Religious persuasion
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
By Judith Cole
World famous atheist Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion was published to massive media hype last year. Now, in a major response to its claims, Alister McGrath (54,), Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, and his wife Joanna Collicutt McGrath (52), lecturer in the psychology of religion at University of London, hit back in their book The Dawkins Delusion?
Professor McGrath, who grew up in Downpatrick and attended Methodist College, Belfast, before becoming a research biochemist at Oxford and then an ordained priest in the Church of England, tells Judith Cole how he found faith in God and why it is atheism itself which is deluded
Reposted from:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/features/daily-features/article2241900.ece
reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,622,n,n
my highlights / emphasis / comments
What did you think of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion?
I thought it was very interesting but not very good. It contains a lot of hopeless exaggerations and rather odd arguments. My wife and I decided we would together write a response to identify the main line of arguments Dawkins uses and respond to them.
Richard Dawkins says that faith is irrational. What do you think?
Dawkins has this idea that faith is simply a refusal to think, a process of non-thinking. But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof. It belongs in a different category. We're particularly critical of his statements that religious people are not allowed to try and prove their beliefs when it's clear that lots of people do. In Belfast you might think of CS Lewis, an obvious example of a Christian who thought it was very important to set out the rational grounds for belief.
Dawkins says that because faith must be irrational, there has to be some biological or psychological way of explaining why so many people - in fact, by far the greater part of the world's population - fall victim to such a delusion. One of the explanations that Dawkins offers is that believing in God is like being infected with a contagious virus, which spreads throughout entire populations. Yet biological viruses are not merely hypothesised. They can be identified, observed, and their structure and mode of operation determined. This hypothetical 'virus of the mind' is an essentially polemical construction, devised to discredit ideas that Dawkins does not like.
As a scientist you spent years carrying out research in biochemistry at Oxford University before becoming a theologian. What do you say to Dawkins' claim that real scientists can't be religious believers?
It's obvious that this is simply not an adequate analysis of the situation. In the same year that Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, was published two other books came out, one called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis Collins, who directed the human genome project, and the other was God's Universe, by Owen Gingerich, who is professor of astronomy at Harvard University. These are both top of the range scientists who say their Christian faith makes a lot more sense of science than anything else.
What about his main argument, that religion leads to violence and oppression?
Dawkins treats this as a defining characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his somewhat skimpy account of the roots of violence any suggestion that it might be the result of political fanaticism - or even atheism. He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers, or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet the harsh reality is that religious and anti-religious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so.
As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, I know about religious violence only too well. There is no doubt that religion can generate violence. But it's not alone in this. The history of the 20th century has given us a frightening awareness of how political extremism can equally cause violence. In Latin America, millions of people seem to have 'disappeared' as a result of ruthless campaigns of violence by right wing politicians and their militias. In Cambodia, Pol Pot eliminated his millions in the name of socialism. The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution, and put in place measures designed to eradicate religious beliefs through the 'protracted use of violence.' One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so.
They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.
Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the 20th century.
We make the point that religion can lead to violence and one of the things we need to work at very hard is to eliminate religious violence - but that means the reformation, not the abolition, of religion.
So who do you think Dawkins' book was written for?
The arguments that Dawkins put together can only lead to, at best, agnosticism or a very dogmatic form of atheism which isn't well grounded in facts. That makes me wonder who he wrote this book for. Clearly, Christian readers will say it's completely inaccurate, while more informed atheists will be very nervous about it because they'll say it's so simplistic and dogmatic that no one will take it seriously. I think the sort of person who reads it would be a poorly informed atheist who wants their faith reinforced.
Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivialising counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Dawkins' astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about - and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically, the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself which may be a delusion about God.
He even compares believing in God like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy
This is a very bad analogy to use. There is no empirical evidence that people regard God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as being in the same category. I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when I was six, and after being an atheist for some years discovered God when I was 18. Many people come to believe in God when they're older, but I've yet to meet somebody who has started to believe in Santa Claus later on in life.
Why do you say that denying the existence of God on the basis of science is dishonest?
