I've always been intrigued by the debate on God's existence, though I've found it pretty tricky to find anyone that gives a balanced view on this. Usually, books on this topic are tainted by huge bias and vary from the hysterical ramblings of creationists to the inexplicit bitterness of militant atheists. I was pretty pleased then to read a book recently, entitled 'God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?' by Prof. John Lennox which, I think, provided a fresh perspective on the most controversial debate in existence. The Guardian wrote a great review of this book here, but that hasn't stopped me sharing my thoughts:
The wrong debate: Creation vs. Evolution
The main problem with this topic is that a lot of people have no idea what it is they're debating and still think it's a good idea to pit creationism against evolution. However, if creationism is posed as an alternative to evolution as a scientific model then frankly it’s embarrassing to even recognise it as a word. Unfortunately, there’s no doubt that people still do this; they'll read the book of Genesis like it’s a science textbook and read Leviticus like it’s a political manifesto. Of course, while they think this is a big step towards evangelicalism, the reality is that it actually does a great disservice to the reputation of religious believers, alienating them from those who respect the value of objective evidence. Above all, these people (amongst others) are responsible for a huge misconception; that faith, and any form of religious belief, exists as an alternative to science.
The other wrong debate: Science vs. Religion
Refuting the claims of creationists isn't a particularly taxing exercise. However, while many sane and rational religious individuals do actually exist, many people still regard a belief in God as unscientific. It's a bit tricky to credit this though given that many of the greatest scientists in history held a belief in God (Farady, Maxwell, Fleming, Morse, Joule, Kelvin) while many more exist today (Andrews, Burgess, McIntosh, Nevin, to name a few). This isn't something we can ignore, and while the hardcore fundamentalists seemingly do everything in their power to pull down the average IQ of religious folk, we should recognise that there are many comprehensive religious, scientific thinkers out there. Similarly, there are lots of stupid atheists. (I recently met an atheist that thought HMS Belfast was a radio station.) It's not fair then to claim that intelligent people use science and only idiots rely on faith. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this misconception is usually exposed through the ignorance of those who fail to differentiate between faith and superstition. Faith, as a belief based on reasonable evidence is a catalyst to any hypothesis formation process1. As such, faith is prevalent in both a religious and scientific context and is not a mechanism for discriminating between religious and non-religious individuals.
The right debate: Naturalism vs. Theism
This leads nicely to how Lennox reinvents the debate of God's existence. In order to understand this though, we need to lay down some understanding. We know evolution is a scientific concept that accounts for the physical changes we observe over periods of time, and we should make this our starting point. What’s important to understand here is that, as a science, evolution makes no assertions about chance, purpose, or even origin – all of these require a philosophy. As an atheist, this philosophy is naturalism (the belief that everything came into being through a series of unguided, naturally-occurring events) and as a religious individual, this philosophy is theism (the belief that this process was mediated by a supernatural force). As philosophies, both naturalism and theism are un-testable, un-provable positions and, as such, neither carries any more scientific value than the other.
So, the question of whether God exists is not really a matter of science; it is a matter of philosophy. People can argue about what evolution tells us until they're blue in the face2, but science alone is powerless to provide implications on our existence. Because of this, it doesn't really matter how many flashy post-nominals a scientist may have to their name (incidentally, I have three), this doesn't qualify anyone to profess a view one way or the other – we can just manipulate the (same) evidence to suit our philosophy3.
Final thought
While this is just a personal blog, I feel there are some important points to take in here. I honestly think that people need to be re-educated into exactly what roles science and religion serve: Religious individuals need to learn that evolution - as a scientific concept - is not up for dispute and that their beef is with naturalism, not science. Similarly, atheists need to learn to separate evolution (science) from naturalism (philosophy) and to not allow the latter to contaminate the former. Above all, the most important thing is to accept that both philosophies are respectable positions to take and, no matter what you believe, you've got a good reason to believe it.
Unless you're a scientologist. That's just crazy.
1 To explain this (using an oft cited example), consider the faith you exhibit when you go to sit on a chair. You cannot know for certain that the chair will support you until you have sat on it, but you have faith it will based on the evidence you have gleaned (your knowledge of the materials the chair is made from, how sturdy it looks, and your previous experience of sitting on chairs). Any falsifiable hypothesis (a premise which is currently unproven) by definition relies on faith in order to be formed. Without it, we simply could not practice science as any hypothesis would be proven by default.↩
2 Richard Dawkins does this a lot.↩
3 Naturalists would argue that if it is possible for our existence to have occurred by chance (without supernatural intervention) then this must be the most plausible explanation. Theists would argue that the world we observe implies design and structure and that there are too many multiples of coincidence to simply rule our existence down to chance↩.
The main problem with this topic is that a lot of people have no idea what it is they're debating and still think it's a good idea to pit creationism against evolution. However, if creationism is posed as an alternative to evolution as a scientific model then frankly it’s embarrassing to even recognise it as a word. Unfortunately, there’s no doubt that people still do this; they'll read the book of Genesis like it’s a science textbook and read Leviticus like it’s a political manifesto. Of course, while they think this is a big step towards evangelicalism, the reality is that it actually does a great disservice to the reputation of religious believers, alienating them from those who respect the value of objective evidence. Above all, these people (amongst others) are responsible for a huge misconception; that faith, and any form of religious belief, exists as an alternative to science.
