Dialogue between RD and RW

This conversation between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams is worth a listen to. The tone of the discourse is good and some key points come out.

Bad Religion

Last week there were a number of reports in the press of a debate between Tony Blair and Chris Hitchins on whether religion is a force for good in the world or not. Most accounts agree that Hitchins won the debate, indeed he has previously written at great length on the evils of religion (e.g. 'God is not good').

For those of us with a positive experience of religion it is not hard to see how distorted Hitchens' views are. He is more one sided than the Second Test in Adelaide, rarely giving any acknowledgement to the other side of the story (though ironically his younger brother, Peter, is a convert to christianity from atheism).

But, with a tip of the hat and a nod of the head to Heaven in ordinarie, I saw this quote from Charles Dickens' character 'the Ghost of Christmas Present'. It neatly describes the difference between good and bad religion, a difference which often parallels that between good and bad science.

‘There are some upon this earth of yours,’ returned the Spirit, ‘who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.’

Another gap closed?

I just bought a copy of The Times for the first time in months - so it worked!

The current commotion is all about pre-release comments from Prof Stephen Hawking, author of an upcoming book The Grand Design. What has he said?

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

We'll have to wait until the book is published to find out the full story, but essentially we're talking about origins, origins of the universe and the Big Bang. The religious problem exists for people whose belief in God is fuelled by things that science can't explain - the gaps. However, before the atheists get too excited, for many believers this just isn't the way they understand God.

God is not squeezed inbetween like intellectual Polyfiller, rather he is the potter who shapes the Universe he created. In a way that means that there shouldn't be any gaps. As Dr David Wilkinson, astrophysicist and theologian, said today

The God Christians believe in is a God who is intimately involved with every moment of the universe's history, not just its beginnings

Hawking concluded his previous book by saying that if we could unify the physics of the Big Bang we should 'know the mind of God', and perhaps this next work will be his answer, but one thing is for sure: God's mind is not deciphered entirely by equations. However revealing they may be, there is a limit to the efficacy of science in this domain. Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon, put it like this

His conclusion does not change the remarkable coherence between the nature of our universe and the understanding Christians have about the nature and character of God.

Still, the storm in a teacup will continue for at least as long as The Times' serialisation goes on. Dawkins will continue to buzz like a high energy particle at straw men and soft targets, but the real loser will be truth. Some people will be turned off science by the comments, others religion. What a shame. As theoretical physicist Prof Chris Isham lamented...

I groaned when I read this. Stephen's always saying this sort of thing - he loves the publicity.

And I'll be buying the book on the back of it. Sucked in!

Dawkins is right, Dawkins is wrong (part 2)

One of the issues here is quote mining - the searching out of quotes to back up an agenda even if they are taken out of context or the wider context ignored. In doing this Dawkins is applying to theology exactly the same techniques that Creationists apply to evolutionary biology.

Why wouldn't he, for example, use any of Luke 13? It's because it doesn't fit in with his agenda:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Here Jesus is saying the exact opposite of what Dawkins is trying to suggest (and indeed the Rev). The point is that in a general sense our mortality is a result of our wrongdoings BUT that doesn't mean we have the right to label people as worse sinners because they have suffered more.

Or how about John 9? Why didn't Dawkins make reference to John 9?

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Sorry Richard, but you're wrong again, and here is the reason why faithheads who weep Christian tears are indeed living out their calling. The Christian response is to weep and mourn over suffering, but it goes further than that - to try and bring comfort, help and support. Jesus healed the man and demonstrated to the discipes how to bring light into the world.

This is where Dawkins' comments stop being an interesting argument and actually become distasteful. It is widely acknowledged that Christian aid agencies are amongst the most efficient, caring and quick to respond NGOs you can find. It is also a fact that the Christian faith is all round the world motivating millions of people to offer aid in whatever means they can. What kind of person would sneer at that?

Finally, a quote from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks following the Asian Tsunami:

The religious question is not 'Why did this happen?' but 'What can I do to help?'