Science just doesn't take you there. It raises some very good questions about what God is like or whether we need to involve God at all. But what most science says is that you don't have to involve God in day to day explanations of how the world works.
So does Dawkins overstate the case for science in saying that it proves or disproves things relating to God?
Yes, and he's very naughty about this - often scientists say that what we believe today is the best way of looking at a certain thing, but in 20 years' time we might have changed our mind. Science is an ongoing project. Dawkins himself says in his book The Devil's Chaplain that in 150 years' time we may not believe Darwin's view of evolution any more. There are limits to science; science can't actually tell us the answer to lots of important questions such as whether there is there a God and what is the meaning of life.
What do you think was behind his writing the book?
I personally think that the public credibility of atheism is beginning to hit trouble, and that one of the reasons Dawkins wrote the book was to bolster the faith on the part of an atheism that's beginning to feel itself threatened. The big problem for atheism is that religion is coming back in a very big way, and if you're an atheist that shouldn't be happening. That helps us to understand the aggressiveness and hype you see in the book. It seems to me that what Dawkins presents us with is an atheism that is getting very shrill and angry because it feels it's not being taken seriously enough in Western culture.
Is atheism based on fear?
There is an element of fear. Atheism will appeal to someone who is very frightened about the resurgence of religion and the possibility of religious violence. One of the things the religious community needs to be aware of is the way it behaves and the impact on our church and faith.
As a schoolboy you were an atheist. What formed those beliefs?
I attended Down High School before going on to Methody to study pure and applied mathematics, physics and chemistry. It seemed obvious to me then that science led to atheism. Also, while I was at school the Troubles began and that seemed to confirm everything, that all religion did was generate conflict and violence, and therefore the best way of stopping conflict and violence was to get rid of religion. I tried, unsuccessfully, to start up an atheist society at school, which was certainly not a wise thing to do at the time and I didn't get much support!
Did your parents have any religious beliefs?
My parents (my father was a medical officer of health for Co Down; my mother was nurse at the Royal Victoria Hospital) belonged to the Church of Ireland and I tagged along to services most unwillingly, and when I was a boarder at Methody there were compulsory services, which I didn't like at all. But my parents were very good at letting me find my own way - but my way at that stage was reacting against the whole thing.
How did you find faith in God?
When I went to Wadham College at Oxford University in 1971 to study chemistry I was forced to re-examine my thinking. My own work in the sciences brought home to me that the link between science and atheism was much weaker than I thought, and also being confronted with very articulate Christians in Oxford showed me that my thinking was quite shallow. I realised that Christianity makes much more sense of things, and of life, than anything else. CS Lewis wrote: 'I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else'. I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded. And above all, it's relevant.
What do you think future patterns in religion might be?
The real issue is that the heartland of Christianity these days isn't western Europe at all; it's places like Latin America and Africa. Just last week I received a copy of a book of mine which has been translated into Chinese by Peking University Press. Forty years ago the Peking University Press only published communist books and the reason they have started publishing mine is that there are so many Christians in China.
I think that Pentecostalism will be a big thing of future, even in Belfast and especially in working class areas, which is very interesting. In visiting various places in the world, I have noticed that in areas where Marxism used to predominate, such as some of the big slum areas of Latin America and the Philippines, Pentecostalism is popular today because it speaks very powerfully to people and takes their social concerns very seriously.
Is a public debate with Professor Dawkins on the cards?
I would like a proper discussion with him. This year I'm debating three of the world's leading atheists: Daniel Dennett, Peter Atkins and Susan Blackmore. As I know a lot about Richard Dawkins I think it would be good to have a discussion and see where it takes us.
The Dawkins Delusion?, £7.99, by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath is published by SPCK
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
By Judith Cole
World famous atheist Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion was published to massive media hype last year. Now, in a major response to its claims, Alister McGrath (54,), Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, and his wife Joanna Collicutt McGrath (52), lecturer in the psychology of religion at University of London, hit back in their book The Dawkins Delusion?
