Ok, by popular request - thanks Lee - I'm back with a post. Lately I've been reading Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' and Alister McGrath's much shorter rebuttal, 'The Dawkins Delusion'. One of the first things that's struck me is the contrast in the quality of scientific reviewers the two authors were able to acquire to endorse their books. Harvard experimental psychologist Stephen Pinker looks like the most eminent scientific reviewer for TGD, but he only describes it as 'a characteristically elegant book' - no actual critique of RD's approach to religion at all. Next best is science journalist Matt Ridley, who offers a typical, Dawkins school, ill-informed unconsidered false dichotomy between 'faith, spirit and superstition' and 'truth'. Beyond these two, RD has had to rely for concurring anti-religion praise on three celebrity names who aren't scientists at all: Philip Pullman, a fantasy author; Brian Eno, a musician; and Derren Brown, an illusionist!
Contrast the line-up of McGrath's reviewers, and the specificity of their criticims: Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project: 'dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism... has abandoned his much-cherished rationality'; Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard: 'demonstrates the gaps, inconsistencies and surprising lack of depth in Dawkins' arguments; and Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University: 'TGD makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.'
Out of time - much more to say on this - but lastly, one of McGrath's chief points is that the mainstream of the scientific community has long recognised that nature is open to interpretation of varying kinds; atheist Stephen Jay Gould was 'absolutely clear that the natural sciences - including evolutionary theory - were consistent with both atheism and conventional religious belief'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
17 comments:
One of the first things that's struck me is the contrast in the quality of scientific reviewers the two authors were able to acquire to endorse their books.
Bruce, to summarise, this is one big fallacious argument from authority. Why do you think these reviewers are better? And what difference does it make to the arguments? I hope the rest of your reviews are not of this low standard.
Stephen Pinker looks like the most eminent scientific reviewer for TGD, but he only describes it as 'a characteristically elegant book' - no actual critique of RD's approach to religion at all.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but most book endorsements are only a few lines long. Again, you have no specific challenge to make here. It is really just an ad hominem.
Next best is science journalist Matt Ridley, who offers a typical, Dawkins school, ill-informed unconsidered false dichotomy between 'faith, spirit and superstition' and 'truth'.
See above. Again, you are not actually rebutting anything. Care to say why it is ill informed? Also, I challenged you ages ago to show how the scientific method can be used to demonstrate god’s existence. You have so far failed to do so. As we are constantly pointing out to you, the fact that a scientist may believe in god does not show that science and religion are compatible. It just means the theist has compartmentalised his scientific thinking. He has not used science to justify his faith. However, this is not the main issue. Why have you not engaged with something more substantial – like his rebuttal of the “proofs” of god. You seem to be attacking a strawman type figure here.
Beyond these two, RD has had to rely for concurring anti-religion praise on three celebrity names who aren't scientists at all: Philip Pullman, a fantasy author; Brian Eno, a musician; and Derren Brown, an illusionist!
Again, the science-faith diversionary tactic. By the way, have you watched Derren Brown convert people then deconvert them yet? Very interesting!
Contrast the line-up of McGrath's reviewers, and the specificity of their criticims: Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project: 'dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism... has abandoned his much-cherished rationality';
And apparently his sanity – bad example for you Bruce! I would like to hear how he dismantles it on a sound bite. BTW Collin’s contribution to the science of the genome project is seriously overstated! Another poor attempt at argument from authority.
Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard: 'demonstrates the gaps, inconsistencies and surprising lack of depth in Dawkins' arguments
Examples. See above!
and Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University: 'TGD makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.'
