On the biological nature of the new atheism
By Mark Vernon on Wednesday, July 9 2008, 10:49 - Religion - Permalink
Heres an hypothesis. The energy which fires the new-style militant atheism comes far more from the biological rather than the physical sciences.
The obvious case in point would be Richard Dawkins. He certainly addresses the arguments from modern physics that some use to support theistic beliefs ??" fine-tuning, and so on. But he is more successful when he rests his case on the science of evolution. Similarly, whilst Dawkins makes TV programmes that launch full scale attacks on religion, with titles like The Root of All Evil?, cosmologists like Martin Rees make programmes with more modest titles, like What We Still Dont Know. Moreover, Rees is quite content to entertain the probability that there are questions science can only fumble over, and never find an answer. It is hard to imagine Dawkins calling his agent burning with passion for a new book entitled The Science Delusion.
The theologian Paul Tillich is reported to have said that only physicists use the world God without embarrassment. Alternatively, the theologian and philosopher Keith Ward told me that he is now receiving invitations to talk to university physics departments as a theologian. Moreover, they listen not just respectfully but with genuine interest.
Or there is the towering figure of Albert Einstein. He was quite happy to talk about God, though the exact nature of his religiosity is continually contested. Dawkins himself has said he regrets that Einstein used the G-word. And when earlier this year, a letter by Einstein came up for auction, in which he called God the product of human weakness, Dawkins was disappointed to have been out-bidden. It fetched £170,000.
However, Walter Isaacson, in his recent and excellent biography of Einstein, concludes that he was religiously-minded and probably an agnostic. Moreover, he believed that science was not possible without a religious sensibility. Einstein wrote:
Behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.
He concluded:
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
And on the question of atheism, he averred:
What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.
Now, there are exceptions that question my observation, of course. Robert Winston checks the boxes of both biologist and religious, being a well-known fertility scientist and practising Jew. He has talked of the similarities between science and religion because both talk the language of uncertainty. Alternatively, there is Steven Weinberg, an atheist and cosmologist. He can certainly pen a good line against religion. Having said that, in a now infamous review of The God Delusion in the TLS, even he began by noting:
Of all the scientific discoveries that have disturbed the religious mind, none has had the impact of Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection. No advance in physics or even cosmology has produced such a shock.
Why? There are no doubt political reasons behind the biological nature of contemporary anti-religious zeal. The spread of Intelligent Design would be one, though that would be limited to America.
More philosophically, there could be reasons that stem from the differences between the sciences. Maybe physicists are more inclined to theistic interpretations, or at least less averse to them, because they deal with fundamental laws of nature. Like the notion of God, they value philosophical simplicity. Or perhaps the very simplicity of the laws raises the question of why the universe obeys identifiable laws in the first place, and how those laws are embedded in it.
Biologists, on the other hand, deal with the complexities of the natural world. Darwin has described a mechanism that accounts for such complexity. It renders old-style, Paley-like arguments about a divine designer redundant. So perhaps for this reason, biologists are more inclined to champion strictly mechanist explanations and reject those that appear to make the world more fuzzy.
Alternatively, biology in the 20th century has been very successful because it has stuck with strictly materialist and mechanistic explanations, as physics did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Now, though, the limitations of such an approach in biology are beginning to appear, as they did in physics with the birth of quantum mechanics. Hence we see the development of disciplines like systems biology and interest in evolutionary convergence.
If right, the implication of that would be that the biological nature of vocal atheistic science could turn out to be more of a high watermark than sign of a decisive victory of that reading of science over any other.
Comments
Mark,
I feel like part of the confusion is a definition of the word "God". When a physicist uses the word "God" it is very different than the Judea-Christian-Islam version of "God". It seems the clear difference is that of a "personal" god that we know things about and a more mysterious supremely great force that we know very little about which the only word that sort of seems to fit is God even if not in the traditional sense.
Speaking of Einstein, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." or, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
A nice collection of quotes can be found at: www.stephenjaygould.org/c...
