There's been a surge of late in what you might call "Evangelical Atheism" - atheism propounded with zeal and enthusiasm, and with an aim to winning new converts. Richard Dawkins is probably the best-known proponent.
The driving force seems to be the notion that reason and science are incompatible with the notion of "God" as described by conventional religion. If the two are incompatible, then they make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of the universe, and therefore scientists and people of faith are at odds with each other. You see this dynamic in the debate over teaching evolution, and in books such as Dawkins' The God Delusion. Sometimes it gets nasty.
I think this is misguided. The reason-vs.-faith debate arises when people on both sides of the divide make extravagant claims that are either unnecessary or unsupported by their source materials. Stripped of extraneous, unnecessary and unsupportable claims, the two seem perfectly compatible.
My goal here is to flesh out this argument and foster an open, respectful discussion. Books and blogs on all sides are far too concerned with scoring cheap points and indulging in cathartic rants for any of us to learn anything from them. I'm interested in an intellectually honest debate, and I hope to learn something.
I'm also interested in talking about faith and reason in broader terms. I'm not a scientist, and it would be rank folly for me to dive headfirst into a discussion that's been ongoing for thousands of years and pretend to contribute much new knowledge. But I analyze and argue for a living, so I think I can make some useful comments about the classic arguments and about how the mind has plenty of room for the spirit and vice versa.
Full-disclosure-time: I'm a Christian. I think it would have been perverse for God to outift us with curiosity and reason and then expect us not to use it: hence science. I think that science and theology look at the same things from different angles, and that the apparent differences between them are either bad science, bad theology, or just parallax.
I also think that, while science and reason likely can't prove the existence of God, neither can they disprove it. What we're left with is this: God may exist. We may believe, disbelieve, or remain unconvinced. But given the claims that people of faith make about God, we can't afford to ignore the question. And while I don't know that reason can solve the issue, open discussion can get us a lot closer than most people think.
So that's my stance. I'm looking forward to hearing from people who disagree with me. It should be fun.
2 comments:
Regarding
"I think this is misguided. The reason-vs.-faith debate arises when people on both sides of the divide make extravagant claims that are either unnecessary or unsupported by their source materials. Stripped of extraneous, unnecessary and unsupportable claims, the two seem perfectly compatible. My goal here is to flesh out this argument and foster an open, respectful discussion. Books and blogs on all sides are far too concerned with scoring cheap points and indulging in cathartic rants for any of us to learn anything from them. I'm interested in an intellectually honest debate, and I hope to learn something."
I think this is a good point. It is what I tried to do in that paper I was telling you about...how the economy is wrecking the planet. I tried not to come at it from a socialism-is-ridiculous or a capitalism-is-awful perspective (interestingly, environmental analysis does not generally see capitalism and communism as very different)...so the harder I thought, the farther I got from the traditional right-left debates.
I have also been doing some thinking about reason and faith, but I’m not quite ready to write any of it down.
""I think that science and theology look at the same things from different angles, and that the apparent differences between them are either bad science, bad theology, or just parallax."
Ok, let's have at it then.
In what way does theology tell us anything more about the physical nature of the universe than, say, gardening? At least gardening teaches us about how to grow pretty flowers. Theology, near as I can tell, as produced absolutely nothing of substance.
And if science is compatible with religion, you'll have to start dreaming up explanations for things. You can have your religious comfort and do-gooding, but those pesky miracles are SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE. You've got some 'splainin to do when it comes to resurrections, transubstantiation, virgin births, and the like.
"I also think that, while science and reason likely can't prove the existence of God, neither can they disprove it. What we're left with is this: God may exist."
You don't believe this line of thinking; I am 100% confident in that. How can I be so confident?
While it is true that nothing can be disproved, this does not imply that all things, while possible, are equally probable. If I were to put it to you that there is a china teapot orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter, unseen by even our most powerful telescopes, according to your thinking, this possibility must be accorded equal probability with the notion that I'm making the whole thing up. You will agree, I'm sure, that this is utter lunacy.
Similarly, you must also admit that your god (Yahweh, presumably) is equally likely to exist as any other god I can name (or dream up). Without some way of assigning enhanced probability to one or more gods, each is equally unlikely. Is it more likely that Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross, was resurrected on the third day, and currently sits at the right hand of god to judge the dead, that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse, or that Zeus sits atop Mt. Olympus with his lightning bolt at his side?
You and I are both atheists with respect to virtually every god that has ever been. Once you accept the reasons that WE BOTH reject those gods, you'll understand why I go one god further...
Post a Comment