This is the first post of what I anticipate making a series of occasional
posts here at my blog. Then again I may not. We'll see.
I have atheist friends just as I have religious friends. And I enjoy those
friendships. Atheism can speak either of the lack of belief in the
popular theistic forms of God, or is some cases, especially it seems so in
recent years, there are atheists who have drawn a line in the sand between
science and religion, expecting we stand on either one side or the other.
That is the form of atheism that I disagree with.
Victor Stenger is a particle physicist and ardent combatant against
"religion," as revealed in quotes of his I am highlighting here:
I want to urge those of you who are not scientists to try to
convince those who are to stop pussyfooting around with religion and confront
the reality of what it is and always has been -- a blight on humanity that has
hindered our progress for millennia and now threatens our very
existence.
And:
Science is not going to change its commitment to the truth. And
religion is not going to change its commitment to nonsense. And that is why I
call upon scientists and all thinking people to focus their attention on
reducing the influence of religion in the world, with the goal of the eventual
fall of foolish faith. The future depends on it.
Both of these quotes were taken from Stenger's essay The Fall of Foolish Faith.
This way of thinking seems odd when one considers the history of science
and finds that many of the most innovative minds in science were men and women
who believed in God.
That being the case, it seems the most over-the-top of ideas to suggest
that somehow humanity's future depends on religion being stamped out.
Certainly I agree that there is foolish faith that needs to be confronted.
I don't believe a full-frontal assault in the form of calling people fools is
the best way to address that particular problem, however.
Religion should be just as committed to truth as is science. I think
honest, informed people understand that. And those religious folks who don't
understand this should be educated, not verbally and mentally abused.
8 comments:
I agree
And I disagree.
This way of thinking seems odd when one considers the history of science and finds that many of the most innovative minds in science were men and women who believed in God.
An extremely weak argument in favor of your position, especially because so little was known of science when many of the most religious scientists *e.g. Newton) were practicing that cognitive compartmentalization was easy. And it's weaker still when one considers the amount of overt hostility, ancient, historical, and present from religious organizations towards the practice of science.
That being the case, it seems the most over-the-top of ideas to suggest that somehow humanity's future depends on religion being stamped out.
The most over the top? Seriously? You are going way beyond literary hyperbole, trying to support a very strong conclusion with the weakest of arguments.
I don't believe a full-frontal assault in the form of calling people fools is the best way to address that particular problem, however.
I do believe so. Do you have any better reasons than the weak tea you present here?
Religion should be just as committed to truth as is science. I think honest, informed people understand that.
The problem is that you yourself are not an honest, informed person, as your incompetent argument in this post shows. You mean well, I'm sure, but only someone who does not understand, the basics of actual argumentation, or who has abandoned to support a cherished belief, would argue as you do. You have not changed your own commitment to nonsense. If you won't, why should we expect the Phelps and Ratzingers of the world to do so.
My position is apparently somewhere between yours and Larry's. As I see it, it profits little, if you wish to dialogue, to call others fools. I would be agreeing with you on that. And believing in things without reliable, quality evidence is foolish, in accordance with the proposition that belief should be apportioned in accordance to the quantity and quality of evidence for the proposition.
I disengaged from the argument about whether it was proper for me to cite a method devised by the believing Occam, primarily because of my evaluation of what is to be gained with further argumentation vs what is to be lost in the nature of our friendship. Likely that was somewhat cowardly, as disagreement always means saying to some extent you are wrong and I am right - this is unpleasant. Warmer and fuzzier to try to minimize this.
However, this post, and your blog does invite commentary, so I will risk a bit here. The issue is, were Occam, Newton, Bacon, et al, the thinkers who developed science, Christians, and if so, why?
You said, basically, 'Occam professed Christianity, I take him at his word'. This after I had made the point that in those times keeping yourself away from burning stake might tend to silence any dissent.
But now further into why. Christians destroyed all the old institutions of learning (see Hypatia and the library at Alexandria for a principal but not isolated instance). Accordingly, thereafter, the only way for a good inquisitive mind to acquire such education as remained possible was to enter a monastery. This constitutes a second reason why the only place from which science could be generated was from within Christianity.
Occam, Francis Bacon, Erasmus, et al, made miniscule progress with divergent thinking because they were immersed in the culture that promulgated belief in a doctrine rather than belief by investigation. Science got a big boost when Islam, which had preserved rather than destroyed the ancient knowledge, made inroads into southern Europe.
I have elaborated Larry's point about why the argument that science proceeded from Christianity is a weak argument. As I have observed every demur, by me or by Sabio, meet with resistance and counterargument, my intention is to let it rest after this inordinately long comment - well see how that works out!
