Dr. Francis Collins is notable not just for leading the Human Genome Project. He is also one of the most prominent scientists to publicly profess a belief in Christianity. In his speech before the Jefferson Society last week, which took place in the University Chapel, he spoke at some length about reconciling religious faith with scientific understanding.
The current battle that seems to be raging between fundamentalist believers on the one hand and fundamentalist atheists on the other — and they are both fundamentalists — is a wholly unnecessary one. It is time to take the microphone away from the extremists and talk about how to find harmony between these worldviews, a harmony that is not at all difficult to find, once you step away from those extreme perspectives.
An audience member later asked Dr. Collins to clarify what he meant by the term “fundamentalist atheist.” He explained that he was referring to what is more commonly known as “strong atheism,” the assertion that God does not exist. This is in contrast to “weak atheism,” which asserts that we have no reason to think God exists. Collins is objecting to arguments by, for example, Richard Dawkins, who believes it is possible to logically demonstrate that God does not exist.
So what does Collins himself believe? He has written a book on the subject, called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In the book, Collins describes how he came to a belief in Christianity through the writings of C. S. Lewis. This surprised me, because Lewis’s arguments are not very convincing or well constructed, certainly not to a level that would withstand objective scrutiny.
I was impressed with how frank and apparently sincere Dr. Collins is in his religious beliefs. It sounds as though they bring him comfort and guidance. However, I’m puzzled by his equation of scientific materialism with atheism, and his exhortation that we “find harmony” between the “worldviews” of religion and atheism, as though religion and atheism are just two ways of looking at the same set of facts. Perhaps somehow for Dr. Collins, they are.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Filed under: authors, books, charlottesville, lectures, podcasts, science, videos, virginia Tagged: | atheism, C. S. Lewis, Christianity, Dr. Francis Collins, Human Genome Project, Richard Dawkins, The Language of God, University of Virginia
While I do find that there are people argue the case far better than Francis Collins, I do believe he’s right that Science and Religion are not inherently incompatible. The real question is really whether science and supernaturalism are compatible, and on that point Dawkins may indeed be correct.
You see, there are many religions which don’t presuppose that God exists outside of natural processes. Collins may believe that God uses Natural processes, but there are many Naturalists that take it a step futher and believe that God is part of the processes themselves. Thomas Payne and many of our founding fathers believed this, and conveyed their opinions eloquantly:
There are still quite a few Pantheists, NeoPagans, Buddhists and others who’s religions do not depend at all on a supernatural God, and thus are not in conflict with science or reason.
I discuss some of the relevant differences between Collins and Dawkins, as well as my own personal beliefs in a recent blog entry.
I can prove there is no God. To wit:
1. The world was created by and is covertly ruled over by Five Blue Dogs who live on the far side of the moon.
2. Can you prove that statement is untrue?
3. Will you accept your inability to disprove Blue Dogism as sufficient proof that there are no Blue Dogs on the far side of the moon?
4. Repeat this line of reasoning and substitute for the “Five Blue Dogs” “God”.
5. What’s the difference?
Mr. Glass — I continue to denounce your Five Blue Dog heresy, which I call “quintocaninism.” I remain an adherent of quartocaninism. Your so called “fifth dog” is an editor’s redaction — probably a cat lover!
Lonnie–on a purely logical level, as you demonstrate, I don’t think religion and science are incompatible. But it entirely depends on what you call religion. Many people don’t seem willing to redefine their concept of religion to the extent necessary to make it compatible with science. They want to reserve a miracle or two.
Dr. Collins is a good example. He’s a supernaturalist. Although he thinks the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are mythological retellings of natural processes like evolution, he accepts the resurrection of Jesus as a supernatural miracle.
I don’t understand the distinction he’s making; if you must have one miracle, why not have them all? I suspect it’s only to force religion to fit his (deep) understanding of science. In my opinion it makes his apologetics look shallow.
Now I’m off to read Here In The Cave of Wonder and add it to my blog links!
Gary,
You assume far too much in your “proofs”. You can form a testable hypothesis for God, but first you must define exactly what you mean by the term. Atheists tend to define God in such a way that She could never exist. If you define God as being contrary to reason, then it’s rather easy to then use reason to “disprove” God. As I said, above, there are many long standing traditions of faiths that do not require God to be supernatural. For that matter, not all faiths require a linear creation myth. In many native traditions, the creation is a circle, not a line.
Elizabeth,
Thanks for the response! I completely agree.
If you visit my blog, I’d love for you to comment. Bonus points if you recognize the song my Blog is named after.
