"The abuses of science" from The Guardian

Is the evolutionary argument against God's existence any stronger than Isaac Newton's in favour?

Science really isn't connected to the rest of life half as straightforwardly as one might wish. For instance, Isaac Newton noted gladly that his theory of gravitation gave a scientific proof of God's existence. Today's anti-god warriors, by contrast, declare that Darwin's evolutionary theorygives a scientific disproof of that existence and use this reasoning, quite as confidently as Newton used his, to convert the public.

In both cases the huge prestige of science is being used not for scientific purposes but to defend an existing general world-view. In both cases that defence is found necessary because this world-view, though prevalent and respected, has been coming under attack. And in both cases the supposedly scientific argument provided is weak. It only convinces people who already share that world-view.

Naturally, Newton's arguments scarcely need refuting today. Though he was not a Christian, he reasoned that gravity cannot be physically caused because it acts at a distance and material causes were believed always to work by contact, leaving God – a "god of the gaps" – as the only possible cause. Nobody thinks like this now. But is today's evolutionary argument – which is often treated as fatal not just to Christianity but to religion generally – actually any stronger?

I am not questioning that there can be valid objection to theism. (Buddhists, of course, deploy many of them.) The point is simply that this particular argument is irrelevant to it. Appeals to evolution are only damaging to biblical literalism. Certainly the events described inGenesis 1 are not literally compatible with what science (from long before Darwin's day) tells us about the antiquity of the Earth. But this is not news. The early Christian fathers pointed out that the creation storymust be interpreted symbolically, not literally. Its message centres not on the factual details but on gratitude for the intelligible unity of the creation. Later Christian tradition always understood this, even before the historical details began to be questioned.

The contrary, literalist campaign within Christianity is actually quite recent. It developed among more or less extreme Protestants after the Reformation – largely indeed in the last century in the US. It was consciously designed as a competitor with science, providing equal certainty by comparable methods. It is thus a political phenomenon, acting in some ways like a cargo cult. It has enabled relatively poor and powerless people to use their Bibles (which the Protestant Reformers had provided) to shape a rival myth of their own. They see this as an alternative to the materialist glorification of science and technology which they have perceived – with some reason – as the oppressive creed of those in power.

Like cargo cults, however, this Bible worship is also a spiritual phenomenon, a message felt in the heart. Despite its confusions, it involves a genuine response to the real wisdom which can also be found in the Bible. Serious attempts to answer it need, therefore, to acknowledge that wisdom. They must try to show ways of combining it with more modern thinking.

Belief in God is not an isolated factual opinion, like belief in the Loch Ness monster – not, as Richard Dawkins suggests, just one more "scientific hypothesis like any other". It is a world-view, an all-enclosing vision of the kind of world that we inhabit. We all have these visions. Though they are always loaded with lumber and often dangerous, we need them. So, when we try to relate and improve them we have to treat each of them as a whole. We would not be right, any more than Newton was, to start by taking our own standpoint as infallible.

From The Guardian

Views: 36

Comment by B. on June 14, 2010 at 10:59pm
"real wisdom" in the Bible? Please. I don't think "combining" it with anything is the appropriate way to proceed by any stretch of the imagination. Acknowledging the Bible to be anything more than poor relic mishmash of once-important historical documents lends to it completely undeserved credibility and gives believers a false sanction of their idiocy by the atheist community.

Newton was also an alchemist, and a passionate one at that. He was far more absorbed in synthesizing gold than his physics equations, even if that was what won him fame in the end. So while his contribution to mechanics may be infallible (at least when he didn't expand too much on the "why" such & such is true), the man himself was not -- but this in no way invalidates the discipline or his results.

Gravity remains a mystery. Newton's contribution was grand, but at the end of the day, was merely observations. No one's figured out the "why", only that gravity simply "is". That said, we have far, far greater evidence for evolution -- which is why it's so excruciatingly painful to read asinine liberal articles like this, written by journalists with no grasp of science beyond words. Today in my local paper someone used the word "phenol" in a sentence with "Twilight". I swear to god I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Entertaining the even the potential that the Theory of Evolution is fallible is what has given Creationist so much ground. Should we acknowledge their ideas as potentially valid? Of course not. In all honesty the YEC concept should never be met with anything less than contempt (and, dare I say, mockery), lest we leave the door ajar for an onslaught of unwelcome and idiotic doubt & criticism currently sweeping the USA.

There absolutely is no God. Evolution is true. The Bible can stay, but it's place is on the shelf somewhere between "World History" and "Nursery Rhymes".


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service