10/20/2015—I’ve long had the feeling that the New Atheists—the late Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc.—are essentially politically conservative. But this has been just a feeling and given the power of the Christian right in the Republican Party, hardly a convincing one. My assumption just had to do with how selfish and individualistic the New Atheists seemed. There was little sense among them of human solidarity.
Anyway, I now have at least an example. Look up the interview in the Sunday New York Times Book Review of Matt Ridley. Ridley praises the New Atheist wing and likens it to Voltaire. But he also says the last book to make him furious was Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth because of its misstatements of science and claims that business people are made villains by novelists who live off the wealth they create. Ridley claims this is a bit facetious, but it undoubtedly represents his true feelings.
Then he describes the Bible in these words: “the grim tedium of this messy compilation of second-rate tribal legends and outrageous bigotry.”
Well, now. How can Gore’s misstated science make him furious and not the underlying danger itself? And how wrong can the science be in Gore’s book. Greenhouse gases make it warmer and that change floods a lot of people. That’s all the book really says and it is happening already, or so I hear.
As for the Bible, the followers of this book have done an awful lot of good in the world—bad, too—but what have atheists ever done for others? What has Ridley ever done for others?
Showing posts with label Hallowed Secularism and the Fight over Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hallowed Secularism and the Fight over Evolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Darwin’s New Bulldogs
10/28/2009—You know something is up when you open the letters-to-the-editor section of the New York Times Book Review and see letters from Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, and Philip Kitcher, author of Living With Darwin. Dennett is on any list of the New Atheists and Kitcher belongs there too, although he is much more sympathetic to religion. Their letters appeared last Sunday, 10/25.
These two wrote in response to a book review of Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth by Nicholas Wade, which had appeared on 10/11: Evolution All Around. If you read their letters, I think it is fair to say that they wrote to defend evolutionary theory.
But, defend evolutionary theory from what? Nicholas Wade, a science reporter for the New York Times, began his review with the sentence, “The theory of evolution really does explain everything in biology.” And he meant it. How could there be a need to defend evolution against Wade?
Dennett is angry that Wade writes that Dawkins “gets his knickers in a twist” over the question of whether evolution is a theory or a fact. Wade concludes that there is the historical fact of evolution—“Every living thing and every fossil-bearing rock bears evidence that evolution occurred”—and there is also the theory of evolution in the scientific sense, the theory “without which nothing in biology makes sense”. Dennett accuses the New York Times of “giving [those who doubt evolution] respectability in its pages.” But there is nothing in Wade’s review that doubts evolution, unless you count his observation that “when we learn how life evolved on other planets, evolution could turn out to be a special case of some more general theory.”
Kitcher defends Dawkins’ claim that evolution is a fact. Kitchens concedes that evolution is a scientific theory and not a fact in that sense. But he says there is also a more conventional meaning of fact—“′theory’ is used to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt, whereas ′fact’ suggests that something so amply confirmed by the evidence that it may be accepted without debate.” Evolution is a fact in this sense. But Wade does not doubt anything about evolution in his review. Why did Kitcher feel the need to write in?
Ironically, Wade explains in his review why there is this overwrought reaction. Wade says that Dawkins “has let himself slip into being as dogmatic as his opponents”. Dennett and Kitchers are reacting to the smell of heresy.
There is something going on here, but I am not sure what it is. Creationists say some things cannot have evolved because they are too complicated. Only God could direct the accomplishment of the human eye, for example. No one could believe that Wade accepts that. On the other hand, Dawkins has said in the past that evolution means there cannot be a God. Wade might disagree with that since his book, The Faith Instinct, will be published next month. Maybe we are not fighting about the fact of evolution but about the meaning of evolution.
These two wrote in response to a book review of Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth by Nicholas Wade, which had appeared on 10/11: Evolution All Around. If you read their letters, I think it is fair to say that they wrote to defend evolutionary theory.
But, defend evolutionary theory from what? Nicholas Wade, a science reporter for the New York Times, began his review with the sentence, “The theory of evolution really does explain everything in biology.” And he meant it. How could there be a need to defend evolution against Wade?
Dennett is angry that Wade writes that Dawkins “gets his knickers in a twist” over the question of whether evolution is a theory or a fact. Wade concludes that there is the historical fact of evolution—“Every living thing and every fossil-bearing rock bears evidence that evolution occurred”—and there is also the theory of evolution in the scientific sense, the theory “without which nothing in biology makes sense”. Dennett accuses the New York Times of “giving [those who doubt evolution] respectability in its pages.” But there is nothing in Wade’s review that doubts evolution, unless you count his observation that “when we learn how life evolved on other planets, evolution could turn out to be a special case of some more general theory.”
