Religion in America is on the defensive.
Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America’s fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.
But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a “New Atheist,” there are many others attacking the “movement” and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.
As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk….
“Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. ”
I have read of no evidence for this rather arrogant, ego blown statement.
Bottom line science divorced from a foundation of fixed morality is very, very dangerous and often put to the service of outright evil. And when you have the combination of militant atheism that believes in a relative value system the results run roughshod over the poor, the weak and the unenlightened.
oops, I submited too soon. Above should read
…. when you have the combination of militant atheism that believes in a relative value system and utilatarianism the results run rough shod over….”
There is nothing more dangerous than a man determined to better the world without appeal to the values that God has given us.
[blockquote] We now know that the universe did not require a creator. [/blockquote]
We know no such thing. The latest theory from Stephen Hawking et al, would appear to be a way of explaining how the universe could be created [i] from a separate universe.[/i] It would seem the author is not a student of metaphysics.
If you ever want to mess with a scientist, just ask them what the universe would be like if gravity were stronger or weaker, or if it did not follow the inverse square rule. Scientists can’t adequately explain gravity. What if the strong or weak interaction was different? What if the gas constant where different?
Science is very good at explaining the [i]how[/i], but not so good at explaining the [i]why[/i].
“There’s no way of knowing whether it’s true.” If the author says that science is the only way to determine what is true, then the author either begs the question or is hoist on his own petard because there is no way of knowing scientifically that science is the only way to know what is true.
The problem that i have with articles like this is that they are so philosophically uninformed. If the author is wanting to make a credible argument, he ought at least respond to the best arguments for the opposition. In case he has not read these, I would suggest starting with work by Al Plantinga on naturalism and epistemology or by Richard Swinburne on confirmation theory and inductive arguments for God’s existence.
4, I agree. The arrogance that they have no assumptions reduces their argument and all such articles to a farce. Science can show you how to build a nuclear weapon, it can’t show you whether to use it.
Indeed, in a natural materialistic worldview, why should you even bother with science? Indeed, since there is no meaning to anything why should a person care for nothing more than their immediate gratification and getting all they can get for themselves before they die?
The point is that if you examine the universe rigorously, you must conclude on the basis of probabilities that the must be an intelligent designer because the universe clearly demonstrates the presence of an intelligent design. I won’t type this argument out because I assume many of you have pursued the same argument with same evidence and reached the same result.
Authors of this sort reach their conclusions by starting with them. They simply don’t stand examination. Larry
[blockquote]I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus[/blockquote]
I actually found this statement to be the one thing in this article that challenged me and got me to thinking. How about the learned apologists who read this blog opining on possible answers, and if it is even a valid question to pose.
[blockquote]In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith — or no faith at all.
This series of weekly columns — launched in 2005 — seeks to illuminate the national conversation. [/blockquote]
I found this statement on the article sidebar to be incredibly condescending and biased. For me, it calls into question the entire series they are publishing, since they appear to have already made up their minds about the “tentacles” of religion.
If you haven’t already, consider reading Dinesh D’Souza’s fantastic treatment of the subject in his book “What’s So Great About Christianity”. Chapters 8 through 14 are especially excellent.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican, Park City UT
I take this turkey apart [url=http://wp.me/p2Me8-Xn]here[/url].
Daniel: If it could be definitively demonstrated that Jesus had not risen from the dead, I would be forced to abandon my Christian faith. That would not mean abandoning faith in God entirely, but it would make Christianity impossible. Coyne is welcome to provide such a dekmonstration if he can, but I won’t be holding my breath, considering the general incompetence of his performance in this article.
Reading the article made me think: Why is it that scientists do not lead the world? Of course they drive a lot of cultural change, and they have transformed our lives (often for better, occasionally for worse) but when it comes to choosing leaders people routinely choose lawyers, teachers, writers, even (as in Minnesota once) a wrestler. Scientists, rarely. Could it be because in their intense focus they lose the ability to understand what it means to be human, and its essential component, the spiritual dimension to life?