Lonnie
We largely see what we expect to see. It is entirely possible for someone to examine the vast complexity of the human genome and conclude with certainty either*:
1) The traces of ordered building up of complexity is an illustration of how all life follows strictly natural processes; or
2) The irreducible complexity and unlikelihood of such conditions to permit the existence of life makes natural explanation alone an unsatisfactory explanation.
My sense is that Dr. Collins is humbled by both observations to such an extent that he would feel intellectually dishonest to disregard either. This seems to me more honest and reflective than the work of atheist and religious apologists who hold fast to one or the other claim and seem rarely charitable to arguments for the other.
* there are in fact a range of views, but I hope this explanation isn’t a false dichotomy — I welcome correction to this idea.
Unless you completely reject Occams Razor, then option number two becomes somewhat irrational. It would be somewhat like me assuming that because my coworker says he doesn’t drive a car to work that he must ride a Unicorn.
While there is every reason to believe that the natural Universe is bigger and more complex than we could ever dream, and quite possibly filled with things beyond our wildest imagination (I even suspect some planet out there might even have Unicorns…) it is still not reasonable to conclude that there is anything that exists completely outside of natural processes. That said, absense of proof is not the same as proof of absense. There may indeed be forces outside of Nature, but until we have a means of stepping outside of Nature ourselves to observe them then it isn’t very useful to ponder such things. It is more reasonable to accept natural explainations for all natural phenomena.
I would say though that Theology and Science are two very different beasts with very different objectives. For example, meaning is totally outside the realm of Science. In fact, ascribing meaning to scientific data will quickly get you ousted from the scientific community and probably cause you to lose your grants. Even so, I maintain that an Owl has meaning to a Mouse whether it knows it or not.
…Oh, and yes, there are more than just two options there. For example, there is also the Deist viewpoint that the creation is reflective of the creator, and since we can know nothing of the supernatural, that nature is our best insight unto understanding God (see quote from Thomas Paine in my original comment).
There is also the inverse hypothesis that it is the Natural universe that birthed the supernatural one, and God herself. Not a very common one in Western Thought, but more common in native traditions.
I don’t think it matters much which definition of God you go for, because every definition is essentially invulnerable to disproof. The meaning of a word is its usage, and this is how the word “God” is used. The only people who use it differently are those who are arguing about its validity. And this is the point of my proof. We don’t accept as real things that simply have no point of contact with our experience aside from word games. You’ve never seen the Five Blue Dogs, you never will, you never could. It is sophistry to argue that nevertheless they *could* be real. They can’t be real in any way that means anything to anybody other than logicians and Blue Dog Devotees.
The worst part of it is that while we’re clotting our minds with pointless paradoxes, we’re missing out on everything that’s really going on! Here’s one of the world’s most famous scientists, going around the country talking about Jesus Christ and the Resurrection and what not, blathering metaphysical double-talk, when he could be talking about issues of real substance that he is spectacularly well-qualified to elucidate. What is life? What is a living thing? Where, if anywhere, is the borderline between the mechanical stuff that is a cell and a living creature? How did the whole thing get up and running anyway? What does it mean to die? When you die none of the physical stuff that you are goes away. What does that mean?
But then equally, wouldn’t those like Dawkins be equally wasting their time arguing the non-existance of God? He’s a bright guy, I ‘m sure he could do something more useful.
Seriously though, ideas matter. Entire wars are faught over these things (and are being faught now). Dawkins believes that we’d be better off with no gods, but I’m not sure that will work for most people, nor really eliminate conflict. Collins is promoting a God that isn’t in contradiction with science, and that’s useful because it could help some people to accept scientific ideas like evolution without fearing that they need to give up their faith too. I like to believe my ideas are useful (at least to myself) because they provide a language of reverance for a world that I feel desperately needs it.
Yes, to some degree the question of whether God exists all comes down to language and definitions. The same is true for all philosophy though. What is the meaning of life? To whom? Is there free-wiil? Depends on what it is free from! Knowing that the real issue is language doesn’t make the questions irrelevant, but it does suggest an entirely different mechanism to addressing them,
As for every definition of God being invulnerable to disproof, I’m not entirely sure that’s the case. I think Dawkins does a very good job at disproving the very narrow definition of God he defines. Of course, disproof in the scientific sense isn’t the same as it is for other mere mortals. Among scientists, lack of proof is essentially disproof. True 100% disproof of anything is probably impossible, so its more accurate to say scientists really tend to think of some things as “statistically improbable”. Likewise, I can give you a very clear definition of the God I believe in, and it is provable and testable as much as the existance of your average oak tree might be…
Anybody could define “God” any way they like, including any number of scientifically acceptable ways. That’s beside the point. The issue is whether actual, specific definitions of the word in use in the real world are good or bad, helpful or destructive, true or false. And the actual specific usages of the word do not correspond to anything that is scientifically plausible. Collins’ beliefs are no exception. He believes in the resurrection of Christ. Not scientifically plausible. He believes that God is the source of morality. Not scientifically plausible. He believes that the Christian Lord is a real thing. Not scientifically plausible.