Care to supply a context for that? Is he perhaps embarrassed by the harsh tone? Ruse is actually trying to battle fundamentalism because he sees evolution as the way to understand life and treat disease. He has a vested interest in not stirring things up – and lets remember, he is an atheist because of science. I can lend you his book “Darwinism and it’s discontents if you want.” He spends most of his time arguing that evolution is not incompatible with the idea of a creator god. What he does not do is say is that the science of evolution confirms the existence of god. He would ask a theistic evolutionist for evidence that god directs evolution, since you claim god can not be tested, then your own philosophy puts science and faith at loggerheads here.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
atheist Stephen Jay Gould was 'absolutely clear that the natural sciences - including evolutionary theory - were consistent with both atheism and conventional religious belief'.
Absolutely is not a very scientific word to use in this context. Again, an argument from authority. Also, have you come across Gould’s NOMA principle – that science and religion are actually non overlapping magisterial. Another ill informed argument from authority.
Over all, I give Bruce’s review 1 out of 10 (because he got his name right) :-)
Cheers
Billy
Hi Billy, just scanned your comment, will hopefully return to it... I shd have made clearer the extremely limited scope of what I was trying to say in this post. As has happened before, you've assumed I was trying to do far more than I was, in the time I allowed myself. All I've tried to do is show the paucity of actual critique of RD's handling of religion in TGD from his supporting reviewers, scientific and otherwise; contrasted with the pointedness of the criticisms from real scientists who review TDD. And by doing this, to encourage my atheist readers, to the extent they value serious, in depth, fair unbiassed engagement with the underlying issues in the science religion relationship, to read TDD alongside TGD and see what they make of it.
I am hopeful Jonathan will read and review TDD at some point; I wd read his post with interest. J?
Hey Bruce, Philip here from Quetz's site, wanted to ask you a question.
Do you REALLY trust Francis Collins that much?
This is a man who was an atheist until he saw a set of 3 frozen waterfalls! I do not doubt that man is sheer genius for a second, the work he did on the genome project was phenomenally good. But lets think about this for a second, isn't seeing 3 frozen waterfalls for the proof of the existence of the Christian God from the Bible is a little...far fetched?
I can imagine that his research into the genome project must have been heavily tested, reviewed, revised until it was accepted - that's science for you, picky little people them scientists! :)
Suddenly, he is out in the Swiss mountains and wallop, there be proof of the Christian God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost - in a frozen waterfall - how the heck do you test for that stuff?
Why does it have to be the Christian God from the Bible? Why not Athena, Aphrodite and Hera? Odin and his two brothers Vili and Ve?
Its just if you are going to criticise
"Matt Ridley, who offers a typical, Dawkins school, ill-informed unconsidered false dichotomy between 'faith, spirit and superstition."
Or think that Derren Brown is under-qualified to talk about religion and its effect on the mind when he proves time and time again how easily it is to manipulate the mind of others. Saw him turn a room full of Atheists into believers just by talking to them! ( I recommend his book Tricks of the Mind, it is very interesting insight on how the mind can be deceived into thinking anything is true)
Could you not hold up the same accusation to the professionalism of Professor Collins based on his contradictory and very presumptuous attempts to prove the Christian God exists?
Be interested to hear from you, kind regards
Philip
As has happened before, you've assumed I was trying to do far more than I was, in the time I allowed myself
No I haven't, you mentioned time constraints. Please carefully read what I have said. Arguments from authority and misplaced facts are worthless. To attack tthe reviewers is an ad hominem! It does not Deal with the books arguments.
All I've tried to do is show the paucity of actual critique of RD's handling of religion in TGD from his supporting reviewers, scientific and otherwise;
And you failed. What have his reviewers got to do with the content of the book?
And by doing this, to encourage my atheist readers, to the extent they value serious, in depth, fair unbiassed engagement with the underlying issues in the science religion relationship, to read TDD alongside TGD and see what they make of it.
Perhaps you misunderstand many atheists. We are generally critical thinkers and dont find arguments from authority worth paying attention to.
If you think there is something wrong, it would have more impact if you said why, so perhaps given your time constraints it would have been better to have not commented than to use the argument from authority.
Well, it's all kicked off, but I can't say I wasn't expecting that.
Thanks for dropping in Philip, welcome.
