Sort of interesting article from the Adventist Review Online: "Cliff’s Edge – The Neo-Darwinian Inquisition", but like many similar arguments, it misses a simple, yet key, point.
Cliff Goldstein said:
"Sure, like 400 or 500 years ago, “natural philosophers” (the term “scientist” is a nineteenth century creation) nibbled away at the dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority that for eons dominated the intellectual landscape. My favorite line in the history of the West came when—defying the stranglehold that Aristotle (the Darwin of his day) had on just about every discipline (like Darwinism today)—Englishman Francis Bacon declared, “I cannot be called upon to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which is itself on trial.” Wow! In other words, How dare you condemn me for violating a tenet of your worldview when your worldview itself is what I am challenging to begin with?"
I think Cliff is missing a few points. First off a question,
why did dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority dominate the intellectual landscape for eons? Do you see what I am getting at? Cliff is complaining that natural philosophers nibbled away at that authority, but does Cliff explore why that authority was so paramount for so long? Eons is stretching it, but it was the principle authority for a long, long time. So why was it so?
In all honesty, it was the only game in town, wasn't it? Who controlled the educational system? Religious groups, did they not? Monarchies ruled by the grace of one deity or another, didn't they? Look at every town and you find often the largest and most ornate building was a religious one. There were regular mandatory gatherings, and people were not allowed to exempt themselves, were they? It literally was the only option, and it wasn't much of an option. Even in the largest cities you might have multiple religious groups, but often they were segregated in certain areas -- or often they segregated themselves. Marriages were often based on religion, children raised in the religion of their parents . . . and endless list helping to keep religion the only game in town.
Cliff also doesn't want to remind people that religions are incredibly jealous masters, even Christianity, which sells itself as being good and wholesome, has as its first commandment 'Thou shalt have no God before me'. OK, sometimes it's listed second -- after the one about idols. But the point is that adherence to the Christian God is before murder, theft, and adultery -- which is a perfect example of religion's priorities. Most religions decry other religions, often tolerating them more than actually accepting them. Many theists might never admit it, but anyone not of their specific religion is looking down as some sort of lesser human being. They are taught to feel sorry for others who fail to share their belief set and are constantly trying to convert them
Not complying with the religious authority could get you ostracized, banished, or even killed, it was hard to even consider any possible alternative. Now let's ask the same question in a different way?
Did those dogmatic, traditional, or ecclesiastical authorities offer answers that actually worked? Did prayer cure disease? Did a deity help you plant the crops that would let you survive through a barren winter? Did it help you build shelters, or explain how the sun rose each night or where it went at the end of every day? In other words did religious answers provide anything useful in a practical sense?
So, even though it was the only game in town, and an incredibly jealous master, the answers that authority provided weren't particularly useful. You have a very sick child -- then you were supposed to pray! If the child died it's your fault for not praying hard enough! If the child lived, praise your deity! Sound familiar? Even today when a disaster strikes, there are religious zealots who want to blame the lack of faith of the people affected. Disagree? Well then I guess you weren't watching the news about the some of the recent events like mass shooting and hurricanes. I've mentioned the religious tendency to blame the victims a number of times,
for example.
The reason I raise the question the way I have is because of another point Cliff misses. Not the fact that science is replacing much of the religious dogma that has been taught for centuries, but
why is science so successful at replacing religious answers?
It's funny, in the past when one set of religious dogma replaced another, it's stories and traditions simply replaced the old. It wasn't that it was any better or more usable, just different.
Cliff makes it sound that such ecclesiastical authority was some monolithic structure, but the reality is it was different wherever and whenever you lived. Every religion had their own set of stories, the only difference was the time and location -- Norse Gods, Roman Gods, Native American Spirits, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu . . . we could go on for days just listing them all. How many different explanations for the Sun going across the sky existed? Apollo's chariot (or Surya's chariot in Hindu mythology) or Sol, the Norse Goddess of the Sun are just two examples -- there were many others. Even when the Sun was understood not to be a chariot, it was said to go around the Earth, because the Earth was the center of the Universe. While they were different in specific detail, they all shared the same idea -- when you fail to understand something, slap a deity in front of it and start praying.
Science, on the other hand, isn't replacing one set of theistic explanations for the world we live in, but all of them. Why is that, Cliff?
