It's a question that just won't go away. Mary Midgley's comment is free article for the Guardian on 12th June, listed also on the science page, tries to examine whether evolution disproves the existence of God.
I would probably describe myself as an apatheist. I don't believe in God, but this doesn't really bother me, nor does the fact that other people hold opposing views. What I am interested in though is the quality and relevance of the argument.
She cites Newton's belief that the apparent "action at distance" of gravity was proof of God's existence, in what appears to be an associative attempt to weaken the evolutionary argument in favour of atheism. The reasoning is familiar in structure:
- a legendary scientist held belief a, which I shall state in oversimplified terms
- this belief is now known to be false
- therefore an unrelated argument or belief may also be false
Newton's religious views were complex. He had serious issues with the concept of a holy trinity, though these were kept private for obvious reasons. As someone who held high public office and who was a shrewd political operator, his public statements on issues of faith may well have hidden his true beliefs.
Any further argument Midgley makes is largely weakened by the irrelevant reference to Newton. Likewise, beyond historical interest, Darwin's theological opinions are also irrelevant. Evolution is a well-developed scientific theoretical framework, not a personality cult.
The science vs religion debate will go on forever, because there is never anything new to talk about in terms of the logical basis for the two opposing sides. Science is related to observation, and the literal interpretation of the bible has already been disproven as far as possibly observable.
I think I can sum up the entirety of the science vs religion argument in a single paragraph.
Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a creator in a any strict sense of absolute proof, though nor does it disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you take a scientific view, there's no reason to think, based on objective observation, that God, heaven or hell exist, and certainly not in any of the forms that various religious traditions have come up with.
If science deals with the observable, and religion does not, then perhaps the question should be about the influence religious views and organised religion have on society. As a human, social, and moral question, then it's far more complex than the over-simplified "does God exist?", but surely one which is more important.
----------
I highly recommend James Gleick's biography of Newton, entitled, unsurprisingly, "Isaac Newton".
I wrote this before reading Joe D's post on this site! He does actually start to address the social side of religion (in terms of morality). Happy coincidence of timing!
The Golden Goal
On the horizon is an approaching religious and cultural furore so contentious, any clash of civilizations may have to wait. On one side, a manuscript titled: The Final Freedoms, against all the gravitas religious tradition can bring to bear.
The first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the Gospel/moral teachings of Christ is on the web. Redefining all primary elements including Faith, the Word, Law, Baptism, the Trinity and especially the Resurrection. This new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.
Questioning the validity and origins of all Christian tradition, and focusing specifically on marriage, love and human sexuality, it overturns all natural law ethics and theory. What science and religion have agreed was not possible, has happened and at stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history and moral teaching, and will certainly impact other fields of intellectual inquiry.
What first appears a counter intuitive [and un-PC] challenge to the religious status quo is worth closer examination; it carries within its pages ideas an ineffable wisdom which the theological history of religion either ignored, were unable to imagine or dismissed as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave 'tradition' staring into the abyss and humble all secular, atheist speculation.
Using a synthesis of scriptural material drawn from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the world's great poetry, just as in the beginning, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle, a single test of faith and offers the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a individual intervention into the natural world; 'raising' up the man, correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this personal experience of transcendent power and moral purpose is our 'Resurrection', and justification for faith. Here, on a perfectly objective foundation of moral principle and virtue, true morality and 'Life' begins.
Here then is the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable and 'extraordinary' evidence based truth embodied in action. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must now measure for itself, the reality of a new claim to revealed truth, a moral tenet not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief!
This is 'religion' without any of the conventional trappings of tradition. An individual, spiritual, virtue-ethical conception, independent of all cultural perception, contained within a single moral command and single Law that finds it's expression of obedience within a new covenant of marriage. It requires no institutional framework or hierarchy, no churches or priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, dogma or doctrine, no ones permission and stripped of all myth, ‘worship’ requires only conviction, faith and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new, single, moral imperative and the integrity and fidelity to the newly created reality.
If confirmed and there appears both the means and a growing, concerted effort to test and authenticate this material, this will represent a paradigm change and advance in the moral and intellectual potential of human nature itself; untangling the greatest questions of human existence: consciousness, meaning, suffering, free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most profound problems of our age.