Dawkins is right, Dawkins is wrong (part 1)

The Times recently carried a piece by Richard Dawkins about the response in some Christian quarters to the Haitian earthquake. His point is two-fold:

1) True Christian theology understands this as divine retribution for sin, not the blind action of geology, and this is typified by Rev Pat Robertson who has declared that this is punishment for the actions of the people in 1791
2) Mild-mannered faith-heads who dispute Rev Robertson's analysis are being hypocritical to their religion

The new and improved Richard Dawkins may have been through the PR machine since The God Delusion but he is still pointed enough to be thought provoking.

Here’s where Dawkins is right: Robertson’s views are loathsome. He puts himself in a position of authority, knowing the mind of God, and apparently revealing it to the world. (As an aside these public declarations of God’s decision-making process often closely resemble the political motivations of the one bringing the revelation).

In a general sense it is true that the suffering in all our lives is a result of our wrongdoings, but Dawkins proclaims:

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it

Christian theology is not a celebration of suffering. There is a seed of truth in what Dawkins says but as ever, by design or ignorance, he is mis-representative. What the Bible does do is expose suffering as the natural consequence of our selfishness. When we do something wrong it hurts people. The sacrifices of the Old Testament, like the scape-goat, were simply a lesson in consequences. The crucifixion of Jesus is the pinnacle of that teaching.

So how do natural disasters fit into this picture? Here are some points to consider

- Natural disasters are part of the fabric of creation. The earth’s history has been violent and tumultuous for the entire 4 billion years of it existence
- They are indiscriminatory, except in the few occasions where God has told us otherwise
- They illustrate how the whole framework of creation is built around our mortality
- There is a cost involved in creation, where beauty contrasts with horror, good contrasts with evil, light contrasts with dark
- It therefore seems logical that the universe was created in anticipation of human sin – which is the conscious decision to do wrong.

Part 2 will see how the mild-mannered faith-heads, rather than being hypocritical, are living out their calling.

A date with Dawkins

I've just returned from an interview and Q&A with Richard Dawkins. Surprisingly it was quite enjoyable!

Dawkins' recent book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' aims to lay out the scope of the evidence for evolution. The problem has always been that whilst his previous books (or at least the ones I've read) have always contained well-written popular science, they have also dripped with the anti-religious venom. Bowlfuls of it.

If this evening is anything to go by Dawkins may finally be starting to separate the teaching of science from the proselytizing of atheism. In an hour long session there were only one or two barbed comments, the rest was all about science. Questions ranged from the application of Darwinism to economics, to how evolution will respond to climate change - all interesting stuff.

My own journey from Young Earth Creationism then Old Earth Creationism through to Theistic Evolution has been helped firstly by Christians who have illustrated there is nothing to fear in evolution, and secondly science writers who stick to science. Dawkins' books have actually been an obstacle to my education.

So if this really is a change in attitude and a leopard really can change its spots (evolution in action!) then we could all be better off.

Information is everything

A paper has recently been published by Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski. I’ve tried to read it but it’s way over my head so instead I’ve opted for the ‘lite’ version i.e. an intelligent design blog!

‘Dembski and Marks' article explains that unless you start off with some information indicating where peaks in a fitness landscape may lie, any search — including a Darwinian one — is on average no better than a random search.’

That seems to be saying that you can’t build a Darwinian machine from scratch.

‘The implication, of course, is that some intelligent programmer is required to front-load a search with active information if the search is to successfully find rare functional genetic sequences.’

That sounds plausible to me – and I’m in no position to critique it! – but I think we need to qualify the conclusions. This is an argument against materialism and not evolution.

Evolution begins when you have information that can be copied accurately (but not totally accurately, there has to be some error creeping in) and when this information is in competition with other bits of information i.e. genomes.

This article seems to be suggesting that getting to that point requires the system to be ‘front-loaded’ i.e. set up beforehand. When you examine the elaborate copying mechanisms used by the cell to replicate its information then it is easy to visualize this.

But seeing that all cells have this equipment then there is little to stop evolution proceeding and as part of the process it does generate new genetic information.