Professor McGrath, who grew up in Downpatrick and attended Methodist College, Belfast, before becoming a research biochemist at Oxford and then an ordained priest in the Church of England, tells Judith Cole how he found faith in God and why it is atheism itself which is deluded
Reposted from:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/features/daily-features/article2241900.ece
reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,622,n,n
my highlights / emphasis / comments
What did you think of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion?
I thought it was very interesting but not very good. It contains a lot of hopeless exaggerations and rather odd arguments. My wife and I decided we would together write a response to identify the main line of arguments Dawkins uses and respond to them.
Richard Dawkins says that faith is irrational. What do you think?
Dawkins has this idea that faith is simply a refusal to think, a process of non-thinking. But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof. It belongs in a different category. We're particularly critical of his statements that religious people are not allowed to try and prove their beliefs when it's clear that lots of people do. In Belfast you might think of CS Lewis, an obvious example of a Christian who thought it was very important to set out the rational grounds for belief.
Dawkins says that because faith must be irrational, there has to be some biological or psychological way of explaining why so many people - in fact, by far the greater part of the world's population - fall victim to such a delusion. One of the explanations that Dawkins offers is that believing in God is like being infected with a contagious virus, which spreads throughout entire populations. Yet biological viruses are not merely hypothesised. They can be identified, observed, and their structure and mode of operation determined. This hypothetical 'virus of the mind' is an essentially polemical construction, devised to discredit ideas that Dawkins does not like.
As a scientist you spent years carrying out research in biochemistry at Oxford University before becoming a theologian. What do you say to Dawkins' claim that real scientists can't be religious believers?
It's obvious that this is simply not an adequate analysis of the situation. In the same year that Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, was published two other books came out, one called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis Collins, who directed the human genome project, and the other was God's Universe, by Owen Gingerich, who is professor of astronomy at Harvard University. These are both top of the range scientists who say their Christian faith makes a lot more sense of science than anything else.
What about his main argument, that religion leads to violence and oppression?
Dawkins treats this as a defining characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his somewhat skimpy account of the roots of violence any suggestion that it might be the result of political fanaticism - or even atheism. He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers, or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet the harsh reality is that religious and anti-religious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so.
As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, I know about religious violence only too well. There is no doubt that religion can generate violence. But it's not alone in this. The history of the 20th century has given us a frightening awareness of how political extremism can equally cause violence. In Latin America, millions of people seem to have 'disappeared' as a result of ruthless campaigns of violence by right wing politicians and their militias. In Cambodia, Pol Pot eliminated his millions in the name of socialism. The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution, and put in place measures designed to eradicate religious beliefs through the 'protracted use of violence.' One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so.
They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.
Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the 20th century.
We make the point that religion can lead to violence and one of the things we need to work at very hard is to eliminate religious violence - but that means the reformation, not the abolition, of religion.
So who do you think Dawkins' book was written for?
The arguments that Dawkins put together can only lead to, at best, agnosticism or a very dogmatic form of atheism which isn't well grounded in facts. That makes me wonder who he wrote this book for. Clearly, Christian readers will say it's completely inaccurate, while more informed atheists will be very nervous about it because they'll say it's so simplistic and dogmatic that no one will take it seriously. I think the sort of person who reads it would be a poorly informed atheist who wants their faith reinforced.
Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivialising counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Dawkins' astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about - and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically, the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself which may be a delusion about God.
He even compares believing in God like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy
This is a very bad analogy to use. There is no empirical evidence that people regard God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as being in the same category. I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when I was six, and after being an atheist for some years discovered God when I was 18. Many people come to believe in God when they're older, but I've yet to meet somebody who has started to believe in Santa Claus later on in life.
Why do you say that denying the existence of God on the basis of science is dishonest?
Science just doesn't take you there. It raises some very good questions about what God is like or whether we need to involve God at all. But what most science says is that you don't have to involve God in day to day explanations of how the world works.
So does Dawkins overstate the case for science in saying that it proves or disproves things relating to God?
