Posted by Jason on: 02.09.2009 /
Continuing on from last week I’m listing some of the more common reasons why many people fail to believe in gods or God. So far I’ve talked about different kinds of atheism, about how evidence and how it does not lead to God, about how God isn’t necessary to living, about how some of the common argument for God are not convincing for me and about the old classic the Problem of Evil. We’ve touched on science as a “way of knowing” about the real world and this week I want to compare and contrast this with other “ways of knowing” that existed before the rise of science.
I want to stress at the outset that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I know that some consider the two to be contradictory but I believe that is because they are placing them on the same scale. Science is a way of knowing. Religion is a belief system. It might be fair to compare how they benefit or limit people but comparing them directly is unfair to both. By doing so you’re setting a false dichotomy and buying in to the sort of thinking that creationists are keen to promote. Science and religion don’t operate on the same scale. Having said that I’m now going to write about how faith has been used in the place of science and how, in my view, it fails to be convincing.
A better explanation
I think it is fair to say that we human beings like explanations for things. Not knowing or not having an explanation just feels wrong. We’re smart and arrogant enough to want to know and try to find out. Lacking the necessary tools to discover the real reason for many things human beings have turned to religion to explain the physical universe and it was the very best explanation that existed for much of human history. There are many questions that we don’t have answers to and many questions that we’ve only had answers to in the relatively recent past. Religion has been able to provide answers.
However the last few centuries have seen a leap forward in science and technology that have enabled us to develop better, more logical, more consistent, more evidence based answers to many of these questions. Many atheists say that because science has done such a good job of explaining the world then the answers that religion provides are no longer necessary. This is of course true where we think about the natural world. Some go further and say that as God is not a fit explanation for the natural world, or rather that religion has provided not fit explanation, then God requires explaining. I certainly put myself in this camp.
I think that this is a good time to drop in a few definitions that I work with where it comes to God, religion and faith in order to dispel any possible confusion or upset. God is the being or class of beings that theists take to be the creator, arbiter and observer of the world and all within it. Religion is a human construct that many theists take to be inspired by God. I call it a human construct in the assumption that no-one will argue the point because religion is ever changing and susceptible to the whims of man and the caprice of politics. Religion is a way to find God and a structure to appreciate and worship God, not God itself. I hope that we can agree on that. Faith is something different from God and religion. Faith is a belief in “something” that may or may not fit the definitions of religions and may or may not have any basis in personal experience or evidence. Faith is part of the human mind and is a powerful force. Most of the people I know in real life have some kind of faith but no religion.
Moving on.
Before Science
Early societies or primitive societies today that rely on tradition to pass on explanations for nature that are poorly understood can be seen as the work of spirits or gods. Bad weather, birthing problems, disease, etc could be explained as the work of angry spirits. My father was a soldier who spent some time in Africa. He was sold a “devil” while in Kenya. Placing the devil outside of your tent would protect you as any devils wandering by would see that you were already tormented by a devil and they were therefore no needed. Although it is likely that this was nothing more than a sales pitch it does highlight how mishaps could be explained by malicious spirits.
The Hebrew tribes of 1400BCE were hardly different from other post Iron Age people. God controlled the world. It is hardly surprising then that a mythology built up around this central idea. When some plague tormented the enemies of the early Hebrews it was surely God’s work just as fortune affected a man was also God’s work.
The Greeks
The Greeks were culturally and philosophically advanced in comparison to others of the time.
Everything is full of Gods
Thales (624-546 BCE), Greek philosopher
Thales suggested that the gods were not merely influencing things in the real world but were an essential to the functions of nature. Similar ideas can be found in some modern theistic ideas particularly those related to life. The soul is said by some to be formed or granted at conception by the hand of God and the essential spark of life is often said to be divine. In discussions centering around evolution it is often the case where the theist will focus on abiogenesis, the formation of life from unliving material, and point to the hand of the divine in forcing this change. Similarly key points in evolution like the Cambrian explosion are often tied to divine intervention.
Astrology
If the gods are in everything then we can read their intent in the stars. Like the gods the stars look down upon us. This idea survives in the daily horoscopes of modern astrology as well as the more sophisticated but no more realistic charting of of the stars to map our lives. Although many people place a great deal of stock in the readings of the heavens these ideas stem from mythology. So clear were the markings of heaven that some Chinese emperors ruled only the highest nobility could have access to it. Today it is seen by many to be little more than entertainment.