Will respond to the comments as and when I can. Meanwhile, why not as many of us can, get hold of TDD so we can discuss it properly? After all, I'm nearly finished TGD. TDD is a direct if concise critique of TGD, so as several of you at least frequent RD's site, I'd think you'd be interested. 78pp long, £7.99 full price.
Hi Bruce-
it's about time this blog came back to life!
I'm really not sure why you chose this as opening salvo on the God Delusion. I mean, who reviewed it makes no statement as to the weight of RD's arguments, does it? Normally I just skim book endorsements, and don't lend them much credence beyond the "Hmm, Derren Brown commented" sort of way.
If your time is as constrained as you say it is, surely it would be better occupied by posting actual arguments that we could muse over and respond to while you're away. (Obviously I'm not trying to tell you how to run your blog... but we've been debating for long enough now that you should know where I'm coming from).
You mentioned TDD. I'm tempted, but don't forget, I've already read and reviewd the last book you recommended, "Science and its Limits", and posted a review. Have you read that yet? You haven't really commented on my review yet, you made some initial comments but never returned to flesh them out.
Perhaps that should be done first?
Meanwhile, why not as many of us can, get hold of TDD so we can discuss it properly?
I would rather borrow yours. I was not impressed at al by that Evans book you recommended, and Jonathan was not impressed by the science and its limits book.
McGraths work has been comprehensivly pulled appart on RD.net, so I would rather keep my money if you dont mind.
PS, what do you mean kicked off? There is no agression here.
PS I really do recommend you read the first post carefully and not just scan it. That way you will avoid misrepresenting me and actually see what I am actually saying.
PPS, Cant make it tonight
Billy
Noted Jon and Billy. Yes J I'll have another look at your science book post, still waiting to get it myself, will check lib on Thurs in absence of copy arriving from my sister yet.
B, 'kicked off' just meant 'got going', no connotation of perceived aggression.
Cheers.
Ok, by popular request - thanks Lee - I'm back with a post.
Hooray!!!
Not only a new post, but another one with my name in it.
The fame... the fame.
Only problem, as usual, being in the wrong time zone means I am last again to comment.
Oh well.
Lee
Billy wrote:
Over all, I give Bruce’s review 1 out of 10 (because he got his name right)
Bruce’s name or the authors?
Billy wrote:
BTW Collin’s contribution to the science of the genome project is seriously overstated!
Listening too him, Collin’s sounded more like a project manager and NOT the worker – no evidence, purely got this impression from listening to him talk.
++++++
Hi Bruce,
I agree with Billy on this… comparing the “endorsers” on the book is rather silly.
Firstly, it has nothing to do with the quality and “correctness” of content and has EVERYTHING to do with the publishers trying to sell the damn book.
It is funny that you seem to have fallen for the sale pitch and ignored the substance?
A little analogy - I wonder who makes the better cars?
Kia or Ferrari?
Go into the car show room and just look at endorsements from magazines and posters and using your logic, it has to be Kia right? Hey, they even able to sponsor the Australian Tennis Open – Ferrari can’t do that!
Bruce wrote:
one of McGrath's chief points is that the mainstream of the scientific community has long recognised that nature is open to interpretation of varying kinds; atheist Stephen Jay Gould was 'absolutely clear that the natural sciences - including evolutionary theory - were consistent with both atheism and conventional religious belief'.
OK Bruce, could you please explain how the theory of evolution fits in with your idea of your theistic god? Surely if you accept evolution you cannot still hold on to the idea that God is all-loving and all-powerful?
The problem I have is this – if you follow the scientific method and accept the conclusions from experiment, this does NOT fit into the God described in the bible.
You are then forced to either redefine your God or reject science’s evidence. By redefining God you will be changing Him from the classical all-powerful, all-loving God to just an idea, maybe logically consistent in the virtual world of ideas but not one that bares any resemblance to the real, testable, physical world.
