Science vs. Religion
I love a controversial post title... There are any number of relevant links I could put here, but I was particularly inspired to post by this thread on the Guardian's "Comment is free" blog (I think it's a worthy project, BTW; pretty much all of their comment and analysis gets blogged. Invariably stuff about religion attracts a lot of responses, but the most active posts are probably on sport).
The discussion is sparked by Stephen Unwin's response to a review of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Unwin is essentially defending the position of uncertainty regarding god's existence or otherwise; he sets up a good argument that is mainly between atheists and agnostics with a few believers thrown in.
I've noticed agnostics getting a good kicking recently...
and have found it difficult to defend my position as such. I shall update this post shortly; need to do a little work.
The discussion is sparked by Stephen Unwin's response to a review of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Unwin is essentially defending the position of uncertainty regarding god's existence or otherwise; he sets up a good argument that is mainly between atheists and agnostics with a few believers thrown in.
I've noticed agnostics getting a good kicking recently...
and have found it difficult to defend my position as such. I shall update this post shortly; need to do a little work.
posted by Peter at 09:58
37 Comments:
I look forward to the rest of Peter's thoughts on this. Much more so than I do reading anything (more) Dawkins has to say on the matter. Dawkins has, in the past, shown himself to be terribly ignorant of basic moral philosophy and Christian theology and a bad-faith interlocutor. With all seriousness, I have significant doubt he's even read Aquinas. At least folks like Chris Hitchens, toxic as his rhetoric can be, have read the main authors and given it serious thought.
What's the deal with prominent and, by most accounts, first-rate scientists thinking they are thus entitled to pose as experts on subjects far outside their field? Would anyone take me seriously if I commenced to pronounce on pharmacology? So, when they talk out of school, why take Dawkins or Chomsky any more seriously than your cab driver?
Are you, yourself, becoming a victim of the simple sophism some call ad hominem ?
I must disappoint you Kevin, by admitting that I too have not read Aquinas. However I did go to Sunday school for many a year, hence am well versed in Jesus stories. I'm not sure whether Dawkins can say the same and I agree that it's tiresome for him to constantly bang on about something that's unrelated to his training and research. However I think it's not entirely his fault: he was to some extent dragged into the whole debate by the Intelligent Design lobby. He's perfectly within his rights to shoot them down, but when he attempts to prove the idiocy of believing in God he just seems smug, someone who thinks other sdon't agree with him simply because they're not as clever as him.
G-man, no, it would have been ad hominem if I had tried to equate Dawkins's viciousness with irrationality or defeat of his argument. His arguments are bad on their own merit, but I was hazarding that one of the reasons the arguments are bad is because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He might not change his mind entirely, but he would at least profer better arguments if he read (de minimus) Books 1 and 5 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and questions 90-97 of Aquinas' Summa Theologica (I-II).
Peter, Do you know anything about all the business of scientists assigning probabilities to God's existence? I'm curious, but can't say I even know how to make sense of the proposition. How would they even do that? Is it like arguing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin?
Stephen Unwin used Bayes' Theorem to calculate that the probability of the existence of God is 67%. The basic technique seems to have been to begin with the probability of existence at 50/50 and modify it based on the evidence. Hence the occurrence of miracles increases said probability while the existence of evil (cancer, say) reduces it. While the reviews say the book is witty and engaging, I doubt it's convinced anybody that the end product should be taken seriously.
What a shame that I am late in joining this topic, since it is one I have been pondering and arguing about with people for many a year.
I haven't read any of the theological texts, have not attended Sunday school, am a true layman when it comes to religious nitpicking.
Nonetheless I feel it safe to say that science vs. religion may be the wrong knock-out announcement. In one corner we have science, which asks about the how, with what, when, where, exploring different levels of why things, parts of humans, animals and the solar system work the way they do. In the other corner we find the teachings of how to, where to, what with and why, explaining a system of morals, often shared between the major religions as well.
I think science and religion can very well coexist, as long as areas where they seemingly negate one another (like the BigBang vs. Intelligent design argument) are approached soberly and with sound reasoning.
I guess the upshot is that S and R don't compete full stop. They just differ on some topics, much like different religions do amongst themselves, and indeed scientists working in adjacent fields often disagree.
Let's all chill.