Yes, and he's very naughty about this - often scientists say that what we believe today is the best way of looking at a certain thing, but in 20 years' time we might have changed our mind. Science is an ongoing project. Dawkins himself says in his book The Devil's Chaplain that in 150 years' time we may not believe Darwin's view of evolution any more. There are limits to science; science can't actually tell us the answer to lots of important questions such as whether there is there a God and what is the meaning of life.
What do you think was behind his writing the book?
I personally think that the public credibility of atheism is beginning to hit trouble, and that one of the reasons Dawkins wrote the book was to bolster the faith on the part of an atheism that's beginning to feel itself threatened. The big problem for atheism is that religion is coming back in a very big way, and if you're an atheist that shouldn't be happening. That helps us to understand the aggressiveness and hype you see in the book. It seems to me that what Dawkins presents us with is an atheism that is getting very shrill and angry because it feels it's not being taken seriously enough in Western culture.
Is atheism based on fear?
There is an element of fear. Atheism will appeal to someone who is very frightened about the resurgence of religion and the possibility of religious violence. One of the things the religious community needs to be aware of is the way it behaves and the impact on our church and faith.
As a schoolboy you were an atheist. What formed those beliefs?
I attended Down High School before going on to Methody to study pure and applied mathematics, physics and chemistry. It seemed obvious to me then that science led to atheism. Also, while I was at school the Troubles began and that seemed to confirm everything, that all religion did was generate conflict and violence, and therefore the best way of stopping conflict and violence was to get rid of religion. I tried, unsuccessfully, to start up an atheist society at school, which was certainly not a wise thing to do at the time and I didn't get much support!
Did your parents have any religious beliefs?
My parents (my father was a medical officer of health for Co Down; my mother was nurse at the Royal Victoria Hospital) belonged to the Church of Ireland and I tagged along to services most unwillingly, and when I was a boarder at Methody there were compulsory services, which I didn't like at all. But my parents were very good at letting me find my own way - but my way at that stage was reacting against the whole thing.
How did you find faith in God?
When I went to Wadham College at Oxford University in 1971 to study chemistry I was forced to re-examine my thinking. My own work in the sciences brought home to me that the link between science and atheism was much weaker than I thought, and also being confronted with very articulate Christians in Oxford showed me that my thinking was quite shallow. I realised that Christianity makes much more sense of things, and of life, than anything else. CS Lewis wrote: 'I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else'. I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded. And above all, it's relevant.
What do you think future patterns in religion might be?
The real issue is that the heartland of Christianity these days isn't western Europe at all; it's places like Latin America and Africa. Just last week I received a copy of a book of mine which has been translated into Chinese by Peking University Press. Forty years ago the Peking University Press only published communist books and the reason they have started publishing mine is that there are so many Christians in China.
I think that Pentecostalism will be a big thing of future, even in Belfast and especially in working class areas, which is very interesting. In visiting various places in the world, I have noticed that in areas where Marxism used to predominate, such as some of the big slum areas of Latin America and the Philippines, Pentecostalism is popular today because it speaks very powerfully to people and takes their social concerns very seriously.
Is a public debate with Professor Dawkins on the cards?
I would like a proper discussion with him. This year I'm debating three of the world's leading atheists: Daniel Dennett, Peter Atkins and Susan Blackmore. As I know a lot about Richard Dawkins I think it would be good to have a discussion and see where it takes us.
The Dawkins Delusion?, £7.99, by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath is published by SPCK
*******************
Some comments http://richarddawkins.net/article,622,n,n
I see. Since people believe god is in a different category than Santa Claus it's a foregone conclusion that one is real and one is not. Does this somehow seem like a rational defense of his position?
If you're still believeing in Santa at 10 or 11, the other kids will make fun of you until you stop believing. I believe that in the not too distant future the same thing will happen when the kids find out that another kid believes in god.
"But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof."
This should have been challenged with, at the very least, "Can we see your evidence?"
McGrath is an experienced, educated man but he refuses to apply his scientific knowledge and methods to his religious beliefs. It seems to me that he has reached a point in his understanding of the world where he simply can't move forward any further scientifically and so he has assumed that God is responsible for the things he doesn't understand.
