When Oxford don Richard Dawkins published his book The God Delusion in 2006, I recall that the most telling criticism of its content - and more particularly its tone and style- came not from enraged Christians, who you'd expect to be upset, but from fellow atheists and fellow scientists.
So, when a friend of mine who works in the Department of Ecology and Biodiversity at the University of Hong Kong and identifies himself as an agnostic offered to lend me a slim volume called The Dawkins Delusion?, I was intrigued enough to take him up on his offer.
The book, by former atheist and molecular biophysicist turned Chrisian and theologian Alister McGrath, picks up on, and is in many ways an extended version of the review of Dawkins' book which was published in Prospect magazine,"Dawkins the dogmatist", which lambasted it for its "incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory" nature.
For me, the most interesting point raised by McGrath is the tendency of Dawkins to set up straw men by digging up long abandoned ideas, or "memes", to borrow one of his own coinages, which he then attempts to discredit. Or is this really his purpose, as the effect of such a rhetorical strategy is rather to perpetuate the obsolete myth rather than to bury it?
One example of this tendency cited by the author is the idea that religion and science are in a permanent state of war, when the true relationship between the two is far more nuanced and complex. You don't have to look far beyond the results of a 1997 survey of scientists, which found that 40% believe in God, to start questioning not just the assertion itself but the reason why anyone would wish to make it, and continue to make it, in the face of the evidence.
23 comments:
Where was that survey conducted? How scientific was the survey, and how did they determine what defined a scientist?
Any scientist worth his or her salt puts their faith in evidence. They experiment and look for evidence. I don't think anyone who believes in god can also be called a scientist.
It's perfectly possible for someone to both believe in God and be a scientist (people have been doing it for years), faith and empirical science being two different and, in my view, very much complementary things. Again, most people have a worldview, and these are typically articles of faith.
(So far as I recall, the author doesn't address the qus. you raise - but would, I'm sure, if asked.)
The fact that the author doesn't answer those questions is worrying. I would put money on it being conducted in the US, and only the US.
Or perhaps it was conducted in Iran? The results don't fit with reality.
Of course scientists in the US are more likely to believe in God - they have had it drilled into them at school, at home and in their constitution/swearing of allegiance etc.
For a scientist to believe in a God they must think that all the laws of nature and physics can be gazzumped by a supreme being. A supreme being that there is no provable evidence of, a supreme being that no experiment will prove. Scientists look for evidence. They look for evidence through experimentation, not through reading some mumbo jumbo and listening to nonsense in a church.
Just did a quick google search and it does appear that this survey was done in the US. I deem it unscientific! The good news from the survey is that the majority don't believe in god, and I'm sure the number who do will continue to fall as science sheds more light on the mysteries of the universe.
Here we go - the results of the survey were published in the UK-published Nature magazine, while the survey itself was done in the US and pretty pucka, I think you'd agree:
http://researchmagazine.uga.edu/97su/faith.html
I think it's a bit harsh to discard someone's choices as solely or overwhelmingly the result of their upbringing. The biter may found himself bit if one follows this line of thinking selectively - and all exploration - all deductive, scientific thinking - is surely selective.
There is only the tiniest of differences between me and the most devout Christian (or Muslim). Whereas I do not believe in any of the thousands of man-made deities, they do not believe in any of them either, except one.
Ah, but Islam is a Christian heresy, Foamie!
Yes, and it's funny how they all believe in the one their mum and dad told them to believe in.
But my mother and father were not believers when I became a Christian. An I'm scarcely unique in that.
But they probably leaned closer to being Christians than to being Muslims, didn't they, Ulie, old chap?
I think all we in the West do that, Foamie. But whether such a desirable state of affairs will continue into the foreseeable future is a question for debate.
You're right that you are not unique, Ulie, but statistically you may as well be.
There is a huge chance that you would be a catholic if born in Italy, Spain or Latin America, and a huge chance that you would be a Muslim if born in the middle east. If you were born to a Hindi couple living in Mumbai, I would bet my house that you'd be worshipping Ganesh on the weekends.
If you had been born in ancient Egypt you would be worshipping Ra, ancient Greece and you would be worshipping Zeus.
You and a minute percentage of people may decide to worship a different god to your parents or the state, but in the grand scheme of things the overwhelming evidence shows that we simply believe in the gods that we are told to believe in.
It is complete and utter nonsense.
It's good to be able to discuss these things without rancour and with civility.