Puppet master
Some still hold to the idea that God orders all and operates as some kind of puppet master. I imagine that there is some comfort in that for some but I find the idea to be more than a little disturbing. Perhaps I simply enjoy the illusion of free will. In a way the belief that God is able to do things and is active in the world is a belief in a divine puppet master of a kind. If God can deliver plagues on Egypt and part the Red Sea then he can surely answer a prayer to heal a disease or inspire someone to do well in a test.
Cosmology
How do we explain the workings of the universe, it’s origin and nature? Cosmology is a branch of physics and astronomy in modern science but it hasn’t always been that way. Not that long ago there was an order to explaining the universe that was hierarchical in nature. God sat at the top and commanded his angels to manage the affairs of nature. Man was granted dominion over nature but we were still under the orders of the heavenly host. As mythology goes it was surprisingly similar to the structure that kings and other rulers placed on their subjects. The most wicked of creatures, the fallen angels sat at the bottom of the hierarchy. These rebels were the least of the least and were responsible for all kinds of wickedness. Again rebellion was hardly a plus point for the divine rule of kings.
Why would the religious cosmologies be so rigid? A hierarchical power structure works for a society with limited social mobility. Everyone has a place and the power structure is well supported. if god has decided to structure the world in such a way then it lends credence to enforcing a rigid social structure and denies efforts to reorganise society into a flatter structure that promotes fairness and equality. If God favours a hierarchical structure then this must be perfect and acting against the rulership ordained by God is clearly wrong. Of course the religion is a clear beneficiary of this structure. If power trickles down from God then the church is well placed to gain from this arrangement.
Science says…
Natural laws are obeyed by all objects in the universe. Science seeks to uncover these natural laws and express them in understandable terms, even in terms of mathematical formulae. The universe behaves in a consistent and measurable manner that can be observed. The laws of nature do not change at the whims of the gods pulling the strings. Nor does the motion of the distant stars and nearby worlds change the course of history. Men like Galileo Galilei had no particular problem with the idea of an ordered universe. He no doubt saw it as proof of God’s engineering and skill as many people do today. Many still see God as engineering the structure of the universe or even as the force that created the essential rules that allow our universe to function. As I mentioned earlier this idea is not at odds with science at all. It cannot be proven or disproven and makes no claims that fit within the limits of science as a way of knowing. It is unknowable.
However some theists do object to the idea. If God is merely a prime mover in the creation of the universe then there is not room for God to take action in the universe. A perfect plan needs no adjustment but doesn’t the bible show God’s intervention time and time again? What does this say about God’s plan? Does the theist lose the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all loving by claiming that he changes the course of his creation from time to time or is this interaction itself part of the divine plan?
How it all began
If God is a perfect prime mover in the creation of the universe and needs to take no part in it’s running as would be suggested by the omni… labels then there is still plenty credit to be given. The universe can still be viewed as beautiful and God must assure his presence in the wonder of nature. Science has done a poor job of explaining how anything began but a good job of explaining how things are. Doesn’t that leave room for God as prime mover to act?
Until the mid 19th century this was certainly true. We had no idea how humans came to exist or how the land was formed. Advances in the study of geology told us much of how land formed over millions of years in layers. It introduced us to the idea of fossils in the strata that corresponded to ages with their associated history. Many fossil creatures no longer exist. Fossils led to speculation and eventually to evolution. Evolution explains very well how humans and every other species came to exist although it still leaves a gap right at the beginning between non-living matter and living matter.
Advances in science show an incompatibility with a literal reading of scripture. The world was not formed in 6 days and is more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old. These are poetic myths that many theists take as metaphors or moral lessons much like the parables of Jesus.
Yet the explanation in evolution clearly show that no direction is given from a divine being, just that this is the way that life works. For many this makes God redundant as a way of explaining nature. I think that this is right as I said at the beginning. Science is a way of knowing and religion is a belief system. We should use science as a tool to understand and this is not the place of religion or faith. Faith may help some to accept the way the world is but not to explain the way the world is.
Comment by: Pseudonym
1This objection I don’t understand, when it comes either from Atheists or Theists.
