A few years ago, as a newbie assistant professor, I was visited in my office by an editor at The Free Press. He was basically trolling the corridors, looking for people who had interesting ideas for popular-science books. I said that I liked the idea of writing a book, but I didn’t really want to do a straight-up cosmology tome. I had a better idea: I could write a book explaining how, when you really think about things scientifically, you come to realize that God doesn’t exist. I even had a spiffy title picked out — God Remains Dead: Reason, Religion, and the Pointless Universe. It’s not any old book that manages to reference both Steven Weinberg and Friedrich Nietzsche right there on the cover. Box office, baby.
The editor was actually intrigued by the idea, and he took it back to his bosses. Ultimately, however, they decided not to offer me a contract, and I went on to write another book with more equations. (Now on sale at Amazon!)
All of which is to say: I totally could have been in on the ground floor of all this atheism chic. These days, between Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Victor Stenger, you can’t swing a cat without hitting a prominent publicly-outspoken atheist of one form or another. That could have been me, I tell you.
These guys have gotten a lot of attention — especially Dawkins, who was recently voted Person of the Year by at least one reputable organization. Of course, some of the attention has been negative, especially from folks who are unsympathetic to the notion of a harsh, materialistic, godless universe. But even among self-professed atheists and agnostics (not to mention your wishy-washy liberal religionists), some discomfort has been expressed over the tone of Dawkins’s approach. People have been known to call him arrogant. Even if you don’t believe in God, so the argument goes, it can be a bad strategy to be upfront and in-your-face in public about one’s atheism. People are very committed to their religious beliefs, and telling them that science proves them wrong will lead them away from science, not way from God. And if you must be a die-hard materialist, at least be polite about it and respect others’ beliefs — to be obnoxious and insulting is simply counterproductive. Apart from any deep issues of what we actually should believe, this is a separate matter of how we could best persuade others to agree with us.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that atheists shouldn’t be obnoxious and insulting; in fact, I think it’s a good strategy in all sorts of situations. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc. But it does not follow that we should keep quiet about comforting illusions because those are the only things standing between the poor dears and overwhelming existential anxiety. If people ask whether, as scientists, we believe in God, we should respect them enough to tell the truth — whatever we think that is. That doesn’t mean we have to go door-to-door spreading the good word of the laws of nature. It just means that we should be honest about what we actually think, giving the best arguments we have for whatever that may be, and let people decide for themselves what to believe.
Arrogant or not, as a matter of fact Dawkins and company have done a great service to the cause of atheism: they have significantly shifted the Overton Window. That’s the notion, borrowed from public-policy debates, of the spectrum of “acceptable opinion” on an issue. At any given time, on any particular question, the public discourse will implicitly deem certain positions to be respectable and worthy of civilized debate, and other positions to be crazy and laughable. The crucial part of this idea is that the window can be shifted by vigorous advocacy of positions on one extreme. And that’s just what Dawkins has done.
In other words, by being arrogant and uncompromising in his atheism, Dawkins has done a tremendous amount to make the very concept of atheism a respectable part of the public debate, even if you find him personally obnoxious. Evidence: a few years ago, major newsmagazines (prompted in part by the efforts of the Templeton Foundation) were running cover stories with titles like Science Finds God (Newsweek, July 20, 1998). Pure moonshine, of course — come down where you will on the whole God debate, it remains pretty clear that science hasn’t found Him. But, within the range of acceptable public discourse, both science and God were considered to be undeniably good things — it wasn’t a stretch to put them together. 
Nowadays, in contrast, we find cover stories with titles like God vs. Science (Time, Nov 13, 2006). You never would have seen such a story just a few years ago.
This is a huge step forward. Keep in mind, the typical American thinks of atheists as fundamentally untrustworthy people. A major network like CNN will think nothing of hosting a roundtable discussion on atheism and not asking any atheists to participate. But, unlike a short while ago, they will eventually be shamed into admitting that was a mistake, and make up for it by inviting some atheists to defend their ideas. Baby steps. Professional news anchors may still seem a little befuddled at the notion that a clean, articulate person may not believe in God. But at least that notion is getting a decent public hearing. Once people actually hear what atheists have to say, perhaps they will get the idea that one need not be an amoral baby-killer just because one doesn’t believe in God.
