Richard Dawkins on Religion
Renowned biologist Richard Dawkins gives an interview at beliefnet about God, religion, and science. In view of a previous bloggernacle discussion about “what comforts an atheist,” here’s Dawkins’s take:
If you had to name top sources for optimism and hope in a naturalistic or materialistic worldview, what would they be?
I think there is something glorious in the universe, in contemplating the Milky Way galaxy, in contemplating the fact that this is only one in billions of galaxies, contemplating the fact that at the beginning of the 21st century, humanity really has gone a very long way toward understanding the universe in which we live and the life form of which we are a part. I find that a truly inspirational thought.
Obviously, there are other things having nothing to do with science—music, poetry, sex, love. These are all things that make life, to me, extremely worth living.
Not much to disagree with there. Religionists whose only hope is a glorious afterlife, and whose only comfort is their faith, are going to struggle when that faith dims, or when that afterlife seems far, far away. Do not, Mr. Dawkins, imagine that we are all dreaming of our mansions above. And do not, people of faith, imagine that atheists live sad, empty lives.
We’re not so different. Not Mormon humanists, anyway.
That Dawkins drives me crazy. His daughter is too intelligent to be religious? Kiss my . . .
Sorry. I also love Dawkins. Evolution is cool and he has lots of cool stuff to say about it.
At least in that interview he didn’t say the religion-as-mind-virus thing in that interview.
Comment by Tom — December 20, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
Both Dawkins and Dennett say some really dumb things at times. I don’t mind them being atheists obviously. But this whole “science entails atheism” bit bugs me.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
The thing that irritates me about the argument isn’t that they are able to come up with a form of meaning in their life; it is that they simply won’t accept that I can truly find my form of meaning more meaningful than theirs. It is as if they believe that if they explain it well enough, I will have to accept their view (and yes, I realize that I am being a bit of a hypocrite when I say that).
Comment by John C. — December 20, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
Now John, I don’t think that you are giving them their full due. They fully accept that YOU might find your meaning of life more meaningful than theirs. In fact if they met you they would have no doubt of that I’m sure.
What is less common however is that a theist actually accepts that atheists find thier meaning more meaningful than theirs. Of course the theists will say that the atheists are wrong on this point, but that is also was the atheists say abou the theists as well.
Is their some way to objectively measures the two against one another? I’m not so sure that there is, but if there is the winner is by no means easy to point to.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
Now as to Clark’s comment, I don’t think that he really gives them their full due either. Science doesn’t really disprove the existence of anything, it simply says that when we have no good reason to believe in something we don’t. That is the first part of the argument. The second is that if God’s existence is to mean anything at all, we should be able to make prediction about how we will observe the world to be different from how it would be if there was no God. Such reasoning has led to one of two conclusions: 1) the prediction’s haven’t panned out so God doesn’t exist or 2) the God’s existence doesn’t have any relevance to our lives. Thus, according to their argument, we have no good reason to believe in God and according to the first part we shouldn’t believe in Him. This is a bit more compelling than “evolution means no God.”
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
The issue of meaning seems a bit forced. I don’t find it as significant as some. Further I don’t think the issue is really meaning than it is purpose. The theist typically thinks there is an ultimate purpose to their life that is more than what they think of it. The atheist can’t make that claim without bringing in a de facto God. (i.e. positions that end up just be deism) Certainly the atheist is right that we can achieve a post-nihilist meaning to our lives by giving it meaning. The difficulty is that the atheist has no way to make one person’s meaning more meaningful than an other. That is, there is no way to decide between meaning claims.
Consider someone who decides pillage and murder is what makes their life meaningful. The theist can argue that this isn’t really meaningful. The atheist can’t do this. At best they can appeal to ethical instincts arrived at evolutionarily. But of course one can always simply argue that sociopaths’ view of ethics is just as valid evolutionarily. The atheist can appeal to the greater good, but can’t make an appeal as to why the individual ought be concerned about the greater good.
It seems that this is the core issue when people raise meaning.
Not that this is really a scientific issue, although of late atheists do bring up cognitive science and the evolution of moral instincts. I just don’t see how that really provides much ultimately.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
With regards to epistemology and science, I don’t think science intrinsically says we should only believe when we have good reason (defined scientifically). That’s scientism and is even bad science. The traditional example against this is memory where we all believe our memories but typically don’t have good reasons for such beliefs.
