We’re Working On It

I’ve never liked Dawkins’ use of that phrase. As you say, it is not a cop-out. It is a perfectly sufficient answer, but it is one that really requires more words than he uses. I understand what he means, and obviously you do as well, but it is all too clear that most theists do not.

It seems to me that Dawkins believes the theists he converses with (Bill O’Reilly, for instance), have already grasped the concept that just because one side does not have an answer does not mean that the other side’s answer is automatically correct. The ‘God hypothesis’ is not made more likely because the evil atheist scientists don’t know what got the universe rolling. That way lies a steadily shrinking gap God, and I don’t think anybody wants that. God is not some default position to be fallen back upon when we don’t have a more satisfying answer. God exists or does not on the merits of the evidence for Him, not on the veracity or not of any one theory attempting to explain a particular act ascribed to Him.

Dawkins does give a rudimentary explanation for the origin of life in Growing Up in the Universe (see unpronouncable.com/dawkins) but of course that’s not entirely satisfying. I found reading the transcripts on pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins limitlessly helpful and fascinating. Origin science, like most sciences, is a work-in-progress. It’s especially difficult since it involves things that don’t leave traces, so the best we can do is recreate abiogenesis in a lab. We can’t crack open the black (or should I say invisible) box of life’s origin, so we have to be synthesizers. As I type this, there are six science magazines sitting on my desk. I am considering a career in science. Perhaps you, Nathan, should consider a spirituality in naturalism.

I love articles like this Nathan (not because you quoted me, but that’s a plus). Intellectual honesty requires us to address intellectual laziness in the entire scientific/philosophic community.

Both atheists and theists have beliefs that are often used as huge intellectual crutches, and I often oscillate between whose belief system is *less* inferior.

I am violently perturbed by theists who brush aside scientific research with “hey, God could have done it” (even some with Ph.Ds in science fields).

I am equally bothered by atheists who construct wild and elaborate mythologies, all the meanwhile openly knowing that a mechanism for such phenomena violates natural law (my favorite example being Prum and Brush’s amazing article on integumentary appendage developmental precursors to avian plumage in the Quarterly Review of Biology).

BTW, Nathan, that quote didn’t come from anywhere (unless perhaps I subliminally plagiarized!) - but it was directly inspired by Kant’s essay “What is Enlightenment.”

-Matthew

Two great posts in a row, Nathan.

I think one of the things that is happening in the Church at large is that we have enjoyed being the unchallenged “king of the hill” for so long that we’ve lost our ability to defend ourselves.

Like a domesticated animal who once was at home in the wild, now has gotten used to serving his master. In our case, our master is the State (in a Marxian sense). Now that we are finding ourselves sliding off the top rung and being challenged by all sorts of belief systems and world views we try to duck, dodge and run away.

The “God just did it” answer is what amounts to a fight or flight response when you don’t know how to fight anymore. We’ve become domesticated lap dogs who have forgotten the visceral feel of wide open spaces and the wild.

Good thoughts about being challenged. My 15 year old son and I just talked about this yesterday. His beliefs and thoughts are being challenged on his blog (http://mattw23.wordpress.com) and I have been challenged by a co-worker who is very skeptical and “scientific”. We agreed that the challenges are great because it forces us to look closely and pull apart our beliefs to defend. The best though is that with both of us, our security in what we know and believe has been strengthened because of the questioning.

I wrote:

Perhaps you, Nathan, should consider a spirituality in naturalism.

You replied:

Not sure what you mean by that? Elaborate please.

Spirituality is a word used to describe certain parts of human consciousness, specifically when we experience something extraordinary or transformative. I had such an experience once, after reading The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell online and for the first time ever I *really* pondered the cosmos. Ordinary life melted away. Mystery and awe reigned. This is sometimes called a paradigm shift or a self-actualizing experience (see Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs). I heard a mystic on CBC Radio’s tapestry describe it exquisitely (I can find the talk for you if you like). I thought she had done it perfectly, but then I heard Dawkins talk about the Anesthetic of Familiarity in Waking Up in the Universe. A spirituality in naturalism is no more than pursuing and investigating these experiences without the mistaken religious ideas often attatched to them. Read more…

To Live At All is Miracle Enough
The End of Faith (not really the full text), Chapters - Death: The Fount of Illusions and The Word Beyond Reason
Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

(Yay for me, I just realized you can put HTML in these boxes. xD I’ve been putting out nightmarish plain text.)