There will be no "McGrath's laws of Biochemistry"; he's limited himself to a minor footnote in the annals of an obsolete and obscure department (Historical Theology!). How sad.
I'm with Dennett - this clearly has to be studied. While abandoning religion altogether may be rational and beneficial in a social sense, there is obviously an interesting psychological mechanism in play worth investigating.
It is absolutely remarkable to see how religion manages to short-circuit reason in otherwise intelligent, well-educated people. One could maybe rationalize some form of agnostic or vague pantheistic position - in the best case scenario it would be irrelevant. However when they get into specifics such as "I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded." some significant pathways in the brain have been short-circuited. The brain is apparently very capable of compartmentalizing certain information or models that is in stark conflict with other information and models stored in the same brain - without the higher level post-processing functions raising any alarms.
My guess would be that this comes from the duality of specialization of brain regions and adaptive capabilities. I would not be surprised if these beliefs were fairly localized in the brain. It is conceivable that there are specialized regions that are still adaptive but that bypass the standard sanity check done by the neocortex. That type of region could have some completely different task originally but are usually today adapted to religious beliefs. Or perhaps these are regions that are useful for children before they collect enough direct experience.
Either way, it must have something to do with the brain and it would be very interesting to have it properly investigated.
But he does not say that in 150 years time we will believe in a complete negation of Darwin's evolution! We will have more data that will help us understand better the gaps that Darwin might have conjectured instead of proven scientifically.
Or in other words, we might not call it Darwin's evolution because other scientists contribution might have diluted the initial mass of Darwin's theory, but it certainly will be based in the same principles, because they are true!
We do not build planes like we did 100 years ago, but we still can fly!
'Northern Ireland Heads Western Bigotry Index'
http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2007/2980.html
Is there a connection between our pre-eminence in both bigotry and superstitious beliefs? With journalists like Judith Cole we'll never know.
"...the link between science and atheism was much weaker than I thought, and also being confronted with very articulate Christians in Oxford showed me that my thinking was quite shallow. I realised that Christianity makes much more sense of things, and of life, than anything else."
Can't help but think that McGrath describes himself as 'gullible' because he does not say that it was the 'evidence' presented by the Christians that convinced him, meeting with 'articulate' Christians.
I am very curous to hear exactly what he wants to do to 'eliminate religious violence' on his next debate, and why he does not place atheists together with people believing religions without a personal god, since only his point of view is 'right.'
Ah, that's hilarious. I nearly fell off my chair, what a silly question. Who is asking these questions, his co-author?
Just demonstrating on what a loon this guy is. If you can explain resurrection, please, go ahead.
And later:
--I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded.--
Well, which is it? If religious belief requires no scientific proof and only faith, what does it matter if the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is "well grounded"?
Is this an example of academic irresponsibility? WELL GROUNDED? Well grounded in what?
An atheist as a teenager and then found God at 18.
It took me 20 years of thinking about the existance of God before I was able to say I was an atheist.
I am not an atheist because I am frightened, I am not an atheist because of religious resurgence, I am an atheist because I do not believe there is a God.
I doubt that Professor Dawkins is an expert on Irish politics, but even he had the sense to realise that the conflict here is about more than just religion. So McGrath is essentially shooting himself in the foot here.
Some comments http://richarddawkins.net/article,622,n,n
12. Comment #20842 by Pi Guy on February 6, 2007 at 6:33 pm
"There is no empirical evidence that people regard God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as being in the same category...but I've yet to meet somebody who has started to believe in Santa Claus later on in life."I see. Since people believe god is in a different category than Santa Claus it's a foregone conclusion that one is real and one is not. Does this somehow seem like a rational defense of his position?
If you're still believeing in Santa at 10 or 11, the other kids will make fun of you until you stop believing. I believe that in the not too distant future the same thing will happen when the kids find out that another kid believes in god.
