Today 45 years ago, three great men (C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy, and Aldous Huxley) died within a few hours of one another. Peter Kreeft uses this historical event as the backdrop for a wonderful Socratic dialogue (or trialogue, I suppose) arising out of a hypothetical meeting of these men shortly after they died. What did they believe and what would they have said to one another? (continue reading…)
Archive
Category: AtheismNow I know what I hope to get for Christmas! Wayne Eyre wrote a masterful review in the National Post of David Berlinkski’s new book, The Devil’s Delusion. Atheism and It’s Scientific Pretensions . In his review Eyre provides a wonderful context for the book’s subject and provides enough insight into the author’s credentials and the book’s’ content to let the reader decide if it’s worth spending one’s hard earned dollars (or in my case, perhaps someone else’s hard earned cash) on the purchase. (continue reading…)
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has released a 70 page article by a committee of 15 authors, chaired by Francisco J. Ayala, entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism . This article, published in 2008, is far too long for me to discuss in one Blog, so I propose to discuss it topically over several shorter submissions.
First of all this article is written for the non-science practitioner since the text consists of one long list of assertions with little or no critical review of the actual data. I presume the authors chose this route to keep the discussion simple, however it does mean that very complex topics are summarized for the reader based on the authors’ point of view and there is no possibility to examine the data to see how it speaks to the assertions presented.
In this post, I would like to focus on pages 12-15 where Ayala et al. quotes many sources to make the point "acceptance of evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith." He argues that there is no inherent conflict between religious faith and evolution and underlines the complementarity of science and religion. The condescending tone of this discussion aside, I agree with this complementarity statement with some qualifications.
One problem lies in the definitions. If everyone is using the same definition for "evolution" and for "faith" then well and good, but often in these kinds of discussions that is not the case. For example, if evolution is defined in "change in organisms over time" then virtually everyone would can accept that evolution occurs since virtually everyone acknowledges pigmentation changes in the races, development of infectious immunity and similar examples. To avoid this confusion, I prefer the term Darwinism (see my blog entitled Tanks, Testing and Terminology ) to refer to what Ayala means by evolution.
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. [1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers]
This problem of definitions also occurs in the quotes of various clerics, rabbis, and theistic evolutionists cited by Ayala et al. Virtually all Christians subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed. The first line of the Apostles’ Creed states: I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. Given the Apostles’ Creed, it takes a good deal of discussion to understand what people mean when they say that they say "evolution is compatible with religious faith." Given the Apostles’ Creed it is difficult to reconcile Maker of heaven and earth with "unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable" (which by the way are untestable statements – how do I prove a process is unsupervised?).
Now let me turn to what I find most interesting in Ayala’s [I'm going to say Ayala when I mean Ayala et al.] discussion. He has made the point that if the evidence for evolution is there, then it is possible for Christians to accommodate this evidence and maintain their faith. What Ayala does not do is turn this statement around.
Ayala brought Christians and other Theists (some 40% of the science population as I recall) into the discussion. What about the other 60%? Can an Atheist (perhaps more properly a Materialist or Philosophical Naturalist) accommodate empirical evidence contrary to Darwinism with their world view?
I think the answer is an emphatic "no!" As Dawkins has pointed out "Evolution makes Atheism reasonable." If Ayala is going to open the faith versus evolution question at all, he ought to point out that while scientists that are Theists can accommodate change over time with their beliefs, Atheists on the other hand would have their whole world view severely challenged by empirical evidence that pointed to the actions of a Creator. I believe this is an important point because one needs to identify potential bias in the stakeholders of these discussions. Everyone has biases. Atheist biases are very strongly on the side of a Darwinist explanation.
In the end, both Atheists and Theists ought to find common ground by agreeing that we are seeking the truth. We will probably differ on how we weight the evidence. I think everyone no matter what their world view, if they are honest, will acknowledge there is some difficulty in integrating all of the evidence that confronts them. It would be helpful if we could discuss our differences without rancor or vituperation.
So why is this such a contentious issue? I think Atheists such as Dawkins (and Ayala echoes the same sentiments on p37-39) see Intelligent Design as a way of introducing religion into the classroom [I do not agree with this perspective and believe it to be a prejudice]. However, listening to Dawkins speak, he also believes that understanding unguided Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of life in general and Homo sapiens in particular, is also a vehicle for destroying people’s religious beliefs (which Dawkins regards as a good thing). And so I think, at its core, this is really a contest about who gets to proselytize in the public school system (Atheists or Theists) and so it is this question, rather than science, that makes tensions run very high.