I agree, roof, that it's a false argument, but Science vs. Religion sounded good as a post title, and the way people like Dawkins and Dennett set things up they often seem to be spoiling for such a fight. Same with the Intelligent Design folks.
Religious topics are simply not the domain of science and vice versa. A hard core empiricist might say something along the lines of "the best explanation is that which is the least complex; our model of the universe does not require God to exist therefore we should not believe in him/her/it as such a belief is redundant." However I would prefer to read this as an argument for saying people should be free to believe whatever they like about God since the question is irrelevant to science.
Pause for thought... "whatever they like" goes too far, seeing as plenty of people believe that God is active in the world today. This implies God has a hand in physical phenomena, which is problematic to say the least. Thus we ought to reduce the above to "the universe came into being with its rules intact as we observe them through some unknown process. Believe what you like about that process, but accept that the aim of science is to reduce all the physical phenomena we observe to a consistent set of rules that operate independently of any supernatural being." That's a bit of a mouthful, though.
This really is nitpicking, but maybe "without reference to" is the right phrase rather than saying "independently" in Pete's last post, for if the orthodox Christian understanding (and perhaps others) is right, the entire physical universe would cease to exist if God ceased to will it to be (i.e. nothing exists precisely independently of God).
That said, my layman's understanding of the Big Bang theory has only confirmed my belief in a creationist metaphor. That is, if all the stuff of the universe appeared at some particular moment in a super-dense and tiny particle and then exploded out, well, that sounds a lot like Genesis 1 doesn't it? One's an admittedly reductionist account and the other a poetic one in the metaphor of an ancient and primitive language, but there's a lot in the accounts that is parallel.
At a minimum, I wonder what sort of answer people who don't posit God offer for the question of how and why the tiny particle appeared and from where it came. And it seems to me an answer to that question is required to prevent a chain of infinite regression.
Yeah.. perhaps God's actual words were "let there be a super-hot plasma," but the ancients didn't know what that was. Also you're talking about a very minimalist creation myth in which God just switches the whole shebang on rather than continuing to meddle all week making plants, birds, beasts and people.
I too am late in joining the debate...I wonder if atheism, agnosticism, religion, and even science do not ALL require some kind of belief. Scientists believe in the scientific method as a means to truth. Those of faith believe their respective holy book reads the truth.
Just as those believing in the Big Bang cannot explain where speck came from (as it would invalidate a theory of physics (Peter correct me here) stipulating that we cannot know what happened before the bang (time) ). Those of faith cannot explain where God came from as this also would invalidate their belief.
No matter how you approach it, an argument which is not falsifiable sounds much like a belief.
The problems begin when people acting on these beliefs...
Peter: Well, not if we understand the orthodox claim rightly. That is, the claim isn't that God lit the match and then backed away; it's not only a material but also an ontological claim, which is to say that the argument is (in brief) that the universe exists as a continuous act of will by God, absent which it would cease to exist. The physical laws our scientists observe were created by Him and are maintained by Him.
In the same way that we can observe characteristics of living organisms without being able to say precisely what "life" is, just so with the larger universe and being. The scientific method, as useful as it is for description and causal/correlative connections, is radically deficient on the larger and more important teleological, epistemological, and ontological questions. An example: science works on a notion of causality which implies a final uncaused cause, back of which in a chain of causal regression one cannot go.
Germain: While I certainly agree that science has beliefs or assumptions/axioms if they'd rather we call them that, to suggest that an explanation of "where God came from" ought to be forthcoming is to misunderstand God, at least insofar as conceived by Abrahamic religions. It is essential to the hypothetical of God that He cannot come from anywhere. That is, quite apart from whether or not there is a God, we can say, "If there were a God, what would he have to be like in order to merit the appellation God?" The answer requires, among other things, that He come before all else. Otherwise, the maker of the place from which he came would be God and the being who was the subject of the previous question dethroned.
I'm going to pass over the last eliptical sentence of your post as a good-natured jab, for you can't seriously believe that "the problems" begin when people act on beliefs in the assumptions of science or the existence (nonexistence) of God. You can't possibly take seriously the notion that action-paralysing radical doubt is any kind of alternative. Even if it weren't a self-refuting notion, which it of course is (i.e. isn't the proposition that problems begin when people act on belief a belief on which it might be supposed we could act as an alternative?), it would still be asinine.
