Re: God and Religion
Jspear said:
I was speaking specifically about evolutionary science. There is not one consistent consensus in this area of thought.
Your original post didn't indicate any specificity. But in any case, there is enormous consensus in evolutionary science. I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. There are debates about various dates in evolutionary history, exactly when certain species emerged, and which species preceded them, and so forth, but these are relatively minor tweakings. There are more serious debates about the mechanisms of evolution, e.g., natural selection vs. self-organizing or other processes described by complexity theory; genetic vs. epigenetic inheritance; group selection; and the role of social and cultural evolution. These debates, though, are all held within a framework of consensus on the fact of evolution.
There are many competing views about how some evolutionary events occurred, but this should not obscure the fact that everyone agrees that these events were evolutionary. Even fringe views, like Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields, dismissed by the vast majority of scientists, embrace the fact of evolution. Even severe critics of science, like the Illuminati, hard-core rationalists who believe that everything began with Euler’s formula, don’t deny the existence of evolution. All scientific areas of investigation feature spirited differences and debate, and any scientist will tell you that this is a healthy sign. It provides much more reason to believe scientists when they do agree on some very general phenomenon like evolution.
And though almost all of the creationist fire is focused on evolutionary biology, it’s at odds with far more than that. Most religious views, certainly including the literalist interpretation of the Bible, subscribe to philosophical dualism. Very few scientists accept this view, for the simple reason that dualism, essentially by definition, implies two non-interacting levels of existence.
Granted, the prevailing scientific view of materialism, a monistic view, has it’s own problems. No one can explain consciousness in terms of materialism, and I freely concede that I will go even further and argue that there is no apparent survival value of consciousness that could have driven its evolution. All the functional, observable features of evolution could have arisen in zombies, that is, beings just like us in every way except that they are completely unconscious. Indeed, the vast majority of our behavior is unconscious as it is (Sidelight: why God would have created us in that manner only a creationist can understand, just as only a creationist can understand why God would have created species with features that are superfluous, or that provide inefficient ways of accomplishing something necessary to survival. Evolution easily explains such imperfections, while creationists, as always, have to go to great lengths to rationalize why a perfect, infallible God would have made creatures this way).
But dualism is not just unexplainable in terms of current evidence, as materialism is. It logically makes no sense. This forum is not the place to go into that, but there are plenty of sources on the internet where this can be followed up. A materialistic explanation of consciousness, while apparently beyond any current human intellect, is not logically impossible, and it could have evolved even if it had no survival value. And there are other views, such as panpsychism, the notion that every form of matter is conscious to some degree, that also are conceivable explanations.
Another area of conflict that is not much discussed is free will. Jspear apparently thinks that everyone can freely decide whether to accept the existence of God or not. Like most people, he is almost completely unaware of the actual processes that go on in his mind during thought, believing in the myth that he freely chooses what to think or not to think. An enormous body of modern neuroscience says otherwise, and in fact, one of the central principles of science, cause and effect, is incompatible with free will in any traditional sense. While many scientists believe in free will, it's a watered down version very much unlike the traditional religious view of some sense of self that stands independent of the brain and decides what thoughts will be listened to.
As with dualism, which is closely related to free will, it isn't just that there is no evidence for free will in the traditional sense. The concept is incoherent. How could anyone exercise free will? Apparently we make decisions either randomly, or because of certain reasons. I think everyone can concur that a being making random decisions is not free, or if it is, freedom is not something to be respected or desired.
But what about someone who makes decisions based on reasons, as most of us do? Forget the fact that many of these reasons are unconscious, which by itself makes the notion of free will very problematic. Suppose they are completely conscious. You make a decision because of A, B and C. Clearly, these reasons A, B and C are causes of your behavior. So free will in the sense of independence of cause and effect is nonsensical.
As I said before, most scientists and philosophers accept that. They are busy defining a new concept of free will that takes this into account. My point here is that regardless of whether or not you really regard this as worthy of the term free will (I don't), it's very different from the traditional religious view. The traditional view depends heavily on the notion of this independence. Without it, the entire program of choosing to be saved, and deserving to go to hell or purgatory if you choose otherwise, falls apart.
So why don't literalists like Jspear and GM spend more time denouncing neuroscience, the way they denounce evolution, and indeed, why don't they denounce the entire enterprise of science, since it all rests on the notion of cause-and-effect, which is incompatible with their vision of free will? Probably because they aren't even aware of these problems, and even if they are, I doubt they're going to, say, refuse a brain scan following a serious fall while bike riding because they believe that neuroscience is deeply flawed. Anyway, Jspear has already indicated that he's a big fan of modern technology, which he thinks is based on a stronger version of science than evolutionary biology. He apparently doesn't see the hypocrisy here, of embracing technology that could not have been created without a worldview very much different from the one expressed by a literal understanding of the Bible.
You seem to be having a hard time understanding the fact that there are Christian scientists or simply agnostic scientist that don't except evolution that have contributed greatly in many areas of science.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that that is irrelevant--it does not answer my question. Sure, there are many scientists who call themselves Christian (Sir John Eccles, winner of a Nobel Prize for his work in neurophysiology comes to mind), but I have emphasized in all my posts that I'm talking about Christians who believe the Bible literally. Catholics, and many other Christians, accept evolution. Even Francis Collins, Director of NIH, a big believer in the Bible, and highly criticized by many scientists, knows that the Biblical version of creation is not literally true, and has admitted as much.
There are very few Biblical literalists who are scientists, and those who stay in business do so either by being hypocrites (like that geologist who operates under two identities), or by working in areas of science where the disconnect is not so obvious. My example of neuroscience was used precisely to point out that there are many literalists who aren't even aware that certain underlying principles that allow them to practice science at all are inconsistent with their view of original sin.
But even if they are aware, that doesn't prevent them from contributing to science. Many great contributions to human history have been made by people living a lie. That doesn't necessarily detract from the importance of their contribution, but it also does not turn the lie into a truth. Teddy Kennedy was a womanizer for much of his life, and was responsible in some manner for a young woman's death, but he also championed women's rights in the Senate.
That is basically the fallacy of your argument. You think that because someone who claims to believe the Bible literally makes a contribution to science, that proves that the literal interpretation is completely consistent with science. That simply is not the case. It's like saying that because some Hollywood stars who speak out on climate change live a lifestyle with a heavy carbon footprint, that heavy carbon emissions are not a problem for the earth. It's quite possible for people to be hypocritical, to say one thing and do another. Their actions do not necessarily prove their words wrong, and vice-versa.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram