Again with the Science v. Religion
September 25th, 2007 by tempe
Joel McDurmon has an interesting post on his blog. One of the militant “new atheists” (ironic, since they use the same old worn-out arguments), Sam Harris, had a recent editorial in Nature magazine. In it, Harris commits the blunder that has become one of my top ten pet peeves: erroneously retelling the Galileo story (McDurmon refers to it as playing the “Galileo card”) in order to muster emotional ammunition (why would a naturalist need to do that?) for his cause. Either Harris is intentionally deceitful or (my guess) is simply historically ignorant of the facts (the manufactured story, which seems to have been instigated by a few anti-religious Frenchmen during the Enlightenment for reason #1 above, has been retold so many time and has become such a favorite of the agenda-driven anti-theists that no one bothers to check the facts anymore). Certainly, it is not becoming someone who is pursuing a Ph.D. nor a magazine with the reputation of Nature.
An interesting link, and I appreciate it. However, seizing on an not entirely error of commission or omission (however, grievous) does not settle a larger dispute or disagreement.
It irritates me when religious believers play the “Communist card,” as some do, to imply (or even baldly state) that all atheists have no reason not to behave as badly as Communists did.
In terms of evolution, I will point out that just as many conservative Christians disagree strongly with the theory of evolution, Stalin promulgated “Lysenkoism” a pseudo-scientific doctrine that “refuted” evolutionary theory.
I’m sure that Christians who disagree with evolutionary theory would not like being accused of being like Stalinists because of this small area of agreement.
But, my dear Random, I would argue that while many (most?) atheists do not behave as badly as the [insert group here], can you explain why you do not?
Go beyond the “it’s not nice” argument, please. Who determines ‘nice’ in the non-Christian worldview and why is it necessary? At the very least, it seems to conflict with evolution, which would advocate the survival of the fittest and so on.
I’m not sure I can provide a thoughtful answer in a paragraph in a comment box. As both you and Tim are careful readers, I am loath to post one of my brief wisecracks as an answer to your question and Tim’s earlier similar questions.
I will eventually post a longer (and at least an attempt at) a careful answer in my own blog. I will let both of you know when I do.
I will, however, provide one brief reply here. Humans survive in groups. Groups that work together are more likely to survive than ones lacking cooperation. In that context, the ability to feel empathy for others has survival value. Empathy is compatible with and provides support for the concept often described as the “Golden Rule,” a concept which exists in more than one culture.
Random, I am tempted to make reference to something I observed about evolutionary thinking a while back, and how it truly is a “god of the gaps” type of religion: i.e., if something cannot be reasonably explained, such as the basis for morality, then one simply replies that “we evolved that way.” I’m sure you see the circularity of such reasoning, though great minds like Harris and Dawkins have made such comments, if memory serves.
The group/herd rational is one I’ve heard (no pun intended!) before, but it fails upon analysis. I will bypass the fact that it assumes what it wishes to prove, and point out that if what you say is true, then empathy is not really moral at all, only a facade that we assign some value to, and only because it brings about survival (but, is survival itself a moral concept, and can we place any moral restrictions on it, and, if so, why or why not would they be moral?). Then again, genocide is something that one herd can foist upon another, in the name of survival, but I do not think you would agree that this is moral. Why so? Why is one more moral than the other? And is genocide really wrong if it brings about the survival of a stronger species?
There is a reason the “golden rule” exists in one culture, and you are correct that it is not cultural, but I would also suggest that it is not an artificial moral construct (which it would be, if survival is the ultimate rationale), but has to do with the fact that human beings are created in the image of God. Humanity has intrinsic dignity and value (which, if you have noticed, is sometimes denied by the more militant atheists on World Blog, some of whom suggest that we nothing more than apes, others who suggest that their dog is no different in terms of dignity and value than your daughter or granddaughter) that distinguishes the human race from wild beasts (not that I think animals are of no worthy, mind you, just that there is a distinction). I’m sure you would agree that even though a lion might slaughter a gazelle or two to survive, it would not be ok for me to shoot my neighbor in the head so that I can raid his icebox so that my wife and I can eat.