I'm afraid that, whatever the limitations of science, I don't see how the existence of an uncaused cause at the earliest point our reasoning takes us should imply that the kind of God posited by most religions exists. Unfortunately I think the debate diverges at this point to the extent that the forms of reasoning being used on either side are mutually incompatible.
It's true that knowing of an uncaused cause doesn't tell us much about the nature of that being. But then, that's a separate question from the one of existence (the one at issue among atheists, agnostics, and their interloctuors -- Jews, Christians, etc.). Once we agree it exists, then we can start asking the kinds of questions that might lead us to know more about the nature of the being.
If someone were curious about such things, I wouldn't suggest starting with Christian writers, but with Plato, Aristotle, and then Virgil.
Acknowledging an uncaused cause doesn't mean acknowledging any "being," let alone a sentient one. Ultimately belief in God rests on an understanding that God just "is," did not "come from" anywhere. Is it not possible to conceive of the Universe as just "being"? BTW some cosmological models point to a possibility that time extends infinitely backwards. Categorically not compatible with any creation theory.
Sure, it's possible, but doesn't it render to the rest of science irrational by vitiating the notion of causation -- that one thing or set of things leads to another? Seems to me it does.
The idea of an uncaused cause doesn't invalidate science in the least.
Evidence that time restarts with big bangs doesn't imply that big bangs aren't common to the energy of the universe.
Show me evidence that nothing can even exist in some "first place", when every last shred at our disposal indicates exactly the opposite.
Projecting beyond the big bang does not prove anything to the contrary.
I'm afraid I can't make enough sense of the question(s) to know what is being asked. Perhaps if your rephrase what it is you're asking I could provide the requested answer.
haha... well, no wonder, since I speak greek and you speak latin... ;)
When people talk about "causation" in context with god, they are usually talking about the big bang, but there is no reason to assume that the big bang was the beginning of all time, rather than "our" time.
When people talk about an uncaused cause, they are typically talking about something, (our universe), appearing from nothing, but there is absolutely no evidence that "nothing" can even exist. All that we actually have evidence for is some thing, and theoretical projections don't erase that fact.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. And what you say sounds reasonable enough, but only moves the question back one level. That is, if the Big Bang wasn't the REAL beginning, then the same issues apply to whatever the REAL beginning was.
That is, what caused it? It doesn't seem likely that the answer is nothing because that would vitiate causation. And causation is part of the standard of evidence to which you referred in your post. Which means that we can't say that we don't have a reason to believe in an uncaused cause based on our standards of evidence because our standards of evidence presume an uncaused cause -- a beginning to the nearly infinite chain of causal regression.
This vitiation of causation thing doesn't worry me greatly. The notion of causation is not as important to science than the principle of empirical observation. If evidence shows that the best explanation of the universe is that it extends infinitely back in time then so be it.
Oh, I reckon you might recant that view if the next time you get sick your doctor says, "because we're now absent a theory of causation, I can't confidently diagnose or treat you."
Although, I suppose even his saying that includes the idea of causation. It seems to me that our understanding of most everything would unravel.
Boy, do you know how to pick nits. Empirical observation shows that symptoms of illness have causes, as do other observed natural phenomena such as the Earth's motion around the Sun. Ultimately it seems that observed phenomena in the Universe are the way they are because of a fundamental set of consistent laws that are largely known but not yet completely unified. It may be that they will be unified under so-called M theory, an enhancement of string theory.
You seem to be arguing that an assertion that the Universe has existed for an infinite period of time, operating according to these laws, somehow undermines the basis for scientific enquiry. Besides this you point to the problem with other models that suggest the Universe began at some point but don't say why - and a wider problem with any natural explanation regarding infinite logical regression.
Firstly, it would be far more problematic for science to reject a finding that the Universe had existed for an infinite amount of time on the basis that this left out a "cause" for the Universe existing than it would be to alter empirical method in order not to accept the result in the first place. Second, to install God as the fundamental cause of the Universe (whether we're believing it to be infinitely old or not) produces many more problems for science than it solves. For instance: how can we rely on physical laws if they are merely the will of some Being? We go back to a state where we can't expect the sun to rise tomorrow, as the rules might change. You need to get into a discussion of the personality of this being, rather than the nature of the Universe, in order to decide whether or not our supposed laws apply (some may be perfectly happy to do this, I admit).