For that, Richard Dawkins, thank you.
Hah. Telling Dawkins to shut up is a waste of time in any case. For good or ill, he believes in what he’s doing and he won’t stop just because some people want him to.
#74 JimV: that is exactly the scientific position. We aren’t talking about people that hold to the scientific position, though. For that matter, the scientific position is that we’re just a bunch of atoms interacting, and yet many of us like to see meaning in our existence beyond that. If you take Churchland-style eliminative materialism as an example, that’s a brutal, unbeatable argument unless you adopt different (less minimal) assumptions to those that he does. But then, you’re in the same sort of game as religious folks and not being terribly scientific either. Personally, I don’t think that matters but then, I don’t care what people believe.
Damien (and others), thanks for the thoughtful response.
“Atheist and agnostic are not exclusive labels: one can be agnostic for philosophical purposes but atheist in any practical sense.”
OK, I can see that as a valid and consistent position. And your point about differing standards for claims of differing likelihoods is also a good one.
However:
“Science doesn’t deal in certainties, it deals in probabilities. Is Judeo-Christianity probable? No.”
Well, I’m with you there; this is the essence of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
But Judeo-Christianity != religion != spirituality
Refuting Christianity from a logical perspective is like shooting fish in a barrel. I am more interested in a wider discussion about religion in general, or the validity of spiritual experience. To make logical points against Christianity and present them as arguments against religion or spirituality is not a fair argument.
I say this as a quite thoroughly non-religious person, by the way.
But you think it’s foolish to think that the existence or resurrection of Jesus is irrelevant to the truthiness of Christianity?
Not irrelevant, but inconsequential. We have four records of gospels which are not in full agreement with each other. This has not falsified Christianity. History is a human record of human shortcomings subject to human failings. Expecting the final ultimate truth from anything is foolish, as from science as religion. They are both human endeavors. Materialists can see no further than what is before them. Let them raise their eyes.
“the equivalent is true for most atheists. They either don’t know or don’t understand reasons for not believing, and they certainly aren’t aware of the arguments against or philosophical issues associated with their atheism.”
I’m not at all sure that’s true; the situation isn’t symmetrical, at least in the US, where many atheists have had to come to it on their own, vs. being raised in atheism and taking it for granted like many believers. Atheists who had to break away from a religion are going to at least have their own reasons fro not believing, and be aware of counterarguments from their family and pastors.
Lord:
“We have four records of gospels which are not in full agreement with each other. This has not falsified Christianity.”
Not according to lots of atheists who became that way by reading the Bible.
“Materialists can see no further than what is before them. Let them raise their eyes.”
Yeah? To what?
tyler:
“Refuting Christianity from a logical perspective is like shooting fish in a barrel.”
This is interesting to stick next to Lord’s comment.
As for Dawkins: refuting Christianity may be like shooting fish in a barrel, but there are still a whole lot of fish, and some of them have teeth. As for broader religion and spirituality: in his book he defines his target as the God hypothesis: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. Buddhism and Confucianism he regards as beyond this scope. Ditto for Einstein’s cosmic religious feeling, which Dawkins regards as basic awe of nature, while presenting evidence that Einstein was decidedly not a theist, not a subscriber to the God Hypothesis (especially with the Personal God variation), and the theists of the time knew that and resented him for it.
Lots of religions would still come under his guns; the basic arguments for atheism — argument from evil, argument from diversity of religions, argument from lack of evidence — are older than Christianity, though just as good against it. As for spirituality… you’d have to define it, first. As far as I can tell it divides up into emotional variants (awe) which can be discussed as such, and supernatural variants (*spirit*) which come under the same scientific scrutiny as any other supernatural claim.