16. Comment #20854 by tomjlawson on February 6, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Find me a violent act that inevitably doesn't come back to religion and I will find you on a different planet. Even the genocides of Darfur were religiously motivated because although it was Arab muslims killing African muslims the Arabs read the racial preference of Arabs in the Qu'ran. If religion is removed from the equation all violent acts fall apart. The biggest argument is that Hitler used eugenics and atheism to justify his exterminations. If there were no Judaism, what reason would Hitler have to murder 6 million of his citizens? Try six degrees of separation with every historical atrocity and I bet you it leads back to a religious idea, and most of them will not need all six degrees.17. Comment #20858 by Heatnzl on February 6, 2007 at 8:00 pm
It's official: Prof. Dawkins is a very naughty boy!21. Comment #20879 by stevencarrwork on February 6, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Once more, an article by McGrath is refreshingly short of any more evidence for God than it is for Santa Claus (who was a historical character by the way).27. Comment #20894 by Myryama on February 7, 2007 at 12:57 am
I think the interviewer in this article is almost as much to blame as the interviewee. McGrath is allowed to get away with things like:"But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof."
This should have been challenged with, at the very least, "Can we see your evidence?"
McGrath is an experienced, educated man but he refuses to apply his scientific knowledge and methods to his religious beliefs. It seems to me that he has reached a point in his understanding of the world where he simply can't move forward any further scientifically and so he has assumed that God is responsible for the things he doesn't understand.
There will be no "McGrath's laws of Biochemistry"; he's limited himself to a minor footnote in the annals of an obsolete and obscure department (Historical Theology!). How sad.
28. Comment #20895 by denoir on February 7, 2007 at 1:00 am
I'm with Dennett - this clearly has to be studied. While abandoning religion altogether may be rational and beneficial in a social sense, there is obviously an interesting psychological mechanism in play worth investigating.It is absolutely remarkable to see how religion manages to short-circuit reason in otherwise intelligent, well-educated people. One could maybe rationalize some form of agnostic or vague pantheistic position - in the best case scenario it would be irrelevant. However when they get into specifics such as "I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded." some significant pathways in the brain have been short-circuited. The brain is apparently very capable of compartmentalizing certain information or models that is in stark conflict with other information and models stored in the same brain - without the higher level post-processing functions raising any alarms.
My guess would be that this comes from the duality of specialization of brain regions and adaptive capabilities. I would not be surprised if these beliefs were fairly localized in the brain. It is conceivable that there are specialized regions that are still adaptive but that bypass the standard sanity check done by the neocortex. That type of region could have some completely different task originally but are usually today adapted to religious beliefs. Or perhaps these are regions that are useful for children before they collect enough direct experience.
Either way, it must have something to do with the brain and it would be very interesting to have it properly investigated.
42. Comment #20980 by alfonso on February 7, 2007 at 7:34 am
Dawkins himself says in his book The Devil's Chaplain that in 150 years' time we may not believe Darwin's view of evolution any more.
But he does not say that in 150 years time we will believe in a complete negation of Darwin's evolution! We will have more data that will help us understand better the gaps that Darwin might have conjectured instead of proven scientifically.
Or in other words, we might not call it Darwin's evolution because other scientists contribution might have diluted the initial mass of Darwin's theory, but it certainly will be based in the same principles, because they are true!
We do not build planes like we did 100 years ago, but we still can fly!
46. Comment #21019 by Student Grant on February 7, 2007 at 9:59 am
At last, Northern Ireland leads the Western World in something;'Northern Ireland Heads Western Bigotry Index'
http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2007/2980.html
Is there a connection between our pre-eminence in both bigotry and superstitious beliefs? With journalists like Judith Cole we'll never know.
47. Comment #21020 by Suffolk Blue on February 7, 2007 at 9:59 am
cheshirecat - I supect that one of the reasons Richard "makes such a fuss" is that he believes the continued existence of the human race depends largely on our dumping religion.48. Comment #21022 by L.Minnik on February 7, 2007 at 10:03 am
"Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivialising counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support""...the link between science and atheism was much weaker than I thought, and also being confronted with very articulate Christians in Oxford showed me that my thinking was quite shallow. I realised that Christianity makes much more sense of things, and of life, than anything else."
