John F. Haught on the New 'Soft-Core Atheists' (interview by Becky Garrison)
Following the publication of The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail I received hordes of books critiquing Dawkins & Co. While most of the responses tended to veer off into Kirk Cameron country, I found a few gems such as John F. Haught's God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Following is an interview with Dr. Haught, senior fellow of Science & Religion at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center.
Why do you call Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris softcore atheists?
Because they fail to probe deeply into the logical, ethical, and cultural implications of a consistent atheism. They think of belief in God more as a nuisance to be removed than as a stimulus to radical personal, cultural, and ethical upheaval. I contrast them with "hardcore" atheists—writers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus. The latter all realized that atheism is not easy to pull off without seismic implications. As Sartre said, the road to atheism is "a cruel and long-range affair." The true atheist must be willing to risk madness (Nietzsche) and embrace the absurd (Camus). In my view, the hardcore atheists were not consistently atheistic either, but at least they attempted to think out what atheism would really mean if it were true.
How do you respond to the new atheists' claims that all faith is irrational?
They define faith very narrowly as "belief without evidence." To be rational, they claim, we must empty our minds of any ideas for which scientifically accessible "evidence" is in principle unavailable. Since religions can claim no such evidence, they must be irrational. However, the claim that science is the most authoritative way to truth is itself a belief without evidence. If all faith is irrational, then so is the new atheism, by definition.
How is intolerance of tolerance a truly novel feature to the new atheists' solution to the problems of human misery?
According to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, as soon as people embrace even the most innocent beliefs they are opening up a space in their minds for the eventual invasion of the most monstrous forms of religious lunacy (such as the ideas behind suicide bombings). So, to eliminate much human misery, let's get rid of faith altogether! Such intolerance of faith is by no means new. What is new is the new atheists' intolerance of the modern liberal principle that the faith of others should be respected. By respecting faith, they claim, we are all accomplices in evil. The irony here is that the new atheists seem to forget that the freedom to advance their own uncritical belief in scientism and scientific naturalism is also due to the modern liberal tolerance of "faith."
Why do you diagnose the new atheists as suffering from a bad case of explanatory monism?
Explanatory monism is the reductionist postulate that there is only one valid explanatory slot available to make sense of things. For example, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins assume that since we can now understand morality and religion in terms of evolutionary biology, theological explanation is superfluous. I argue instead that both theology and evolutionary science can contribute to our understanding.
Elaborate what you mean by this statement: "deepening of theology that has occurred in previous conceptions between serious atheists and Christians has little chance of happening in the works of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris?"
In God and the New Atheism I show that that the new atheists are as literalist in their understanding of scriptures and theology as are the anti-Darwinian religious fundamentalists they oppose. The level of challenge they pose to contemporary theology is glaringly low in comparison with serious atheists such as Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche who at least knew enough about religious thought to engage theologians of the stature of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, or Karl Rahner.
What are some ways we can create spaces for this serious dialogue to begin?
The new atheist phenomenon emerges from and appeals to a culture shaped in great measure by a noxious blend of poor science education with and equally undeveloped religious and theological education. There is greater need than ever today to improve both. Current interest in the science and religion dialogue is a hopeful development, but it needs to take place at every level of education, not least in seminaries and schools of theology.
Publishers Weekly cited Becky Garrison as one of "four evangelicals with fresh views" alongside Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and Ron Sider.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I don't necessarily disagree with anything Prof. Haught says. But I would like to see him discuss how a particular kind of triumphalist and nationalistic Christianity, along with radical Islam, have helped create an audience for the New Atheists.
Hitchens and Harris in particular are appalled by "Kirk Cameron country," as are millions of other Americans, both Christian and otherwise.
Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 6:32 PM
Follow-up: wonder who writes the titles for Sojo posts? "athiests"????
Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 6:40 PM
One statement Haught made seemed puzzling to me. He said serious atheists like Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche knew enough about theology to engage Barth, Tillich and Rahner. These three serious atheists died well before Barth, Tillich, and Rahner came along, so if engagement took place, it was the theologians to the three atheists, not vice versa.
What's so appalling about Kirk Cameron. He's stood up for the Christian faith and has engaged in respectful debates with a variety of atheists. Certainly, he's not a metaphysical heavy weight, but he has engaged the issues without scandal. What's appalling about that? Is the appalling part his being an evangelical Christian?
