Human Beings”
This article is an excerpt from a scientific journal that even shows pictures along with the statistics stating how often the behaviour has been observed.
Moderator please do not remove this link since it is Key to the Argument and verifies the fact I have been stating.
It is HERE: http://books.google.ca/books?id=r56ov450wbEC&pg=PA164&ots=oCQWYQB7Wk&dq=incidence+of+homosexuality+in+primates&sig=km0Pt5ecbT2scSvP3Jzrp-96Jlg#PPA148,M1
Kind Regards.
To Mariusz Wesolowski
I have correctly pointed out the fact Hitler referred to Arius in the creation and passing along of his twisted his Ayran philosophies. He also used the Bible, and tooka dvantage of some of the current (at the time) anti-Jewish christian sentiments. He also used science in a reprehensible way.
Of course he was wrong to do this!
It doesn’t change the fact that he did it, and that many many Christians, even some atheists, bought in to it. (I seriously wonder if I would have, had I been born at that place and time? I hope not...)
As a former Anglican Priest I am all too aware of these facts.
Jeff Olsson
Tim,
You said that “it is quite normal for all sorts of animals, including primates, to have sex with members of their same sex.”
How normal is “quite normal”? What is your definition of normality? Does your definition equals “normal” with “factual”? If so, the acts of pedophiles, zoophiles and even serial killers are also normal… What would you define then as aberration?
Sincerely,
Mariusz Wesolowski
Tim wrote: “As Jeffrey, has already said it is quite normal for all sorts of animals, including primates, to have sex with members of their same sex. If you want to understand why, do some research”
I Googled “incidence of homosexuality in primates” and the articles I found in the first page do not appear to support your statements.
“There are various theories which try to find an evolutionary advantage or at least little or no disadvantage for families with ‘gay’ genes which occasionally activate. - but im totally convinced that there is such a thing as a gay gene.”
Are you “totally convinced” based on “various theories”? Please provide a substantive refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as well as Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems…
Until then, your being “totally convinced” is not convincing.
I can be reasoned with. That’s why I’ve repeatedly cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems as my reasons for being a theist.
Tim proclaimed: “I challenge you to find one scientific reason why I (or you) ‘ought’ to believe in God”
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems.
Each one, by itself, has been enough to convince me. Refute them, and perhaps you can persuade me that atheism is intellectually defensible.
They’re two scientific reasons why I’m “stuck” as a theist. :-)
I’ll use a non-mathematical illustration: Given a bucket of Lego pieces, what is the mathematical probability that, over time, they would be assembled into an AquaBase or Exoforce without his anyone’s imagination? The parsimonious explanation is that someone’s involvement is necessary. The atheist’s assertion is that the pieces would assemble themselves. This is in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which more accurately predicts the likely result: the Lego pieces will end up scattered in various locations around the house. Empirical observation confirms the latter outcome, each and every time.
Victor, you apparently don’t understand what is meant by “selfish genes”. Genes are not selfish at all, according to Dawkins. Genes are molecules…
If you cannot understand how I can say what I just said, and if you think it is contradictory, they you don’t understand the book.
Same Sex attraction IS a genetically dead end attraction.
They will never “take over the world” because they cannot reproduce, using the techniques that you so abhor.
Therfore: There is no “War on family values”
I do beleive it was a christian construct to start with…
Jeffrey Olsson
also: I told my story of being an former priest, to make a point about discrimination. Any other use of it in argument if offensive.
Jeff Olsson, channeling Richard Dawkins, fumed: “Those who pridefully claim to know the mind of God, are more than willing to impose their interpretation on the lives others living in their societies.”
Same old tired argument, same trivially easy rebuttal:
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_8.asp
<excerpt>
Embryonic stem cell researchers typically marshal several arguments to encourage public approval and funding for their research, which requires the direct destruction of 5-7 day old human embryos. One argument runs like this: “Well, that’s your feeling about embryos, your narrow religious viewpoint, and you shouldn’t impose that on me. Your sentiments about embryos are different than mine, and we’re all entitled to our own sentiments and opinions.” This pervasive argument has embedded itself in the modern American mind to a remarkable degree, and has been used quite effectively to justify embryonic sacrifice by many researchers. At its root, advocates take a scientific question and turn it into a religious one. Once it falls into the category of religious mystagogy, it can be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant to public policy and discourse. Embryonic stem cell researcher Dr. Doug Melton at Harvard recently took exactly this tack when he spoke with the New York Times: “This is all about differing religious beliefs. I don’t believe I have the right to tell others when life begins. Science doesn’t have the answer to that question; it’s metaphysical.” With that sleight of hand, he sought to transform embryology into theology. The fact is, of course, that the statement, “a human embryo is a human kind of being” does not depend on religion any more than the statement “a cow embryo is a cow kind of being” does. Science, quite apart from any narrow, dogmatic religion, affirms dogmatically that human embryos are human beings, rather than zebra or cow beings. Science, quite apart from religious dogma, affirms dogmatically that every person walking around in the world was once an embryo. This scientific dogma admits of no exceptions and is absolute. So while science makes it clear that human embryos are human beings, religion steps in after that fact to speak to the question of whether it is correct that all human beings should be treated in the same way, or whether it is OK to discriminate against some in the interests of others.
</excerpt>
And you still haven’t answered why SSA isn’t a genetic dead-end, which directly contradicts Dawkins’ assertions about selfish genes.
Page 2 of 6 : < 1 2 3 4 > Last »