Uh, I already referenced quite a few groups of people who’s definition of God is Scientifically plausible. Beyond Thomas Paine, there was Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Albert Einstein. That’s not mentioning the huge number of people in Eastern Religions who don’t necessarily see God as supernatural (For example, there are a large number of devout Hindus in the Scientific community). There is also a huge number of native traditions, which see the Gods/spirits as completely natural. Then, there are many modern NeoPagans, Pantheists and other modern religions that also do not perceive any conflict between science and religion (Most Neopagans generally see the Gods as Archetypes, not a supernatual beings per se.) Lastly, there is my own denomination, Unitarian Universalism, which tends to define God as “The spirit of life” and also lists as one of it’s six sources “Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;”
So… Yes, there are many people and faiths with historically defensible definitions of God that are well within the bounds of scientific reason. In fact, I’d counter that the entire concept of a Supernatural is primarily a Christian construct and fairly recent in the larger scheme of things. After all, there was a long history of science in the ancient world, often by people that were also religious figures.
strong belief in supernatural power/powers that control human destiny + particular branch of scientific knowledge = ?
Lonnie, up a little higher you say, “Collins is promoting a God that isn’t in contradiction with science.” It would be more correct to say that Collins is promoting the *idea* that God isn’t in contradiction with science.
Collins’ actual conception of God is very much in conflict with science, as anyone with any investment in either science or a monotheistic God can see. I don’t know who he hopes to persuade. He’s talking to an entirely different audience than the believers Lonnie is describing.
Lonnie, you’re saying there are “scientifically defensible” definitions of “God” in common usage, but you don’t present any. Defining “God” as “completely natural” or “what Einstein thought” or “the spirit of life” just isn’t enough of a definition to even evaluate, let alone accept as “scientifically defensible,” unless by “scientifically defensible” you mean “science can get no purchase on it.”
Suppose there really is something that answers to the idea of “spirit of life,” and you choose to call whatever that thing is “God”. And so? Where do you go from there? It’s too vague to make any difference to anything. Nobody goes to war for “the spirit of life” or martyrs themselves for “the spirit of life” or bases the meaning of their existence on “the spirit of life” or draws moral distinctions based on “the spirit of life”. In other words, if you don’t have anything more definite than that, you don’t have anything that has any operational relevance to anything that is actually going on in the world. You just have something that feels good to say.
institution to express belief in divine power + ability to produce solutions in some problem domain = ?
= alchemy/astrology/necromancy.
Or Magic, which the late lamented Arthur C. Clarke claimed was indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology.
Catherine, I’m assuming you’re referencing the use of the term “magic” by Neopagans?
It may be a bit confusing to outsiders, but they don’t mean it in the supernatural sense. It is defined as “the art of changing consciousness at will”. Although Wicca has a slightly different definition (‘art of causing change in accordance with the Will’) the same principle holds. In fact, Gerald Gardner, the founder of Wicca, listed growing potatoes as an example of a “magical ritual”. Although Neopagans can be quite creative and dramatic in their “Magical Rituals” it is very important to note the objective of these isn’t to use some supernatural force to change the world, but simply to change their own awareness of the world.
Yes, there are individuals within Neopaganism with supernatural beliefs, but the foundation of the movement itself is rooted in the Romantic movement of the late 1800′s and is quite contrary to the entire idea of a supernatural (i.e. why would nature worshipers believe that there is anything more “super” than Nature?). Unfortunately, the good literature that’s out there on these topics tends to be swallowed up by New Age books on “how to turn your boyfriend into a toad” even though there is great disdain for this kind of nonsense in the larger community. If the NeoPagan movement can be charged with anything unscientific as a whole, it would be the tendency towards teleology (or anthropomorphism.) It’s worth noting though, that it’s often a quite intentional decision to describe Nature in this way, and more reflective of a creative intuitive approach to life and not an attempt to make scientific claims.
Out of just the local community I know several people who are biochemists, medical doctors, nurses, journalists, and educators who are NeoPagan and find science to be quite complementary to their beliefs.
