New Atheists, Science, and the Roots of Religious Intolerance

It is. :slight_smile: You catch that, @BradKramer?

1 Like

He’s gone rather farther than that though. He seems at once to be asserting that these specific questions are beyond science, and that they in some way define the limits of science.

Has rational thought solved these questions? It seems to me that the answer must be no, so then might we not equally say that “The existence of a limit to rational thought is made clear by its inability to answer childlike questions…”

I don’t understand his reasoning or accept his conclusion here. I understand that this was a short quote, and I would like to read the book to see what Dr. Medawar was saying or objecting to more exactly.

That’s how it appears that it must be to us from our vantage point, but who can say what paradigm might be resulting in our reality? I haven’t heard a convincing rational argument that would break out of the regression. This in fact is the primary reason that I call myself an atheist, though I’m agnostic in the sense that I recognize that I don’t have these answers. I will go as far as to say that some answers might include something that is godlike, but I have yet to be convinced by any earthly speculation about such a god’s nature. I’m all ears to such arguments by the way, but attempts to resolve the conundrum seem to me to be limited by insufficient information in much the way that a strictly scientific analysis would be. I think that such questions are beyond our current understanding of the universe, and though I want to know, I can accept that my knowledge in the area is limited.

However, who knows what we will learn in the future? Surely it is possible that new, scientifically revealed information about the universe may grant us new insight. Or that rational thought might, as well. Why try to delineate these questions in this way? If a specific argument, scientific or otherwise, is based on faulty reasoning, by all means it should be called out. I don’t see the point of putting down lines on the field in advance.

I agree, and it needs to be said that Christianity from its very beginning, considered that all men/women of goodwill had access to the truth. It is not the delineation of knowledge that is put forward by Christianity, but instead who may confess the faith - granting faith is God’s doing, and I do not know why some, who are sincere, are atheists, and why others are theists. Be that as it may, seeking the truth is an impulse given to all humanity from God.

2 Likes

I’m with you there. My own approach (whether or not Medawar would end up agreeing --and it would surprise me if he didn’t) is that we aren’t trying to define limits (prescriptively) so much as noting that there appear to be things (however nebulously or vaguely understood) that aren’t really empirically addressable questions. Science has free reign to go as far in those directions as it can, though. No artificial delineations need be put in the sand by any Christian since they think God is sovereign over all such things anyway regardless of how much of a handle science may or may not have on it.

This epistemic humility is appreciated and shared. Ted reminded us that the humanities were not here claimed to be offering certainty either, but it does highlight to me a difference in how knowledge is approached by, say, “pre-Cartesian believers” and today’s modernist commitments often shared by believer and non-believer alike.

I am in the midst of composing for my classroom time-line a “placard” summarizing Descartes’ deep influence on modern western thought. Before Descartes, knowledge was assumed to objectively exist and most importantly be authenticated by higher authority [God]. Descartes changed the focus of this authentication from being external [higher authority] to internal [what can I be certain of?]. He may have experimented with this switch innocently enough [Catholic as he was], resolving to discard all so-called certainties to see where he could get from scratch. But the switch-over was profound. Now knowledge became a matter of rational certainty located within (not revelation from without). Even theologians [thinking of Schleiermacher and no doubt many since] followed this, making religious convictions now based on the subjective and experiential evaluations – authority to validate truth now resides in each person. Empiricists would build on this (since pure philosophy can only get you so far along with certainty --we want to “know” more than just that we ourselves exist). And here modern science came into its own. Instead of proof, we can more realistically discuss probabilities in proportion to empirical evidence. But the locus of evaluation for all that still (in the philosophical sense) resides inside each appraiser who will decide for themselves how trustworthy all such evidential appraisal is.

Modern science [if we may pretend it is some monolithic thing] actually agrees with the original believers about the existence of objective truth, and maintains a healthy suspicion if not rejection of subjective assertions. But thinking believers [many of us around here I hope!] who are willing to reflect on these influences can, I think, keep the best of this rationalist approach while still hearkening back to a conviction [we would say a warranted one, recognizing your disagreement in this] that there is an external authority and there are important revelations that we can respond to and embrace without demanding Cartesian philosophical certainty, and with varying degrees of warrant in the broadly empirical sense.