From what I've read of Dawkin's he was disappointed that Einstein used the "God" word, because he used it in a different context than the majority of at least the Judea/Christian/Islam world sees it. However, Einstein very clearly goes into a lot of detail (about the lack of detail maybe...) on what he considers, "God". It's not his fault if people take this out of context or if they claim to have a monopoly on the definition of "God".
I personally think the militant atheism should focus its attacks more on the "idea system" of any authority based system which presents ANY belief no matter how large or small as unquestionable. This would expand the focus not only to religion, but to cults, totalitarianism and dictatorships (with the authority figure, taking the place of a god in this case). I'm not saying that they shouldn't also go after specific instances in religion, but one can always argue that the "crusades" or "inquisition" or "witch burnings" or "suicide bombers" are all deviants of religion and don't embody the "truths". The same could be said of a democracy that commits awful crimes, but that doesn't mean the system of democracy is necessarily flawed, just that it isn't perfect.
I think more of the focus should be on making it so that when someone says, "Homosexuality (or any other issue) is wrong, and should be punished/laws should be made to prevent it" than they shouldn't be able to legitimately back that statement up by saying "because that is what god says" (due to any form of divine revelation, religion, prophet, etc.). The goal should be making such a "reason" (a poor reason I may add) as laughable as saying "Homosexuality is wrong", "because that is what the STARS tell us god says". The goal here isn't to try to ban a religious practice, or prevent people from saying such things, not in the least. The goal is to make the idea of speaking for God, in light of the evidence we have about that, laughable.
The central problem here is we have no way of knowing with any amount of even probable certainty what god is saying. The attack shouldnt be on god, its on the people who claim they have the arrogance to speak for him.
-Brian
'I personally think the militant atheism should focus its attacks more on the "idea system" of any authority based system which presents ANY belief no matter how large or small as unquestionable. This would expand the focus not only to religion, but to cults, totalitarianism and dictatorships (with the authority figure, taking the place of a god in this case). '
However ........ this approach would not specifically concern atheism ....... atheism only answers the question of the existance of the divine in the negative . For example , many people who answer the question of the existance of the Divine in the positive ( Theists and Deists ) as well as people who answer it with a 'we don't know ' ie : Agnostics , have objected / do object to dogmatic authoritarian belief systems and all they're consequences for human dignity and well being .
I have no particular objection to Richard Dawkins atheism ( or anybody elses ) it is a perfectly respectable philosophic position to take on the question of the existance of the divine (even though I personally think that agnosticism is as far as we can rationally go ) .However these things are intellectual questions ( I am excluding faith here as I regard ontological questions as purely philosophical ) and so we may discuss which position is most rationally tenable .
What I find questionable about the so called 'new atheism' is not they're position on the existance of the Divine ( for the reasons outlined above ) but they're militant anti religiousness . I question this on two basis , the first is intellectual . That they're view of religion is simplistic in this way , they ( on the evidence of what they write and say ) take one strand of religious thought ( western theism , and particularily the fundamentalist type of Abrahamic montheism) as ALL religion . The other is consequential .....If , the only type of religious thought that you take seriously is fundamentalist abrahamic monotheism , then , in the real world of human religious ideas , you are effectively promoting such a narrow literalist view as the only one WORTH serious consideration . Hence it has been often rightly stated that no people in recent times have created more fundamentalist christians than the so called ' new atheists '.
The true enemy of 'bad' ( literalistic and fundamentalist ) religion is not the ' new atheists ' but the informed and thoughtfull seeker after religious truth . They sweep away the simplistic certainties of the narrow minded , the ' new atheists ' only give them succour .
Cheers ...
Hmm, I feel like that's one of the reason some of the "new atheists" aren't as comfortable with the term. Hitchen's refers to himself often as an anti-theist, and Harris has said many times he doesn't like the term atheist and never really considered himself one until people started calling him one. Their books are often about much more than just a non-belief, as it seems they put forth a "rational" alternative to replace what they see as "faith" based systems.