You’re right, I didn’t present any. Mainly because to present one would seem to suggest that it was somehow a superior definition to the others, and yet, you are also right that it is somewhat outside the scientific domain to even attempt such a thing. Besides, nothing can be “proved” in science, only falsified.
Both Atheists and Fundementalists insist upon squeezing God into a box. Why must God only exist in the space of things that are unknown or supernatural? What logical reason is there that God can’t be both Known and Unknown equally? There is certainly a theological basis for this wider view in world religious texts and in religious practices. In other words, if thunder were to be associated with Thor, then it need not be any less Thor once it is known to be caused by a massive movement of electrons. From the perspective of language, when scientists insist upon religious texts being literally true, they are ironically taking the side of fundementalists, an inherently unreasonable world view. Thus as the world is more described, the natural tendancy of science should be to favor Pantheism, not Atheism (if it should favor any viewpoint, which I’d argue that it shouldn’t)
Plus, in a sense, you can present a testable thesis for evaluating whether the natural phenomena is indeed “Thor” or not. If it weren’t Thor, then we’d expect him to have no followers, right? If it were described scientifically, and the followers definition required it to be supernatural, then one would expect them to disbelieve the science or stop believing in Thor, right? If, for example, there were still thriving communities in Iceland, still worshiping Thor that were well aware of how thunder is generated then “Thor” indeed would exist (or at least that known aspect of him related to Thunder).
In other words, the proper domain for this inquiry into the existance and nature of “God” is Philology, Theology and Anthropology, not Physics and Biology as Dawkins proposes. In those fields there are falsifiable proofs that can be generated, and thus they can make scientific conclusions.
Sorry, felt I should specifically respond to this as well…
No one would die for a Naturalistic God? So, you really feel Thomas Jefferson had nothing of Operational relevance to say? Read the Declaration of Independance again, and pay close attention to his use of “Powers of the Earth”, “Laws of Nature”, and “Nature’s God” which are all invoked in one paragraph as part of the justification for revolting against England. Naturalistic theology had everything to do with the foundation of our Democracy, so I’d consider that quite relevant indeed.
The American revolution was fought for political reasons, not so Jefferson could prove the truth of Jefferson’s concept of the divine. Your dancing around and around and around. First Collins has a “scientific” God, then Einstein, then Jefferson, then the Unitarians, then well nobody does because its the wrong realm of discourse.
Wears a body out. Let’s cut the Gordian knot and have done with it. Let’s get down to business. We have serious problems to solve if we’re going to survive this century. Whether or not God is real or unreal, natural or supernatural, or ugly, or blue is not among them. Finding some way to squeeze God into a scientifically acceptable definition is a useless distraction.
I think we can at least agree that the world has serious problems that need to be solved; although, I suspect the “Alexandrian Solution” will not serve to untie the mess we’ve made. After all, it may be religious extremists that currently fire the missiles, but it was scientists and engineers who designed them in the first place. Likewise, regarding the environment, i can tell you that many a species has been literally studied to death. some of the last Ivory Bills and Carolina parakeets were killed by the likes of Audubon. Science without reverence cannot solve the worlds problems, nor will Atheism usher in a new utopia as Dawkins seems to think it will,
To be fair, I neither think that religion, by itself, can get us out of the conundrum we’re in. i do, however, believe that it has some unusual insights that we’d be foolish to ignore. Albert Einstein suggested that:
I’ll let you make up your own mind whether that statement is Fundementally Scientific or Religious, but it sure seems like darn good advice to me…
Yes, that’s a great quote. But to return to the actual topic of the original post and ensuing discussion, there is a world of difference between that quote and what Collins espouses. What Collins espouses (the resurrection, e.g.) is scientifically indefensible. What Einstein said is not.
People need something to believe in, something larger than themselves, something they can belong to and identify with, something that will outlive them. And in our time, with the destructive technological possibilities we have in hand, that thing had better be scientifically defensible, or one or more of several bad things will happen: dogma will trump the real world and we’ll destroy a lot of the environment; the real world will trump dogma and destroy us; massive oppression will be required to maintain adherence to the dogma. In the end, the facts of the matter will always win.
Arguing for some kind of rational defense of an irrational idea of “God” is worse than a waste of time, it’s irresponsible. Irresponsible to what? To life. To continuation of the species and of as many of the other species as possible. That’s my “religion” if one has to use that absurd term.
I believe in living. I believe in reality. And I believe in freedom. I think we more we have of these the better. I think global warming is sacrilege. I think pollution is sacrilege. I think oppression is sacrilege. I think nonsensical metaphysical double-talk is sacrilege. I think the highest commandment is “Embrace as much as you can.”