Kitcher defends Dawkins’ claim that evolution is a fact. Kitchens concedes that evolution is a scientific theory and not a fact in that sense. But he says there is also a more conventional meaning of fact—“′theory’ is used to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt, whereas ′fact’ suggests that something so amply confirmed by the evidence that it may be accepted without debate.” Evolution is a fact in this sense. But Wade does not doubt anything about evolution in his review. Why did Kitcher feel the need to write in?
Ironically, Wade explains in his review why there is this overwrought reaction. Wade says that Dawkins “has let himself slip into being as dogmatic as his opponents”. Dennett and Kitchers are reacting to the smell of heresy.
There is something going on here, but I am not sure what it is. Creationists say some things cannot have evolved because they are too complicated. Only God could direct the accomplishment of the human eye, for example. No one could believe that Wade accepts that. On the other hand, Dawkins has said in the past that evolution means there cannot be a God. Wade might disagree with that since his book, The Faith Instinct, will be published next month. Maybe we are not fighting about the fact of evolution but about the meaning of evolution.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Great News in "The Grand Bargain Over Evolution"
8/24/2009--Happy anniversary to Patt and me.
Yesterday, Robert Wright, the author of The Evolution of God, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about possible common ground between religious believers and nonbelievers over evolution: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html?pagewanted=all.
Wright's basic point is that many evolutionary biologists now believe that evolution, given sufficient time, will inevitably produces beings with moral intuitions and moral discourse along lines similar to those in human beings. Something like the golden rule. Certain moral truths are really true in a sense, therefore, independent of our existence.
This does not mean that God exists, of course. But it might mean that other things exist, like the higher law. Wright even believes that this understanding of evolution is a form of higher purpose. And this purpose is founded in the material.
Wright ends by quoting William James:
William James said that religious belief is “the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.” Science has its own version of the unseen order, the laws of nature. In principle, the two kinds of order can themselves be put into harmony — and in that adjustment, too, may lie a supreme good.
Sounds very much like my pitch to netroots.
Yesterday, Robert Wright, the author of The Evolution of God, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about possible common ground between religious believers and nonbelievers over evolution: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html?pagewanted=all.
Wright's basic point is that many evolutionary biologists now believe that evolution, given sufficient time, will inevitably produces beings with moral intuitions and moral discourse along lines similar to those in human beings. Something like the golden rule. Certain moral truths are really true in a sense, therefore, independent of our existence.
This does not mean that God exists, of course. But it might mean that other things exist, like the higher law. Wright even believes that this understanding of evolution is a form of higher purpose. And this purpose is founded in the material.
Wright ends by quoting William James:
William James said that religious belief is “the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.” Science has its own version of the unseen order, the laws of nature. In principle, the two kinds of order can themselves be put into harmony — and in that adjustment, too, may lie a supreme good.
Sounds very much like my pitch to netroots.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Hallowed Secularism and the Fight over Evolution
8/1/2007--The disagreement between atheists and religious believers over the ground of existence is what is actually behind the controversy in America concerning teaching evolution in the schools. That fight is not about facts so much as about meaning. Eventually, the people who deny that evolution is the way life unfolds will have to give up, since evolutionary theory is fundamentally an accurate explanation of how things are. Even religious believers cannot fight facts forever.
But there are scientists and historians of science and philosophers of science who subtly, and not so subtly, use the facts of evolution to assert that there is no God and that the process of evolution has no meaning. And, indeed, Pope Benedict agrees that when a person has lost God, “then you are nothing more than a random product of evolution.”[1]
How should we characterize this dispute between some scientists and Pope Benedict? They probably agree on the facts of evolution. They probably also agree that the matter of whether evolution is random, in the special sense that its processes have no meaning, is not an aesthetic judgment, but is, in some way, true or not.
This dispute is absolutely capable of rational discussion. The dead ends of evolution seem odd if an intelligent designer is involved. Why did God bother with Neanderthals, for example? On the other hand, over time and in a general way, the universe selected for beings with increasing capacity for gratitude, for reverence and for expanding the circle of empathy. And, as the work of Frans de Waal, and others suggest, these moral traits did not just pop up in humans but at least began to evolve in animals that are close to us on the evolutionary tree.[2] Why would that be? What kind of a universe selects for morality? I would answer, one grounded in meaning.
So this dispute over evolution is quite deep. It is not just “one side” that wants to inject religion into biology class. The meaning of evolution is inherently a religious question, however one ultimately understands that meaning. If we are alone and the universe is an accident, you have one kind of religion, or worldview if you prefer. If, on the other hand, reality supports compassion and love, that is, selects for it, then you have a very different approach to life—a different religion. The issue of the ground of life cannot be avoided.