Believers are instructed to walk by faith and not by sight. Jesus seems to have presupposed that we of course choose to walk by daylight when we have it instead of stumbling around in the dark. So I think it is safe to say that Christians are not supposed to shut their eyes and then think this is what it means to trust God in faith. We use our eyes to the fullest extent we can, of course. Science helps those eyes see even more and further. Who would object to that? So science is welcome to do whatever it can. We believers are still left to trust in God who underlies all things both in daylight and veiled in darkness.

And now my ramble is mercifully cut short by a need to head off for an Easter celebration. Blessings to you, and thanks, John, for your patient conversation that provokes me to think out loud here along with you. May it continue.

To echo Ted’s celebratory comment somewhere above: He is risen indeed!

1 Like

Thanks to you as well Mervin for the response, very interesting and informative. I hope to have the opportunity to talk and listen further as well. A Happy Easter to you.

3 Likes

@John_Dalton and @Mervin_Bitikofer,

This is a good example.

Famously, Polkinghorne and others are fond of giving this example: why is the kettle boiling? There are at least two entirely correct answers that do not overlap at all. (1) b/c the water molecules are moving very fast, and enough of them are escaping into the atmosphere to produce visible and audible steam. (2) b/c I want a cup of tea. Science knows (1) but not (2).

1 Like

I like (and have used) that example too, Ted. It is lumped together in my memory with “Russell’s Teapot” orbiting somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. (Try putting those two analogies together!)

One thing I had meant to press on a bit further with above, @John_Dalton, was to think a bit more about the question of authority. Descartes roughly marks a shift from external to internal, but even within that latter [internal] locus now, it would be interesting to tease out the difference between the authority of “me” individually, and the authority of “us” as a group. I.e. Descartes’ philosophy was intensely individualistic. I can know that I exist – but as to whether you exist or not could be a matter of debate (strictly internal debate apparently! :expressionless: )

But none of us stays back there – we launch ahead with our multitude of presuppositions for a much more practical, evidential take on reality. And to do that efficiently we extend our “internal locus of authority” to a corporate one. Science does this – we call it consensus and are happy to lean on the consensus of others who specialize in things beyond us. Religious people do it too – thinking on this from a Christian perspective. One person is not supposed to come to think they can discern God’s will (or even understand Scriptures!) in perpetuated isolation. We are called to community; church community to be more specific. Spirits, prophecies, teachings, and interpretations get tested. The smaller the group this happens in, the more danger there is of radically erroneous group-think but unity is easier to reach. The wider that community umbrella gets the smaller the core of consensus will be and unity is harder to come by.

So our “internalization” of authority is really much messier than I made it sound. And that is probably true on the science side of things too, though it is messy in different ways – and due to the more accessible nature of its subject matter has a much bigger core of things we are happy to think we’re certain about!

I think that more is happening than these analogies imply. It would be one thing to say “various methods of inquiry have their strengths and limitations, and they can’t necessarily be applied in any given situation.” However, it seems to me that once you extend that to say “this method of inquiry isn’t applicable to question X,” you’ve assumed a number of burdens. First, you need to demonstrate that that is actually true. Second, it strikes me as very odd to say “science can’t be applied to this situation, so anything else is fair game”. It would seem that the same test should be made for any method of inquiry you care to apply. It doesn’t seem to me that Medawar has done either of these things, and could he? More to the point–what’s the point? It seems totally adequate to me to say “we have a number of intellectual tools that can be applied to resolve questions, and we can use any of them where they are applicable.” It would be one thing if someone were attempting to do so erroneously, and you were refuting them. But is that happening? I’m very skeptical of the need to make blanket delineations about specific questions–it seems selectively applied and self-serving.

@Mervin_Bitikofer, I have to admit that I followed your last post better than this one :sweat: Can I ask if it applies to what we’ve been discussing–that might help me put it together better–or were you speaking generally?