My point was that it often seems their real problem is not with a general belief in god, but with a specific belief in god as in a god that tells it's believers to do something or not to question something. I've always felt what the root of their critique was of people who use "god" to support their outward beliefs and consider it a legitimate justification and the fact that many in society agree and will not question them. As such, maybe the new atheists shouldn't be referred to as simply atheists as that's just one part of the philosophy they are promoting?
At the same time I see at least in many parts here in the U.S and elsewhere in the world that the percent of people who believe in the "literalistic and fundamentalist" religions is often a significant percent (if the polls are to be believed). I also understand partly what the new atheists are trying to rally against when we live in an increasingly globalized world with a rapidly advancing technology that continues to make massively destructive weapons cheaper and more powerful. In this case even a small percent could do enormous harm to the entire world.
I also partly see the point that even the more "moderate" believers who continue hold a belief such as, "Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead" which in itself is completely harmless (and is at the root of the worlds most popular religion), but completely goes against all the evidence we have of such things. If such a critique cannot be made based on evidence grounds, how do you critique those who also believe that killing in the name of their god is wrong and you present them evidence why, but it is what their holy book says so they believe it (just as anothers holy book said that Jesus rose from the dead and was born a virgin).
I feel the danger rests in the thinking system that takes a statement/belief as unquestionable based on self-appointed supreme authority that most notably eliminates doubt or treats the overcoming of such doubt no matter what the evidence (faith) as a virtue.
I just noticed I jumbled a few of my above thoughts and sentences. Apologies in advance for the steam of consciousness writing.
Militant atheism exists because IDists, creationists, Christian evangelists asked for it.. They tried to mess with truth.
My claim is that had it not been for the above mentioned people, Dawkins would have remained agnostic at heart, and an atheist for all practical purposes.
Militant atheism not only comes from the biological sciences -- perhaps it's born in a biological urge; in a mitochondrial movement of the species to differentiate itself from (what it sees as) militant and blind religiosity.
Rabbi Akiva Tatz says that the whole issue of belief is one that needs more careful inspection. He claims that in Judaism there is no "faith," per se. The Hebrew word "emuna" is more aptly translated as "loyalty" or faithfulness. This is, he says, because one is faithful to the laws but is not required or coerced into believing anything for which there is not compelling and rational evidence.
Whether or not you agree with him, you still have to wonder: are all our disagreements just the slow playing out of evolution and diversification?
I recommend you read A.N. Wilson's God's Funeral for a proper setting of the impact of the publication of On The Origin Of Species. He tracks a movement to godlessness and doubt that started long before Darwin even set sail on the Beagle. It were the Enlightenment wot dunnit of course, the freedoms won and grasped to think differently.
However what Darwin did was make disbelief intellectually respectable because it banished once and for all the argument from design. It describes how you get enormous amounts of design work without a conscious designer, or even a goal. So it became intellectually respectable to be an atheist as there was no killer argument for the necessary existence of deities any more.
As to why evolution is such a problem for the religious, it is simple, if I am not created then what do I owe any deity, even should they exist? What science does is restrict classical ideas of gods to point where, even if such an entity exists it can be safely ignored. It certainly won't warrant worship.
BTW Mark have you ever read Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow? Having just finished After Atheism I was struck by the fact that despite mentioning Dawkins you engage not one iota with the arguments in Unweaving. So, have you not read it? or can you simply not muster any arguments against it?
BTW your dogmatic statement that we cannot know anything about personalities in spiders is wrong. It was wrong when you published it. Perhaps you would have been better musing on how David Attenborough knew about personalities in spiders. Hint: the evolutionary consequences of different personalities in spiders has been tested. It seems personalities are just another part of the variation that natural selection weighs in the balance against environmental pressures and opportunities at any given time. See what engaging with the science can teach you instead of deciding that science can say nothing about it?