I just noticed there were some fairly intense comments left on my blog post about Ben Stein's movie Expelled, and I feel its only fair to respond to some of the fantastic points people brought up. I'm so excited that you guys are writing such great responses!!!
Blogger mynym correctly said that I shouldn't reject what Ben Stein says based only on articles about the movie and not the movie itself. What I should say, is if those articles are accurate in what Stein says in the movie, I reject it. He also questions my assertion that theology and science should be kept separate.
How would one keep theology and science separate? I can really only answer from one side of that: how to keep theology separate from science. Pretty easy for me, since I really know nothing of science. This will also depend on the particular theology of the individual in question. For me, the Bible is not the ultimate authority on the natural law of things. I'm unique in that I don't believe the Bible is the direct word of God, but rather words inspired by God but limited by human expression.
That being said, I believe God is the author of all science. When a scientific fact is proven, I see it as part of God's truth. If one admits to the existence of a God, there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have wanted a panda's thumb to be the way it is. Natural selection may have been the process by which it became so, but that is still a tool of God to me.
Charles also corrects me in my use of the term "atheist". Atheism is not the rejection of God, merely its absence. He also adds the following,
"You're starting the the premise that God exists and arguing that science shouldn't try to disprove what, apparently, you've already accepted as fact. This is entirely unscientific! Scientific inquiry begins with as few assumptions as possible and builds knowledge hierarchically using observations made in the real world. At no point will any of these observations lend credence to theistic belief. Does this disprove religion? No, because if you're using the word "disprove" you are assuming GOD was already proven! No, Theists are UNABLE to prove GOD and Science continues on its merry way confirming that God touches no part of the natural world and leaves no trace of his supposed existence".
If science (the discipline) is absent of God, does it actually confirm that God touches no part of the natural world and no trace of his existence? Or does science begin by rejecting God based on lack of evidence, and then go on to explain things? I think the discipline should merely be absent of theology, but the individuals pursuing it are always going to have their own personal ideas of the implications of scientific fact. Those ideas are not the realm of science, but are part of other disciplines.
I'll give you a fun example. I recently went to see Eddie Izzard (one of my intellectual soul mates) perform live where he talked a lot about religion (the Christian one) and scientific facts. He looks at the planet Mercury with all its extreme conditions and says, "What's the point?" Mercury is useless and therefore there is no ultimate plan and no God. I completely respect that, but I can look at Mercury and conclude that there is a God. The science of that planet tells me there is a designer out there, and he's very very creative.
"And as a personal note, as an Atheist (that DOES reject God), I find life quite fulfilling and not at all "lonely" as you say."
If one is an atheist that rejects God and finds life fulfilling, good for you. I just can't wrap my head around it is all.
Mr. Finnish Biochemist Drop Out, wow. We'll have to save getting around to your comments another day, because they are intense!
5 comments:
Thanks for the responses, Christa. I think, to clarify my previous comment, this quote from Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" illustrates my point:
"
Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheist" is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87 percent of the population) claiming to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to present evidence for his existence-and, indeed, for his BENEVOLENCE, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.
"
-Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation
I like that quote. But it sounds like evangelical rejection of God to me. Let people believe in God if they want to, so long as they are not denying human rights and all that good stuff.
Everyone has the right to their opinions, but to call someone unreasonable because they believe in God is not nice. The belief may be unreasonable. But plenty of great thinkers did honestly believe in God, and that belief shouldn't negate any of their work.
Finally done with school, so I think I'll take a crack at this for a minute. As far as I can tell, all of the more authoritative discussions of the distinction of the terms 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' focus on the nature of the claim being made about the world, not about the individual making the claim. Looking at it this way, to be an atheist would be one who claims positively that god (I think our definitions here are relatively in line, I won't go into that) does not exist, not one whose life is conducted as a 'non-theist' as one would at the same time be a "non-alchemist". No, no one should need to identify themselves by their beliefs in this way, but they do hold them, or at least act in a way that expresses them, or have the disposition to hold them when confronted with a relevant situation. Atheism most definitely is a "view of the world" like any other -ism. To try and construe it otherwise seems to me ill-motivated, rhetorical, and if i might be so bold as to speculate, self-serving for the self-righteous. I will further point out that atheism, taken as the positive claim that god does not exist, is unfortunately still at its base 'religious' in the sense that it lacks an ultimate grounding outside of conviction. I have never come upon a convincing argument to prove that god cannot exist in this world, or as an outside but necessarily connected cause for this world. Of course I'll concede that believing in god does nothing for the other affairs one has in the world practically, but neither does believing strongly against god. A lot of bluster for something that cannot decisively win the metaphysical argument. Neither position can so far. This apparent movement that Harris is attached to is a bit abusive of the term, and I feel a bit annoyed by that. However, even allowing their use of the term for the moment, I disagree that "all humans are Atheist [sic] by default" (capitalization of the term seems to suggest a privilege to the 'denomination' and, again to speculate, a tactic to compete rhetorically with god-believers). Maybe unsocialized infants and wolf-babies live without god, but there are strong strains of judeo-christianity running through Western culture in all sorts of places. Think of the famous work by Weber or (and this might set of warning bells for most well-adjusted people, but I hope the atheists of the audience aren't too disturbed by the choice of reference) most anything by Nietzsche. To be crude, god is in your Western civilization, giving it morals. And scientific motivation, if you take Nietzsche semi-seriously. Even if god doesn't metaphysically exist.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
the hitchiker's guide to the universe...i refer to it whenever i am in any sort of intellectual quandry
What Joe said and the theological musings of Douglas Adams are equally awesome.
Post a Comment