So Bruce, can you take up the challenge and debate “McGrath's chief points”?
And by doing this, to encourage my atheist readers, to the extent they value serious, in depth, fair unbiassed engagement with the underlying issues in the science religion relationship, to read TDD alongside TGD and see what they make of it
…
Meanwhile, why not as many of us can, get hold of TDD so we can discuss it properly? After all, I'm nearly finished TGD. TDD is a direct if concise critique of TGD, so as several of you at least frequent RD's site, I'd think you'd be interested. 78pp long, £7.99 full price.
Bruce, for the record – again. I’ve already listened to a couple of McGrath’s books tours for TDD, plus more on other books (a gave you a few links if you remember).
On these lectures he talks about the key points and arguments in his book against TGD.
His arguments, as I remember them, were a joke, and more importantly, any “seemingly good” argument he did against TGD McGrath NEVER took them further to their natural conclusion.
In other words, if he followed his logic it would either been shown to be false or contradicted what most Christian’s view has of God.
(However, it did sound good when he said it, and isn’t that the point when preaching? Of course, cherry picking ideas, not following ideas to their natural conclusion and not thinking might be nothing new in theology – but it certainly is NOT science. You cannot ignore the results of repeated experiments)
I also remember from one of these talks where McGrath stated that he was interviewed by RD for “Roots of all evil?” TV show but his thoughts and ideas were so strong and convincing that RD was too scared to put them into the documentary – well, RD did not have full control over a TV programme, but the whole interview is on the RD.net site – have a laugh, I did.
Another classic argument technique I remember McGrath using was the “straw man” - most of the people in the audience and who will read his book have never, and will never actually read TGD – McGrath knows this and plays on it.
So McGrath actually attacks arguments never made by RD. When McGrath does tackle arguments made by RD they are unimportant ones, ones RD just made as a “throw-away” comment – missing the key arguments made by RD that McGrath could NOT challenge.
Maybe McGrath is more careful in his writing – you tell me? Tell you what though, the next time the wife goes to the library, I’ll ask her to look out for the book.
(Though I think our local library only has two book shelfs from what she tells me – the floor and the desk) I reckon I would really enjoy reading it in the same way humans like to look at car accidents.
If the book is so short, maybe you could tell me the “killer chapter” and I’ll go to a book shop and read it at lunch time.
Or better yet… maybe you could post one of McGrath’s killer arguments – we could discuss it.
The fact is, I just cannot bring myself to purchase a book from someone I have heard talk so much nonsense.
Also, for the record, yesterday I listened on the train to a 2 hour debate between Dr William Craig (theist) Vs Dr Victor Stenger (Atheist physicist).
I do actually enjoy listening to the other side of the argument. This ensures I am on the “right track” – I do not just stay “enclosed” in my own set of ideas. This is true of all the atheists here I think – so I really hope you do not think it is the case that we ignore these other ideas “out of hand”, it is just that they have been shown to be false time and time again (by ourselves and others).
However, still I keep looking…
Lee
Thanks for all comments, 10 so far is certainly manageable so I shd be able to at least read them all and try and respond to key points.
Contrary to the impression this post may in part have given, I do have plenty of thoughts of my own on the whole topic, albeit, as is wise and healthy, influenced (but not commandeered) by the thoughts of others.
I was just chuckling there at the 'one out of ten' Billy gave me. A serious 'could do better' sounds like it's in order! I really must apply myself more:)
And stop smoking behind the bike shed...
Bruce,
Just to make you feel better.
I started reading TDD in a book shop this lunch break – I’m still not going to buy it unless it says something good.
Anyway, I just got through the introduction when my boss spotted me which was a little embarrassing being caught reading such filth.
Hope you are happy now… I had to defend myself and point out that the book he was about to purchase (on Astrology) was a load of nonsense and he should give his money to me instead. He told me it was for the wife, but didn’t buy it in the end.
Should go down well for the next pay-review.