Damien:
“This is interesting to stick next to Lord’s comment.”
He calls himself Lord? Isn’t that…uh…bad? If you’re a Christian I mean? How surreal.
Your description of Dawkin’s target definition is the first thing I have read that makes me want to read the book. Very interesting, and more moderate than I expected. I’m curious, does he address Deism? In a modern context Deism would essentially be the claim that God set the constants of physics, set off the big bang and then stepped aside…
(talk about an unprovable claim! I’m just interested in his/your thoughts)
Placing Buddhism outside the argument is interesting, and when I think about it more, actually dispells my interest in the book, though not in the larger subject. The Man In The White Beard is of no interest to me, and in fact is a bit of a straw man.
Certainly Einstein was no theist. Anyone who has read his works knows that.
Excellent point. you don’t have to agree with all of the substance or tone of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, etc. to be grateful for the impact on the debate and the space it opens for non-traditional views.
Yes, he mentions deism a few times, in the context of Einstein (theist? deist? pantheist?) and the US Founding Fathers. He notes that in times of stronger faith deists were attacked as being indistinguishable from atheists; nowadays they’re grouped with the other side, as at least believing in *something*. (Cf. Dennett’s “belief in belief”.) That’s about it for explicit mentions, but his chapter on God probably not existing is based largely on what he calls the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument: whatever improbability or complexity you invoke God to explain, God itself is even more improbable and complex, and explains nothing. Or in Dennett’s words, God is the ultimate skyhook, and scientists look for cranes. So that basically targets the deist god along with all other Creators; the Christian god, having more details, is subject to more specific counterevidence.
But there’s actually more to the chapter than that. If you want to know if you should read the book, I recommend that you go actually look at the book. I’ve been wanting to review the book for my LJ, but have been daunted by the sheer density of it. Not that it was hard to read, far from it, but I’m not sure what to pick out to describe the book fairly without going on at length.
He mentions the Man in the White Beard, and that readers would call that a straw man; the imagery might be, but the idea of a personal god who saves you from traffic accidents and gives you victory in sports is not a straw man. People believe that. Lots of them. And they’re the ones he’s trying to talk to.
Buddhism he doesn’t talk about, partly because he’s not sure if it even is a religion in the same sense as what he’s attacking, and also because he doesn’t know as much about it; the main target is the Christianity and cousins he lives with and is affected by and which dominates half the globe. I’d say that’s it’s pretty tricky to talk about “Buddhism” anyway; lots of Westerners talk about it as some atheistic religion, and that might be true if you go to Gautama’s original agnosticism, or to the lack of a Creator, but Buddhism as practiced by Buddhist populations is chock full of the supernatural. Just look at their art. Boddhisattvas and demons all over.
Damien, I am going to need some good nonfiction after I finish battling my way through to the end of Pynchon’s Against The Day…an exhausting but profitable exercise…I will at least pick it up and flip through it.
“and also because he doesn’t know as much about it”
That shows unusual restraint and self-awareness and is a good recommendation all by itself.
Bodhisattvas and such can either be viewed as typical mythological beneficient/malevolent spirits or as aspects of one’s own internal psychology. It’s a dangerous western conceit to equate esoteric buddhism too strongly with a psychological worldview, but it’s also not completely inaccurate, at least according to the more rational-seeming-to-me proponents of buddhist study (e.g. Trungpa, Wilber). They tend to present the mythology as an exercise in symbolism for externalizing one’s own psychology rather than literal external deities in which one must believe.
But now I have strayed far from the topic.
Damien, it’s true that many, if not most atheists came to atheism on their own (likely during late adolescence or early adulthood), and were not raised as atheists, but I’m afraid this doesn’t say anything about the rationality of belief. Just because they got there on their own doesn’t mean they got there through reason. Or even that they were likely to have gotten there through reason.
Well, what’s your basis for asserting that most atheists don’t understand reasons for not believing? My impression from various religious debates is that they do, but I admit that’s filtered through my memory and selected by those who participate in online debates. But do you have better evidence? And if they didn’t break from their religion through reason, how do you think they got there?