I can agree with most of what you are saying here, but I think what your missing here is (if you go back and read my original comments) that do take issue with Collins reliance on a supernatural God, even if I think he nonetheless has some important points to make.
Also, I continue to take issue with your third paragraph, that any definition of God must necessarily be irrational. After all, placed into context, Einstein also defines the Universe as God (or visa versa if you prefer). You may take issue with that choice of word; however, I dare say that Einstein was not simply choosing to be irrational by drawing that conclusion. It really comes down to whether one insists upon look at things from a reductionist viewpoint or from a more holistic one. You claim I’m trying to squeeze god into a rational definition, but I’d claim that you are trying to squeeze god into an irrational one. The truth is that there are both rational and irrational definitions of God out there, and I think there are good political and social reasons to uphold the more rational definitions instead of conceeding them to the radical fundementalists. After all, it is they who are the real enemy no matter what name they go by, or what deity they choose (or not). Language is power, and I choose not Pat Robertson and Al Qaeda define all my words for me. I respect and understand the choice of Athiests to selectively abandon words, but they shouldn’t pretend their decision has any scientific merit.
I believe in just about all the things you list too. Perhaps you consider me guilty of “metaphysical double talk” but I’m just trying to explain a rather long and expansive history of naturalistic Theology that apparently you seemed to be quite unfamiliar with. Perhaps if I were Einstein or Emerson or Jefferson, then I could say it more elegantly, but I’m not. Even Dawkins acknowledges these traditions and bears moderate respect for them.
Religion/science is forerunner of chemistry in medieval times and claiming divination by positions of planets/sun/moon and conjuring up dead, especially for prophesying, and any art that invokes supernatural powers.
My editing is often not terribly great, (see above), but I can’t really make sense of your sentence fragment.
I’ll take my best guess though at what you’re trying to say…
Perhaps were you trying to describe Isaac Newton?
Seriously though, magic and science were once not considered seperate fields of study. Arthur C. Clarke is right not only about the future, but also about the past, for early scientists were often considered wizards or sorcerers by commoners (and some like Isaac Newton even considered themselves to be as well).
just as Science has advanced since then, so have the traditions of Ceremonial Magic. Where Isaac left off, folks like William Butler Yeats continued via organizations like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. These organizations then influenced a British Civil Servant named Gerald Gardner who combined Ceremonial Magic with surviving Celtic folk traditions and emerging feminism. Fast forward, and mix in a healthy dose of environmentalism, and the end result are well known NeoPagans like Miriam Simos or NPR’s Margot Adler.
I know of no rational definitions of “God” that differ from the definitions of some other term. You keep insisting there are such things and lots of people know all about them. So let’s here one. Because if God is the Universe, great. But we already have a word for “universe”. Or if God is the “the spirit of life,” great. But we already have a word for “life”. Or if God is the “the great mystery,” great. But we already have a word for ignorance. So is there some definition of this “God” word that is *actually in common usage* that isn’t irrational and isn’t already called something else? What is it?
I feel reverence for the cosmos, for life, for consciousness, for love, for beauty, for a lot of things. I revere them. I am awed by them. They don’t get to be “God” because of that. I am not awed by glorious words, or famous names, or the longevity of an idea. We’re wasting our precious moments on these ridiculous words “God” “spirit” “soul” — that answer to nothing in the realm of the real — stuff we imagine and hope and long and demand to be real. Because we’re all gonna die and that is just unacceptable. We’re destroying our planet for the sake of these utterly empty words. It’s beyond sad, it’s overwhelmingly tragic. God doesn’t just make any difference in this world, but belief in “God” surely does, and the God of our belief is so unreal, and our belief in that God so desperate, that we are hellbent on converting our reality into that unreality, life into death, and creation into destruction.
And I don’t want any more history lessons. I know more about all of that than you imagine, thank you very much. But I choose not to argue by example.
Gary, the answer to your question is quite simple. Calling the Universe God isn’t merely an attempt to create a synonym, if it were, then you’d be correct. “God” has a connotation of being worthy of reverence, as well as being something larger than ourselves, and a source of meaning for our lives. Most all people believe that the Universe and Nature exist, however tragically few accord it any reverence, or relevance.
BTW, checked out your photos. Nice stuff.
Then “God” is just a name for an attitude? Lordy, He’s getting smaller every day. So of course, there just must be more to it than that. What is it? What else? What more? Is it the moral ground? The promise of eternal life? The creator of the universe? What? Go on, I dare ya.