By necessity these thoughts are incomplete; I need to do some work.
This is the second time in a week I've received a friendly reproof about style... I'm beginning to worry that I'm a bit gruff in debate. If so, I apologize and shall buy rounds as soon as practical.
I think we're actually inching toward convergence. I think we need, however, a more radical appreciation for the role of causation in our thinking. Without the notion that states of affairs are linked intrinsically with previous states of affairs the characteristics of which combined to bring them forth, it makes no sense to speak of laws of the universe at all.
You seem to draw a stark line between observation and causation, and while I think it might be possible to do that, the content of "observation" might be trivial. What would remain is only the literal sense of the word, the taking notice and perhaps the marking down of phenomena, but once you link any phenomenon to other phenomena you're doing more than observing. And we can't even fall back on correlation, because correlation won't produce the kinds of reliable "laws" to which you've referred.
In short, what I'm arguing is that the dirty little secret of the logic of the empirical method is that it's either theistic or already departed from reason.
And it's perfectly fine to say it's thinly theistic -- that it takes notice of the need for an uncaused cause but leaves to others to work out what sort of being that might be. I'm not trying to shoehorn into science my own conception of that being; but in an age of radical doubt, I do want us to take notice of how irrational radical, Cartesian doubt is. I don't think taking notice of the uncaused cause need result in our brushing aside reliance on physical "laws". It wasn't even all that routine among scientists to be atheists until the 20th century. Heck, for many centuries the Christian church was science's great patron. Okay, off to work myself.
Okay, this might be a little tricky for me to convey, but it is perfecly plausible that the universe simply keeps evolving eternally closer to absolute symmetry.
In other words, the big bang resulted from an extremely good attempt to produce something purely symmetrical in nature that didn't exactly make it all the way there. It appears that there is an inherent imbalance in the energy which prevents it from making an exact matter/antimatter split. The effort was so good though, that we can't even come close to defining a practical *natural* mechanism for deriving even a rough approximation of the infinitesimally small positive cosmological constant, and the lowest-possible-entropy structuring that we ended up with!
Anyway, if "symmetry is the "goal" of a big bang, and it can't happen due to an inherent imperfection, then the effort will continue forever because an inherent imbalance *seeks* to be reconcilled.
In other words, there may be a mechanism that will enable our universe to have a big bang after it has disseminated most of its energy. Assuming that that is some valid theoretical basis for thinking that it can do this more uniformly than the last attempt, then the next universe will be just a little bit more symmetrical than ours, so the effort progresses ever forward, in one-direction-only, but with periodic restarts of time.
Okay, now for the real kicker. Given that this universe started in a more symmetrical state than the last one did, then it requires less energy to produce a more symmetrical structur the next time... so the process is always... "downhill", so to speak, and THAT justifies infinite perpetual causation... ;)
If the
I have no idea what that last, "if the" was intended to be about.
If I follow you, the argument justifies perpetual forward causation, but (again) from an origin that it leaves unexplained. So what explains the initial event?
Why would you think that there was any initial event, since perpetual forward causation removes any need for it?
What evidence for this something from nothing do you have?
I must have misunderstood the idea you were presenting, for I do not yet see how perpetual FORWARD causation removes the need to explain the INITIATING event... that which set in motion the perpetually forward-moving series.
Since everything else has a cause, I think the burden's on those who think the multiverse is the only thing that doesn't to prove that. And, here's the kicker, you can't prove it using a logical system that assumes causation, i.e. conventional science lacks the epistemological tools by which to make such a case.
Again, the very logic of science demands a first cause. You kick the ladder from beneath your own feet if you deny causation for all of existence.
No, all that we know is that the cause of every effect has a previous cause, not a first cause, although I do think that it is reasonable to ask why any of this?
Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Because every effect has a cause, there must be a first one or else it's not really causation, but an irrational pattern of infinite regression. But again, we have to be careful; we can't adopt the irrational pattern of infinite regression as the product of a process that presumes causation and rationality.
No, the fact that the cause of every effect has a previous cause, implies infinite regress, not a first cause. Causality only implies a **relationship** of dependency between a cause and its effect.
