I was at church yesterday on Christmas Day, and I was also at church on Christmas Eve. I am a protestant by upbringing and tribal affiliation, but like Richard Dawkins, an atheist by conviction. But unlike Dawkins I am not against religion.
Richard Dawkins has just written a new book ‘The God Delusion’ and it has been described as:
“A hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types and does so in the lucid, witty and powerful language for which he [Dawkins] is renowned. It is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject.”
But according to Michael Fitzpatrick writing for Spiked Online in a piece entitled‘The Dawkins Delusion’, Dawkins fails to recognize environmentalism as the new religion of choice for urban atheists:
“The most curious feature of Dawkins’ crusade against religion is that it is mounted at a time when the social influence of religion is at a low ebb. In the USA, Dawkins follows liberals in grossly exaggerating the influence of the religious right as a way of avoiding any reflection on the lack of popular appeal of their own agenda. In the UK, Dawkins concentrates his fire on one school in Gateshead where creationism has crept on to the curriculum (allowing him to sneer at Peter Vardy, the vulgar ‘car salesman’ millionaire who has bankrolled the school). Yet, while he happily tilts at windmills, Dawkins ignores much more influential currents of irrationality – such as the cult of environmentalism – which has a far greater influence on the national curriculum than notions of ‘intelligent design’.
While Dawkins can readily identify common features between South Pacific cargo cults and the Christian churches, he seems oblivious to the religious themes of the environmental movement. Just like evangelical Christians, environmentalists preach a ‘repent, the end is nigh’ message. The movement has its own John the Baptist – George Monbiot – who has come out of the desert (well, Oxfordshire) to warn us of the imminent danger of hellfire (in the form of global warming) if we do not repent and embrace his doctrines of austerity and restraint (3). Beware – the rough beast of the apocalypse is slouching towards Bethlehem to be born! “
I don’t have any real difficulty with the religous themes within environmentalism and I don’t particularly have a problem with the doctrine of austerity and restraint, but I do have a real problem with the way in which many environmentalists wrongly appeal to ‘science’ to support these themes.
Many environmental organisations have professors of science in key leadership positions and often these same people confuse ‘the scientific evidence’ with their misguided belief that everywhere the natural environment is in crisis.
For me evidence and faith are two very different things.
Sitting in church on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day I was reminded again about the importance of faith to the Christian and also the importance of ‘helping’ in particular the needy.
Many environmentalists want to believe the environment is being harmed by people and they want to help the environment, but they often lack an understanding of science. So their approach to ‘helping the environment’ is often confused and in some instances is harmful.
In Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life, Mark Vernon, “confronts the lust for certainty found in the dogmatism of conservative religion and militant science. He believes that a committed even passionate agnosticism is vital for the future of our planet and our souls.”
As a committed environmentalist and atheist, who is often accused of being an extreme skeptic, I find the concept of ‘passionate agnosticism’ appealing.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It might be useful to restate here what science is.
It is the method of interpreting observations to frame hypotheses which are then tested by experiment. This is the empirical method.
The deductive method initially proposes a statement, and then proceeds by logic, to prove it. This is the essense of religion.
I am as a result merely a committed human.
Oh gawd a new noble affiliation to defend the superiority complex. Yes you should be committed.
Claiming to be in possession of the evidence requires faith in the underlying assumptions, the mindset, the process and the interpretation of the outcome.
Regardless I welcome a new approach to basing these blog posts on evidence, not beliefs or bias.
that’s a paradoxical definition of religion Louis. Using logic to prove a statement? Hmmm if proof exists then why the need for faith that is a precondition in religion? With backers like Louis Jennifer doesn’t need evidence.
So Pinxi,
you admit total ignorance of the scientific method.
Mind you with a noms de plume you prefer, I suspect you to be mcuh like an over dressed and made-up fortune teller?
Pinxi,
religion depends on authority, so does the deductive method. Both depend of the acceptance of an initial statement.
Either start to understand things here, or pinxi off please.
John Ray says that intellectually he is in atheist and emotionally a fundamental christian, which makes some sense.
The interesting thing about atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Lee Silver (‘Challenging Nature’) is that they’re quite specific about the attributes of the god or gods they claim don’t exist. They display a remarkable erudition through their efforts, but in the end it accomplishes little to deny, e.g., that God is not a superannuated white male with a flowing beard, a toga, and sandals.
It accomplishes little to point out that old religions cannot account for current reality. It accomplishes no more than pointing out that old science cannot account for the latest findings.
In their haste to point out that old world-views don’t work well, these authors cling with religious fervor to a faith of their own, one which provides them with a connection to the numinous: the notion that by experimentation and rigor, one can come to understand at least some part of the universe.
They believe this even though scientific truths, known formally as “theories,” fail repeatedly. And they believe this, even though they realize that a good theory–indeed, the ideal theory–is by nature falsifiable. They believe in things just as often discredited as the religions they dismiss.