Posted by: reddopto | April 15, 2008 8:41 PM
0 x 0 = atheism. It is an irrational and illogical emotionally derived faith-based belief system. It is far past time to put these people in their place. By the way, I believe most atheists start out angry for whatever reason.
Posted by: Donnee | April 15, 2008 9:18 PM
Jesus didn't censor his opposition Jim.
Posted by: Quieted one | April 15, 2008 9:22 PM
I believe the New Atheist books are best sellers right now because of the radical Christian Right in this country and because of the radical Islam in the Middle East that led to the 9-11 attacks. That's why Christianity and Islam are trashed the most in these hateful atheist books. But the radical atheism is nothing but a secular mirror reflection of radical Christianity and Islam. Secular fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism consist of absolutist, us-vs-them, intolerant, black-and-white thinking. Chris Hedges writes about secular and religious fundamentalism in his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists." He's debated both Harris and Hedges and held his own. Becky should interview him next. If you visit goleft.tv, there's an interesting debate between Air American host Thom Hartmann (a liberal Christian) and Sam Harris.
Posted by: Allison | April 15, 2008 10:21 PM
We probably are moving toward a more secular period in American history. Christianity has, unfortunately and unfairly, become linked in many people's minds with imperialism, exploitation, torture, bigotry, hatred, and war. Naturally, all of these things are 180 degrees from what Christianity is all about, but you can't blame nonbelievers for not understanding the Gospel. Nonbelievers are not expected to understand it; believers are expected to live it so nonbelievers are drawn to it by example. The real fault lies with Christians, who, because of false teaching, ignorance, egotism, fear or whatever, have wittingly or unwittingly linked the ugly business of empire to Christianity. A rough analogy is late Victorian England, when Christianity then, too, was cynically used to prop up an increasingly expensive and decreasingly popular empire. English people of conscience proceeded to abandon Christianity in about two generations. The difference is the U.S. doesn't have a state church, so its churches are closer to the people. Whereas the English never did go back to the church in large numbers, Americans probably won't stray too far from their churches since they follow them whereever they go. Still, expect at least a temporary uptick in secularism.
Posted by: George | April 15, 2008 11:55 PM
Couple things:
First "no true atheist fallacy". In this case soft core atheism. Why aren't atheist nihlists? Because they don't need to be handed down meaning... I don't get it. I mean, I know I going to die, that the universe will eventully die itself and that in the end nothing of our works will remain. But why should I care about the universe? The living may care about the dead, but for things that have never lived and died such thoughts are useless.
Actually science is a process that has been repeated ly vetted. For example this computer you are using is the cumulative result of 2000 years of science and engineering principles. It only works because we are able to understand and manipulate reality on the molecular level. Faith has never such predictive power or understanding of the real world.
Well, intolerance of evil is a good thing. And the seed of evil that grows into a rotten fruit... I'm being too poetic aren't I? If people believe that believing in something is justification enough to believe in it (faith), they can and do believe just about anything. Which is bad if they decide that say... the bible is the word of god- the literal word. And that if people aren't part of the true faith they will burn in hell and they must be rescued from that fate... no matter what.
Umm... the theological explanation is "god did it". When asked about God the answer is "God works in mysterious ways. Or in short no answer.
The only way to understand someone is to take them literally. If you take the figuratively there are an infinite number of meanings possible. Also known as jibberish.
Increasing science and theological education has helped spread atheism. In fact, the US, with poor amounts of both is the most religious of the Industrialized world. Religion and ignorance go hand in hand... but you don't have to believe that. I'd love to see theists expanding science and theological education- the results would be interesting. Either more atheists or more double think.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner | April 16, 2008 12:05 AM
[The only way to understand someone is to take them literally. If you take the figuratively there are an infinite number of meanings possible. Also known as jibberish.]
Also known as poetry, metaphor, parable ...
[The new atheist phenomenon emerges from and appeals to a culture shaped in great measure by a noxious blend of poor science education with and equally undeveloped religious and theological education. There is greater need than ever today to improve both. Current interest in the science and religion dialogue is a hopeful development, but it needs to take place at every level of education, not least in seminaries and schools of theology.]
How very true.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | April 16, 2008 8:21 AM
Becky, this is fascinating. Your interview makes me want to go to my nearest library or bookstore and check this book out NOW! Thank you.
Posted by: I and I | April 16, 2008 10:23 AM
Quick follow-up: I hope the book discusses the role of art in this conversation. Often, we are far too concerned with the subset of truth that is factual, and forget that art is also a very necessary source of truth.