While every day, from every television screen, newspaper, radio and web, the limitations of mankind are becoming both obvious and ominous by the failure to successfully address and resolve the most pressing problems facing the modern world, threatening humanity and the earth itself, with this revelation, we are offered a way out.
Providing the 'means to ends' this new teaching is asking humanity, choose the future you prefer? The status quo, where existing religious traditions, mired in their own contradictions, corruption, hypocrisy and hocus-pocus, offer little but pretensions and divisiveness, and where existing political process can only feebly respond to the growing chaos of more war, terrorism, economic turmoil, environmental degradation, injustice, spin and whitewash, natural disaster, plague and pandemic; or learn to comprehend that human nature, prisoner to its evolutionary root, exists within fixed limits of understanding, and by taking new personal and moral responsibility, in a single change of mind, heart and conduct, by faith, transcend those limits and blow the status quo strait to oblivion.
Trials of this new teaching are open to all and under way in many countries, colloquial evidence already suggest confirmations are taking place. For those individuals who can shake off their existing prejudices, imagine outside the cultural box of history, stand against the stream of fashionable thought and spin, who have the moral courage to learn something new and will TEST this revelation for themselves, an intellectual and moral revolution is already under way, where hope meets reality and the 'impossible' becomes inevitable, with the most potent, political, Non Violent Direct Action any human being can take to advance peace, justice, change and progress.
Published [at the moment] only on the web, a typeset manuscript of this new teaching is available as a free [1.4meg] PDF download from an increasing number of links including:
http://www.energon.org.uk
I'm glad you picked up on this as it saved me doing it.
As usual, she is assuming that it's her particular god who exists. It would be almost worth it if science could prove the existence of some obscure deity from an ancient culture. I quite like Loki.
James, this is a nice post I think. I for one am pretty bored of the endless point-scoring that goes on by scientists against people who have faith in a God. As you say, the idea of having faith is outside of science; but we all know that!
I think it is perhaps possible to observe 'acts of God' i.e. things like answers to prayer and miraculous healings etc. But we can't observe them is a dispassionate, scientific way, mainlybecause these kind of things genuinely transcend our understanding of the world, and saying 'God did it' feels like giving up on science (as Dawkins would say).
But I don't think that's right.. I think, as you say, we need to be able to identify the limits of science in recognise that scepticism is just one world view. It's not the 'right way' to approach life.
Josh is studying for a PhD in Chemistry at Bristol University.
"I would probably describe myself as an apatheist. I don't believe in God, but this doesn't really bother me..."
I think that's a major problem that theists have in understanding the atheist position. As far as they are concerned, their belief in a deity is the most important thing about them, hence the assumption they often seem to make that atheists must believe passionately that there is no god, and the resulting strawman arguments. Non-existent entities are not particularly important to me, whether they be gods or tooth-fairies.
"...nor does the fact that other people hold opposing views."
That doesn't bother me either, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
SCIENCE & RELIGION CONNECT!BIBLE CODE UNLOCKED!-According to the Bible the world has been created in six days,but according to the Science this process has taken billions of years.If we exclude the difference in time and we pay attention to the SEQUENCE,we will see that there is no contradiction between both,but only the question-why in the Bible things happened so fast?There is an answer and it`s in the Bible itself.Moses described the Creation from his own sight as an eyewitness.Where and when he saw It,how could he have seen something happen before his existence?Answer:For forty days he has been at the mount Sinai where he got information about the past,present and future.The Creation had been REcreated to him in six days there,he had seen how the already existing world had been made.The long process of evolution had been shown to him in the first six days and the SEVENTH day had been dedicated to human`s appearing.After that he had seen the difference between Adam`s origin and Eve`s one.Adam comes from the dirt in the process of evolution,but Eve comes from DNA material out his body,which marks another jump for the evolution or in other words-the"missing link" which Science is looking for.The Creation continue and The Next Jump Is Coming...2012 ?!
If I contacted to You by mistake and this is the wrong address,please make sure that you send me the correct e-mail or You can send that to the people who are interested on the subject.