That was a bit more tangential off from where I / we started, and was more just me thinking aloud to anybody who might find something worth responding to. If you had trouble seeing much relevance, it might be because I failed to make it so. Don’t sweat over it! :relieved:

1 Like

Francis S. Collins, a scientist famous worldwide as Head of the Human Genome Project, has demonstrated that scientific brilliance is no obstacle to the abandonment of atheism. Quite the opposite. His example encourages us to encourage others to resolve their estrangement from the creator God who loved the inheritors of a cosmic speck of dust so much he entered into it as vulnerable flesh knowing and accepting the excruciating pain commensurate with our needs for forgiving grace.

1 Like

A (temporary?) case for this link

  1. The linked page is upfront in respect for BioLogos and repetitious in affection for Dr. Collins. It’s first three links are to BioLogos and its founder.
  2. The URL add-on, “dialogue-with-atheists,” was coined by Google, not me, and I am pleased it fits that page as a guest link to this BioLogos page.
  3. The main original essay, the linked page’s reason for being, generally addresses themes consistent with the article here: atheists’ celebratory anticipation of the GAP’s shrinkage, and their animosity to theist speculation trespassing there where nothing is provable. The lead for the essay is a link to a Washington Post article about limits of science. Theodicy is a motivating theme and, yes, existence is not ignored.
  4. “ this is not the right place for debates on God’s existence” ??? The article is about “Atheists” who are about “atheism” which is about (not) “existence.” Not?
  5. “discuss these important issues with charity and humility.” My “Gap speculation: Version 2” affirms God’s equal love for atheists and broadly excuses them from full responsibility for their unbelief.
  6. “Please do not put a link to your own blog or website in the first post in a new thread.” My fault I am a bundle of confusion in a sea of replies, but hope this qualifies as a second post.
  7. “sensitive to differences in educational backgrounds, faith traditions, cultural contexts, and levels of English language fluency.” Bless BioLogos for generously accommodating amateurism such as mine—no education in theology or science.

From my point of view the situati0on is relatively simple.

Science studies the physical universe, philosophy studies thinking (the rational universe,) and theology meaning and purpose (the spiritual universe.) I expect that almost everyone would agree that science studies the physical universe, but some people say that the physical universe is all that there is and thus deny the validity of philosophy and theology.

I think that all three disciplines are needed for a valid understanding of Life and Reality because Reality is composed of the physical, rational, and the spiritual. Each of these three disciplines use the experiential, the logical, and the intuitive, as needed by the subject matter at hand.

It seems to me that science is a means of establishing knowledge. Once something has been shown to be true by scientific means, to the extent of the evidence establishing it, it is equally true for all.

Fields such as philosophy and theology may create many interesting ideas, which may even come to be accepted by many people, but they can’t establish the truth of reality in the way that science can. It seems to me that comparing them to science is comparing apples and oranges. If you think they are all needed, I believe that is your prerogative, and I won’t begrudge you of it. I might even agree to some degree. My concerns are that conclusions about meaning and purpose reached in this way will be assumed to be universal truths in the same way that scientific truths are, with applicability to all, or that theology will be thought to have some exclusive privilege to make determinations about meaning and purpose.

I have not followed your comments, so I make this comment purely out of interest in this statement. I understand why you may be apprehensive re meaning and purpose as such appearing to be the exclusive domain of theology (and perhaps philosophy), but I cannot understand the implication that science provides universal truths - or are you suggesting scientific truths may be one category and universal truths another?

@John_Dalton,
Thank you for your comment, however it seems that you are saying that scientific knowledge is somehow truer and more certain than philosophical and theological knowledge.

First of all this is not true. Scientists themselves say that scientific knowledge is not certain, it is tentative, and that we need to continually question the certainties of science. Einstein overthrew the certainties of Newton, even though people like Dawkins deny this and science and philosophy have yet to digest this sea change in our understanding of reality.

People do seek certainty. Evangelical say that science does not provide certainty. Scientism says that theology does not provide certainty and both views are right. There is no certainty in life, which is why Christians live by faith in Jesus Christ Who gives theology and science the truth that they have. We do not claim to understand the world and God completely, but we trust that God will see us through whatever problems we face, esp. when we seek God’s truth in ALL its forms.

My concern is the opposite, that is “scientific” theories today are accepted as universal Truths when they are not. The clearest example today is “the survival of the fittest.” As much as many people do not like this, survival of the fittest was incorporated into Darwinism as a reasonable explanation of Malthusian population theories and this continues to this day because it has not been replaced by a better explanation.

