Monday, March 09, 2009

The Quest to De-Canonize Science

Vatican concerns that science is for everyone, not just atheists

When someone who uses science and rationality as the backbone of his cause is found to be far more out of touch with science and rationalism than his allegedly irrational and superstitious opposition, one simply knows that individual is in trouble.

This is the dilemma that crusading Atheist Richard Dawkins finds himself in recently, as the Catholic Church, of all places, has cast some serious doubt on some of the conclusions Dawkins has reached and the obvious absence of the scientific method therein.

Richard Dawkins has been known to insist that the theory of evolution decisively proves that "God almost certainly does not exist".

At a five-day conference commemorating the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of the Species, Vatican theologians discussed the theory of evolution with biologists, molecular geneticists, paleontologists and philosophers. They noted that while Christians still accept God as the divine creative force behind they universe, the Catholic Church "does not stand in the way of scientific realities".

Pontifical Council for Culture head Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi noted that there is no a priori incompatibility between the Bible and evolutionary theory.

Of course, Darwinian evolution and the creation account in Genesis may not be entirely compatible... if you take the word of the Bible literally. Such views are more generally described as fundamentalism.

Oddly enough, Cardinal William Levada offered his criticism of "those who have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible which they want to see taught to their children in the schools alongside evolution or instead of it."

Yet interestingly enough Richard Dawkins has to insist on a fundamentalist interpretation of the creation story as related in Genesis in order to argue that the theory of evolution decisively disproves the existence of God. If one acquiesces to the more widely-held view that the Bible is written predominantly in allegory and metaphor, Dawkins' claim becomes much harder to justify.

If Dawkins' claim that evolution proves "god almost certainly doesn't exist" relies so heavily on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, it becomes very difficult to regard Dawkins himself as anything other than a fundamentalist.

Dawkins and his ilk have far too long been allowed to canonize science and hold it up to be the scripture which disproves religious scripture.

But if those who are allegedly most predisposed toward the fundamentalism that would validate such an argument instead reject fundamentalism, this is an argument without any kind of a future.

The best way to de-canonize science was for religious authority to accept it. Now that this has been done individuals like Richard Dawkins are going to need to find themselves a new scripture for atheism.

9 comments:

  1. "Richard Dawkins has been known to insist that the theory of evolution decisively proves that "God almost certainly does not exist""

    Which is it? "Decisively" or "almost certainly"? Dawkins devotes a goodly lot of his book to the difference between absolute certainty and probability. I think your representation of Dawkins' position is more than a little dishonest here, as also shown by this:

    "Yet interestingly enough Richard Dawkins has to insist on a fundamentalist interpretation of the creation story as related in Genesis in order to argue that the theory of evolution decisively disproves the existence of God. If one acquiesces to the more widely-held view that the Bible is written predominantly in allegory and metaphor, Dawkins' claim becomes much harder to justify."

    It is true that in his book, Dawkins is quite critical of fundamentalist interpretations of the bible, and rightly criticizes them for their real-life implications. But that's not the same as premising his arguments regarding the probability of a god's existence on them.

    In fact, you couldn't even be bothered in your post to summarize any of the the arguments that he makes, and I think you did this deliberately because it would illustrate the falsehood of your claim.

    I''ve read Dawkins book several times, and although I don't agree with it in its entirety, I don't see how anyone could be familiar with the arguments he presents regarding a god's existence being either premised on a fundamentalist reading of the bible nor weakened in the slightest by an allegorical reading of it.

    In fact, I challenge you to provide supporting documentation of your claim, specifically citing the argument Dawkins makes regarding probability of god's existence, how that is premised on fundamentalist interpretation, and how a non-fundamentalist interpretation weakens it. You might consider starting with his "ultimate 747" argument, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with how rigidly or loosely one interprets Genesis or other holy texts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As far as I understand evolution, it simply elaborates on how life on earth developed into its current state. I doubt it was intended to explain how all life began.

    I was raised in a Catholic school that clearly explained that the early creation myths in the OT are just that - myths symbolizing the origins of humanity's fall from God's grace due to original sin (Not that I believe this tripe anymore, I just know how it works.)

    That aside, I've always found Dawkins to be too concieted to agree with him. He makes sense at times, but his overall tone reminds me of a troll - sparking controversy just for the attention, rather than for genuine discussions

    On a somewhat related note, have you heard of this recent bit of news:

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090307/world/world_catholic_abortion

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It is true that in his book, Dawkins is quite critical of fundamentalist interpretations of the bible, and rightly criticizes them for their real-life implications. But that's not the same as premising his arguments regarding the probability of a god's existence on them."

    So then what you're suggesting is that it's OK to try to embrace religious fundamentalism so long as it allows you to denounce religion.

    Interesting.

    "In fact, you couldn't even be bothered in your post to summarize any of the the arguments that he makes, and I think you did this deliberately because it would illustrate the falsehood of your claim."

    Dawkin's arguments aren't worth exploring too deeply. I've done that before, and quite frankly Dawkins' foolishness is not worth the effort.

    For example, I know the difference between astrology and racism. Do you?

    "I don't see how anyone could be familiar with the arguments he presents regarding a god's existence being either premised on a fundamentalist reading of the bible nor weakened in the slightest by an allegorical reading of it."

