Feb 22

The God Debates #2: Theology Beyond the World

Part 2 of a discussion and critique of John R. Shook’s The God Debates

Ian Kluge

Behind the logical plausibility of God lies another argument Shook dismisses in The God Debates, namely, the “Theology beyond the World”(3) which argues that “god is the necessary condition for the universe, for its order, and for its intelligibility.”(4) He recognizes that this assertion appeals to the principle of sufficient reason which he takes seriously — except, of course, in this case. He calls this “the argument from pseudo-cosmology.”(5) (“Pseudo” is a word Shook uses frequently for viewpoints he objects to.)

Here is how he sets up the argument.

  1. Everything that exists requires an explanation for its existence [a rough statement of the principle of sufficient reason, PSR]
  2. Nature (a collective label for all natural things) exists, so an explanation is required.
  3. Nothing natural can serve as an explanation for nature, since a proposed natural thing would just count as more nature.
  4. Only something supernatural could serve as an explanation for nature.
  5. It is more reasonable to accept a proposed explanation than to leave something unexplained.

Conclusion. Something supernatural exists to explain nature.(6)

Shook accepts premise #1, the PSR, and then extrapolates that since natural things require a sufficient cause, so must super-natural things. This is a logical category mistake, i.e. treating one kind of thing as if it were another kind of thing. We don’t confuse telephones and the meaning of the conversations held on them. The “child’s question, ‘Who made God’”(7) is a child’s question precisely because it is an elementary category mistake.

The whole point of religion is that God, the Absolute, the Ground of Being — whatever — is not subject to natural limitations such as time, space, and mass simply because He/It is the pre-condition for time, space, and mass etc to exist. That is why He belongs to a different category than ordinary contingent beings. Children usually don’t get this — but adults should.

Shook’s conclusion shows him skating around the logical force of premise #3. Premise #3 claims that even in principle, nature, matter, the physical world does not explain itself. Any attempt to explain the existence of nature by means of nature ends with an infinite regress — a sign that our reasoning is off. In other words, any attempt to explain nature in strictly natural terms fails to satisfy the PSR.

If we try to identify a natural event that caused it all, we need simply ask what natural event caused that and so on ad infinitum. Since it is a natural event and not a ‘super-natural’ event, it requires a natural cause. Obviously, there cannot be an infinite line of events any more than there can be an infinite line of particular things. Every causal act and every individual entity can always be counted. No matter how many, they have a definite number — which infinity does not. You cannot have an indefinite, i.e. infinite number of things or events. If there are individual events and/or things, we need a starting point or as Aristotle put it, a first mover, i.e. God (which does not, of course, necessarily mean a “personal” God.) This is one among the many reasons why nature cannot explain nature.

Second, how could a cause (A) ever work its way through (a supposed) infinity of individual causes to have a particular effect at a future moment? It cannot get to the future — and, therefore, cannot be a cause. The distance between it and that future moment is infinite. We hasten to add that this is not a misuse of Zeno’s paradox because the space through which Zeno’s arrow travels is not made of real individual points. They are only imagined. However, the causal events in a supposedly infinite causal sequence are indeed made up of individual events which must be traversed one at a time. Thus, we know there can be no infinite line of causal events leading to the Big Bang.

However, if such a line is impossible, then there must be a limit, i.e. a first cause – or “God”, if you prefer, to initiate the sequence.

The strictly naturalist explanation of the existence of nature fails the PSR, which states that every thing-event requires an explanation for its existence and why it exists the way it does and not in some other way. There are reasons why running shoes exist and why they are the way they are. As we have seen, Shook’s naturalist explanation does not explain the existence of nature, let alone why nature is the way it is. No matter how much mathematics we bring to bear to our explanations, sooner or later we will bring up the PSR to the singularity, the branes, the quantum vacuum (which turns out to be not so empty) and so on.

The bottom line is that, in principle, no physical explanation for the existence of the universe can ultimately satisfy the PSR. It’s time for science to stop playing Don Quixote with the cosmic windmills.