Thus survival of the fittest or the struggle for survival is considered a universal truth by many, as witnessed by the support the Republican Party by millions of people even those who do not believe in evolution. It is also true of laisse faire economic theory, another scientific view.

On the other hand the traditional basis for democracy and freedom in the USA is the statement in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The tradition rationale for democracy is rooted in theology. The Darwinian scientific view does not support one person, one vote, but political power is based on social power.

Conservativism claims that money should be the basis of social; and political power. Bannon claims that European culture should be the basis of social and political power. These are their definitions of fitness, and their ideologies place scientific fitness over theological equality, which is false.

Fortunately the scientific theory behind that false political theory is wrong also, however if we believe that scientific truth always Trumps theological truth, we would be wrong also.

I get your meaning. That wasn’t well stated, but in my defense, I did say “in the same way that scientific truths are”–no more, no less.

I’m not sure what a “universal truth” would be, but I meant something like this. For example, it has been established through scientific inquiry that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. We know this is true. Some person may deny the truth of it, but we would be wholly justified in saying that that person is wrong, based on the evidence.

Undoubtedly so, and this is why I said “to the extent of the evidence establishing it.” To that extent, I believe that my statement is true.

That’s not the kind of thing I was talking about. It has a number of different interpretations. It seems to me that your word “explanation” could characterize it best.

Thus survival of the fittest or the struggle for survival is considered a universal truth by many,

Another useful characterization. I’m not talking about things that might be considered true, even by many. I’m talking about things that have been demonstrated to the extent that we can call them “knowledge”. I would be equally concerned if such a “theory”–though I’m not sure that word could even apply here–were considered a “universal truth”–all-in-all a phrase I wish I had avoided now :slight_smile:

I’ll disagree with you about the Declaration briefly. What about the Constitution? What does “Creator” mean? That’s not much theology. But that’s another path, and I won’t continue to go down it here. Perhaps another day :slight_smile:

I think I understand your point, and if so, I am inclined to view your statement as “science provides facts regarding its objects”. Thus water is a physical substance and we do not have questions about it being so, and further facts show it is composed to two elements, oxygen and hydrogen. This has been demonstrated using scientific methods and instruments.

If I experience a sunrise and declare it a thing of beauty, I am discussing a fact, a personal experience, but we would also argue, I have invoked a universal, which I termed beauty. I can use instruments to give factual data to my experience, but these data, nor anything scientific, can lead me to the universal - beauty.

My guess is that science also depends on universal constants, and this may cloud the issue - but perhaps for another discussion.

[quote=“GJDS, post:26, topic:35577, full:true”]
I think I understand your point, and if so, I am inclined to view your statement as “science provides facts regarding its objects”. Thus water is a physical substance and we do not have questions about it being so, and further facts show it is composed to two elements, oxygen and hydrogen. This has been demonstrated using scientific methods and instruments.[/quote]

Sure.

If I experience a sunrise and declare it a thing of beauty, I am discussing a fact, a personal experience, but we would also argue, I have invoked a universal, which I termed beauty. I can use instruments to give factual data to my experience, but these data, nor anything scientific, can lead me to the universal - beauty.

It seems that people do have a shared sense of beauty, to a great degree. How many people don’t find a sunset beautiful? But what does that tell us? It’s a feeling common to humans. People share a lot of other feelings as well, though there are probably always exceptions.

My guess is that science also depends on universal constants, and this may cloud the issue - but perhaps for another discussion.

It may :slight_smile:

Just a clarification- BioLogos engages in discussion/debate with atheists primarily on the idea promoted by some prominent atheist voices that science and faith cannot co-exist. We do not try to argue them out of atheism, nor do we want our discussion boards (dedicated to the discussion of the intersection of faith and science) to get bogged down in endless defenses of theism. Atheists are welcome to come discuss science or history here or ask questions about Christianity or biblical interpretation. We just ask them to remember it’s a Christian discussion board, and we don’t want people to constantly be challenged or harassed for expressing basic Christian beliefs (the Bible is true, God is good, etc.). There are other discussion boards dedicated to the atheism/theism debate.

2 Likes