Walt said: “… If your goal is to open the debate to different points of view, well then the very first step is to open the debate to different points of view, not tell holders of select points of view to shut up. …”.
I agree, and I am not telling Dawkins to “shut up”.
I am only pointing out that Sean’s description of Dawkins’s propaganda technique seems to me to be telling “people who are more moderate” to “shut up”, and thereby polarizing the discourse into two extreme camps (exemplified by, for example, Pope Ratzinger on one extreme and Sean on the other) with the middle being marginalized to the extent that it seems to me to be effectively excluded.
Sean says that “the Overton window” is a “notion, borrowed from public-policy debates”.
Polarization is a goal of such “public-policy debates”, in which what Sean calls “vigorous advocacy of positions on one extreme” is used to polarize the electorate and motivate holders of extreme views to turn out and vote for a desired candidate.
As one in the excluded middle, I don’t like such polarization.
My complaint is against Sean’s position ( all religions are false ) and his citation of Dawkins’s book as support, even though Dawkins in his book explicitly disclaims that he does not attack all religions.
Sean’s position (for which he cites Dawkins in support) has been stated in terms of his “spiffy title … God Remains Dead: Reason, Religion, and the Pointless Universe” and his statement that religion (without restriction) is false.
However, as Damien said
“… Dawkins … in his book … regards … Buddhism and Confucianism … as beyond this scope. Ditto for Einstein’s cosmic religious feeling …”,
so Dawkins is clearly not opposed to what Einstein himself described as “… a third stage of religious experience … I [Einstein] shall call it cosmic religious feeling …”, expressly using the word “religious”.
It is also clear that Einstein, who referred to “… a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and … a yearning to understand …”, does not feel that ours is a “Pointless Universe”.
Since I subscribe to pantheism a la Einstein, Spinoza, and Philosophical Taoism (see the entry on pantheism in the web’s Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), it seems to me that Dawkins has limited his scope so that he is OK with religions like mine.
Since I have not seen Sean impose any limit on his view that all religions are false, it seems to me that Sean is attempting to use Dawkins to go beyond where Dawkins has gone, thus extending the polarizing effect of “the Overton window” even further.
In fact, I am agree wtih with Dawkins’s 2007 Edge commentary where he said:
“… I [Dawkins] am optimistic that the physicists of our species will complete Einstein’s dream and discover the final theory of everything before superior creatures, evolved on another world, make contact and tell us the answer. I [Dawkins] am optimistic that, although the theory of everything will bring fundamental physics to a convincing closure, the enterprise of physics itself will continue to flourish …”.
Tony Smith
Damien, well, physics/science-blog reading atheists probably don’t comprise a representative sample, but even if they did, you wouldn’t have to look far to see what I’m talking about. The failure to answer a simple challenge to the widely-held belief that science and religion are incompatible demonstrates this, for example.
I don’t see how rationality — obeying understandable rules — conflicts with “Pointless Universe”. Dawkins quotes Einstein — chapter 1! —
Dawkins distinguishes between Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion, and attacks the latter. With his skirting of Buddhism and Confucianism, I think he’d be open to an argument that the supernatural and personal is an inherent part of real religion, and that Einstein’s feelings of admiration are not properly called religious, but he doesn’t actually go there. Perhaps more to Tony’s point, I don’t know if *Sean* would want to call that religious — so what seems like a difference in belief might be just a different in terminology. Then again, I’m not sure if Einstein was really as pantheist as you want him to be, if you’re grouping him in with Taoism.
I also don’t see what your final quote of Dawkins has to do with the rest of your post, Tony.
Tony: “In my opinion, one scientist who did a very good job in “mak[ing] the effort to rationalize a scientific way of thinking with … personal religious beliefs” was Albert Einstein”
I note this was brought up between Larry and Chris on science’s compatibility with religion, and Ken Miller and Francis Collins et al. Leaving aside the question of whether we should call Einstein religious, his ‘job’ ended up being quite different from what Miller and Collins — who are honest to god Christians — struggle with. Einstein’s solution wouldn’t work for them because it discards the key components of their faith — a personal god, the efficacy of prayer, the meaningfulness of salvation.