The upshot of all this is that if nature cannot explain the origin of nature, then the possibility of some kind of non-natural origin of nature must be considered. It is not a matter of shoe-horning in a silly premise like #5 and its conclusion as Shook does in his parody of a theist argument, but rather a matter of recognizing that if nature cannot explain nature, we have no choice but to look at non-natural (i.e. super-natural) alternatives. This does not prove that a personal God exists but it does make it rationally necessary to consider super-natural origins of nature.

Next time: Fine-tuning God

============= References ==============

3 John R Shook, The God Debates, p. 153.

4 John R Shook, The God Debates, p. 153.

5 John R Shook, The God Debates, p. 153.

6 John R Shook, The God Debates, p. 134.

7 John R Shook, The God Debates, p. 134.

Share

Feb 19

Evolution, Science, and Religion 3: Creationism and the Rebellion against Evolution

“The task of humanity…is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence.”

The Universal House of Justice

Feb 19, 2012. Creationism and intelligent design (ID) are two modern religious responses to evolution and modern secular thought. Both think of evolution as a materialistic creation story and as an invalid science (as we show below).

Have you heard the old phrase “throwing out the baby with the bath water,” meaning to reject both the bad and the good?

Take the bad as the 19th/20th century quasi-religious secular creation stories inspired by the evolutionary sciences that were part of the fuel for “scientific” racism, eugenics, murderous Nazi tendencies, the supposed inevitability of Marxist forms of social organization, and modern materialistic ideologies both left and right. Take the good as the powerful body of scientific theories concerning evolution and the supporting evidence for those theories (a combination that has proven the unity of the humanity beyond any conceivable doubt). Then reject them both, offer quasi-scientific religious views in their stead, and you have creationism and its much more sophisticated cousin, intelligent design.

This approach to evolution drives the supporters of evolution and modern institutional science – folks who tend towards complete cluelessness on the topic or worse – into an apoplectic frenzy and has led to reams and reams of rhetorical overkill in response. Creationists and intelligent designers take this as proof and vindication of the correctness of their approach, and it seems to be a major factor driving broad public acceptance of creationist and intelligent design views.

As contrast, consider Baha’i perspectives which also reject purely material descriptions of reality and the purposeless of nature. These perspectives hold that all things are God’s creation, including the intelligence and reason we have been given that allows us to create science, the most laudable of all human achievements. With respect to evolution, the Baha’i perspective is that all things develop through a gradual unfolding process consistent with evolution, even though they have their origin as God’s creation:

[T]he growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The seed does not at once become a tree; the embryo does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection.

For more details on the Baha’i writings as they relate to evolution, see Mehanian and Friberg.

Modern Creationism: A Short History

Last week, we described the origins of creationism as coming about because of an early 20th century American evangelical rejection of social Darwinism and the resulting evangelical campaign to prevent the teaching of evolution in public schools. This led to the famous Stokes Trial (1925) and the severe curtailment of evolution education at the pre-university level that persisted until the Sputnik crisis of 1957.

Modern creationism – creation science, according to its supporters – started in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. Creationism’s basic views can best be seen at The Basic Tenets of Creationism, The Institute for Creation Research, or at www.creationism.org.

Morris – a hydraulics engineer and civics engineering university professor – and Whitcomb argued for a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis. God created the earth – they claimed – in six days roughly 6,000 years ago, meaning that they embraced the once standard account of the earth’s age.

This view, they recognized, was not in accord with the findings of modern geology and its conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old in a universe some 13 billion years old. Modern geology, they stated, was wrong. The abundant evidence for the age of the earth that geologists appeal to – folds in the earth’s crust, layer after layer of sediment laden with animal skeletons turned to stone, weathering processes of great age – can all be scientifically explained by the great flood described in the book of Genesis.

Modern geologists mistakenly believe in the ancient dating of the earth’s age, Morris wrote, because of a “moral and emotional decision” to seek ‘intellectual justification for escape from personal responsibility to his Creator and escape from the ‘way of the Cross’ as the necessary and sufficient means of his personal redemption.’”

Later, in“The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (1989) Morris wrote against what he sees as the denial of supernatural creation:

[T]he denial of God – rejecting the reality of supernatural creation and the creator’s sovereign rule of the world – has always been the root cause of every human problem.

