"Why should you be so aggressive?
Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”
--Darwin
Scientists such as Richard Dawkins
(though he is an incredibly accomplished researcher) may alienate much of the
public when they tie personal beliefs to all scientists. Whether or not atheism
is correct, suggesting that science requires atheism might disrespect spiritual
and religious scientists and turn lay people away from science. Darwin himself
was a Christian until he was 40, literally believing the Bible and training to
become an Anglican clergyman, before his discoveries about natural selection
turned him towards agnosticism. Yet, as the quote above shows, Darwin expressed
sensitivity towards respecting the religious beliefs of others.
“His own illustrious example was
encouragement, was for a command to every thinker to make known to all his
fellows that which he believed to be the truth."
--Aveling and Büchner, on Darwin
So what might drive Dawkins to
pursue his arguments denouncing religion, despite these possible, negative
effects? I believe the answer is what forms the basis of science: individuals’
desire to find and proclaim truth. And, Dawkins’s view is that we should treat
‘the God Hypothesis’ as a scientific hypothesis “which should be analysed as
skeptically as any other,” leading him to conclude that no God exists. Perhaps
Darwin’s actions support Dawkins’s proclamations. As the quote above shows,
Darwin made the huge step of announcing his findings, even though they
contradicted contemporary views on religion and alienated many people
(including his wife). One might ask: why shouldn’t atheist scientists do the
same?
However, many scientists believe
that the question of the origin of the universe lies beyond science. After all,
how can we observe whether or not the universe is all that there ever was? Indeed,
Darwin eventually published controversial claims, but these claims were based
on the accumulation of natural observations.
So, I leave it up to the reader:
Are Dawkins’s claims valid? If so, are they supportable enough to be worth
controversy, as Natural Selection was?
I really liked the questions you posed at the end! It made me wonder if a belief in god at all inhibits scientific progress. If the answer is no, I cannot see any reason for Dawkin's claims to be the center of so much discussion. What is your opinion?
ReplyDeleteCaleb
Thanks, Caleb! I think that a belief in religion does not necessarily inhibit scientific progress. Also, I think Dawkins's claims come from personal "beefs" with religion more than an effort to promote science. Many of his points are valid, but I prefer when he focuses on the beauty of the natural world and science than on the ugliness that comes from certain interpretations of religions.
DeleteInteresting post. I do think that Dawkins has a reason for claiming the 'God Hypothesis' should be treated as a scientific hypothesis - namely, that religion so often treats science as something that can be worked through with religion, and therefore non-scientifically. This does not mean I agree fully with Dawkins. I just wanted to point out where he may be coming from.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think there are answers beyond science. However, my approach is more if I don't have data, and it seems unlikely that I will ever have data, I really can't say much about it aside from discussing probability. The question of the universe? I can't answer it. But I will say I don't see, from a scientific point of view, why a God as some people perceive him would be any more probable than anything else, haha. Just trying to give you the response a milder non-Dawkins atheist might give.
Good points, Veronica! I hadn't thought of your first idea about Dawkins's viewpoint. If people use religion to explain scientific phenomena, why not put it to the test? Then again, there are people, even scientists, who obviously don't use religion in this way. Thus, I think Dawkins mostly "preaches to the choir" of atheists (pun intended) while alienating everyone else.
DeleteAlso, your second idea is very well-put, and I agree. I have had discussions with deeply religious people, and one, interesting counter-argument is this: their personal experience and faith places place the probability of their religion being true much higher than its probability given the null hypothesis (your analysis). That's obviously a subjective view, but I think that's the whole point of "faith."
Now I am ready to do my breakfast, when having my breakfast coming again to read further.
ReplyDeleteEXCELLENT Dental Websites Design - Latest web design for doctors.