At least for folks like me, who are more likely to experience spiritual movement from reading the Psalms or a Rilke poem or listening to a symphony than by reciting the Apostle's Creed.
Posted by: I and I | April 16, 2008 10:31 AM
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4497
here is a link to a wonderful article haught wrote in the christian century magazine about a month ago. it allows him to sink his teeth much deeper into this argument than the interview does (& i'm sure the book goes even further). i appreciate haught's openness to scientific study of religion as well as his scathing repudiation of new atheism. i think a large swath of religious people (& nonreligious as well) feel like this debate between new atheists and fundamentalists is talking right past where we all are and that both sides seem to miss the fullness of modern human existence.
Skinner, while i empathize with your loathing of magically physical divine intervention as the explanation for world events, i find it odd that you take metaphor and ways of telling stories other than as straight forward factual accounts as "jibberish." do you apply this to all modes of communication, including art, music, poetry, literature, and film, or just to the religious variety of these?
The conception of god many new atheists reject is also one that many religious people reject as well, but that expands the discussion beyond where it can caricatured. There is a much more substantive conversation that can occur when thoughtful religious and nonreligious people are allowed to speak. maybe we are muzzled because our fundamentalist brethren on our own side of the "God divide" won't claim us or because the fundamentalists on the other side know that it is a discussion that gets them off their talking points and out of the fever-pitch they so self-righteously enjoy being in as a "defender." or maybe we just don't very often enter the fray because the fray is often created by people who really don't intend dialog at all. this has been my experience far more times than not.
Posted by: nad2 | April 16, 2008 11:07 AM
i & i, marcus borg is your man for the most wonderful discussions of truth beyond factuality i have read. it is a central concept in almost every book he writes, "the heart of christianity" and "reading the bible again for the first time" i can recall vividly.
Posted by: nad2 | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. If someone is speaking literally and you take them figuratively, you will get a meaning completely differant from what was inteneded. You can also get the same results with "creative interpretation".
Actually, nad2, atheists reject all concepts of God. Sort of required to be an atheist. Although the moderates God may be nicer, there is even less reason to believe he exists than the fundies God. At least the fundies have the bible.
God- sentient supernatural power that created the universe
That a good definition? Doesn't cover the pagan ones- but we deal with them under supernatural power.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner | April 16, 2008 12:24 PM
Haught makes very good points, and pretty much the exact same observations I have made while visiting Creationist and Atheist websites and blogs. The extremists on both sides are mirror images of each other both in rhetoric, and in their ignorance of each other. On the Christian side are people who ridicule science without taking the time to learn about science. On the atheist side are those who ridicule the Bible without having ever read it. And they both act like they are experts in their chosen fields of ignorance.
Best to bring the conversation into the center where most of us actually are, and ignore those on the fringes.
Posted by: squeaky | April 16, 2008 12:53 PM
George: "We probably are moving toward a more secular period in American history."
George, very astute post. I think you're probably right that secularism is on the rise. These things tend to work in a kind of cyclical or pendulum (dare I say "dialectical" in these post-Communist times?) manner.
As Christians, we need not despair about some limited growth in secularism. It could help winnow out a lot of the cheap, shallow stuff that has passed for Jesus's message over the past generation or so. Despite what radio talk show hosts like to say, it's been very easy to call oneself a "born-again" Christian since the mid- to late 1970s. Maybe a bit of a purifying process is in order.
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 1:03 PM
"The only way to understand someone is to take them literally. If you take the figuratively there are an infinite number of meanings possible. Also known as jibberish."
Skinner, was this not what you were literally saying? if so, then please answer my question above. if not, what then was the point?
as an atheist, do you just not believe in the god of your definition, or do you at your core affirmatively believe there is no transcendence, that there is no "more" as william james would say?
is your definition of god a good one? i would say it is the predominate one throughout human existence but far from the only one or even close to an all-encompassing one. i think enlightenment thought may well be discrediting much of the god of theism you don't believe in and many people do believe in, but i certainly do not think it can kill the concept of the transcendence in whom "we live and move and have our being," and that is our "the breath of life." nor do i think you can remove transcendent truth and maintain moral judgment, which i think is one of haught's points (as well as the atheists of old).
