I picked up Dawkins’ book Saturday on my way home. I've made it through a good chunk of the book and wanted to clear up a few things in addition to adding some of my own thoughts...
And, what I mean by that is, scientists often present their ideas as being mutually exclusive in regard to everything else. As in "I'm right, and the rest of you are wrong."
In terms of god/religion I don’t think this is necessarily true. Whatever science explains has to be within the realm of natural phenomenon. This leaves any supernatural/metaphysical claims completely outside science’s ability to explain or criticize (assuming such claims have no tangible, discoverable ties to the physical universe).
A good example is fossils, rocks, starlight and other things that allow us to get dates for the age of the earth/universe that number in the billions of years. If a certain religious group believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago there is little science can do to counter that belief. No matter how much evidence the scientist shows the believer, the believer can simply say that god made the earth and the universe to appear older than it really is – including fossils from animals that never existed, rocks with less of an element than they should have for their true age, and starlight already in transit. It seems a bit of an absurd argument to me, but how can I or anyone disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? If it’s god, a supernatural being, then he can’t be limited by the constraints of natural science. So sure, he could do it. I'm not sure why he'd do something like that, but it's certainly not impossible for a omnipotent being.
Dawkins can no more prove that God does not exist, than I can prove that He does.
Dawkins' book is not intended as, nor is it passed off as, scientific disproof of God. His book is a philosophical argument against the existence of God and commentary on the dangers of religion – it’s his reasoned opinion, nothing more. He clearly states that scientific disproof/proof of god is
impossible (EDIT: He does however believe, and writes, that science can point us towards statements about the
probability of God's existence. Likewise, science can examine the plausibility of certain religious claims about the nature of God and his universe). He spends almost a whole chapter on it.
Dawkins'
is a scientist and a science writer, but this book is a work of philosophy and opinion. The book is stocked in the General Religion section at Borders, Barnes and Noble, and Amazon.
We all know that hundreds of years ago, scientists thought the earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the earth. Yes, those ideas were eventually debunked, but that does not negate the fact that ideas in the "scientific" community come and go.
A couple points I wanted to make:
1. The ancient Greek Eratosthenes proved that the earth was round (and came up with a respectable estimate for the circumference of the earth) over 2000 years ago. Most
educated people throughout the Middle Ages believed in a spherical earth, and the Church's view of the universe at the time also incorporated a spherical earth.
2. The prevalence and persistence of geocentrism through the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance is almost exclusively the fault of the early Church – not scientists. The church decided, early on, to incorporate the erroneous Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmologies as an integral element of the Christian religion. This view was endorsed and spread by the Church and Christian monks (primarily Aquinas) throughout the Middle Ages and it was the predominant philosophy in Europe for several centuries. At around the same time European science was being revived from its dormancy with the rediscovery/reintroduction of ancient Greek works. As science took off, the serious problems with geocentrism and Aristotle’s cosmology were discovered. Unfortunately, the church had so much invested in this flawed system that it couldn’t simply let it go. Instead it employed the idea of “two-truths” – scientific truth, and “God’s” truth. God’s truth is, of course, supreme and absolute. Anyone who suggested otherwise (such as supporters of heliocentrism) was undermined, discredited, intimidated, censored, and sometimes put to death as a heretic. It took a few centuries of cumulative scientific evidence from the likes of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo (among others) to destroy the entire basis of the Aristotelian cosmology (and force the church to abandon the system and geocentrism).
3. “those ideas were eventually debunked” illustrates an important aspect of science that sets it apart from religion – it is self-correcting. This is why many
ideas in science come and go. There are no absolute, unassailable truths. There is no such thing as scientific inerrancy.
However, there comes a point in science where so much evidence has been amassed for a particular theory that the probability of it being wrong
approaches zero. Some of our scientific laws and theories, particularly those that form the foundations of the various fields of science, are the closest things to empirical truths we, as finite beings, have.
No one should accept any theory or hypothesis as fact until he or she has gathered information on their own, and made the decision for themselves.
I agree 100%.
Guys like Dawkins want to do the thinking for us.
He uses over 400 pages to make a case against religion. He definitely has an axe to grind with religion, and I don't completely agree with everything he has written thus far, but he has made many very compelling and thought provoking arguments. He certainly hasn't expected me to just take his word for it without a valid argument.
I think that people who attempt to disprove religion entirely in the name of "science" are just as wrong (and stupid) as those whom they ridicule.
Science is simply the quest for knowledge. Since when did "science" and Darwinism become synonymous? They're not. Pity that so many "scientists" forget that.
In my opinion, Darwinism is just as much of a .... religion, per se as Christianity is. Its supporters will find any excuse to discount evidence that doesn't support their theories, and will personally attack anyone who disagree with them. That is chief among the reasons that I let books like this stay on the shelf rather than purchase them. He's not trying to educate anyone. He wants to tell you what to believe, and ridicule you if you disagree. Sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.
This book is
not a book about evolution. There really isn't much science in this book, it's more philosophy and historical sketches than anything. At times he talks about the battle between creationism and evolution in the public education system, but this isn't the focus of his book. It's mostly about the philosophy and history of religion (and the problems Dawkins sees with the religious mindset).
He's definitely biased against religion, but since this book is a work of opinion Dawkins is under no obligation to remain objective. And, he doesn’t speak for all atheists.
And I’m not sure what you mean by science and Darwinism becoming synonymous?
As far as the relationship between science and religion, I honestly feel that you have things backwards. Science really hasn't had any active campaign against religion itself. Science simply progresses, and at times it comes up with theories and findings that really upset the preconceived truths of certain religions. What are scientists supposed to do about that? It's not like people like Copernicus and Darwin entered science with the intent of screwing up religion. They simply sought a better understanding of the universe. Unfortunately, historically, and even today, some religious people have seen the progresses of science as a threat, and at times have construed certain scientific findings as concerted attacks against their faith. The historical religious response has often been quite appalling – oppression and suppression and even violence against people who really did nothing more than claim, often with compelling evidence, that the universe operates in some manner that happens to be inconsistent with certain narrowly defined religious beliefs. Even today, in the information age, fundamentalist Christians in this country are still trying to undermine legitimate science instruction in the US public education system.
I honestly see no organized effort by scientists to suppress the free exercise of religion -- just organized efforts to prevent religion from having any influence over scientific progress, study, and education. Which is how it should be IMHO.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
~Mike