Can't help but think that McGrath describes himself as 'gullible' because he does not say that it was the 'evidence' presented by the Christians that convinced him, meeting with 'articulate' Christians.
I am very curous to hear exactly what he wants to do to 'eliminate religious violence' on his next debate, and why he does not place atheists together with people believing religions without a personal god, since only his point of view is 'right.'
49. Comment #21030 by Thrall on February 7, 2007 at 10:52 am
"Is atheism based on fear?"
Ah, that's hilarious. I nearly fell off my chair, what a silly question. Who is asking these questions, his co-author?
"death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded."
Just demonstrating on what a loon this guy is. If you can explain resurrection, please, go ahead.
50. Comment #21038 by willerror on February 7, 2007 at 11:13 am
--But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof. It belongs in a different category.—And later:
--I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded.--
Well, which is it? If religious belief requires no scientific proof and only faith, what does it matter if the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is "well grounded"?
53. Comment #21067 by mattjuan on February 7, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded. And above all, it's relevant.
Is this an example of academic irresponsibility? WELL GROUNDED? Well grounded in what?
55. Comment #21125 by captain underpants on February 7, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Mr McGrath speaks of "poorly informed atheists". Perhaps he could tell us what precisely it is theists know that atheists do not know.59. Comment #21195 by Love58 on February 8, 2007 at 1:53 am
" I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when I was six, and after being an atheist for some years discovered God when I was 18"An atheist as a teenager and then found God at 18.
It took me 20 years of thinking about the existance of God before I was able to say I was an atheist.
I am not an atheist because I am frightened, I am not an atheist because of religious resurgence, I am an atheist because I do not believe there is a God.
70. Comment #21909 by csb on February 11, 2007 at 3:52 pm
McGrath: As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, I know about religious violence only too well.
I doubt that Professor Dawkins is an expert on Irish politics, but even he had the sense to realise that the conflict here is about more than just religion. So McGrath is essentially shooting himself in the foot here.
It is not a very analytical use of language and I don't think it bears scrutiny frankly
Comments
Here was my take from a while back:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/09/19/theories-laws-facts/
Basically, if what you care about is how scientists use the word theory, rather than some prescriptive notion of how it should be used, you have to face up to the fact that the usages are wildly varying and inconsistent. Sometimes it just means "a model," other times it means "a subject area," other times it means "a well established set of rules and ideas." I worry about pretending that it means something more specific and well-defined than it really does.
Posted by: Sean Carroll | February 10, 2007 04:55 PM
As a follow-up, here is some empirical data, in the form of papers in the SPIRES high-energy physics database that use the word "theory" in the title:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=t%20theory&FORMAT=WWW
It's easy to see all of the above meanings, plus several more.
Posted by: Sean Carroll | February 10, 2007 04:59 PM
As a theorist (of soft matter; polymers and the like), I think an important element of a theory is that it is a (somewhat) comprehensive model of a class of phenomena. An equation is not, by itself, a theory. A prediction is not, by itself, a theory. In order to qualify as a theory, a model has to provide an explanation for some already-observed phenomenology and a prediction for some other (already observed, or capable of being observed, at least technically) phenomenology. Your definition makes sense, but it's not really how I would think of a theory while in the process of developing one.
Posted by: Capella | February 11, 2007 12:56 AM
I tend to regard science as an excercise in building (and testing) explanatory links between disparate observations and data; so I think of a theory as the description of all the links between a particular set of data, as well as an assessment of how well-supported those links are (tested to death, seemingly well-supported, speculative).
I'd guess Lemming is just making the point that theories are not solely an end in themselves, but that they are also used as tools - people use the present pattern of links to propose new connections, or transplant them into new fields.
Posted by: gengar | February 11, 2007 06:10 AM
I take back the well-tested requirement for theories.
Or, rather, I admit that it was a value judgement on my part- that I think that scientists are generally better off using those sorts of theories.
As Sean points out in his blog, some theories, like phlogiston, or lamarkian evolution, don't hold up very well at all. So there are good theories and bad theories.