Religion is not, and has never been, primarily a “way of explaining” things. Yes, it has been roped into this task at times when there was no better explanation, but even then it was a poor fit, and even many theologians knew it.
Rather, religion is, at its core, something that you do. Nobody would argue that science does a better job than reading poetry, or playing basketball. They’re simply incomparable.
Comment by: Eliza
2Pseudonym, could you explain more about how you see religion as being “at its core, something that you do.” Are you referring to practices & rituals?? Or…?
Comment by: Seren
3Sounds like 20th century fideism!! can’t remember their names, but a spin-off from Wittgenstein’s later work. which many fans of W think completely skews the meaning of his work.
Comment by: Stephan
4Yep, and apples make better apples than oranges do.
Science explains “how” very well, but says nothing about “why”. That’s where religion picks up the slack.
Maybe you don’t think you need a “why”.
I agree that religion is (or at least should be) something you do. Jesus didn’t come to make us believe in Him, but to get us to follow Him and live a better life. That is what I try to do.
Comment by: Pseudonym
5Not just practices and rituals, though obviously that’s part of it. Stephan put it quite well, that Jesus’ message was to “follow him”. The Buddha didn’t want anyone to believe in him, either, but to follow the path that he (re-)discovered.
Science can explain what we have done, and what we can do, and how things work, and how we got to this point, but it can’t answer the question of what we should do now. These “should” questions are left up to the religious, the philosophers, the poets and the dreamers.
Comment by: Mike O
6I saw a dog get hit by a car the other day. The only physical difference between the dog laying in the street, and the one that licked my hand just a few moments before was life. Other than broken bones, the dogs physical makeup had not changed yet it was no longer alive.
Sure, that dog died because of an impact. But what about something that dies in another way that does not damage the physical body?
What is it that gives a collection of meat, bones and blood the ability or the desire to lick your hand? Is it nothing more than electricity or chemical reactions? I am convinced that there is more to it than that.
There is something unscientific about life itself.
Comment by: Jason
7Stephan, the “why” question is one for philosophers rather than scientists. If theology fits into philosophy then of course you can use it to answer these sorts of questions. Having said that there are certainly “why” questions that science does a great job of addressing. Why does the earth go round the sun? Why does it hurt when I cut my finger? These aren’t “big” questions though but specific and closed questions.
Pseudonym wrote
I agree but yet there are plenty of people who do compare them.
and
Science has no business telling people what to do or how to live. It can be used to provide information about how to live healthier or longer but we’re under no obligation to do anything with that information. I’d say that the same holds true for religion and philosophy and that the arts (including religion and philosophy) can inspire us to act in certain ways. Of course science can do that to.
Mike, a dog is a very complex being. A dead dog is filled with living organisms that are not the slightest inconvenienced by the death of the dog, at least in the short term. Saying that a dog is nothing more than electricity and chemistry is a gross oversimplification and yet is essentially correct. It’s just that the chemistry and energy is so overwhelmingly complex that describing it in simple terms has eluded us to date. It isn’t as if we even have an agreed definition of “life” to work with. In Artificial Intelligence “life” has one meaning that might be utterly unacceptable to a biologist. Ask an anti abortionist when life begins and you’ll get a very different answer to that of someone who is pro-choice.
What science can do is tell us the processes that a cell takes to become a zygote to a fetus to a baby but there are no value judgments is this description. What philosophy can do is suggest how we should answer questions about this zygote, about obligations and moral choices. Religion does much the same as philosophy in that regard except the philosophical questions have been addresses to a large extent. God’s will trumps certain uncomfortable questions as we explored last week in the problem of evil.
Comment by: Mike O
8I meant to comment on that last week, but just didn’t have the time to sit down and do it. Maybe I will tonight, although that thread is probably stale by now.
Comment by: Mike O
9I’m not saying a dog is merely chemicals and electricity (well, maybe I am!), I’m saying that being alive rather than inanimate is more than chemicals and electricity.
Comment by: Pseudonym
10I’m not sure that I understand the distinction you’re making. I do see theology as a school of thought (or, possibly, several schools of thought) of philosophy.
Maybe if you’re a Calvinist. For most, it’s “free will” that is the universal “out” in the problem of evil.