Cliff seems to be trying to equate one religion being replaced by another with the changes science has made in the landscape . . . but he keeps forgetting one key feature. The point Cliff is missing is 'Why', not why did this happen, after all belief sets have been coming and going for centuries. The 'why' is more why did science manage to replace theology in addressing questions, and not just one set of theological, but all of them.
Think about it, right now, in modern times there are still hundreds of different religions, even if you look at the main branches, you are looking at tens of different ones -- all with their own set of religions stories. Science isn't one religion replacing another, as people like Cliff would like you to believe. But it's one set of answers replacing all the religious stories for a very simple reason, they works.
It works regardless of what religion might be prevalent in a region, it works regardless of national borders, it even works regardless of the opinions of pandering politicians. Science works, Cliff. That's the point you keep missing. When you say things like:
"Newton’s formula (within limits), and modern science in general, worked so well, their predicative and technological successes so stunning, that today science wields oppressive power over most every intellectual endeavor. "
Cliff, you aren't recognizing the truth in your face. Modern science, mainly scientific methodology, doesn't wield oppressive power the way religions did for centuries, but it does wield tremendous influence because it works! Of course religious alternatives don't gain traction, not because of that influence, but because they don't work.
That's where the modern Intelligent Design Movement, and all the other religious concepts keep failing so many challenges. I'll put the question to you, What's been the single biggest difference between the challenges put forth by yet another religion, and the one by science? It's a pretty simple answer . . . which one works? Which one meets the evidence, which one can be used to produce results, predictable and consistent results?
Yes, there is the point Cliff conveniently forgets to mention. When science answers a question they offer support as in evidence, as in testable explanations, as in predictions that later discoveries confirm. I'm being serious, can you point to a specific example of a deity taking action? Be my guest, but in reality, you cannot. If you are a theist the best you can do is identify something you
think a deity may have done, but you cannot substantiate it in any way. When pressed you drag out your religious tome as if that's evidence. Even if your one example is in fact the actions of a deity, can it be applied consistently? Can it be depended upon to work? If so then the lottery would have millions of winners each week, wouldn't it!
We haven't found a single turtle holding up the Earth or pillars holding up the sky, nor found an angry deity causing an earthquake. Scientific theories have offered more and better explanations than any religious story I have every heard, and I would hazard a guess that science will continue to provide better explanations regardless of your religious beliefs.
Hopefully you can see the difference. While religious explanations seem to touch something within some people, the reality is they don't offer much in the way of explanatory power. Science, on the other hand, actually works. That's the point Cliff seems to keep missing.
So what's a theist to do? Well, the majority of them seem to have no issues with dealing with the world around them as it is as opposed to someone's claims a deity says it is. Some small, yet vocal, minorities like to resort to all sorts of activities to try and protect what they perceive to be their 'turf'. The problem is their explanations still do not work, not matter how many politicians pass laws 'protecting' them or their theistic 'pseudo-scientists' claim otherwise.
If you disagree I will ask once again,
show me an actual scientific advance that how at it's core a religious concept? I've had this conversation with different people over the years and at best they claim that a deity was the inspiration behind a scientific advance. That's it! They can't point to one scientific theory, or even part of a theory, and tell me anything specific. They offer nothing but their own conjectures and lots and lots of wishful thinking. But when it comes down to testable, measurable, and usable explanations, science leaves religion in the dust.
Is science perfect? By no means! But don't try and tell me perfection only applies to deities . . . if that was true, why do we need thousands of religions? But when it comes to actually providing real answers, science, and the scientific methodology, is that only one that provides them. Medicines cure disease, Materials science explains how structure we build remain standing, Geology explains earthquakes, Physics explains gravity, . . . -- all without invoking a single deity. Do we know everything on every subject, no. We will continue to learn and grow -- but working and workable answers will continue to leave out the deity, all of the deities!
And while we continue to advance on the scientific front, religions will continue to fight tooth and nail to protect their beliefs. The tactics of mistakes they use will continue as long as they are donors willing to fund them. People like kennie ham in Kentucky or those less than honest dealers in pseudoscience at the Discovery Institute will continue to both market their beliefs and fail to withstand any actual scrutiny, as long as their a people willing to fund them. Science will continue, not because of a stranglehold of ideas, but because science simply works.
Posts