Langdon Gilkey, the prominent Protestant theologian, elaborates:

Creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack …

He then quotes Morris as saying (for his quotes, see here):

If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis … then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation.”

It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century.

The popularity of creationism – roughly half of the people in the United States support the view that the world was created 6,000 or so years ago – attests to widespread support for these criticisms.

It is noteworthy how readily the New Atheists – comprehendingly or not – play the creationist’s script. They too make no distinction between scientific and metaphysical views about the purposes and origins of the universe as described by evolution. Simply put, they are the other side of the same coin.

Intelligent Design

The backwardness of creationism – the idea that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, its appeal to literal interpretations of Bible derived from American fundamentalism, and its lack of scientific sophistication – led to the emergence of the much more sophisticated intelligent design movement (see here and here.)

Intelligent design also maintains the view that evolution is a materialistic pseudo-science – albeit with critiques that are much more sophisticated – but it has dropped relying on literal interpretations of the Bible (for example, the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago, the emphasis on Christian fundamentalism) and put in place a much broader perspective on divine creation that embraces views from the world’s major religions. And it has brought aboard a number of very capable thinkers, writers, polemicists, publicists, and scientist into its ranks, as can be seen by a brief look at the website of its main institutional home, the Discovery Institute and the Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

[One of their senior fellows is David Berlinski, a self-described "maverick intellectual" and Jewish agnostic known for his popular and informative books on mathematics and his witty, informed, and bitingly sharp iconoclasm. In my opinion, he is must-read on any topic he chooses to write about.]

Much of the impact and success of the intelligent design movement can be attributed to the influence of Phillip Johnson, the UC Berkeley law professor, legal thinker, and now prolific author of a number of books, articles, and lecture tours focusing on criticisms of Darwinism. His legalistic analysis of Darwinism, Darwin on Trial, is one of the founding texts of intelligent design and a widely influential best seller. Marla Freeman, interviewing Johnson in 1997 for the San Francisco Chronicle, writes that “Johnson’s central argument is that Darwinism rests on faulty logic and flawed evidence … such as fossil records with gaping holes.” She continues:

More important, he says, the theory is based on the philosophy of naturalism, which includes the assumption that the physical world is all that exists. Darwin, he notes, attributes “randomness” to the universe and, it troubles him, that in doing so, makes “purposeless” the only acceptable scientific explanation for existence.

For a fair and informative interview with Johnson – an articulate and persuasive thinker – see the PBS NOVA interview with him called Defending Intelligent Design.

The Discovery Institute – a well-funded think-tank led by savvy and seasoned political and technology industry veterans – is the main institutional home of intelligent design. William Dembski and Michael Behe are their best known scientists and spend their time looking for scientific evidence of intelligent design. [Because such evidence would be tantamount to a valid scientific proof of the existence of an otherwise unknowable God, the success of such a venture is highly doubtful.] Its central focus is perhaps best represented in the controversial Wedge Strategy outlined in the Wedge Document. The focus is on materialism:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Agree with it or disagree with it, it is a powerful statement of religion and faith-based opposition to secular values that claim to be – but aren’t – based on science.

Summary

Creationism – and intelligent design – are two highly influential movements that attribute much of what is wrong in our modern world to materialistic philosophies and evolutionary science. The solution they propose is to develop and teach alternative approaches – “creation” science and/or intelligent design – alongside standard evolution. In effect, they propose to teach religious views cloaked in the language of science as an antidote to materialism. And, especially on the intelligent design side, they have developed highly articulate critiques of evolutionism – what I call the secular creation myth – which they confuse with – and convolve with – evolution.

The response of the defenders of evolution has been – in the main – to engage in exactly the same confusion of myth and science as the creationist and intelligent design folks, but apparently with much less awareness of what they are doing. The result is an escalating stand-off – and a long running series of major battles – in the war of science and religion.

Clearly, it is time to find ways bring some understanding into the picture, and I doubt that that is going to happen by repeatedly louder claims that secularism has won.

Next time we will explore the topic further. What exactly does evolution say that causes its detractors and supporters alike to claim it to support purposelessness and to destroy religion?