However, I don't think you can tell the difference between them by any sort of logical proof or analysis. I think the most appropriate way to evaluate theories is on the basis of their utility. There are useful theories, and theories that are a waste of time. And judging theories by their utility gives us a handy way to differentiate science from philosophy, logic or religion, which deal in non-scientific matters like truth and correctness.
I have a half-baked explanation of how this applies to evolution written somewhere, which I'll try to find, finish, and post.
Posted by: Lab Lemming | February 11, 2007 06:30 AM
I'm in comparative religions... do social scientists count?
We use theory to focus in on the giant pile of data in our field, to tease out specific elements we want to examine. It's a necessary tool for methodological reduction.
Posted by: John B | February 11, 2007 08:32 AM
To me a theory is a set of experiments incorporated into a story which lets you make predictions about experiments to come. Thus you have a theory in your head, and in that framework you construct hypotheses which you can test.
I think a lot of divergence comes in the barriers you set yourself in how you can tell stories from a theory, and what the relevant objects are (if you're worrying about binary effects of having genes, the structure looks rather different than if you're fighting with the 23rd decimal place of a measurement of a physical constant).
Posted by: Frederick Ross | February 11, 2007 09:40 AM
I agree with Sean, that the problem is that theory has several, closely related, meanings in science. I think you need a lexicographer to tease out these meanings.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | February 11, 2007 11:24 AM
We don't need no stinkin' lexicographer!
That is to say: What I'm really asking for is not the officially way Science defines Theory. Rather, I'm interested in how actual scientists in various scientific fields and contexts use the word theory. (Lexicographers need to attend to usage, I reckon.) So, I'm under no illusion that all the things people mean by "theory", or expect should come along with a "thoery", or would identify in contrast to "theory" will line up neatly.
I just want some good reports from the field, as it were.
Posted by: Janet D. Stemwedel | February 11, 2007 02:32 PM
I tend to think of a theory first as a system for establishing correspondences between the terms and operators of some formalism on the one hand, and objects, processes, and relationships of phenomena in the world on the other hand. That is, theories are interpretations of formalisms.
Testing theories then resides in messing with the transition rules of the formalism to generate predictions of what will happen if the corresponding objects, processes, and relationships are altered in a similar way. For example, interpreted in terms of objects and operations performed on them, F=MA suggests that if I pare some M off an object and accelerate it, measured F will be a specified amount less than it was before I did the paring at the same acceleration. Lots of tests tend to more strongly corroborate the theory (formalism plus correspondence rules).
The formalism doesn't necessarily have to be expressed in explicit equations. I do applied work with evolutionary algorithms -- simulations -- and theory tells me about correspondences between the processes in the model running in the computer and the phenomena of interest in complex adaptive systems. Multiple runs of the simulators under plausible perturbations provide ranges of outcomes to be expected in the world of phenomena we model, and the veridicality of those predicted outcomes are tested with real money every day in various derivatives markets. Trading in negative-sum markets is much less forgiving of invalid or plain wrong theories than are one's (former) academic colleagues. :)
Posted by: RBH | February 11, 2007 06:46 PM
I was assuming they did! At least the approach the OED takes is descriptive - i.e. they describe the way words are used. I agree that having a prescriptive lexigographer involved would be awful.
I think a survey of usage would be useful, and may have been done. But searching lexicographal journals for "theory" and "science" may not be the wisest way of finding it.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | February 14, 2007 03:09 AM
My $.02 worth on this topic:
Science starts with an observation. You devise a hypothesis to explain the observation. Then you use the hypothesis to make predictions. Then you test the predictions. If the predictions are wrong, then you go back and try a different hypothesis. If the predictions are correct, you try to expand the hypothesis to be more general and more powerful. A very general, very complex hypothesis that makes lots of verifiable predictions and explains lots of different observations is called a theory.
I still call things like phlogiston and Ptolemaic astronomy by the term "theory" because they were well-meant attempts to form theories, using the best evidence then available. They failed because they didn't agree with the facts, not because they were internally flawed or illogical.
Posted by: wolfwalker | February 14, 2007 08:12 AM