The other wrong debate: Science vs. Religion
Refuting the claims of creationists isn't a particularly taxing exercise. However, while many sane and rational religious individuals do actually exist, many people still regard a belief in God as unscientific. It's a bit tricky to credit this though given that many of the greatest scientists in history held a belief in God (Farady, Maxwell, Fleming, Morse, Joule, Kelvin) while many more exist today (Andrews, Burgess, McIntosh, Nevin, to name a few). This isn't something we can ignore, and while the hardcore fundamentalists seemingly do everything in their power to pull down the average IQ of religious folk, we should recognise that there are many comprehensive religious, scientific thinkers out there. Similarly, there are lots of stupid atheists. (I recently met an atheist that thought HMS Belfast was a radio station.) It's not fair then to claim that intelligent people use science and only idiots rely on faith. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this misconception is usually exposed through the ignorance of those who fail to differentiate between faith and superstition. Faith, as a belief based on reasonable evidence is a catalyst to any hypothesis formation process1. As such, faith is prevalent in both a religious and scientific context and is not a mechanism for discriminating between religious and non-religious individuals.
The right debate: Naturalism vs. Theism
This leads nicely to how Lennox reinvents the debate of God's existence. In order to understand this though, we need to lay down some understanding. We know evolution is a scientific concept that accounts for the physical changes we observe over periods of time, and we should make this our starting point. What’s important to understand here is that, as a science, evolution makes no assertions about chance, purpose, or even origin – all of these require a philosophy. As an atheist, this philosophy is naturalism (the belief that everything came into being through a series of unguided, naturally-occurring events) and as a religious individual, this philosophy is theism (the belief that this process was mediated by a supernatural force). As philosophies, both naturalism and theism are un-testable, un-provable positions and, as such, neither carries any more scientific value than the other.
So, the question of whether God exists is not really a matter of science; it is a matter of philosophy. People can argue about what evolution tells us until they're blue in the face2, but science alone is powerless to provide implications on our existence. Because of this, it doesn't really matter how many flashy post-nominals a scientist may have to their name (incidentally, I have three), this doesn't qualify anyone to profess a view one way or the other – we can just manipulate the (same) evidence to suit our philosophy3.
Final thought
While this is just a personal blog, I feel there are some important points to take in here. I honestly think that people need to be re-educated into exactly what roles science and religion serve: Religious individuals need to learn that evolution - as a scientific concept - is not up for dispute and that their beef is with naturalism, not science. Similarly, atheists need to learn to separate evolution (science) from naturalism (philosophy) and to not allow the latter to contaminate the former. Above all, the most important thing is to accept that both philosophies are respectable positions to take and, no matter what you believe, you've got a good reason to believe it.
Unless you're a scientologist. That's just crazy.
1 To explain this (using an oft cited example), consider the faith you exhibit when you go to sit on a chair. You cannot know for certain that the chair will support you until you have sat on it, but you have faith it will based on the evidence you have gleaned (your knowledge of the materials the chair is made from, how sturdy it looks, and your previous experience of sitting on chairs). Any falsifiable hypothesis (a premise which is currently unproven) by definition relies on faith in order to be formed. Without it, we simply could not practice science as any hypothesis would be proven by default.↩
2 Richard Dawkins does this a lot.↩
3 Naturalists would argue that if it is possible for our existence to have occurred by chance (without supernatural intervention) then this must be the most plausible explanation. Theists would argue that the world we observe implies design and structure and that there are too many multiples of coincidence to simply rule our existence down to chance↩.
Nice blog Dan; interesting read.
ReplyDeletePlease watch this video, I'd love to hear what your view is on the first speaker, Sean Carroll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKk62brr4o4
The first speaker, Sean Carroll, essentially suggests that naturalism has won and there is no need to have the debate; the majority of science books suggest naturalism is the explanation for the universe. He continues by suggesting if one goes to any university physics, biology, neuroscience or philosophy department and listens to the talks they give or reads the papers they write none of them mention God; these people are professionals at their job and come up with explanatory frameworks to match what we see.
What are your opinions on the matter?
Thanks for posting the video. I must admit, I don't always get the time to watch the videos people send me, but I made an exception in this case...
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard of the speaker before (his name hasn't come up in my reading) but the points he makes are ones many atheists have used before in the past.
The main argument is that science makes no mention of God. I don't necessarily agree with this but, ironically, it does help make the point that science and religion are not in conflict with each other. As Stephen Jay Gould said; science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria; like ships in the night (they never cross). We are united in our study of mechanism (science), but are free to draw different conclusions about agency. (I believe Einstein once too claimed that science is powerless to provide answers to 'why' questions.) However, even if this view challenges theism, it would make little impression on deism.
I would disagree though that science makes no mention of, or hints at, God. As one example, Darwin, and recent atheists (most notably, Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins) have been very open about the fact that the world has the appearance of a designer, but that it is the goal of naturalism to demonstrate that this is only 'apparent' design. To extent to which you believe naturalism has achieved this is a matter of debate, but it is fundamentally untrue to state that the world has no basis for God when naturalism (and atheism) exists as a force to resist this.
The speaker mentions that we have no basis for morality, though recent empirical evidence suggests we do and has blown this issue wide open. I recently tweeted a good article on this which I'd recommend reading (link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html). The research suggests we have a predisposition for morality which would challenge the philosophy of naturalism.
Finally, the speaker makes the point that people have a psychological bias for believing in God (ie. that it provides comfort and support). This is very interesting (and true, to an extent) but we must be mindful of the many psychological biases for rejecting God too (the desire to be liberated from an omnipotent being, as Christopher Hitchens frequently stated). This may often serve as a motivation for naturalistic belief, and do so independently of science. Because of this, I wouldn't be comfortable claiming that naturalists are entirely unbiased.
I'm actually writing a book chapter on this very topic at the moment, so would rather not say much more here (as I won't have any material left)! However, if you're interested in continuing this discussion, feel free to get in touch via email (on my website).
Thanks again for the comment.