Domain, Nothing
Okay good Bunglawala thinks Muslims should avoid going the “intelligent design” route lest they end up throwing off “their burqas as soon as they set foot on a plane to go overseas” and wrongly blaming Islam rather than the ill-informed interpretation of the Qur’an by some Muslims. Whatever. Of course interpretation of the Qur’an whether informed or ill-informed is beside the point, since the Qur’an isn’t a book about biology or even evolution – but whatever. But I do take issue with this (all too predictable, all too familiar) bit:
Dawkins’ work was forcefully argued and took no prisoners from the creationist camp; however, I did find his militant atheism quite off-putting…Gould on the other hand…gently chided those scientists who made similarly unsupported atheistic claims about what evolution had to say regarding questions of meaning and purpose – questions that have traditionally been the domain of religion.
Yeah, he did, and boy do I wish he hadn’t. Because he was wrong.
It’s not true that questions of meaning and purpose have traditionally been the domain of religion; religion has had much bigger fish to fry for most of its history. But more to the point, questions of meaning and purpose are not and have never been “the domain of religion” in the sense of being a monopoly of religion’s, which is what that claim looks like. Religion does not (whatever it might like to think) get to put up “Keep Out” signs on questions of meaning and purpose. Anybody can address those questions, anybody at all, and that emphatically includes atheists. In fact, of course, atheists are better people to turn to for such discussions, since their versions of purpose and meaning don’t rely on belief in a fictitious being who watches the sparrow and makes babies and animals suffer torments of pain because it’s good for them. I am getting very tired of these grandiose claims by religionists to expertise on questions of meaning and purpose when in fact what they have to say is not merely useless, it’s often monstrous.
But wasn’t it magnanimous of Gould to gently chide those hot-headed atheists? Bless him!
And how is an atheistic claim unsupported; surely it’s the default position to take – the null hypothesis?
Well, of course he would like Gould. Gould tells him he can have both cakes and eat them because they don’t overlap. He can be magnanimous about evolution as long he can see it in a light that doesn’t threaten the Qur’an. Isn’t that how science works, too? Anything goes, as long as nothing in “The Origin of Species” is called into question…
What Bunglawala doesn’t do is address his completely different standards for evaluating scientific and religious claims. But then, he doesn’t evaluate religious claims, he just accepts them. How many religious people would there be left if they raised the bar as high for the claims of religion as they do for those of science? The presence of doubt, when it’s science that’s under discussion, always has to mean it ain’t so. Whereas, with religion, it’s a positive challenge to strengthen one’s faith. But many of them seem quite genuine in not seeing that there could be anything incongruous about that.
“He was clearly afraid of the reaction that his true views on evolution would cause.”
And judging by the reactions we are all very familiar with by now when islam is scrutinised, criticised or provoked in any way at all, one can hardly be surprised. Such reactions are often fatal.
IB himself quickly realises that he had better start talking himself out of trouble after mentioning this. Clearly, he fears a reaction as well. The stinking monstrous rottenness of the situation where a scientist is so frightened that he has to deny the fact of evolution turns into a harmless sounding “dogmatic aloofness” which is then watered down further by concocting some ludicrous analogy whereby it is not islam that is to blame, but a misinterpretation by someone (who?) of the Hallucinating Camel Drivers Guide to the Universe.
I loved the bit about the burkas. Presumably, once the scientist speaks the truth, there will be no “Gallileo moment” for which islam can be blamed and from then on women will see their error and stay properly dressed on aeroplanes.
Eddy Izzard would be hard pressed to come up with stuff as good as this.
“Anything goes, as long as nothing in “The Origin of Species” is called into question…”
People can question what they like if they have the evidence to support their inquiry (or a theory that evidence could be gathered to evaluate). This is how evolutionary theory has -er- evolved since Darwin. It’s the scientific method. That is very different from the unquestionable authority of the foundational texts of religions.
dirigible,
I hope you didn’t miss my extreme sarcasm in that comment. There may of course be some scientists who get overly fond of pet theories, but by and large all new knowledge is welcomed with excitement and for its own sake, no matter what existing orthodoxies it may threaten. You’re unlikely to hear a Vatican spokesman announcing that transubstantiation has been thoroughly investigated and found not to take place and then top it off with “We’re really excited about this new information. It’s going to revolutionise the Church.”