…………………………

This is the 3rd in a series of blogs on evolution and religion. The author, Stephen Friberg, is a Bahá’í living in Mountain View, California. A research physicist by training, he is author of Religion and Evolution Reconciled: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Comments on Evolution. He did work at NTT in Japan before joining the semiconductor industry in Silicon Valley.

Share

Feb 15

The God Debates #1: Less Than Meets the Eye

Ian Kluge

Let’s start with the good news: The God Debates maintains a civil tone amid the often shrill abuse of the real-world God debates. Nothing like the late Christopher Hitchen’s somewhat hysterical contention that teaching children religion is equivalent to child-abuse;  no suggestion of Harris’s ominously totalitarian claim that even tolerating religious belief and freedom is intolerable; none of Dawkins’ withering scorn for philosophical texts and arguments he obviously hasn’t read and just as obviously doesn’t understand; and no sign of Dennett’s insulting references to atheists as “brights” (which, by implication, relegates Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Whitehead and Goedel — among others —  to the “dims”).

With The God Debates, a new tone emerges, and for this we are grateful. This book sets a better example for atheist-believer discussions — civil and courteous. Yet, for the most part, tone is often as far as it goes, for welcome as it is, Shook’s civil tone does not improve the quality of his arguments. Though he tries to embed his contentions in a typology of religious and secular beliefs and, thereby, tries to give them an aura of scientific objectivity and rigor, all too often he gives straw-man representations of religious and philosophical viewpoints opposed to his.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Feb 13

Evolution, Science, and Religion 2: Social Darwinism and The Origins of Creationism

“The task of humanity…is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence.”

The Universal House of Justice

Feb 5, 2012. Know thyself! So goes the ancient Greek aphorism. Even if you don’t see your flaws, others do.

Consider evolutionism the worldview (as opposed to evolution, the science). To its supporters – including many in the scientific establishment – it is a scientifically informed understanding of the world. To some philosophers of science, it is a substitute religion (see, for example, the 1st blog in this series). To American evangelicals, it is secular ideology and its flaws are not only readily apparent but have debilitating consequences. American evangelicals have responded to those flaws by rejecting evolutionism and by rejecting evolution.

A word about nomenclature. By evolution, I mean the extraordinarily wonderful and successful science of evolution, now sometimes called the modern evolutionary synthesis. By evolutionism, I mean the ideological worldview derived from evolutionary thought. Michael Ruse, in Is Evolution a Secular Religion? describes this as a “secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world’s major problems, from racism to education to conservation.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Feb 06

Evolution, Science, and Religion 1: Introduction

“The task of humanity…is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence.”

The Universal House of Justice

Feb 5, 2012. Science is not an undivided good – it has torn our world apart.

Lethal weaponry – the heritage of centuries of sustained scientific effort – continues its rapid pace of development. Science and technology industries continue to pollute, except now they do it in China or India. Energy and carbon production continues to grow, as does the resulting global warming, the threat of rising sea levels, the destruction of vast swathes of our environment, and the accompanying massive social disruption.

But none of these seems to have had the social and psychological impact – direct, emotional, disruptive, and highly divisive – of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

A New Series of Blogs

This week, we start a series of blogs addressing the origins and impact of the conflict between evolution and religion while exploring the consequences for the relationship between science and religion. We will also bring into play the Baha’i teachings on the unity of science and religion. The aim is to understand the threads that make up the conflict of evolution and religion with the goal of seeing what can be done to reduce or eliminate their negative impact and to explore the possibilities of the emergence of something good from the seeming debacle.

We start by exploring American public opinion about evolution, followed by the surprisingly bitter response to that opinion on the part of some scientists, and finally entertain the idea that evolution is frequently taken as secular religion.

Want to contribute? Please get in touch.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Jan 30

Religion, Science, and Global Civilization #15: Science and Religion United Through Action

“The task of humanity…is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence.”

The Universal House of Justice

Jan 29, 2012. This week features the 15th blog – and the last – in our Religion, Science, and Global Civilization series.