So this paper may well raise serious issues for the materialist, but for the theist who recognizes evolution it is simply confirmation of what we already knew! There is a creator at work in the natural world who guides all things to fulfill His purpose.

Biblical contradictions

The website of the American Atheists has a list of contradictions that it claims show how the Bible is not the inspired word of God. Here's an example:

ON CIRCUMCISION

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10

"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2

This is a classic example of someone who simply doesn't understand the message and most likely hasn't even tried to understand the message.

In the Law of Moses Jewish boys were required to be circumcised in keeping with the promises made with Abraham (as quoted above). In the New Testament believers are told that there is no need to be circumcised NOT because circumcision is wrong, but because the teaching of Christ goes beyond it.

In Galatians Paul is talking to people who were rejecting the teachings of Christ and going backwards. That's why he said what he said. Th fact is that Jesus said that he didn't come to destroy the Law of Moses - but to fulfil it, and that Paul in some circumstances actually went and carried out circumcision! So the contradiction is not a real one.

Harmonising those two passages is very straight-forward but only if you're actually interested in doing so. Seek and you will find. Close your eyes and all you'll find is the inside of your eyelids.

Collins under attack

Over on Panda's Thumb there is an attack on the Scientist and Christian Francis Collins. Its author, Matt Young, reckons that Collins' faith is a God of the Gaps type of affair.

I don't like it when PT puts this kind of stuff up because it is supposed to be a site that promotes science education - and these kind of personal attacks on one man's religious beliefs are no help whatsoever. Collins is one of the best advocates of good science that there is so why is Young trying to shoot such an own goal? It can only be because he has another agenda going on and someone as capable and distinguished as Francis Collins stands in the way.

Putting all that aside does Young actually have a point? Francis Collins moved from being an atheist to becoming a believer (Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with Young's agenda?) and one of his main reasons for doing so was the moral law - i.e. the fact that humans are moral creatures is a big pointer towards our divine purpose.

Collins believed that this moral nature defied an evolutionary explanation, but Young thinks otherwise hence the accusation of God of the Gaps. His argument is much less impressive than he makes out. It is basically a repetition of the well established examples of altruism in the natural world (like those between related groups and also reciprocal altruism) as discussed in books like Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

But these are not examples of morality. At best they are examples of evolution breaking the standard mould of survival of the fittest, and following on from that it is possible to think that this may have been a first step towards true morality.

Which leads us to ask what morality really is? Well its a collection of ideas about what is right and what is wrong and the ability to make a choice between them. So the moral law is a partnership of the drawing a line between right and wrong AND the conscious decision-making about which path to take. Both these are a long way from the kind of thing Young is talking about. Social insects making instinctive self-sacrifices is not morality.

So could morality have evolved? I think the best argument would be that humans have brains that are capable of over-ruling our instinctive reactions with much deeper thought processes. From there the moral code could have evolved meme by meme. It's possible, but in a way I'm not sure it's all that relevent.

Our moral code is I think a divine meme given to us by God. He has created us with the ability to make choices and presented us with what those choices are. The fact that many of those choices go against our natural instincts and draw us towards God is a pointer to their divine origin. So when it comes down to it... Collins is probably right.

'It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you'
Deuteronomy 30 v 12+

Postscript:
I've been reading some of Matt Young's other posts and there are times where he is much more balanced...

'The argument that science has disproved God, besides being wrong, puts religious believers who support science into an untenable position and risks alienating precisely those people whose support we desperately need'

Hand in hand

The vocal atheist PZ Myers thinks that science and religion are at odds with one another. His argument is that they are direct competitors vying for the position of sole pathway to truth in the universe. As science is true, he reasons, religion must be false.  Well the good news is that in this competition everyone's a winner!

But let's go back to the argument.  He justifies the claim by stating that our goal is to find out...

'about the nature of the universe, about our history, about how we function, and then we encounter a conflict: religion keeps giving us different answers. Very different answers. They can't all be right, and since no two religions give the same answers, but since science can generally converge on similar and consistent answers, I know which one is right. And that makes religion simply wrong.'