Comment by: Jason
11That depends on what you mean by being alive. A scientist could explain life in terms of chemical reactions in biology and electrical impulses but a philosopher might explain it in terms of experiences or thought. Others might define “alive” as being dependent on environmental factors and having the ability to reproduce and some might even define life in terms of death as “alive” is the absence of “death”.
If you choose to explain the essential components of a living being in terms of chemistry and energy and it is accurate then you’ve explained “life” as a model of reality. However you do explain or define life though it is a simplification. So, yes, life is more than chemicals and electricity but that doesn’t mean that the chemistry of life isn’t sufficient to explain it.
Comment by: Jason
12Pseudonym wrote:
I agree, I’m painting with too broad a brush again except that the big philosophical questions of why we are here\the meaning of life have God as a source so they are partially answered. Without God the questions become more open.
On God’s will trumping questions I agree that Calvinism just points to God and says “there, there is the answer” but other schools of theistic thought do the same to a lesser extent. I certainly see it is everyday comments from Christians: “I feel God wants me to…”, “It’s part of God’s plan”, “There in a better place now”, etc. I see this as a willingness to put trust in the divine as a matter of faith. Faith, of course, doesn’t require evidence although it is enhanced by it. Certain questions boil down to matters of faith.
Comment by: Mike O
13My comments on “life” go back to your title - Science does a better job. I just don’t think it does in every case. I don’t think a purely scientific explanation of life is either complete, or “better” IMO.
For “science does a better job” to be a reason not to believe in God, it has to do a better job at explaining EVERYTHING - not just the things science explains. Take philosophy, for example. Even philosophy, if science really does a better job, ultimately finds its origins in biology, chemistry, evolution, etc. But that isn’t a better answer at all. Scientific attempts to explain the arts or philosophy or human nature are quite weak.
Comment by: Pseudonym
14One of the things that scientists remind each other, but avoid telling everyone else because it would be unnecessarily confusing, is that some of the scientific definitions are somewhat slippery when it comes to borderline cases.
What, for example, is a “species”? For most cases, the definition of “interbreeding” is a good one: If A can interbreed with B, they’re the same species.
However, there are cases where this definition breaks down. In ring species, for example, you can have the case where A interbreeds with B, B interbreeds with C, C interbreeds with D, but A and D cannot interbreed.
Similarly, we usually envisage evolution as having a tree or bush-like structure, but horizontal gene transfer (e.g. gene transfer by retroviruses) has a very significant impact on our evolutionary history.
The point is that our scientific definitions are artificially imposed on nature. Our ontologies are there for our convenience, and are designed to work the overwhelming majority of the time, but at the end of the day, nature is what it is, and doesn’t fit into neat categories.
What constitutes “life” is yet another example. We think of bacteria as “life”, but what about viruses? Or prions?
Comment by: Jason
15Mike
Some areas of science may well be weak and even something of a distraction for our human nature in appreciating art forms. Those explanations though are still better than none. You can represent music as mathematical formulas for wave forms for example which explains quite well the structure and form of music but tells us nothing of why it stirs us. An encephalogram of the brain listening to music can show us how the brain responds to combinations of sounds and which parts are stimulated. Study of psychology can show us which kinds of music can have calming effects or produce other emotional responses. I’d still prefer to listen to Mozart than examine a mathematical formula, encephalogram or psychological report.
Yet claims that the works of Mozart are divinely inspired (I’m not saying that there are any such claims) do nothing to enhance the music or explain it. Science can explain elements of music or other art which can enhance our appreciation of it or distract from it. For me God doesn’t explain anything better than science but then I don’t think that it is supposed to. I do appreciate that science doesn’t explain everything completely but neither does God. Science does a better job.
Comment by: Mike O
16I guess this is where we shake hands and agree to disagree. For what it’s worth, these conversations for making one consider what they believe and why.
Comment by: Chris C
17I’m with you on this Mike.
Comment by: Pseudonym
18Jason:
Science does help inform music with technology and a language to help analyse it, and it does explain a lot of the process by which we perceive it, but it actually explains very little about the “structure and form” of music.
The structure and form of music has far more to do with cultural history than anything else. Elvis Presley’s music sounded shocking and subversive in the late 70s, but today it just sounds old. The same goes for Stravinsky, Beethoven and Kiss.
On the other hand, most of us on this blog probably can’t tell the difference between Beijing Opera and Shanghai Opera, or between Balinese and Javanese Gamelan.