I have much more to say on Ayala’s manuscript, but overall I found it rather one-sided and patronizing. He underestimates the understanding of science by most of his audience, over simplifies the arguments of his opponents and puts words in their mouths rather than let them speak for themselves. If he really wanted to model the scientific method, he would avoid so many categorical statements affirming evolution. Furthermore, rather than enumerating data to support evolution, he ought to make an honest, vigorous attempt to disprove the theory (that’s what we as scientists are supposed to do) and also openly acknowledge difficulties and things that are hard to explain, given our current knowledge. Then the reader could make up his own mind on the evidence and learn something about how science works at the same time.
Thanks for reading,
~Peter
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opened in Canada last night. I had family visiting so I went to the late showing to see what all of the internet buzz was about. In the end I think it is an excellent documentary that draws attention to the academic blacklisting of researchers who have demonstrated the audacity to reference or provide data that supports Intelligent Design. Although I knew of several of the individuals interviewed, there were many I had not heard about. As a person with one foot in academia, and who is quite familiar with the grant and publication peer review process, I could readily understand how that process could shut the door on any researcher who wanted to investigate a blacklisted topic such as Intelligent Design, however, what surprised me were the examples where this process was also applied to journalists who had attempted to highlight the plight of Intelligent Design researchers. The fact that journalists also have had their careers threatened for writing sympathetically on Intelligent Design was chilling. (continue reading…)
Judging by the comments of Stephen Weinburg and the more recent additions to this body of writing by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris, there are many modern writers who would like to orchestrate and/or hasten ‘The End of Religion’. However Cavey’s book does not have the same end in mind as the other five who foresee a brave new world based on a ‘religion-free materialism’. Cavey has written two versions of ‘The End of Religion’, one by Agora Imprints and a longer one by NavPress. I have read both and I will discuss both. So what does Cavey mean by ‘The End of Religion?’ (continue reading…)
Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr. is an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. He has taught a course on Freud and Lewis at Harvard College and the Harvard Medical School for more than 25 years.
In this book he compares the lives and thoughts of these two thinkers. He sets the stage for a debate on topics as diverse as God, love, sex, the meaning of life, and death.
The comparison is compelling because both grew up with a superficial religious upbringing and then became atheists. However from there their paths diverged dramatically. (continue reading…)
In a previous post, I quoted Charles Lewis of the National Post:
“So why bother to grasp it if it is beyond human reason? What possible good can it do to believe in this miracle, let alone in any other religious belief? It is a question asked by secular societies that more and more see religion as divisive, superstitious and an elaborate but irrational story for children.”
The question of religion being divisive is an important question since it represents one of the main attacks on religion that have been made by Hitchens-Harris-Dawkins-Dennett.
I would like to then ask three questions:
- Is religion divisive?
- If religion is divisive, what are the root causes of the division?
- Is division of belief or conviction a good or a bad thing? (continue reading…)
Charles Lewis wrote an article in the National Post discussing belief and disbelief in Christ’s virgin birth, an important element in the Gospel’s account of the birth of Christ.
This is an interesting article and I recommend that my readers examine it, but one paragraph in particular caught my eye:
“So why bother to grasp it if it is beyond human reason? What possible good can it do to believe in this miracle, let alone in any other religious belief? It is a question asked by secular societies that more and more see religion as divisive, superstitious and an elaborate but irrational story for children.”
So what makes people believe in miracles? Is the belief in miracles irrational? (continue reading…)
“A man’s got to know his limitations.” ~Harry Callahan
“It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean.” ~John Locke
As I continue to study the ruminations of Hitchens-Harris-Dawkins-Dennett (H2D2) on religion and atheism I am struck by the fact that Dawkins and Harris in particular seem to ground their case on science. Science is often treated as if it the only reliable conduit to truth. In consideration of this assumption, I would like to ask two questions. What are the limitations of science? When should we lean on science to give us reliable answers? (continue reading…)
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Calgary, there was a great deal of rivalry between the Faculty of Arts and Science and the Faculty of Engineering. At one point a disparaging, badly drawn poster similar to one shown at the right appeared prominently all over campus much to the amusement of Arts and Science students. 
Now it seems this one-upmanship between these two faculties has not completely disappeared. It was recently revived by an editorial in the National Post that reported the statistic that the membership in Al Qaeda was skewed toward terrorists with engineering degrees. In the ensuing discussion it was also mentioned that Yasser Arafat had a civil engineering degree.
G. Klatt of Calgary writing a letter to the National Post opined that “It is my theory that we observe this correlation [between terrorist behaviour and a degree in engineering] because, among disciplines of higher learning, engineering is one of those least likely to expose the practitioner to situations where he will find his personal system of values and beliefs challenged.” (continue reading…)