has science led you to believe with absolute certitude that the space-time continuum of matter observable by humans is all there is to existence? if so, that is your opinion to which you are entitled, but it too is based on belief in something unprovable, just like the existence of god. and i know of countless non-creationist egg-heads who would disagree with you or at least be struck with humility at the wonder of it all and say they do not know. and i say all of this humbly while living with an enlighted world view while acknowledging clearly that it has its limitations, and while still holding onto the bible, though clearly in a different way than a fundamentalist would.
but all of this is really beside the point, i think, of religion. it is not so much about what can happen in the universe or even how it happens as it is about what we should be doing while we are a part of it. i believe in the transcendent, in universal truths of individual freedom, humane and dignified existence for all, cultivation of empathy and intelligence in everyone, and that the glorious mystery of love, when unleashed, can overcome anything. and i have no proof of these other than the piercing conviction in my eternal soul and the collective and universal witness of all the faith traditions and great people of history who have tried to moved us toward these. i celebrate this within the christian faith tradition that, at its best, encourages rather than discourages these, and i live in awe of the story of jesus, which i believe is the story of a life fully in tune with the transcendent. and i seek out the transcendent in the depths and heights of this magical existence i am a part of, both in relationships with people and in trying to cultivate virtues within myself and those around me. i recognize that religions, as human creations, are extremely flawed and not always agents of good, just like i recognize the same in science with its atom bombs. and i whole-heartedly affirm metaphor and non-literal ways of communicating, especially when speaking of the "more" and of universal truths for which our fact-based language is wholly inadequate.
Posted by: nad2 | April 16, 2008 2:27 PM
"enlightened world view," not "enlighted," excuse me. and i will stand by what i said earlier, we need science and faith, or if you don't like those terms, reason and meaning, explanation and purpose, for the fullest human experience for us and our children!
Posted by: nad2 | April 16, 2008 2:38 PM
"enlightened world view," not "enlighted," excuse me. and i will stand by what i said earlier, we need science and faith, or if you don't like those terms, reason and meaning, explanation and purpose, for the fullest human experience for us and our children! and also we need a sense of perspective, humility, and fearlessness about what we can and can't know and what we do and don't know.
Posted by: nad2 | April 16, 2008 2:45 PM
but he (Kirk Cameron) has engaged the issues without scandal. What's appalling about that?
He pushes creationism, which is appalling in its scientific ignorance and scandalous that he helps perpetuate it among children.
Posted by: aaron | April 16, 2008 3:05 PM
You sound as if you've washed Kirk's feet with your hair and tears.
Posted by: aaron | April 16, 2008 3:45 PM
carl copas wrote:
"George, very astute post. I think you're probably right that secularism is on the rise. These things tend to work in a kind of cyclical or pendulum (dare I say "dialectical" in these post-Communist times?) manner."
Both men are correct, yet this should not be alarming or even unexpected for the scripture reads,
2 Timothy 3:1-5
1 You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3 They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4 They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5 They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!
Much of what we see happening in various societies today was predicted a few thousand years ago. The proliferation of the atheist movement (whether considered hard-core or soft whatever that means) is merely one area where this holds true.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 16, 2008 4:08 PM
Mingo,
Have you spent much time studying evolution?
There are some extremely important reasons why we need to understand how evolution works, particularly with regards to the importance of biodiversity not only to our food supply but to the survival of the species that we are supposed to be stewarding, as well as questions of bacteria building up drug resistance. We cannot understand these issues without an understanding of evolution.
Cameron's mocking of evolution, even though it is abundantly clear he doesn't understand it, only serves to keep people from learning about it. As a scientist, that is what I find extremely disturbing. We can't be good stewards of God's creation without understanding how it works.
As a Christian and a scientist, I find your characterization of evolution very disturbing as well. Evolution was a stroke of genius by a creator who enabled His creation to function within an environment that is constantly changing. Without the genetic diversity among species, any change in the environment would likely cause extinction of many species. God knew he had created a dynamic system, and so He designed its inhabitants with an ability to adjust to those changes, and that ability is (tada) evolution.
Posted by: squeaky | April 16, 2008 4:59 PM
Mingo,
someone wrote that with my name, which has happened several times of late. (Somebody kept posting stuff over Don's name for a day or so last week.) But it is kinda funny. I hadn't thought about the old "Daniel Boone Show" in years.
The real Carl Copas
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 8:43 PM
uhhh Mick, what are you talking about?
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 8:49 PM
To Mingo
Actually, the Nazis valued human life- they just classified some people as not human.