Accordingly, denying Zeus discredits religion about as effectively as denying geocentrism discredits astronomy.
While I admire their faith, it would be better if scientists stuck with science and left theology to theologians.
yeah i reckon you’re in a pretty embarrassing position if you claim to base your expressed views on solid evidence and you also claim to be an atheist, ie you deny that God exists even though you lack the proof. You’d do better to claim to be agnostic or a bit sceptical – then you’re making your position clear without being illogical/thoughtless/hypocritical/a fundamentalist denialist.
Schiller,
you need to examine your own understanding of what science is, and how it proceeds over time. Theories are not “scientific truths”. They are, as the name suggests, theories, nothing more and nothing less, which are postulated in order to explain a set of recorded/observed phenomena. The more elegant theories seek to explain vast accumulations of observations in a simple manner, e.g. E=mc2. As soon as a theory is unable to explain new phenomena, then it is time to re-examine the theory. It is human nature to cling to established orthodoxy in explanations of phenomena and so it must be, otherwise who knows how often we would change/modify the theories. So thoeries are modified where possible to incorporate new information that cannot be explained adequately by the old theory. But of course, eventually some orthodox theories are overwhelmed by observations of phenomena they cannot explain and so a new paradigm of explanation is sought. Happens all the time, and is how we gradually progress. That we seem to be getting better with the explanatory power of our theories is evident in the technological progress we have made.
I liken it to sliding down a curve approaching a line, we seem to be getting ever closer to the line, which could be construed as “real” or “truth” in our corner of the universe, but we will never actually touch it -we can argue from a philosphical perspective as to whether there really is a “real” or “truth”.
As it seems we can never completely discover the aboslute nature of anything ,then we can only proceed to approach closer to the “truth”, or “real” nature of things by disproving hypotheses…or theories (same thing).
Russell,
Since I agree with you, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting I examine.
Some 200 years ago in a conversation with Napoleon Laplace who had recently dedicated his book on Celestial Mechanics to the Emperor was asked What is the role of the creator? That is an unnecessary hypothesis was the reply.
Indeed, is there any empirical evidence to support the God concept? I think not.
is there any empirical evidence to reject God?
Yes – Rog for example.
Depending on what side of the fence you’re on, it’s either fortunate, or unfortunate, that the compelling/uncompelling evidince for the existence of God is science.
Many complain about what is called “intelligent design,” and justly so. That is largely because its advocates aren’t terribly smart and indulge themselves in the romance of ancient texts.
What largely escapes notice is the fact that the universe *is intelligible.* It is not random or arbitrary.
The fact that the universe, or at least our place in it, is not random or arbitrary, invites two equally valid conclusions: (1) there is an intelligible God; and (2) there is a universal principle that renders the universe intelligible.
Neither (1) nor (2) is provable, and I cannot see any reason for disagreement between adherents of either.
Until someone gets God in confined in their petri dish, this won’t be a realistic issue.
Is the universe that intelligible – or do we find meaning to make it that way. Being the pattern finding creatures that we are.
On a galactic scale there plenty of chaos as whole systems collide with each other unleashing massive forces or energy and chaotic distribution of matter. Vast chaotic gas cloud nebulae.
Do not systems turn to maximum entropy or randomness (randiness for Pinxi) without input of external energy and consequent reorganisation ?
Of course if the cosmic constants are moved by a poompteenth the universe fails to exist – and disappears in a puff of logic but you don’t get to contemplate that unless you’re actually here with the constants we have. So maybe this is a really stupid question.
Does evolution select for intelligence – only if there is an advantage – cockroaches are fine if cockroaches work (See politics as case example). Would humans have evolved if events had not seen the demise of the dinosaurs. Would dinosaurs have invented the Playstation or the Internet? A bit of bad luck with asteroids or climate at a critical juncture and “poof” you’re extinct. So much for all that struggling, breeding and selection. Darn !
So why invent God in the first place. Seems very elaborate when you can just say at some point of fundamental creation – we simply don’t know. Enter any omnipotent being and you have explain the origin of the omnipotent being. So what’s before the beginning we inevitably ask?
Is our consciousness and just an elaborate set of secondary and tertiary feedbacks and morality simply evolved behaviour ? Doesn’t seem satisfying though does it and doubt creeps in. How we know that we know?
Schiller what do you mean when you say the universe *is intelligible.*? Can you elaborate beyond It is not random or arbitrary. Regarding us, how do you know “our place in it, is not random or arbitrary”?
Lukeywookey we have trouble using systems concepts to think comprehensively about systems, let alone thinking beyond systems. But if consciousness is embodied & all matter is continually expanding…
If systems understanding and co-operating is the next great evolutionary advantage then perhaps the manmade change in atmospheric composition will cause social insects to spontaneously evolve higher consciousness and takeover (providing the maximum possible socialist outcome). Is such a scenario more or less plausible than the existence of God?