With regard to your main point in your most recent comment, I couldn't agree more. Typically, human beings are socialised into a beief system. (The same could be said for those brought up in atheistic Communist regimes.)
However, where I diverge from you is in believing, on what I consider rational and reasonable grounds, in the Judeo-Christian God. Even if that is nonsense (which, naturally, I don't believe), I still don't think you have accounted for the spiritual non-material side of our nature.
Of course, you may not agree that we have such a side, in which case there's not much more to be said.
Never been in or seen or heard of a church or faith that doesn't ask its followers for cash. The speeches and texts talk of the heavenly, but the collection plates are to be filled with earthly gain. And I reallyt like Foamies point about only believing in one God.
Our helper goes to the Mormon church in Wanchai, where they take 10% of the salary of their congregation. Even from dometic helpers. It doesn't seem right.
Word verification: unhylo. (Anagram of unholy!)
The survey you mention was actually a replica of a survey conducted in 1916, using the exact same methodology. The person who conducted the survey said he was much more interested in the trial than in what scientists believe - i.e. he wanted to see how opinions had changed based on exactly the same method of surveying. Upto 1916 a sea change of opinion had taken place because of the publication of the theory of evolution 80 years before. Before that, you would have expected close to 100% of scientists to believe in God. Nothing of note has happened since to change the results of the survey (although now 99.5% of scientists accept evolutionary theory)
So, whilst the survey would seem to indicate that 40% of scientists believe in God, I presume we can draw the conclusion that 60% do not. I'd find that much more compelling. Compare this to the US population at large, 83% believe in God (i.e. only 17% have doubts)
I guess it is expected that believers would clutch to any old straw to argue against someone like Dawkins who has so completely destroyed their basis for belief in a god.
It certainly doesn't sound right fumie.
I wonder, did all the money the catholic church has had to pay out recently to pay off those victims of child rape come from the same coffers its members have been throwing their money into every Sunday? That doesn't sound right either.
Great observations, Henry.
"... whilst the survey would seem to indicate that 40% of scientists believe in God, I presume we can draw the conclusion that 60% do not."
45%, in fact - 15% were on the fence.
Of course, if you conducted a similar survey among social scientists, you could easily double that.
Not sure what you mean by your comment about social scientists or whether it's relevant. You cited Dawkins assertion that religion and science are in a permanent state of war, and then claimed that their relationship is "far more nuanced and complex", citing as evidence a survey where 40% of scientists "believe in god" as evidence, ignoring the fact that 60% don't (Ok, or a few are undecided). Anyway, that might, just might be enough to suppose that the relationship between religion and SCIENTISTS is nuanced and complex. The relationship between religion and SCIENCE is clear. The two are exclusive and contradictory.
I don't see why what you claim should be true. Of course, if you mean that someone who believes that the earth is 5,000 years old is likely to prove a bad scientist, then I agree with you. But how can science contradict religion?
I for one hope that scientific exploration will one day be able to shed significant light on the origins of life.
By the way, do you believe that human beings are still evolving?
The basis of science is evidence, proof, observation, not once but time and time and time again. The basis of religion is faith. No evidence required. That's why they are contradictory.
Life is evolving and continues to evolve. Don't expect to see any changes anytime soon though. If you check up on evolutionary theory you'll see that discernible changes take place over many millennia. I hope you don't mind me asking, but the way you phrase the question sounds like you don't believe that life continues to evolve, or maybe even that evolution is the reason we are here?
Religious belief and science are not contradictory for the very reason that they are in your terms exclusive. They cannot be in contradiction because they concern different things. Science has to with nature and tries to explain it empirically. It has nothing to say about anything that exists outside nature, such as values, and is in no position to deny the existence of values or moral laws. These are outside its remit. It is religion that has to do with values, especially moral values.
I mention the case of human evolution because I've come across Darwinian evolutionists who are firmly convinced that the species is no longer evolving. I think their argument was that it had reached its final state. I found this hard to comprehend in proponents of a theory which is based on random mutation and natural selection.
Given religions history, It really is impossible to justify religion on the basis of values, especially moral ones. And you definitely, absolutely don't need religion to have a values framework, unless your framework includes hatred, misogyny, power. No doubt you'll tell me that is a minority and they exist inside and outside of religion. As I said though, you don't need religion to tell you what's right and what's wrong.
It's been fun, but its time for me to give up on this debate...:)
Post a Comment