I should also add that philosophers have made radically different claims regarding beliefs and science. C. S. Peirce actually went so far as to argue science ought not entail belief at all. That focus on belief is completely contrary to the spirit of science. That, to me, is far too difficult a view to embrace. But the view of science you’re invoking seems deeply problematic as well.
Consider an obvious example. Should I believe in superstrings?
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
“The theist can argue that this isn’t really meaningful. The atheist can’t do this.”
Why not? Why can’t they just assert it like the theists do? Sure the theists believe it, but then so do the atheists. Unless the theists can provide some sort of reasoning for why their claims are better I view theirs as no better in any way at all then the atheists.
After all, the theist believes that everything was created for a purpose. This begs two VERY important questions: 1) What purpose? Unless there is some answer to this then their claims don’t mean much anything at all, and 2) for what purpose was God created? If there is no answer to this question then their response is just as post-nihilist as the atheist’s response.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 4:55 pm
I’m not sure that I follow your reasoning regarding faith and science. Take for instance cosmic ether. We could argue that science didn’t disprove it and that we shouldn’t abandon faith in it, but this is bad science if there ever was any. This is were a classic quote of Dawkins’ comes to mind:
Now there is a difference between tentatively accepting a hypothesis until something else accounts for the appearances better than it does and actually accepting a scientific conclusion. The line is hardly cut and dry but there is a difference nonetheless. Yes I believe my memories because I remember them and memory is almost always pretty reliable. This is a good reason for doing so. Of course some other theory which explains my memory and why I should in fact NOT trust it could come along at which point I likely should stop trusting in that particular memory.
The same can be said for God. We have better theories for creation so that reason is gone. We are starting to see that “religious experience” isn’t all that trust worthy either so this reason is hardly compelling either. Of course these don’t “proof” that there is no God, only that none of our reasons for believing in Him are very good.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
Why not? Why can’t they just assert it like the theists do?
Because theists don’t just blindly assert it. They appeal to an ultimate judgment. This isn’t a debate about what is or isn’t good (which the atheist can do) but why the individual ought be good. As I said, the atheist can offer no explanation.
If you think they can, I’d be interested to hear it. The atheist position, going back at least to Nietzsche, is that the individual creates meaning. If the individual creates meaning, what limits the meanings?
The argument about God seems a good one in an LDS context. However the argument is (both within Mormonism and in Christianity in general) is that there are objective real goods. That is, that universals are real.
Now the atheist could, following your argument, agree but simply deny God. But at that point, as I said, they’ve simply endorsed a form of God. i.e. they aren’t really athesits. They just don’t accept Christianity and major forms of theism.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 5:35 pm
Now there is a difference between tentatively accepting a hypothesis until something else accounts for the appearances better than it does and actually accepting a scientific conclusion. The line is hardly cut and dry but there is a difference nonetheless. Yes I believe my memories because I remember them and memory is almost always pretty reliable. This is a good reason for doing so.
Yes, but that’s my point. We can know without knowing scientifically. I didn’t mean anything more than that. The argument is that the atheist (well of at least some stripes – many are more careful) is arguing we should only believe when something is established scientifically. But that’s nonsense.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 5:37 pm
That is nonsense, I agree.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
Well, the theists appeal to what they believe is an ultimate judge, it being the repository of the ultimate good, while the atheists can still appeal to what they believe is the ultimate good without involking some mediatory judge. If the theists can simply assert things without having to demonstrate them why can’t the atheists? Why can’t the atheist simply say “we just ought to be good, surely this is true,” just as the theist seems to?
While I think that the idea of the individual creates the meaning is good, I don’t think its strong enough. It would probably be better to assert that the the individual’s interaction with society, or in other words, society in general creates meaning. Once you recognizes that we are more than a bunch on isolated individuals then certain limitation will surely emerge.
I meant existence argument to apply not only to Mormons. While their version of a God makes this point all the more salient, we can’t simply say that existence is created with purpose by an appeal to a preexistent existence. This only hides the answer behind another level. This is Dawkin’s main problem with ID in that it assumes what it attempts to explain, namely the creation of organization and intelligence. Merely saying that all this complex stuff depends on an even more complex agent only makes the question harder to answer, while removing it further from analysis. The same can be said for purpose and meaning.
By universals I assume you mean something akin to Platonic ideals. The atheist can believe in some form of these just as much as the theist can. Certain relationships (which is all Platonic ideals are as far as I can tell) are simply universal given the proper context, just like mathematics. Cooperation (morals) tends to better further the interests of all agents inolved in a struggle for survival than does individuals competing against one another. This is a universal which the atheists accept for it requires no Deity.