    Somehow I'm not shocked that you would fail to understand how someone could, you know... disagree wtih you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "On a somewhat related note, have you heard of this recent bit of news:

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090307/world/world_catholic_abortion
    "

    I have, and frankly, I'm horrified by it.

    That girl couldn't have survived carrying those children to viability. If her mother hadn't approved that abortion, both she and her unborn child would have died.

    Abortion sucks, but sometimes it's necessary. This was one of those times and for the church to condemn the mother and doctor for saving the only life that could be saved is an actrocity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Irrespective of Dawkins' views on evolution, the nasty, spiteful attitude of him and other militant atheists like him (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) to people of faith and those who otherwise disagree with them, along with their desire to evangelize those who disagree with them and convert them to atheism, all remind me of the worst Christian fanatics who condemn anyone who disagrees with them to hell for not believing what they want.

    When Dawkins and company portray themselves as bringing light in the darkness, or being otherwise determined to bring down religion, they become the very thing they claim to hate-missionaries for a cause who zealously promote their beliefs and press them on others, while condemning those who oppose them.

    This was the point of the "Go, God, Go" episodes of South Park, as can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go:

    Trey Parker and Matt Stone briefly describe one part of the inspiration for "Go God Go" in their director commentaries for the Season 10 DVD. During an appearance by the pair on TV's Nightline, an interviewer had asked, "May I assume you two are atheists, since you make fun of religious beliefs so often?"

    Surprised by the question, Parker and Stone emphatically said that they didn't consider themselves to be atheists -- leading to a phone call shortly thereafter from their friend Penn Jillette, an outspoken advocate for atheism who'd seen the interview and was evidently disappointed to learn that the two weren't "on the Atheist team."

    Their subsequent conversations with Jillette about atheism and related topics (e.g., the difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism") gave rise to the idea of satirizing the so-called "militant" or "evangelical" atheism as represented in the episode by Dawkins and Garrison.



    which Dawkins completely missed the point of (from RichardDawkins.net:)

    Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.

    Apparently Dawkins doesn't seem to realize he's turned into the very thing he claims to hate. Of course, he'd probably justify it as science and atheism being the universal truth...which just happens to be what Christian and Muslim missionaries have been saying about their own faiths for centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So then what you're suggesting is that it's OK to try to embrace religious fundamentalism so long as it allows you to denounce religion."

    I didn't say anything of the sort. But thanks for responding to my reply with the same kind of dishonest approach that you took with Dawkins' book.

    "Dawkin's arguments aren't worth exploring too deeply."

    You didn't "explore" them at all. You did, however, dishonestly represent them, something that this coy "I can't be bothered to cast pearls before swine" effort of yours won't like distract anyone from noticing.

    Again: I challenge you to cite which of Dawkins arguments about the probability of the existence of a god (he makes several in his book) is premised on literal interpretation of the bible. Your entire criticism above is based on this claim. Surely you can present some evidence of it or at least summarize the argument you claim Dawkins has made.

    "I've done that before, and quite frankly Dawkins' foolishness is not worth the effort."

    Apparently you find it threatening enough to distort for the purpose of criticism. If his arguments are so foolish, why not actually confront them instead engaging in this strawman trouncing?

    "Somehow I'm not shocked that you would fail to understand how someone could, you know... disagree wtih you."

    I don't "fail to understand how someone could disagree with me". I made that quite clear above. I fail to understand how someone could be familiar with Dawkins' work and make the claims you're making (and trying your best to avoid having to support) in good faith. It isn't mere "disagreement" that's the problem here, its the factual inaccuracies in your post. It is a objective truth whether or not Dawkins has made the argument you spent several paragraphs above criticizing him for making. All I'm challenging you to do is to support your own claim. I think it's transparently obvious why you're balking at doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, Audrey, evidently you don't understand that someone could disagree with you.

    I've previously addressed the value of Dawkins' arguments.

    I'll reiterate this for you: unlike Richard Dawkins, I know the difference between astrology and religion. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I understand that you want to weasel out of your original dishonesty by now attempting to divert discussion towards anything but Dawkins actual arguments about the probability of god's existence, and the difference between them and the strawman you chose to attack.

    I'm content having not only pointed it out, but also putting you in the position where you now are desperately trying to generate excuses for and distractions from your unability to provide evidence or support for your own argument. Good luck having your readers not see through your "You don't understand disagreement" / "You don't know the difference between Astrology and X..." attempts at distracting from you being caught in your own dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, Audrey.

    I realize that you don't seem to understand how someone can reject Dawkins' arguments.

    But the fact of the matter is that I've addressed many of Dawkins arguments at length.

    It comes back to a very simple point which I'm trying to raise here: the base foolishness of Dawkins' arguments.

    Dawkins tries to use the theory of evolution as evidence that "God probably doesn't exist".

    Unfortunately for Dawkins, evolution isn't evidence of God's alleged non-existence, "almost certainly" or otherwise.

    Evolution is evidence that the creation story of the Bible can't be taken literally. In order to accept Dawkins' argument that evolution proves that God doesn't exist, one would have to deny that anyone could interpret the story in any way other then literally.

    Dawkins' argument demands reductionism in order to function.

    It isn't much unlike some of Dawkins' other arguments -- such as the one that insists astrology is akin to racism.

    Like I've said, I know the difference between astrology and racism. I know you don't want to answer this question, but:

    Do you?

    ReplyDelete

Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.