Nope, no promise of eternal afterlife (unless you count becoming “Leaves of Grass”). To be fair, there are people in some of the traditions I mention that believe in reincarnation; however, it generally doesn’t play a very important role, and most emphasis is given to how one lives, not what happens after you die. Both our heaven and hell are in this life, not in the next. Even if the afterlife exists, it is generally thought of as somewhat irrelevant among all the traditions i mention.
Creator of the Universe wouldn’t apply in the linear sense, You might call it an ever-creating-creation. Incidentally many native traditions share the same viewpoint that a linear creation makes no sense, and that a cyclical one is more reasonable. After all, one only has to observe the seasons to see that. Also, source of meaning and morality would also apply. (i.e. we hold these truths to be self evident…)
That omnipotence thing is still there (in the sense that if it can be done, then the Universe can do it), and the Omniscience bit is also true since the Universe is indeed the source of all knowledge (In fact, a major flaw in most theology is that God can’t be omniscient in the sense of holding all knowledge because the source of that knowledge would then be more powerful than God.) The Universe in the larger Sagan sense is also eternal, so that’d apply as well.
Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Immortal. Source of meaning, morality, and that which created everything (including itself). If a human had these characteristics, they’d certainly be a God, so why not the Universe?
As for smaller, I’m not sure I’d agree. We started out with small gods, that achieved small things, and which created a couple small landmasses and a handful of species. We now know that Creation is far larger and more complex than ever dreamed. Wouldn’t that suggest a larger God, not a smaller one?
Carl Sagan essentially suggested many of the same things.
No unfounded belief. No faith. No metaphysics. Nothing supernatural. No miracles. No divine revelations. No divine person. No prayer. No morals. No commandments. No famous PBS series called “God”.
I don’t want to use the word “God” for the cosmos *because* none of those attributes apply and those attributes are what most people take the word to mean. Calling reality “God” adds nothing but confusion. For too many people, to say that God is not supernatural makes as much sense as saying water isn’t wet.
Why argue the point? Why love that word? Just so you can express an attitude of reverence for reality? I find I can do that more effectively without the word. Every climatologist braving the weather and isolation to catalog the ice flows in Greenland expresses more love for reality than any priest with a cracker and a cup of wine.
This is why Collins disappoints. Every minute he spends talking about an unreal God is a sacrilege.
I’ve already discussed my reasons for using the word; however, if perhaps you missed any of that here it is more susinctly:
1) Because I do indeed have alot in common with traditions all across the world that have historically used the word this way. Continuing to use the word connects me to those important cultural traditions.
2) Because it means that I have a basis to work together with other liberal faiths to accomplish good works. Let’s just say that being an atheist is somewhat of a barrier to productive interfaith work.
3) Because words are indeed important. Even though there are many other groups across the world with legitimate claim on that word, you’d hand over “god” on a platter to Pat Robertson, and tell the world that the only real choice is between him and Atheism. It’s a false delimma, and plays into the hands of
Fundementalists.
4) Let’s reverse that question… What harm does it do you, that a significant number of other people choose to define God naturalistically? I’m not suggesting that atheists be forced to use the word themselves. I actually support the right of atheists to avoid using the word, if they so wish. In fact, also personally supported the rights of local Atheists against Jerry Falwell after he threatened to sue
Albemarle County. I was Atheist myself at one point and consider it a valuable experience that other people should be permitted to have. Besides, theism is meaningless without Atheism.
5) It’s just a symbol. three letters G-O-D. You can say all you want that it is a waste of time debating the definitions of such things, but here you are nonetheless. If the word is as powerless and meaningless as you claim, then certainly there’s no harm in my using it, Right? Frankly I find the enourmous power that Atheists accord this word an excellent example of Magical thinking.
6) From a position of Reason, knowing how my car works doesn’t make it any less of a Car. Why would knowing how the universe works make God any less God?
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, this is an issue of personal choice and language, not of Science. It is almost like you and Dawkins are trying to be the theologial equivalent of the FCC. Should I submit all my words before the high authority of Dawkins before I speak them? Should we purge all literature , music and art of these profane symbols?
As Jefferson himself said, “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Thanks for the discussion, It’s been fun.
You have really got hold of the wrong end of the stick, Lonnie.
>As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, this is an issue of personal choice and language, not of Science. It is almost like you and Dawkins are trying to be the theologial equivalent of the FCC. Should I submit all my words before the high authority of Dawkins before I speak them? Should we purge all literature , music and art of these profane symbols?