Going back to the point of my post, perhaps those who wish to use the actions of the Roman Catholic Church against Galileo in an attempt to malign Christianity and perpetuate a “science v. religion” mythos should really reconsider, in light of what you have suggested concerning the herd rationale. The folks in power were just attempting to survive, after all, and if they wished to place a weaker man under house arrest as a means of their survival, who are they to say they were wrong? Because it makes them feel icky?
Brief messages such as this don’t really demonstrate or “prove” points in complex arguments such as whether the Bible is a myth or inerrant, or how humans developed a sense of morality and ethics, or how the variations of living beings developed. At best they summarize complex arguments in terse and questionable generalizations.
If evolution is a “god of the gaps” religion, so is Judeo-Christianity. For example, that there are many myths that speak of floods does not mean that the story of the ark is true. Christians quite properly regard every other culture’s creation myth with some condescension, but are sure that their myth is literally true.
Truth is very hard to find, which does not mean that it is not “out there somewhere”. This is somewhat easier to observe in science than in philosophy and religion. Perhaps the greatest example I know is Semmelweis and his discovery of how to prevent child birth fever. His advice was rejected by the scientists (doctors) of his time. As far as I know the Christian clergy of his time were similarly “out to lunch” though one might think they would have been a little more concerned about the death of so many mothers and babies.
Other examples of at first ignored truth include plate tectonics (continental drift) and the cause of ulcers. When I was 30 I suffered from a duodenal ulcer; by the witch doctor medicine of the time 1970s) I was sent to a psychiatrist. That I was highly neurotic at the time (still am now) made the prescription intuitive and appropriate; it just happened to be irrelevant to my illness, which we now know is caused by a bacterial infection. (“Demons” anybody?)
It’s harder to observe this in ethical and moral issues. Do you allow your wife to vote? 150 years ago not many clergyman would have even imagined the idea that women shold be allowed the right to vote.
Although it offends many Christians, such as Joel Mark, I am unrepentant in regarding the example of John Newton, the slave ship captain and author of “Amazing Grace” as an example of moral evolution, though I don’t think I am being disrespectful to Christians in pointing out this example. He himself had been oppressed under conditions similar to slavery. He became a Christian and continued to ship slaves for a while. Eventually he realized I’m a Christian. This is not right.
I regard Christianity as a “virtuous swindle.” You regard it as Truth. This difference in opinion is a big gap.
RN, I would agree with you that it is difficult to summarize complex ideas in just a few paragraphs. However, it is generally much easier to demonstrate (as, imho, I believe I have) that to simply pass of morality as something that simply “evolved” is, for lack of a better word, silly. Now, I’m sure you think the same about religion (calling Christianity a “virtuous swindle” seems a bit condescending, even though you accuse Christians of being this way in an earlier paragraph in your last post), but opinions, as comfortable as they may make us feel, as essentially worthless when discussing matters of truth (and I’m sure you would agree with this last part). The argument that morality “evolved” is simply circular in reasoning. My comment about evolution being a “god of the gaps” (I think you missed my main point here) was simply to point out that an insult that gets hurled by certain militant atheists is actually something that is true of their worldview. The emperor has no clothes, if you will. On the other hand, it can be demonstrated fairly easily that evolutionary thinking did not originate with Darwin (he only developed the mechanism, natural selection, that gave scientific validity to the theory) but had its origin in Greek paganistic thought. This does not invalidate it, of course (neither of us want to be guilty of the genetic fallacy), but I only seek to show you how easy careless analogies can be tossed around (like the “Commie card” you mentioned that you detested, in a post above).