You're confusing causality with a first cause, which is not the same thing, expecially when the effect is the cause of the effect, as is the case in the scenario that I've described, where the effect of the last big bang, (expansion), is the cause of the next big bang, because expansion causes tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum to grow until this compromises the integrity of the forces.
Like Peter said, if infinite regression is indicated, then so be it, but I'm not even sure that's possible, since there is no time between t=0 and t=10^-43 if the planck scale can be believed.
Of course, we're completely ignoring uncertainty, but I'd just as soon ignore this cop-out on causality anyway, so by all means let's continue doing so.
Returning briefly to the topic of the original post, here's Terry Eagleton's review of Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." Kevin, I think you'll enjoy it; he talks about Aquinas and so on. Eagleton puts far better than I could the problem with Dawkins' approach to religion.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
I constantly do battle with the kinds of neodarwinian antifantics that the author describes Dawkins as being.
I've noticed that a lot of what appear to be unbiased reviews have nailed him for his un-scientific mentality.
I can, however, also appreciate that he gets his knee-jerk reactionary behavior from the constant pressure that equally fanatical creationists put on evolutionary biologists.
One last note on causation. I wasn't confusing causation with a first cause. The notion of causation entails the existence of a first cause, but of course that means they can be distinguished (but not dissevered). And that's been a big part of my point from the top.
Well Kevin, if you look up causation, then I think that you'll find that it only means that it means that there is necessarily a relationship between cause and effect. It does not say anything about any requirement that this necessarily entail a first cause.
Maybe Aquinas thought that an "unmoved mover" is somehow justified by this, but it is not necessarily true, nor is it implied if you don't pre-assume that it is.
The philosophical concept of causality... the principles of causes, or causation, the working of causes, refers to the set of all particular "causal" or "cause-and-effect" relations. A neutral definition is notoriously hard to provide since every aspect of causation has been subject to much debate. Most generally, causation is a relationship that holds between events, properties, variables, or states of affairs. Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases. It is also usually presumed that the cause chronologically precedes the effect.
"Usually presumed" is a matter of interpretational opinion, and if you look back then you will see that I've justified that it actually indicates infinite regress.
Okay, I'm not being clear. Call it the hazards of the Internet or my own poor communications skills.
Here's the problem: the idea of causation is a bit more robust than the definition you listed admits. Among the things it ENTAILS (i.e. that which is included not in the definition of the term but in a necessary relationship to it) is that if all things have a cause. That is, every state of affairs is predicated of some previous state of affairs that combined to produce it. Well, okay, then what of the multiverse as a state of affairs? If it doesn't have a cause, then the rule isn't really a rule any more, it's just a fiction. But that would unravel science -- at a minimum it would undermine any confidence in our ability to make scientific statements.
Also, inherent within our understanding (unless you're a thoroughgoing determinist, which not many are any more) of causation is that we need only proceed back through what seems to be an infinite regression until we reach an act of will. And that makes just as much sense whether we're talking about the chain of causes and effects that have their final end in some choice by me, or all the chains of causes and effects that have their final end in some choice by an ultimate and complete potentiality. Thus an uncaused cause.
There are lots of other approaches to the argument for an uncaused cause, but there are a couple that seem to me entirely sensible. A helluva lot more sensible than infinite regression (how can a logical fallacy be the ultimate state of affairs??).
P.S. asserting justification for infinite regression is not the same thing as actually justifying it. I don't concede the point that you justified it.
That is, every state of affairs is predicated of some previous state of affairs that combined to produce it. Well, okay, then what of the multiverse as a state of affairs? If it doesn't have a cause, then the rule isn't really a rule any more, it's just a fiction. But that would unravel science -- at a minimum it would undermine any confidence in our ability to make scientific statements.
Okay, I agree with this statement, but it's not the same as saying that every universe preceeding ours had a cause for all eternity.
Also, inherent within our understanding (unless you're a thoroughgoing determinist, which not many are any more) of causation is that we need only proceed back through what seems to be an infinite regression until we reach an act of will.
You can't reach an "act of will" by projecting infinite regression, unless you stop.
P.S. asserting justification for infinite regression is not the same thing as actually justifying it. I don't concede the point that you justified it.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "god" doesn't throw dice...
Post a Comment
<< Home