Chris: “The failure to answer a simple challenge to the widely-held belief that science and religion are incompatible demonstrates this, for example.”
Re-reading the thread, I think the challenge was answered, and you dismissed the answer out of hand.
“I haven’t read Miller’s book. Nor will I. I’m not all that interested in scientists writing religious apologetics. I have, however, read plenty of religious apologetics from the last 17 centuries.”
You first asked why science was incompatible with religion; you were given pointers to books by Christian scientists struggling with reconciling the two, which should tell you why at least a few Christian scientists have trouble reconciling them; and then you said you weren’t interested in that. You say you’re versed in religious apologetics from the last 17 centuries — but most of those (if evenly distributed) would pre-date Newton’s physics, and even more would predate Darwin’s solution to the problem of design and modern neuroscience’s challenge to ideas of a soul. So I’d guess they don’t have much to say as to why modern science and religion would be incompatible, while Miller and Collins might.
And you yourself gave the most basic reason for incompatibility upfront: evidence, and the lack of evidence for religious claims. Which is also one of the major reasons atheists become atheists. Some people choose not to hold their religious beliefs to the same standard as the rest of their lives; fine. But just because they ignore the incompatibility doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Damien, I haven’t read Miller’s book, but that was not the answer. The answer said, “They don’t do a good job,” and gives one example: miracles. I pointed out that this was not a problem, and gave reasons. No one responded to that. Again, my point has not yet been addressed, much less threatened. And that is my second point (an atheist who’s familiar with these things would know the history of thought on miracles, for example).
Larry’s answer included other questions: “Some of the things they have trouble with are: does God answer prayers?; do miracles exist?; does life have a purpose?; is morality derived from the Christian God?” Miracles was just one thing Larry chose to expand on. And of course there the classics such as the argument from evil, and the argument from diversity of religions. Which are less about a conflict between modern science specifically and Christianity than a conflict between general reason and Christianity. And yeah, theologians try for answers in the field of theodicy, and appeal to free will (whatever that is) a lot. Doesn’t mean they succeed.
When I was growing up, the stigma attached to being an athiest was the possibility of being a Soviet Sympethizer. Have I been out of the US long enough for them to find another negative association?
There’s a pretty strong strain of thought here, particularly amongst the socons (no surprise) that atheists just aren’t moral people; some people would also call them ‘unAmerican’ (the debate over the ‘christian heritage’ of America being stoked by issues like Roy Moore and his 10 commandments statue and the Pledge of Allegience case from CA). What some people call the ‘MSM’ (I hate that) may be presenting atheists in a more favourable light, but I am not sure to which extent that’s penetrating to the grassroots of American society outside of heavily urban areas (which may be more heterogeneous in terms of religious beliefs in any case). No one will ever accuse me of having my finger on the pulse of American life, though, so I could be completely wrong.
That’s unadulterated codswallop, Professor; I think you should stick to writing about physics.
Damien said: “… I …[Damien]… don’t see what your final quote of Dawkins has to do with the rest of your post, Tony. …”.
My “final quote of Dawkins”, to the effect that “… the physicists of our species will complete Einstein’s dream and discover the final theory of everything before superior creatures, evolved on another world, make contact and tell us the answer …”,
shows that
Dawkins believes that Einstein’s “cosmic religious feeling” will lead somebody (a la Newton and Kepler) to “discover the final theory of everything”,
therefore that Einstein’s religion not only has a purpose (i.e., our universe is not “pointless”) but will fulfill that purpose (i.e., religion is not merely compatible with science, but is a moving force for advancement of science).
Dawkins’s mention of “superior creatures, evolved on another world”, shows that
Dawkins believes that human advancement is not the only possible way for science to advance, implying that even if humans fail to participate in the advancement of science, science in our universe may advance anyway.