But science is a matter of facts, not of personal choice. There is a way things are. And there is way things aren’t. And supernaturalism isn’t. Use the word however you like. Nobody told you not to. You’ll just have to forgive me and Dawkins if we think it’s a bad decision. None of your arguments make the word look any more useful to me, indeed less. To wit:
>Because it means that I have a basis to work together with other liberal faiths to accomplish good works. Let’s just say that being an atheist is somewhat of a barrier to productive interfaith work.
That captures my objection in a nutshell. You’re an atheist but won’t admit it. A naturalistic God is not at a God at all to bazillions of people. You might as well say water isn’t wet. It’s no defense to say, “Well, I just use that word ‘water’ so I can get along better with all those people who don’t see what me and Sagan and Jefferson and Einstein all know: it’s dry.” Because, brother, those people are looking for wet, and they’ll accept no substitute. To truly accept your idea of a naturalistic God is for them nothing short of blasphemy.
Aside from being willing to apply the word God to things we already have other words for, I am unable to see any difference between what you say you think and what the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus would call “atheism” or “unbelief” or “ignorance” or a number of other words that all more or less designate “those who don’t believe in anything supernatural.”
Let me put this another way…
Words are a lot more complex than you give them credit. Sure, I could say the majority of people use the word this way, and thus conclude I should abandon use of the word. If you apply that principle more broadly though then you really get yourself into trouble. For example, I might argue, using your own logic, that it is unproductive for scientists to continue using the word “theory”. After all, its common usage meaning is very different from how it is used in the scientific community, right? In fact, there’s a really good argument that by continuing to use it that scientists have indeed caused a lot of confusion (as in, “evolution is just a theory”) My point is this, words are neither proscribed by dictionaries nor are they elected by a democratic majority. Each society has subcultures in which words change their “accepted” meanings. It is often through these subcultures that new words or created or the definitions of old words are changed. Consider the etymology of the words “Gay” or “Queer” as a excellent case study.
Also, one can choose to change culture form the outside or from the inside. For example, an environmentalist could attend protests and join an intentional community, or they could go to business school and start a company with a conservation ethic. It could even be argued that both approaches are necessary for genuine change, and they aren’t necessarily exclusive of each other. In this case, it is you who do not want to be associated with any of the institutions of religion and so you’ve left them in protest to create new institutions of Atheism. While I recognize and respect your decision, I believe there is incredible opportunity to reform the existing institutions of religion from the inside. I no longer believe we need to throw out the baby with the bath water (although there was a time when I would have taken your position).
Lastly, definitions aside, I’m not an Atheist. I find Atheists to be somewhat too reductionist in their approach to life for my own needs. Plus, I think we were given emotions and intuition for a reason. They are mere artifacts of an evolutionary past to be discarded so we can all be like Spock. I enjoy such things as gathering around a fire dancing, drumming, and chanting because of how they make me feel. I highly suspect these antiquated activities would be frowned upon by most Atheists. You see, I can appreciate cultural traditions for their cultural and symbolic value, without needing always rationalize them.
As a parable of sorts, I had a botany professor who was militant about identifying plants by keys and characters. On one of our trips I spotted a plant that looked similar to a cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpum) but which from a gestalt perspective didn’t feel like a cranberry to me at all. He had me collect a piece of it, and upon taking it back to the lab he declared it to be a Cranberry, and ridiculed me in front of the class for declaring it to be something different saying “This is why scientific characters are more important than gestalt impressions, because plants growing in different conditions can look dramatically different”. That night, I had a dream that I went out and looked at the plant again and it was really Gaultheria hispidula, a far more rare plant that I’d only read about. Upon waking up, I researched the scientific characters that separated the two species (which were some hairs on the back of the leaf). Upon reexamining the specimen, I realized my professor was wrong. It really was Gaultheria hispidula, just as in my dream. Science is full of such stories about how dreams and intuition helped solve problems where reason alone failed. Now don’t get me wrong, I did ultimately use reason and science to confirm my results, but I cannot discount the importance of feelings, dreams, symbols and intuition which are often all discounted by Atheists despite much scientific evidence that these systems evolved to mankind’s benefit.
So… no, I’m not an Atheist. I do understand the inclination though, and I do respect it, even if that may not always come across in my comments. Also, I did truely mean that I’ve appreciated this conversation. They are important topics that more people should discuss, even if they ultimately don’t end up in agreement.
Oh, and I be remiss if I didn’t point out your logical fallacy above… Water has multiple states, including solid and gaseous forms. If I said, “I have a glass of something and it isn’t wet, so it must not be water”, then I’d be making a logical fallacy. You run this same risk whenever you try to prove something upon individual characteristics alone. I might, for instance, claim that most gods are immortal and thus falsely conclude that Tiamat was not a God.