#10 Terry,
I don’t see how having intense focus makes one lose one’s connection to humanity?
I have been reading John Polkinghorne+ recently. He was a internationally know physicist who became an Anglican priest and has written many books on the interplay of religion and science. One of his points is that God isn’t there as a crutch to explain the unknown. Rather, He is manifest in both the known and unknown. In my former life, I would ask, “What is the coolest scientific explanation?” This line of reason would essentially always work. It only failed when there was an even cooler explanation. I didn’t use the word “cool” but “beautiful” but the reasoning is the same.
Anyone who knows about special or general relativity or quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, molecular genetics, etc., will know that this is true – we are and the universe is fearfully and wonderfully made. If we limit God to the unknowns, then God does become smaller with new discoveries. If we revel in scientific discovery as evidence of a really cool God, then God gets bigger. (Do I need to repent for calling God “cool”?)
Second and more importantly, scientists cannot determine right and wrong. They always think they can and the results are terrible. You would think for smart people that they would stop trying. We just learned that American scientists had intentionally infected Guatemalan poor and prisoners with syphilis. At least we did it to our own citizens, too. (That is sarcasm.)
It is the irreligious that have committed most of the unspeakable crimes against humanity.
Well, robroy, I rather think that it is certainty that is murderous, whether possessed by the religious or the irreligious. L
Troll Observer, first of all scientists usually exclude questions of use from their researches. The same to a lesser extent is true of technology, the application of science. What the effect will be on humankind of this or that discovery, whether it is wise or foolish to pursue this road, whether the aim of the research may be directed by the provider of the research funds – questions like these which are so important to our humanity have no place in scientific inquiry. Second, while all research (even in the humanities) can be intense and introverted, there is something about scientific research which can alienate its practitioners. It takes place in an enclosed environment. As the author notes, it seeks verifiable results that can be repeated at will, to demonstrate cause and effect. Emotion, motivation, character, are all necessarily excluded from consideration. This is not conducive to a rich understanding of human nature. I am aware of the vast generalisation here, and goodness knows theology runs its own dangers of an etiolated understanding of the world. But somehow scientists, despite their huge contribution to our well-being, often seem unable to communicate in language which can touch our hearts or stir our imagination. If you met Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the bus stop tomorrow, would you recognise him?
God and Science are both “cool” in those areas where both are true.
We can never know if Science is true (theories are constantly tested) but we have faith that God IS true. This is all the more interesting when we realize that we test and study our environment (the physical world) with a great deal of success but it is impossible to test God so we must, must, trust His revelation of Himself. This revelation is in vast agreement with what we find in the physical world. And this, of itself, reveals a very, very cool God.
So, “Science and religion aren’t friends” makes no sense unless one or the other is not true to the maker of that statement. For me, “Science and religion aren’t friends” makes no sense because I see the friendship of truth in both.
Don
By this scientist’s logic, Philosophy (or political science or any number of fields) and Science aren’t friends either. I could just as easily “expose the dangers” of science by the weird logic of the New Atheists. I really think this editorial is not worth the paper its printed on.
[blockquote]I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus[/blockquote]
Simple: produce a corpse scientifically proven to be that of Jesus of Nazareth. 😉
There are two serious fault lines here he is not aware of – that none of his ilk are.
First, he seems to be unable to carry ambiguities in his mind without distress. The result is a kind of dogmatism that is masked by the scientific assertion of the hypothesis, that is, an ambiguity that only objective testing will determine the truth of. But notice his emphasis on Truth; it is certainty he wants, not doubt or ambiguity. This makes him an absolutist, and therefore quite unable to examine the universe for the presence of an intelligent creator, whose presence can never be demonstrated beyond any doubt.
Second, and this is definitive and so no more can be said about it than this, the the Law must always precede that to which it is applied. No thing can cohere to any other thing save that there is a Law which orders its organization. Analogically, the container must of necessity precede the thing contained. Because this precedes the material universe, it can never be demonstrated, only understood.
Since this lacks deniability, he cannot grasp this essential truth.
Larry