Lee
PS
The introduction was precisely the one he used on his lecture – it is all sounding a little familiar. So why can’t science test the interactions of God? This was McGrath's main point in the intro I think, but he doesn't answer it - maybe you could tell me the chapter he does explains why?
You see, this was the problem I had in the lectures, he never backed up anything said - maybe it is in the book though.
Cheers
Cheers Lee for last comment (don't worry folks I will return to the others!), I'm glad you at least had a look at TDD, I'll try and follow up soon with a point or two to whet the appetite further or at least further the discussion.
I have been mulling your 'why can't science test the interactions of God?'q as well, over the last wee while, and am interested to explore it. Early off top of head thought has been to consider more the range of ways that we apprehend reality of different sorts, domains. eg while science can test chemical physical stuff, does it not have limits when it comes to things like love? How can you by science 'prove' the reality of love in all its depth and meaning? The q is in my view relevant to God, since I believe God is primarily apprehended and experienced relationally.
while science can test chemical physical stuff, does it not have limits when it comes to things like love? How can you by science 'prove' the reality of love in all its depth and meaning?
How can't science do the job? Ignorance is not evidence for your position. We can certainly try and understand it. Whe know about tye bits of the brain that are involved. We even know about some of the chemicals involved, and we are adding to that knowledge.
The q is in my view relevant to God, since I believe God is primarily apprehended and experienced relationally
Obviously myself and just about every other ex believer on the planet would beg to differ.
However, how do you know you are in a relationship where the other party mever appear or speaks, and you are left to your own devices about what is going on. In relation to Jonathans choosing religions post, you are saying nothing that many other religions dont say. It would therefore appear that this is a common human thing, and not a real spiritual truth.
Lets not forget, that "John" says that his his gospel is evidence, and Luke claims to have done some research in the form of collecting evidence too. I do think it is evasive to say that god is only evidenced relationally. How do you know you are not just tricking yourself? Why cant believers agree on what he is supposedly telling them concerning issues like abortion, homosexuality or the death penalty. Why did god tell bush and blair go to war, yet tell others the war was wrong?
Given such subjectivity, how can you ever rationally claim that you are in a relationship with a deity who whont speak directly to you?
Hi Bruce. Just stopped by. I can't say I'm reading much more than you quoting McGrath, whose poor arguments have been dismantled many times.
'dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism... has abandoned his much-cherished rationality'
Actually, he doesn't. Francis Collins is quite dishonest to protect his faith. Science will lead to atheism or at least strong agnosticism because science manages to explain so much of the universe without needing God. Sure, science doesn't and will probably never explain everything, but I've not seen a single thing that religion explains. And religion does contradict much scientific knowledge. Such as mind/souls not being able to communicate with the brain because it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. If you reject the 1st law, you reject physics and all science thats built on physics (that's all science.)
But, as Billy pointed out, Francis Collins' name has only been invoked as an authority figure. That's a fallacy.
I see you've pulled out the argument about love. First, science doesn't prove (as in mathematically) anything. Anybody who tells you that science can't prove love doesn't know what science is. Second, it's easy to show that someone loves you, so you can demonstrate it. And finally, as I said above, just because science doesn't explain love from the emotional point of view (yet), that doesn't strengthen the argument for religion or God. That is an argument from ignorance, and with the way neuroscience is going, we won't be too ignorant about emotions and brain functioning for long it would appear.
However, we all can, except the mentally incapable, experience love whether we choose or not. It has indirect evidence. This is not analogous to belief in God. You don't need faith to love.
I actually think that belief in God is a maladaptive form of unrequited infatuation. It has the same characteristics, inability to see that the object of infatuation doesn't respond, defense of the object of infatuation against all evidence, etc.
I actually think that belief in God is a maladaptive form of unrequited infatuation. It has the same characteristics, inability to see that the object of infatuation doesn't respond, defense of the object of infatuation against all evidence, etc.
Cant put that any better myself
Post a Comment