1) Humans are a branch of the Family Anamilia. This is nothing new. Scientists have n=known this since... er they formed the classification system. This is no way related to devaluation of human life.
2) That would be naturalism and materialism, not Darwinian evolution. However, the existance of souls is a reason to devalue life- after all, if people have eternal life, it doesn't matter if we kill them.
3) Lack of transendant morality does not imply lack of objective morality. Go to Daylight Atheism for an example.
4) Evolution requires variation. Unfortunately for your idea, human inequality is completely unrelated to variation. Not to mention there is no reason to want to encourage the human population to evolve. What you got was a noxtious mixture of Progressism and Leftist Utopianism hoping to improve humanity and ignore the facts.
5) Actually Darwin was mostly on the money. I mean, we did kill most of the Native Americans, the Ainu have been decimated, the Aborigines are just recovering... As for being in a continuous struggle for survival- well, that is what society is designed to stop.
6) Death isn't the enemy in CHristianity. Death is the gate to the Afterlife. In evolution death is the system that removes the unfit- or for screwed up species removes the old to make room for the next generation.
Actually most of the people Hitler killed were Jews (out ot get Germany..., well in his mind) and political enemies (out to get him). The Gypsies, Poles and other groups were liquidated for the "greater glory of Germany"- the gypsies because they were viewed as theives and the like and hence inferior and the slavs because they were in the Lebensraum.
Just because ethics was formed by evolution doesn't make it less valid. It shows the ethics we embrace exist because they work.
Christians have commited rampant infanticide- abortion wasn't cracked down on until the 19th century. Human beings who were serfs didn't have value. Slaves were below notice. All this human rights stuff didn't take of until about the 19th century.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner | April 16, 2008 10:33 PM
This weekend Ben Stein enters the fray with Expelled.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 17, 2008 12:44 AM
Can Ben Stein tell us who stole Froggy Doo? Cause I gotta say, these "junior detectives" do not inspire confidence at all.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 12:53 AM
"Can Ben Stein tell us who stole Froggy Doo? Cause I gotta say, these "junior detectives" do not inspire confidence at all."
Moderator, why is he allowed to post this tripe?
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 17, 2008 4:37 PM
Mr. Haught opined: "Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus ... all realized that atheism is not easy to pull off without seismic implications ... The true atheist must be willing to risk madness (Nietzsche) and embrace the absurd (Camus) ... at least they attempted to think out what atheism would really mean if it were true."
I have absolutely no idea what Mr. Haught is talking about. What exactly are these supposedly horrible implications of atheism? We are sentient beings, living in the world of our shared experience, doing what we will in order to realize value, whether there is a god or not.
Mr. Haught wrote: "They define faith very narrowly as 'belief without evidence.'"
The word "faith" has various meanings. It may simply mean "confidence", for example having "faith" in one's own ability to accomplish something that one has not yet attempted. In Buddhism, which is fundamentally a non-theistic religion, "faith" means "confidence" that practicing the teachings of the Buddha will lead to the transformation of suffering into well-being -- with the understanding that only by actually practicing the teachings and observing the results can you obtain the "evidence" to determine for yourself whether this is true or not.
The definition of "faith" as "belief without evidence" is the appropriate definition for the sort of theistic religious beliefs that atheists do not share. I don't see why Mr. Haught finds it objectionable.
Mr. Haught says: "To be rational, they claim, we must empty our minds of any ideas for which scientifically accessible 'evidence' is in principle unavailable. Since religions can claim no such evidence, they must be irrational. However, the claim that science is the most authoritative way to truth is itself a belief without evidence."
Mr. Haught appears to confuse "rational" with "scientific".
"Rational" is a somewhat vague term that refers to a variety of thought processes ("reasoning") that can be applied to information or knowledge to reach conclusions or form conjectures that go beyond the existing information or knowledge itself. And "reasoning" is not at all uncommon in religious thought; given some set of religious premises, it is certainly possible to "reason" about them and reach conclusions.
The strength of science is not "reasoning" per se, but the scientific commitment to empirical observation as the ultimate arbiter of "truth".
Scientific epistemology benefits from having a very well-defined, practical definition of "truth": a statement about experience is considered to be "true" to the extent that it can correctly predict the results of empirical observation. Thus Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, sets forth a mathematical model of the "physical world" that predicts the outcome of specific observations that can be made, and to the extent that its predictions are in accord with the results of actual empirical observations, the theory is considered to be "true".