We’ve covered a lot of ground. Starting with description of the world’s outstanding problems as described by some of the world’s most prominent thinkers, we’ve progressed through to a description of – and elaboration on – the Baha’i principles of the harmony of science and religion and what these principle mean for addressing those problems.

This final blog describes how some of the Baha’i ideas about the harmony of science and religion have been developed in the international Baha’i community. It also briefly overviews the themes of the Religion, Science, and Global Civilization series.

Next week, I start a new blog series surveying views on religion and evolution and how the Baha’i teachings approach the topic. I’m hoping to have guest blogs on the topic – contact us if you want to participate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Jan 23

Religion, Science, and Global Civilization #14: Baha’i Views on Why Religion Needs Science

“The task of humanity…is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence.”

The Universal House of Justice

Jan 22, 2012. We don’t usually think of science as playing a role in religion. This is because – I think – we are so strongly influenced by the secular spirit of the age. Religion, we think, is about immaterial truths – morals, ethics, and related kinds of things. Science is concerned, we tend to think, with nature.

Stephen J. Gould – the science writer, paleontologist, and evolutionary biologist – argued this point in Rocks of Ages, his influential book on science and religion. Gould describes science and religion as two non-overlapping “magisteria,” one “our drive to understand the factual character of nature (the magisterium of science)” and the other “our need to define meaning in our lives and a moral basis for our actions (the magisterium of religion).” (For an insightful critique of Gould’s perspective, see Ursala Goodenough’s review of Rocks of Ages in the American Scientist.)

The Baha’i writings don’t endorse the clear distinction between science and religion that Gould postulates. My reasons for concluding this are that:

  1. Science and religion both draw on the same source – the intellect – for their understandings.
  2. Religion requires science, its methods, and its understandings it is to avoid straying into superstition and thus becoming a source of contention, disunity and various problems.
  3. The ends of religion – including those of being true to its own teachings, maintaining and organizing its activities, maintaining strong communities, and transforming the world – require a command of science, its techniques, and its means of seeking out truth.

In this blog, we explore points 1 and 2.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Jan 18

Science, Religion, and Myth #12: Is Dogmatism Exclusive to Religion?

Maya Bohnhoff

I’ve frequently heard the sentiment expressed that dogmatism is a feature (or even a hallmark) of “the religious mindset”. (I’ll let the reader decide whether the presumption that there is such a thing as “The Religious Mindset” is, itself, a dogmatic statement.)

The observation is often part of a larger assertion about the essential difference between science and religion. Science, as New Atheist writers such as Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens claim, is not only self-correcting, but non-dogmatic. This point of view is not exclusive to New Atheist thinkers, of course. It is a widely accepted assumption and, at first glance, it seems reasonable. Science, after all, is about empirical knowledge and facts. It deals in certainties and provables, not in fuzzy, squishy, or emotionally fraught subject matter.

At least, that’s the myth. But is it true?

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Jan 16

Religion, Science, and Global Civilization #13: Why Religion Needs Science

“The task of humanity…is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence.”

The Universal House of Justice

Jan 15, 2012. We have been arguing that science and religion must work together if the peoples of the world are to successfully address the mounting set of problems that they face.

But if this is to happen, religion must advance, progress, and continually develop. This in turn implies that science will play an increasing vital role in religion.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Jan 13

Lillian & Mona: Drama Within a Drama

Bahram Nadimi

I never thought I’d write—let alone be teary-eyed about—someone I never met. It was during my recent trip to the Research Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina, where I got to visit my dear friends Mark and Azadeh Perry, whom I had not seen for a while.

During this visit I got to hear about a young lady of the tender age of 18, Lillian Chason.  This is her story.

A play about Mona

A little bit of background: In the year 2003, I moved to RTP in North Carolina to be close to my twin brother and his family. The day I arrived—straight from the airport, in fact—I got to see a play entitled A Dress for Mona performed by a devoted theater group called the Drama Circle. Many of the performers were westerners, though the play is set in the heart of the Middle East. It tells the story of Mona Mahmudnizhad, a young woman who was executed—along with nine other Bahá’í women and girls—because of her faith. She and the women with whom she was hanged were Bahá’ís.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Older posts «