I don’t understand your last paragraph in that comment. I’m not sure how they are adopting any God.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
I used to be an Atheist. It sucked.
I’m no a scientist or anyrthing, but what is the motivation to exist if you are an atheist? I remember thinking about all the tangible things, like having kids. Having kids doesn’t matter because they’ll die too, and be gone. Medicine doesn’t matter. Why die later when you can die now. Life doesn’t matter. It’s pointless. There is no tomorrow. Then I prayed to God, and I got help. Every single time I have prayed for help in my life, I have gotten help. God has always communicated with me. Why is that? Shouldn’t I believe in something that always works for me? What isn’t tustworthy about that?
Why Cooperate as an Atheist? What is the benefit? So you can live your pointless hum-drum little life a bit longer? So you can help others live their pointless lives?
Probably being to harsh on this, but…oh well…
Comment by Matt Witten — December 20, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
Jeffrey, I don’t have trouble with atheists doing that. I just have a problem with the implications of doing so. I think it entails that they are no longer atheists.
If you adopt the God of Plotinus or Spinoza, I’m not sure how you can still call yourself an atheist. The problem is that some people equate theism with Christianity. That’s wrong.
If the Atheist starts believing in universals ala Plato or Plotinus they simply aren’t atheists.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
Matt, not all atheists feel that way. After all, if I enjoy my children, then they matter. Life isn’t pointless if I can enjoy it now. So I don’t think atheism entails what you suggest it does. Now some people might psychologically need theism to give meaning. And I agree with that. But it doesn’t follow that they logically need theism. And indeed there are plenty of philosophers who provide fairly compelling reasons to not fall into that trap.
Now as to why someone should be a theist, I certainly agree with you that the experience of God and communicating with God is an excellent reason to believe. Indeed I feel it the best reason to believe. But not everyone has or at least doesn’t recognize such experiences.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 11:24 pm
The problem with evangelizing atheists is the same as with any other sort of evangelist: they subordinate their discipline or beliefs or even simple facts to the conversion project. Thus Dawkins and others with his agenda will talk as if science entails atheism (conveniently assuming their desired conclusion) and as if there is broad agreement among scientists to this position. In fact, at least half of scientists are firmly committed to some sort of belief, often traditional religious beliefs of one denomination or another. He just ignores that inconvenient fact, which doesn’t do much for his credibility.
Comment by Dave — December 21, 2005 @ 6:26 am
“If the Atheist starts believing in universals ala Plato or Plotinus they simply aren’t atheists.”
I’m not sure that I agree with this. Of course if one accepts these universals as these men did then of course they are no longer atheists. But most of these universals are simply mathematical relationships that couldn’t have been any other way. I don’t think that if an atheist rejects the logical possibility of mathematics being wrong this make him a theist.
I do agree with Clark’s response to Matt. As I mentioned in a post theists can claim that atheist’s don’t have anything to give their lives meaning, but I don’t think that Mormon’s have any better footing in this matter. After all, what is the meaning of our eternal existence? Any answer that can be given here can almost certainly be given to the atheists question of “what is the meaning of our temporary existence?”
“conveniently assuming their desired conclusion”
I don’t accept this at all. Science rejects the supernatural not as an axiom but because it is unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable. If we could actually observe the supernatural in action then we would be in business but we can’t so we aren’t. Surely this can lead some people to wonder if there is anything supernatural at all.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 21, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
I think eternal consequences give our actions more meaning than temporary consequences. After all, If I have to see you every day for the rest of forever, I may be more inclined than if I can Kill you now and never see you again becasue you have ceased to exist.
Comment by Matt Witten — December 22, 2005 @ 2:19 am
I think I have to agree with Matt here Jeffrey. Immortality, if true, certainly does affect meaning.
The problem with your response on universalisms is that it avoids the central issue. Are the universals real. To merely call them relationships avoids the question of what kind of relationship. If one is a nominalist (as I actually think most atheists tend to be) then I think the meaning criticism holds. If you are an atheist and accept real universals of some sort (say atheists like Heidegger or Derrida) then I have a hard time believing they are really atheists. They just reject the Christian or Jewish God.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 22, 2005 @ 3:19 am
Matt’s point is a good one. I’ll have to think about that.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 22, 2005 @ 1:48 pm