Several of the things you mentioned, such as the story of the Biblical flood and John Newton, seem to be red herrings (btw, I would agree with those Christians who say that having accounts of flood stories in other cultures is exactly what one expects to find if such a story is true — if it were completely different from anything else, then that is what should raise eyebrows — and such an analogy fails to note literary distinctives between the stories, such as the fact that the Biblical account is told as historical narrative, not as epic poetry for instance). Just as a side note, many of those folks who actually contributed to the rise of science, had no problem in believing in the Biblical account of the flood; evidentially, it did not hamper their scientific inquiry. In the Newton case, his conversion seems to have been very gradual (for the life of me, I don’t understand why people — and Christians can be just as guilty as anyone else here — expect new believers to instantly become super-Christians; this is an unrealistic expectation, it is out of accord with Biblical examples [OT saints like Abraham and David or NT Apostles like Peter and Paul], and fails to take in account the fact that when these folks grew in Christ and turned from sin later in life, that this is what one would expect to see in a changed life), and seeing 21st century folk, completely removed the culture of the man, reacting in such a way, smacks again of that condecension I mentioned above. Instead, I would prefer to show a little grace to my fellow man (believer and unbeliever alike), not rush to judgment so quickly, and actually help such a person along the way (though I am woefully a failure at this sometimes myself). My hope, in pointing out inconsistencies in someone’s worldview, is that that I get to gleefully shout “I’m right! I win!” or something equally arrogant, but that God would use such an argument to open the eyes of such an individual, that they might see their sin and turn from it, that they would turn to Christ, that their soul be saved. Souls (even if you do not believe in such) are much more important that feelings and arguments, imho.
In the end, my friend, if Christianity is not true, then the only other position I see is nihilism. Dawkins himself has described evolution with such terms as blind, meaningless chance. Perhaps you don’t agree with him. He is probably being consistent with his position here, at least on the surface, but of course it doesn’t give him any justification for such things as epistemology, metaphysics, or morality. Saying that you love your wife or daughter or granddaughter is, in the end, just a facade that we have thrust upon our existence. It might make our lives a bit easier, it might make us want to survive, but it really doesn’t mean anything. In the end, if I kill everyone who crosses my path in order to rob them and survive or you choose to live in some modern day familial structure as a means of survival, who’s to say one of us is right and who is wrong? After all, if I were to wipe out your family as a means of my survival, that’s just natural selection in action, is it not?
I hope you were not offended by my last venture into the absurdity of the naturalistic worldview. Of course, I wish nothing but the best for you and your family. But I would encourage you to think on these things, my friend. Thanks for the opportunity!
As always, Tim and Anna, I appreciate your courteous comments and replies. I do think about these matters; otherwise you would not find me visiting your blog and worldmagblog.com.
There is a discrepancy in aims and objectives. In part I read and write to clarify my own thoughts. In part I write to amuse myself.
It please me if someone says, “You’re right!” or “You entertain me,” or “You made me laugh”–that is why my blog is titled “Vanity Press”–but I don’t hold my breath waiting for such reactions–that is why it’s cross-titled “Modesty Press.”
In part, when people ask me questions such as “Why be good?” and “Why stay alive,” I provide answers which work for me. I don’t provide them as a system of thought that I offer for the world or my immediate audience of how to proceed with the problems and challenges of life, and I am not particularly expecting (or anxious to) collect a coterie of followers.
The evangelical Christian point of view is that you have a truth that is so urgent and so important that you want to share it with everyone.
It is difficult for people with such differing world views to communicate. It’s no surprise that the “c” word comes up from time to time (”condescending”), thought most of us don’t think of ourselves as being such–just disagreeing. The three of us participating in this discussion is a fairly good writer and has some talent at expressing ourselves pungently.
When I watch a live performance of Hamlet>/i>, I am always a little impressed with those swords the actors are waving around and clanging so vigorously, even though I know it’s “acting” by people with a lot of training in “faking” it, I’m sure there is always some real danger.
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/ii/02/0502/sword.html
Sort of along that line, I detect a subtext in the arguments that religious believers offer me that seems to run like this: the idea that there are not absolute values as provided by the Bible is too horrible to contemplate. How can you (me) live with that knowledge?
I don’t know. I am not an especially brave or smart or admirable person. I just muddle along as best I can.
Not to mention messing up my html tags and letting the italic get out of control.
You’re right, my dear Random, that I would consider a world without absolute values to be horrible. I’m not sure I would know how to justify my existence without them.
I fully believe that I am here on this earth to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (from the Westminster Shorter Catechism). I believe that God is Truth and Light. I believe He reveals His attributes and character to us in Scripture so we may reflect Him.
How would you justify/explain your existence and whose standard are you using?