Religious claims which cannot in principle be tested by empirical observation may or may not be "rational" -- but they are not scientific, because the definition of a "scientific" claim is one that makes predictions that can be tested by empirical observation.
May I suggest that a more helpful response to "the new atheism" from a thoughtful and erudite writer like Mr. Haught would be to elucidate the religious definition of "truth" and explain how religious claims can be evaluated to determine whether or not they are "true" according to the religious definition of "truth", whatever that may be -- and then compare and contrast religious epistemology with scientific epistemology.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | April 17, 2008 6:25 PM
Here we go again: Science vs. Religion:
As one of the few (I’m sure) scientific naturalists (the view that science is the arbiter of all that is true, if not also that which is good and beautiful) on this site, I feel that, yet again, I have to make the case against scientism: the view, less than eloquently effused yet again by the Pantheon of Atheists—Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al.—that science is the measure of ALL things.
The view that science is the measure of all things is a metaphysical assumption, which as a view has nothing to do with science but with certain dispositions regarding what certain scientists hold to be desirable. That is, and think about it, what the scientists, or at least some of them say, is that religion is about goblins and ghosts whilst they speak about real things and their offspring. And, is there a difference…………………?
Science is the measure of nothing except itself.
Posted by: brent | April 17, 2008 9:18 PM
As a newly "out of the closet" atheist, i.e. one who in the past spoke respectfully of religious belief and kept quiet about his own, I think most of these posters are completely missing the point made by Dawkins and the new "soft core" atheists.
Christians have been attacking atheists at every opportunity since Christ died on the cross. No atheist can get elected in America. Hypocrisy rules. If we feel anger, it's because Christians claim to have a lock on morality. They claim that Easter is a Christian celebration. They claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. And they demonize those who dare to think about evidence, cause and effect, and the magnificence of this universe. There are two kinds of truths. Scientific truths based on observation, evidence, logic and reason
i.e. truths which we can test with experiments and predictions, and revealed truths, based on how somebody feels about things. Christian faith is based on revealed truth. Mine is based on evidence. You are only Christians because you happened to be born into a Christian society, an accident of birth. It's not because you came to logical conclusions.
Posted by: David Scott | April 18, 2008 8:19 AM
Thanks for this. I've attempted to review Haught's book side by side with one other critic of the new atheists and one recent book by a "heavyweight" atheist at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/lightweight-atheists-pummeling-corpse.html
Posted by: James McGrath | April 18, 2008 10:26 AM
David Scott wrote: "There are two kinds of truths. Scientific truths based on observation, evidence, logic and reason i.e. truths which we can test with experiments and predictions, and revealed truths, based on how somebody feels about things."
"Logic" and "reason" are (outside of formal logic in the mathematical sense) imprecise terms describing various ways of thinking that can be applied to any subject matter, whether scientific, religious or otherwise. They are used as tools in science, but they do not define science as a way of knowledge. Science as a way of knowledge is defined by its epistemological commitment to empirical observation as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
A scientific claim is defined as a statement about, or model of, experience that makes predictions about the outcome of empirical observation. To the extent that the predictions correspond with the results of actual empirical observation, the claim is considered to be "true".
By extension, it is characteristic of scientific claims that they be objective, meaning that the results of their predictions are in principle accessible to any observer. The predictions should also be replicable, meaning that they are defined precisely enough that anyone can correctly repeat the specific observations required. And ideally the predictions should be quantifiable, so that observers can measure the outcome of observations as precisely as possible to determine whether they correspond to predictions.
Thus, within the domain of shared experience where it is possible to make objective, replicable, quantifiable observations of the outcome of experiments, science has a well-defined, practical, and powerful definition of "truth".
With regard to "revealed truth", that is an attitude towards knowledge that can be taken towards science or religion.
For many people, scientific truth IS "revealed knowledge" -- it is "revealed" in textbooks, and taken as truth by people who have little understanding of the scientific methods that produced it, let alone a first-hand experience of the experiments that demonstrated it, let alone an appreciation of the tentative and contingent nature of all scientific "truth" (which is always subject to being superseded by future observations).
As for the subject matter of religion being "how somebody feels about things", it is true that the primary domain of religion is the domain of subjective experience, rather than the domain of objective experience that is the subject matter of science. By definition subjective experience is that which is only directly accessible to one observer: the person who experiences it. Therefore it is difficult to address the subjective domain with the objective epistemology of science.
