It has been a while since I heard back from my correspondent from my Blasphemy Challenge discussion. (see The Blasphemy Challenge, Blasphemy Challenge Followup, Blasphemy Challenge Followup Continued, and Blasphemy Challenge Followup Continued Part Deux) There could be several reasons. I hope it is not because I have been uncourteous - I do get a little energetic in debate. I do not believe it is because I convinced him. For me, this discussion has been most interesting, and led me to read a couple of books in the course of my retreat. First of all, I read The God Delusion by noted geneticist Richard Dawkins, following the axiom that one should never critique a book one has not read. I am currently reading Exploring Reality, the Intersection of Science and Religion by the Quantum Physicist and Anglican Priest John Polkinghorne, whom Dawkins remains "baffled" by. (TGD, p. 99)
I have found in the discussion that it was difficult for my correspondent and I to speak the same language. We both could talk about the same scientific terms, but there seemed to be a fundamental philosophical disconnect in our views of reality. I felt the same disconnect reading TGD. It seemed Dawkins seemed to have a very simplistic view of reality, while mine tends to be very complex. Polkinghorne explains that this is a philosophical difference that has nothing to do with science vs. religion. In fact, it reflects a metaphysical divide within the world of science. "Strong reductionists" like Dawkins and F. Crick maintain that,
"the true account of reality lies solely at the lowest level, with the other levels in the hierarchy of complexity being just complex corollaries of what lies beneath." (ER, p. 8)
Polkinghorne maintains that strong reductionists tend to signify the base units of their discipline, genes for Dawkins (and memes when he waxes philosophical) and molecules for Crick. Over and against them, Polkinghorne describes the "emergentists,"
"For them the whole exceeds the sum of the parts, so that it would be absurdly inappropriate to call a constituent account a Theory of Everything. They point to the degree of conceptual independence that exists between the various levels of the hierarchy of sciences. It is clear that the fitness of an organism for survival in an ecological setting is not an idea that can usefully be transcribed into statements about collections of quarks, gluons and electrons." (ER, p. 9)
The difference between these approaches is exemplified in the writings of Neils Bohr and David Bohm. These are both METAphysical approaches to explain why the physcial world operates the way it does. Whichever model you choose, the physical, experimental results are the same since both views are based on the same set of basic research and do not rely on the metaphysic for verification.
Dawkins argues in his book that he is not a "Scientific Fundamentalist," in that he is willing to change his scientific assumptions in the face of better empirical data. I think this is probably true, although there have been cases of scientists resisting data that is incompatible with their cherished views. It becomes more doubtful when you read how he waxes mystical about natural selection,
"But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (TGD, p. 117)
Sounds kind of like the Dark Side of the Force, doesn't it? But seriously - I can understand someone reveling in creation, but swimming in a scientific theory? Seems a little un-scientific! Therein lies the rub. Dawkins is NOT a "Scientific Fundamentalist," he is a "Reductionistic Fundamentalist." He implicitly makes the claim that reductionism is the ONLY metaphysical model that is supported by the empirical data by not mentioning any other options. He also fails to make the distinction between experimental science and metaphysics, since reductionism is the only metaphysic that makes sense to him. It is hard to tell in the book where empirical data ends and speculation begins. Polkinghorne was able to lay this out for me in a much more scientific way.
And maybe that's the difference. Where Polkinghorne's book is a careful, limited exploration of the intersection of science and religion, Dawkins' book is a political polemic leveled against the perceived abuses of religion. It starts in the preface:
"Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian Partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ Killers," no Northern Ireland "troubles," no "honour killings", no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money." (TGD, p. 1)
Does anyone actually beleive all these can be laid solely at the foot of religion? (OK, The last one can, and I'd love to imagine that world WITH Dawkins, but there have been plenty of scientific hoaxes perpetrated on people as well.) I've covered the crusades in one of the dialogues, but just to take one example, weren't the Irish troubles largely about English settlers taking over Irish land? Dawkins claims that when you see "Loyalist" you can substitute "Protestant," but isn't it really the other way around? In all of these cases, religion is at best an excuse for material gain and at worst a catalyst. As i've discussed before, if we're going to say that all things done in the name of a religion accurately reflect the nature of that religion, then we must apply the same rule to science. We end up with Hiroshima, nerve gas, death camps, Eugenics, global warming, and a whole host of other evils. Yes, this is the use and perversion of science by an ideology, but the crusades and pogroms were the use and perversion of religion. It took some pretty shaky theology to get from "Thou shall not kill" and "Turn the other cheek" to "Invade the Holy Land and kill the infidel," just as it took shaky science to back up Nazi claims of a "master race."
Science and Religion should not be judged by the times when they simply buy into the natural condition of competitiveness and greed. After all, if you are a reductionist, that could be seen as simply the work of natural selection. Instead, we should pay attention to the times when both disciplines help us transcend the human condition. I would rather judge science by Salk rather than by Mengele. And I would rather judge religion by Tutu than by Torquemada.
The argument I would like to pay attention to next is a positive argument for the existence of God. This is something my correspondent asked for but I have not provided as of yet. I will do that in my next post, after I finish Polkinghorne's book.
David+
"Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion" (John Polkinghorne)
"The God Delusion" (Richard Dawkins)
Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, john polkinghorne, richard dawkins, religion, science, theology
Comments