PS - In checking that I was spelling monastery right, I came upon this image which I thought worthy of sharing:
http://www.great-adventures.com/images/greece/Holy%20Trinity1.jpg
PS2 - Or, in brief, I more agree with Stenger, and have provided some support for why I think that way. We can still be friends.
@ Sabio,
I appreciate that. Surely it is possible for people to disagree without being hateful and insulting.
@ Larry, The Barefoot Bum
I appreciate your taking the time to read and leave us your thoughts about this.
I much less appreciated your saying I am "not an honest and informed person." I don't see how that is yours to say.
About the only thing I have to say about your remarks is that I think the fact that hundreds of years after Newton we have had and still have men and women who "cognitively compartmentalize" their opinions and work in and contribute to the various branches of science is the best proof that Stenger's thesis about the danger religion poses to humanity is overblown, or as I put it, over-the-top.
@ Exrelayman,
Wow, you threw out a lot there, including some old issues. Of course we can still be friends. I don't gather my friends based on whether they see eye-to-eye with me on things. That we agree on the impropriety of being nasty means we are friends indeed.
About the Occam thing, my point was and is simply this: William appeared to me to be a sincere theist based on his numerous theological and philosophical writings from that perspective. If he were merely giving "lip service" to belief in God in order to avoid persecution, then his many writings display not mere prudence but hypocrisy of the vilest sort. In fact, he did face charges of heresy. But I merely mentioned to you that I think religious skeptics who use his "razor" to argue against belief in God are probably doing so in a way he would not and obviously did not use it. Either way it doesn't matter to me because, as I told you, I think Occam's razor is overrated. The truth is the truth regardless of how simple or complex it is.
About the destruction the of library at Alexandria. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't that have more to do with Christianity versus Paganism than Christianity versus Science?
And somehow we got from religion versus science to Christianity versus science. That wasn't my point. I believe that believers in other religious traditions contributed to the scientific quest along the way. There you have apparently misunderstood me and I don't know why because you know I am not a Christian.
In short, I don't think science = atheism or that atheism = science. I do believe science (or our current understanding of the way reality works) can be compatible with either atheism or religion.
But as I mentioned in this post, I agree that there is a foolish faith that needs to be confronted. I just don't think religion = blind faith, either.
And of course you and Sabio meet with counterargument and resistance from me. That's because we disagree, right? But I value neither of you the less because of it and would hope you two feel the same towards me. (Larry obviously thinks I'm a dishonest simpleton.)
But, again, let me be clear: I didn't and never have made the argument here on my blog that "science proceeded from Christianity." I don't believe that. But I also don't believe science is a replacement for religion or vice versa.
Enjoyed your nicely measured response. Yes, I diverged a bit from what I know about how you distinguish religion from Christianity, which I agree is only an erroneous form of religion.
Occam's tool is used improperly also too much of the time - it is a generally effective guideline when its limits are respected. I don't think my original use was improper which is why I took some umbrage at your amusement at me using it. But who knows - wouldn't be my first time being wrong!
Larry assumed too much about you from reading just the one post and commenting. I seem to recall making a similar error myself, but hopefully being a bit less harsh.
@ Exrelayman,
Well, I live here in the Bible Belt. My family and friends are mostly Christians or at least believers in a personal God. Most of them are weak in the area of understanding science. It's a lot easier to take the Bible over science if one doesn't know a lot about science.
I have two personal friends who are atheists. One is of the more mocking variety, the other is more sympathetic towards religion and keeps mostly quiet about it except for separation of church and state issues. My girlfriend is pretty much an agnostic who gives religion very little thought. Her mother is a non-devout Catholic, but still a God-believer.
Having spent the better part of the first two decades of my life as a Christian fundamentalist, I think I know and can speak with some knowlege about whether religion is likely to bring about the end of civilization as we know it.
The overwhelming majority of even the most fundamentalist of believers are content to live their lives in peaceful dissent. They go to the doctor, keep up with the latest technologies and even use them to further their beliefs, and most of them don't think the earth is flat and that NASA faked the moon landings. They don't ache for a return to the Dark Ages. They are flesh and blood people who have feelings. And I've noticed that when I disagree with them in kindness and show appropriate understanding, I gain and hold their attention. I really place a higher price on kindness than on being right. Bad ideas are frustrating, to be sure. But I think people can be guided better than they can be badgered into submission.
And having said all of that, as I've mentioned to you before, I don't find the approach of some atheists to be much different from the Bible thumpers. That is why so many religious people have embraced the idea that atheism is a religion. It isn't, of course, but for some people it seems to function as one, complete with its own dogma.
Obviously I disagree with that approach.
Post a Comment