But this does not in any way prove that religious experiences, or any other subjective experiences, are "unreal" -- any more than it proves that headaches or toothaches or the sensation of being tickled or the taste of chocolate are "unreal". Rather, it demonstrates the difficulties and limitations of the scientific way of knowledge applied to the subjective domain.
However, these difficulties are not insurmountable, and it is possible to directly observe and study subjective states with the empirical methods of science. But since in this case, the observer is himself the "experiment" being observed, a great deal of mental discipline is required. And of course, cultivating that sort of mental discipline has long been a central feature of spiritual traditions such as Buddhism that emphasize meditation and mindfulness as key components of the spiritual path.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | April 18, 2008 12:10 PM
James McGrath: "I've attempted to review Haught's book side by side with one other critic of the new atheists and one recent book by a "heavyweight" atheist at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/lightweight-atheists-pummeling-corpse.html."
James, your blog on Haught et al. was interesting. I've read nearly of the "new atheist" books, but was not aware of the one by Andre Comte-Sponville. I'll have to look at it.
BTW, I note on your c.v. that you were just awarded tenure and promotion. From one academic to another, congratulations.
Posted by: carl copas | April 18, 2008 1:01 PM
Mick/Mingo--I am assuming you are the same person, as Mick said he was having trouble getting things to post, and your writing styles are the same (esp punctuation). Am I right? If not, sorry for the assumption, Mingo, and welcome to the site, if you are in fact new.
I have to ask--where did I say or imply this:
"We need to have your understanding of science to be acceptable to the Grace Of jesus Christ ? "
Also, please reread my post and tell me specifically what it was that I actually said that you found objectionable?
Social Darwinism is a non-scientific extension of Darwinism, has nothing to do with science, and is rejected by scientists. Because some people applied their understanding of science in a hateful and ignorant way does not mean the science is wrong. Again, I encourage you to take some time to learn the science, not just the rhetoric you have heard from creationist groups. Like it or not, everyone's lives benefit greatly from our understanding of evolution (example--our ability to manufacture heartier crops, our ability to anticipate which flu virus will dominate in a given year which enables us to create a vaccine, to name just a few examples), and it is worth understanding how and why.
As far as the Nazis are concerned--they didn't need Darwinism to promote their hate. If Darwinism hadn't existed, there would still have been a Holocaust because the underlying prejudice and hatred and need for a scapegoat still would have existed.
Posted by: squeaky | April 18, 2008 2:01 PM
Yay, this ridiculous debate again. Science and spirituality can go hand in hand they need not be enemies. They can serve as two sides of the same coin and as a mystic I support both. There is too much evidence for evolution for me to discount it completely but science cannot explain the origin of everything. It was not designed to. As a mystic I see love creating the energy that created the universe. That love has a name and that's Jesus/Yahweh/The Holy Spirit.
I understand atheists that feel like they are pushed aside and marginalized. They are but then they push back just as hard. I don't blame them but fundies and atheists will never mix. That's why I prefer a different approach and the approach King was able to do.
What made MLK Jr. so amazing was the fact that he got atheists to go along with him to accomplish great things. We all need to learn skills like that.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 18, 2008 3:42 PM
"It's not because you came to logical conclusions."
David,
You don't know me. So please don't assume that my faith practice has anything to do with the country I was born into. If I took that logic I would be a self hating black man with a really poor understanding of American history. I came to my faith because I saw divine love. Love taught me to love my enemies. That's something that can't be scientifically duplicated.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 18, 2008 3:47 PM
Although it may seem irrational, an alternative to resolving a question with one of a number of possible answers, is to accept that not enough information is available. Then the right answer is to embrace no answer, and be comfortable with that.
Especially when one answer is waved strongly in your face. It may be the answer, but maybe not. More words on top of prior words, can't make any new answer more correct, when the words are no longer a trusted medium.
At the very least, I can find comfort in knowing that some level of additional thought might have been created. And that's really what everything is all about. As long as people are thinking, good things happen.
So I leave it at that. I embrace no resolution, but am comfortable with not having a resolution.
But I suppose I have resolved the need for my pursuit. So that's good. I suppose it's because evaluating the range of possibilties that exist in my thoughts right now, all of them likely have good endings.
So I'm done. I have no enemies.
Posted by: snowmman | April 18, 2008 8:45 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?