But Pinx-sminx you see the pre-supposition of evolving to a higher level of consciousness is wishful thinking. If a warmer world with high CO2 is good for individualist selfish cockroaches and there’s no selection pressure for the cockies to invent Reality TV or the Harvard School of Managerialism well they’ll be happy being dumb cockies. And so the cockies will blissly live for eons without any knowledge of God or the cosmological constants.
I say there is no consciousness – it’s all just a collection of secondary feedbacks. It’s your DNA that’s providing the virtual reality illusion. You’re simply aware that you’re perceiving your perception.
So there is no God – simply good and bad Fortran, that may or may not useful.
Luke,
Competition, adaptation and natural selection can explain a lot, even why people are so often deliberately ignorant. Quoting Michael Ghiselin:
“Man’s brain, like the rest of him, may be looked upon as a bundle of adaptations. But what it is adapted to has never been self-evident.
We are anything but a mechanism set up to perceive the truth for its own sake.
Rather, we have evolved a nervous system that acts in the interest of our gonads, and one attuned to the demands of reproductive competition. If fools are more prolific than wise men, then to that degree folly will be favored by selection. And if ignorance aids in obtaining a mate, then men and women will tend to be ignorant.
In order for so imperfect an instrument as a human brain to perceive the world as it really is, a great deal of self discipline must be imposed.”
So Jen I wonder why we might undertake altruistic acts (bad Fortran/DNA ?) or express care for whales, Baiji, and Wombats?
No luke that’s just fukked up. There is no material reality, it’s all a projection. There is only energetic consciousness.
The competition + natural selection of favouralbe traits argument neglects:
– sexual selection is a significant force alongside natural selection through competition for survival. Darwin himself tried to elevate the important of sexual selection but it was a less a convenient truth for the opinion makers.
– enduring traits don’t have to carry a competitive & survival advantage, they can be survival neutral.
– the cushions provided by human society dominate selective forces on some human traits. Selection for opposing traits may maintain the batting average where the genes aren’t gender specific (sexual selection for foolish pretty women; smart ugly men)
The reductionist biologists explain away all co-operative & altruistic acts as sacrificial acts to ensure your genes survive – not those of yr offspring but those of your nearest family members. There are unexplained co-operative behaviours though.
So how many watts if your energetic consciousness. It’s a pretty pissy amount of energy really. If we weren’t smart enough to develop machines to project ourselves we’d be mukked up !
There is a material reality. It’s just our perception of it that’s biased. Or am I just thinking that. Actually I’m not really Luke – I’m a Luke-bot 4000.
This short clip will explain all:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/robotcityxmas
Nobody knows more about God than anyone else. If people choose to go back to pagan worship of trees, rocks, rivers, mountains etc. that is their right. I find Aboriginal pagan explanations of nature more satisfying than those of the monotheistic religions. I have never known pagans try to force monotheists to be pagans. I have known monotheists try to impose their views on pagans. In my view science and paganism are compatible. Science and monotheism are not. I am probably talking rubbish. I don’t really know any more about it than anyone else.
Well put Davey. Davey is my new God. Down with all other gods!
“The Young Ones” – Cash episode.
RICK: Don’t be such a spazmo, Neil! There’s no ghosts, there’s no God,
there’s a perfectly rational explanation for any kind of phenomena you
might encounter.
NEIL: Oh, yeah, well how do you explain the table shrinking, then?
RICK: Uh, eh…
VYV: Well, I did that, actually.
[Vyv stand up and grabs a chainsaw. Meanwhile, Mike successfully nails two
plates to the table. Vyv revs up the chainsaw and saws
off each leg of Mike’s chair. The chair, however, seems to hover in the air.]
VYV: See?…God! Mike’s floating! How’s that done, then?
NEIL: Yeah, you see, I was right! It’s the poltergoost! It’s making him
float!
RICK: [screaming] Aaahhhhhh! Get a priest! Get a vicar! I believe
in God! [Rick frantically crosses himself]
And
Next week much of the world will mark the passing of yet another year, but according to scientists the earth and universe are a few billion years older than anybody realised.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1819254.htm
And
It is true that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind (sorry Pinxi, but that’s what he said) to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds (sorry again P.) about to religion.
Francis Bacon (possibly Queen Elizabeth’s illegitimate son)
Signed
God
Once upon a time Ariadne’s column in New Scientist speculated on the possibility of a computer- based religion. As I remember, it was to have among its basics:-
– It was to have mores diametrically opposed to the practices of most of the population
– It was to issue edicts containing plenty of fire and brimstone
– It was to issue rewards on the premium bond principle
And the article ended by wondering how many believers could be attracted, even if they knew the supplier of the hardware and the author of the software.
And there are days when it seems to me that AGW fits many of these criteria
Only if you read newspapers and not the literature.
The literature in this case includes Luke in full Captain AHAB mode (all horns and b@lls)