That view may be contrary to some human-centric religions, but is consistent with Einstein-Spinoza-Pantheism.
As to whether “… Einstein was really … pantheist … if you’re grouping him in with Taoism …”,
I am relying on Einstein’s statement identifying his views with those of Spinoza,
and
the statement in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “… The book recognized as containing the most complete attempt at explaining and defending pantheism from a philosophical perspective is Spinoza’s Ethics, finished in 1675 two years before his death. … certain religions are better understood as pantheistic rather than theistic … Philosophical Taoism is the most pantheistic, but Advaita Vedanta, certain forms of Buddhism and some mystical strands in monotheistic traditions are also pantheistic. …”.
With respect to “some mystical strands in monotheistic traditions”, and how pantheism might be related to some forms of Christianity (including some versions of Christianity that were rejected by the Roman Church), the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
“… Pantheism should be of interest to those in the philosophy of religion who seek a way out of the constrictions (often institutional ones) put upon them by working within the confines of classical theism; especially as the issues relating to classical theism have been taken up by the contemporary christian conservative analytic philosophers of religion. …
contemporary analytic philosophy of religion remains dominated not merely by theism but by peculiarly fundamentalist Christian approaches to theism …
Pantheism’s lack of “success” in worldly terms on the religion market may have to do with the fact that it is antithetical to any power structure; the kind, for example, found in the Catholic church. …”.
Tony Smith
Damien wrote on Feb 15th, 2007 at 5:42 pm:
“Well, what’s your basis for asserting that most atheists don’t understand reasons for not believing? My impression from various religious debates is that they do, but I admit that’s filtered through my memory and selected by those who participate in online debates. But do you have better evidence? And if they didn’t break from their religion through reason, how do you think they got there?”
Reasons why I became an Atheist:
I was raised a Polish Catholic. I did not have either a “strong nor deep” faith. I had a public school education graduating in 1968. After joining the Air Force, my need for religious services or faith declined after basic military training.
Summer of 1970, I read “The Last Great Planet Earth” apocalyptic book by Evangelist Hal Lindsey. After reading the novel, I initially considered becoming a Christian soldier if what he had written was going to happen “soon.”
Reflecting on my Catholic upbringing, his book did not agree with my bible study classes nor church doctrine. Furthermore, contemplating that all of the ancient peoples (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, indigenous peoples, including the ancient Hebrew tribes) worshipped different gods/goddessess,spirit beings/demigods, etc., and not any monotheistic god. My own thinking suggested that if all of these ancient gods/goddesses… actually existed, they would still exist now. Just because those civilizations’ ancient religious mythologies were replaced by evolved monotheistic religions from Judaism to Catholicism/Christianity to Islam, their gods.. would still be.
I rationally concluded, within a couple of days, that the monotheistic god(s) and the Christian trinity were modern mythologies and no more “real” than the all of the ancient polytheistic/pagan gods/goddesses/spirit beings that our species created and imagined to exist in “our” own image.
Since 1970, I have not discovered any evidence, scientific method or otherwise, that contradicts my conclusions then.
Additionally, the original “Planet of the Apes” movie excellently supports the “in our own image god” as the intelligently “evolved” primates worshipped their divine lawgiver–a divine ape.
Sean wrote:
It would probably get placed on the shelf next to books from other scientists explaining how, when they really thought about things scientifically, they came to realize god existed. And it would have comparable influence.
God vs. Science gets the ink, and it’s what the fundamentalists on both sides want, Jerry Falwell to the right and his counterpart Richard Dawkins on the left. (Sam Harris is harder to peg—not sure where to place him given his penchant for mysticism—I reckon he’s on a different astral plane.) The mostly silent majority is, in this instance, a huge majority. Including most scientists, believers or not, who care only about the quality of one another’s science and the collegiality associated with scientific collaboration. They are not concerned with the number of unique daily wep-page hits, their amazon rankings, their blog awards, or booking their next talk show appearance.