It is an analogy not a syllogism. You are remiss to treat it otherwise. I never made any argument like the one you’re attacking.
Atheism isn’t a lifestyle, it’s an absence of belief. For you, it would seem to be a lifestyle choice. That’s your affair, but I was explicit about what I meant: if I understand what you’re saying about what you believe about “God”, then you’re an atheist from a traditional theistic point of view. Not from my point view, or yours, but from theirs, the believers, who have pretty definitive criteria about acceptable usages of the word. Not that you can’t use it any way you want. You can call a car a banana if you like. But I doubt if it will further your interfruit dialog with a chimpanzee very much.
If by “believers” you mean folks like Jeff Riddle then I conceed that you are correct that I’d be no better than an atheist; however if you mean folks like my friend Laura Hartman (who just got her PhD in Religion from Uva) then you’d be quite wrong. That’s quite fine with me though, as Jeff knows exactly what kind of theist I am, and isn’t at all confused with my use of the word “god”. Of course, in Jeff’s eyes, a Hindu would equally be no different than an Atheist since he’d maintain that they don’t believe in his God (The Hindu though might very well point out that all gods are incarnations of Shiva, including Jeff’s) , Speaking if Jeff, you should check out his latest post and comment, as I’m sure you’d have insightful things to say as an “unbeliever” like myself.
Personally, I’m only concerned with the more liberal traditions of faith, which would be people like UCC, the Religious Society of Friends, other UUs, Sufis, liberal Hindus, etc. Among these groups, my viewpoint on God has never been an issue, and to my knowledge I’ve never been confused with either a Atheist, nor an advocate of a supernatural god. For that matter, i imagine most probably would welcome an Atheist to do interfaith activities with them; however, it is usually the Atheists beliefs themselves that provide the barrier. In fact, this year I was invited by the Episcopal church in charlottesville to give a presentation on the Origins of Halloween, and got many positive comments about it. As for the folks liek Jeff, I doubt we’d agree on enough regarding most social issues to be able to even pick a social action project even if he would work with the likes of me.
Yes, I do confess at times having used religious language to mask the nature of my beliefs to older and more conservative relatives. I suppose that’s slightly dishonest, but I’m not convinced the truth is always ideal in all situations. I do not mask my beliefs from anyone else though. It is well known in my immediate family, among friends, at work, and in the general public what my beliefs are, and people are fine with it and are not “confused” by my choice of words, especially once they are placed in context. I’ve even had a few friends who were conservative evengelicals and not particularly bothered by my beliefs
(One said to me, “According to what I’ve been taught, you’re probably going to Hell; however, the Bible also says that I’m not supposed to Judge other people so I won’t.) and my sister who is also an Evangelical has confessed that she’s glad attend a UU church (even if she’d prefer I be a proper Christian).
There’s little point in responding to posts like that one of Riddle’s. You’d have to start with a discussion of what constitutes a “fact” and you’d never get beyond that.
My concern about liberal theology is the one that Sam Harris eloquently expressed. It too often acts as a cover or an enabler for fundamentalism or literalism, such as, Riddle’s. Where it doesn’t, great, and there are many fine examples, of which I’m sure you’re one.
By the way, if you’re interested in what I really think about truth, goodness, beauty, reality, and all that jazz, you might enjoy my book Only Begotten. Even if you’re not interested in what I think (which is the only sensible position), perhaps it will give you some enjoyment. The book is my attempt to present a picture of the Christian origin that is uncolored by dogmatism or supernaturalism — that is, indeed, scientifically defensible.
I was quite devout in my teen years, and some time after leaving the church, I read the gospels again and found there quite a different story than I had noticed before. Only Begotten is my attempt to bring that other story out from under the clutter of traditional interpretations.
Yeah, you’re probably right about Riddle; he’s not exactly open to reason…
I’ve been reading a bit of your novel. Not bad so far. For a totally different take on the origins of Christianity check this site out. Not sure I buy all of it, but he makes a very good point about the influence of pagan Mystery religions on Early Christianity.
Thanks. Let me know how you find it (or at least how long you last).
Oh yeah I think there’s a lot of pagan mystery cult influence on early Christianity (and continuing down to the present day). Nascent Christianity was one among many cults competing for attention in the 1st century marketplace of spirituality. One of the reasons I wrote my book was to explore the question: what was there about this story, this person, that struck people so that it has survived and prospered and expanded as much as it has?
Sure there was also more to it than just this particular cult having the best story, best hero, best organization. The most successful movements find the right balance of adaptability and core truths. Christianity has been very good at co-opting, but without losing either its political power on the one hand, or its mystical roots on the other.