Well to begin with, I agree. Not all religions can be right, but that's a red herring for this discussion. What's far more relevant is that my experience of faith is the exact opposite of what Myers is suggesting. Convergence does in fact happen and this hits on important feature of Myers' writing: he consistently misrepresents faith (basically I think because he doesn't understand it). Here's a classic example:

'science is a process, a body of tools, that has a long history of success in giving us robust, consistent answers. We use observation, experiment, critical analysis, and repeated reevaluation and confirmation of events in the natural world. It works. We use frequent internal cross-checking of results to get an answer, and we never entirely trust our answers, so we keep pushing harder at them...

Religion, on the other hand, uses a different body of techniques to explain the nature of the universe'

Well no, actually, and again I just don't recognise my own experience of faith in what Myers is saying. I recognise that there is first a step of faith that entails believing in divine revelation but after that there are actually remarkable parallels between scientific method and religion. Collect evidence, make a hypothesis, test it, consider other lines of evidence etc etc - that's good theology!

The rest of what Myers writes about is the common descent of picking up examples where religion has gone wrong and extrapolating that to the whole subject. That's just poor logic but its amazing just how often it comes up. Does bad science mean that we reject all of science? Of course not, the argument is idiotic.

The Bible and the Natural World are both products of God's Word so in the final analysis they are absolutely compatible - in fact they go hand in hand.

Why I am not an atheist

1) Though the universe offers no proof of God's existence it does show strong evidence. From the anthropic principle to the remarkable beginning of life on earth and onwards to the arrival of us human beings there is plenty to suggest that there is more going on than mindless, meaningless materialism.

2) God has spoken to us through the Bible. Its message, delivered over a period of 1500 years to over 40 different individuals, testifies to that.

3) The prophetic vision of the Bible commends it as being from God.

4) After the crucifixion of Jesus many of his followers were persecuted, tortured and killed for their belief that Jesus had risen. Many of these were eye-witnesses.

5) The human senses of eternity, morality and spirituality are there for a reason.

One eye open, one eye closed

I've just been reading an essay by Susan Blackmore (psychologist and author of books such as 'The Meme Machine'). In it she writes:

'In spite of education and rational thought, and in spite of the harm done by religious war and oppression, it seems generally hard for people to live without religion.'

Quotes like this illustrate how as a group atheists are just as prone to words of arrogant piety as anyone else, but that's not the point I want to bring out here.

Blackmore has written extensively about 'memes'. Whilst the name 'meme' may sound exotic the fundamental thesis is very simple. A meme is basicaly 'an idea'. The big revelation is that some ideas do well and prosper, others fall by the wayside. Hardly anything earth shattering.

To be fair though the suggestion that a meme can be thought of in ways similar to a gene is helpful. Like genes, ideas can be replicated, altered and spread through the population. They undergo a kind of natural selection too.

The punch-line Blackmore suggests is that many aspects of culture like language, music, art, and religion are merely products of the selfish meme. Its a moot point, but for our purposes here lets go with it. Let me raise two issues.

Firstly, even if all of the above are the products of the evolution of memes it doesn't stop them being true.  This is where her logic seems to short-circuit. Take music for example. The mathematics of melodies, harmonies and rhythms are easily established and so the difference between music and just noise is quantifiable. Even if, as Blackmore suggests, it took memes to discover it - music is still 'true'.

This point is rammed home when you get to what many people think of as being the holy grail of reason - science. Well, our scientific understanding can thought of as being nothing more than the product of an arms race between memes.  Our understanding that the earth travels round the sun is a very effective meme.  Is it then simply the product of our collective imagination?  Of course not.  More than just a meme it is actually true.

The same ultimately applies to religion. Even if it was memes that first uncovered religiosity, it was because it was there to be discovered in the first place.

Secondly, and much more succinctly, we musn't forget that most (all?) of our meme's come from external sources. For those of us who 'believe' its obvious that one of those sources is God. Religious ideas can well be thought of as a pool of memes going round our minds. It doesn't stop them being true, and it doesn't stop them being from God.

Blackmore highlights how easy it is to fall into the trap of reductionism. She has one eye peering down a reductionist microscope, and the other is tight shut.