I don’t have any doubt about the scientific account of evolution. But I would not have wanted my children to conclude from biology class that life has no meaning. And, since the presentation of evolutionary theory inevitably emphasizes its randomness, biology class is likely to carry a hidden message of meaninglessness. That message is no more scientific than its opposite, so it has no place in biology class, but it tends to be there all the same.
This is what is bothering most of the people who oppose evolution, as Philip Kitcher explains in his book Living with Darwin. For most opponents, evolution is not a problem because they want the literal truth of Genesis or don’t believe an eye could be put together naturally. The dispute is about whether the universe is mere mechanism. Turning to my own specialty, law, I have a suggestion for a new disclaimer for biology class, which I think is constitutional and might reassure some of these parents. My disclaimer would begin as follows:
Some people believe that evolution is a random process. Others believe that it is directed by God. Biology class is the place for you to see how evolution works. This class is not the place to judge whether evolution serves any larger purpose.
Assuming that the words “random process” are not misunderstood—I am not denying that statistics suggest mutations are random, I am referring to the results of evolutionary processes—this statement, unlike the one in Dover Pennsylvania, is probably constitutional.
But I would like to go further. There isn’t any reason why schools should not take a stand on the side of meaning. Whatever the separation of Church and State means, it cannot mean that the State may only imply that life has no meaning, not that life does have meaning. I would like to add the following in a statement to biology students:
Evolution is a messy process, with many dead-ends. But, in the end, evolution has produced beings with ever more curiosity and capacity for gratitude; ever more caring and capacity for self-sacrifice; ever more interiority and capacity for expanding the circle of empathy.
A statement like this one might dilute the opposition to Darwin.
[1] Jesus, at 166.
[2] See Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton University Press 2006).
But there are scientists and historians of science and philosophers of science who subtly, and not so subtly, use the facts of evolution to assert that there is no God and that the process of evolution has no meaning. And, indeed, Pope Benedict agrees that when a person has lost God, “then you are nothing more than a random product of evolution.”[1]
How should we characterize this dispute between some scientists and Pope Benedict? They probably agree on the facts of evolution. They probably also agree that the matter of whether evolution is random, in the special sense that its processes have no meaning, is not an aesthetic judgment, but is, in some way, true or not.
This dispute is absolutely capable of rational discussion. The dead ends of evolution seem odd if an intelligent designer is involved. Why did God bother with Neanderthals, for example? On the other hand, over time and in a general way, the universe selected for beings with increasing capacity for gratitude, for reverence and for expanding the circle of empathy. And, as the work of Frans de Waal, and others suggest, these moral traits did not just pop up in humans but at least began to evolve in animals that are close to us on the evolutionary tree.[2] Why would that be? What kind of a universe selects for morality? I would answer, one grounded in meaning.
So this dispute over evolution is quite deep. It is not just “one side” that wants to inject religion into biology class. The meaning of evolution is inherently a religious question, however one ultimately understands that meaning. If we are alone and the universe is an accident, you have one kind of religion, or worldview if you prefer. If, on the other hand, reality supports compassion and love, that is, selects for it, then you have a very different approach to life—a different religion. The issue of the ground of life cannot be avoided.
I don’t have any doubt about the scientific account of evolution. But I would not have wanted my children to conclude from biology class that life has no meaning. And, since the presentation of evolutionary theory inevitably emphasizes its randomness, biology class is likely to carry a hidden message of meaninglessness. That message is no more scientific than its opposite, so it has no place in biology class, but it tends to be there all the same.
This is what is bothering most of the people who oppose evolution, as Philip Kitcher explains in his book Living with Darwin. For most opponents, evolution is not a problem because they want the literal truth of Genesis or don’t believe an eye could be put together naturally. The dispute is about whether the universe is mere mechanism. Turning to my own specialty, law, I have a suggestion for a new disclaimer for biology class, which I think is constitutional and might reassure some of these parents. My disclaimer would begin as follows:
Some people believe that evolution is a random process. Others believe that it is directed by God. Biology class is the place for you to see how evolution works. This class is not the place to judge whether evolution serves any larger purpose.
Assuming that the words “random process” are not misunderstood—I am not denying that statistics suggest mutations are random, I am referring to the results of evolutionary processes—this statement, unlike the one in Dover Pennsylvania, is probably constitutional.
But I would like to go further. There isn’t any reason why schools should not take a stand on the side of meaning. Whatever the separation of Church and State means, it cannot mean that the State may only imply that life has no meaning, not that life does have meaning. I would like to add the following in a statement to biology students:
Evolution is a messy process, with many dead-ends. But, in the end, evolution has produced beings with ever more curiosity and capacity for gratitude; ever more caring and capacity for self-sacrifice; ever more interiority and capacity for expanding the circle of empathy.
A statement like this one might dilute the opposition to Darwin.
[1] Jesus, at 166.
[2] See Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton University Press 2006).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
