Guest post: The Science v Religion finals
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Another insipid essay.
I imagine that every religion does this, but I do find it amusing how Christians catapult themselves into the finals of “Science vs. Religion,” conveniently bypassing all the playoffs that would have to take place against all the other religions in order to actually earn that spot. Hell, there are hundreds of versions of Christianity alone that would have to go up against each other, too.
Before “Religion” gets to go head to head with Science in the Explaining Reality Championship, it has to figure out a few things. There are so many things that religions have never agreed upon with each other, even before facing Science.
One would think that the existence of a class of supernatural beings, attested to by most if no all cultures throughout history, would be an observable fact about the universe. The evidence would suggest otherwise. Still, we must not let “religion” off the hook. If its answers to the “Big Questions” are all different, then it doesn’t bode well for their chances in the finals. But even before we let them anywhere near big questions, they should answer a whole bunch of small ones about the basic ground rules of their particular brand of game-play. (Not that they haven’t been killing each other for centuries over obscure articles of faith; but still.) Here are a few bits of theological housekeeping they should clear up before wading into the questions of meaning and purpose upon which they are so keen to expound.
Is there one god, or are their multiple gods?
Are gods begotten, created, or eternal?
Do gods have a sex? How could one tell?
Do gods ever mate with each other?
Do they ever mate with humans?
Are there things beyond the power and abilities of gods to know, do, or create?
Religions over time and space have come up with different answers for all of these questions. Before being allowed to enter the contest with Science, they should be expected to answer these questions, and to justify the answers they give.
Many years ago, I genuinely believed that my religion did not have to be in conflict with science; however, I knew that I was lacking the education necessary to argue my point effectively. When asked for evidence for my scientific beliefs, I could point to any number of scientific papers. When asked for evidence for my religious beliefs, I couldn’t come up with any. So I started reading all the Catholic educational sites, following the greatest Catholic apologists on Twitter, and watching as many YouTube debates between Catholics and others (particularly atheists) as I could find.
It did not take long for me to discover that I wasn’t alone in my ignorance of the evidence for my religious beliefs. In fact, I soon realised that no-one has any. Time and time again, questions would be asked of atheists which they would answer with links to the science and yet time and time again the apologists would repeat the same assertions which I had seen refuted in previous debates, still without evidence.
The inter-religious debates have been happening throughout history; without evidence for any assertion, this has resulted in countless schisms, many of them violent. Thinking scientifically about the big questions, however, has led to people of all religious persuasions and none to converge on agreements, and to the greatest explosion of understanding and advances in technology which the world has ever seen.
Scientists should no more have to debate with the religious than they should have to debate with pre-schoolers.
And of course getting a theist (at least the “sophisticated” kind) to provide a meaningful definition* of “God” is as hopeless as getting a TRA to provide a meaningful definition of “woman” (this analogy usually goes the other way!). From what I have gathered thus far, the only things that can be consistently said about whatever it is that “sophisticated” theists call “God” are:
• It’s called “God”.
• It has nothing to do with whatever it is you are arguing against, therefore anything you say can be dismissed as strawmanning.
• It’s really vitally important that you call it “God”** (as opposed to “Ogd”, “Dog” etc…).
Other believers can easily interpret a supernatural, intelligent creator of the universe into whatever sounds are coming out of your mouth, but atheists cannot find anything specific to argue against, and any attempt to do so can easily be dismissed as strawmanning. All of “sophisticated theology” (at least the kind of theology that deals with the existence of “God”) seems to boil down to this kind of double-speak. In fact, I once defined “sophisticated theology” as “the art of saying ‘It doesn’t matter what you believe in as long as you call it God’ in as many words as possible”.
*I.e. one that’s specific and unambiguous enough to give us something to argue meaningfully for or against. In the absence of such a definition a statement like “God exists” goes in the “not even wrong” category.
** Because then “theism” is right, and “atheism” is wrong, and from there it’s a free-for-all…
*I.e. one that’s specific and unambiguous enough to give us something to argue meaningfully for or against. In the absence of such a definition a statement like “God exists” goes in the “not even wrong” category.
Bjarte,
Yes, I’ve always found the motte-and-bailey tactics of the Sophisticated Theists annoying. The definition of “god” to which they invariably retreat has none of the characteristics that would make it significant or provide any of the supposed benefits of belief.
Once you’ve redefined “god” to be “love” or “the universe” or “the first cause” or “whatever underlies the laws of physics,” then belief in such a “god” is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. You can’t plausibly claim that those things are fundamental to morality, or should provide any comfort or illumination, beyond what an atheist could similarly find. (I wonder how many of these same people sneer at atheists for “worshipping science [or reason]”)
But as you say, it’s somehow supposed to be very important to call it “god.”
Name recognition innit.
Ah, but now the old religions face a new upstart religion called transgenderism (or genderism). We have rolled up to the idea that some special people can decide that they ARE gods who must be obeyed and given anything they want. This new religion tolerates no agnostics and no atheists. The new religion may one day show it is even more misogynist than any of the old religions. The new religion says that the New Gods transcend material reality with their every whim and we mere “cis” mortals can only cower in fear.
Wonder if any of these New Gods have read The Man Who Would Be King? Because one day a woman WILL bite one of these New Gods and the sight of blood (which proves that the man is no god at all) might just incite the peons into treating the False Gods, well, let us say, unkindly to the extreme.
I came across this the other day (actually, it was sent by a Catholic acquaintance, who seems to think it says something):
“To be quite frank, we do not at all like the idea of a ‘chosen people.’ Democrats by birth and education, we should prefer to think that all nations and individuals start level in the search for God, or even that all religions are equally true. It must be admitted at once that Christianity makes no concessions to this point of view. It does not tell of a human search for God at all, but of something done by God for, to, and about Man. And the way in which it is done is selective, undemocratic, to the highest degree. After the knowledge of God had been universally lost or obscured, one man from the whole earth (Abraham) is picked out. He is separated (miserably enough, we may suppose) from his natural surroundings, sent into a strange country, and made the ancestor of a nation who are to carry the knowledge of the true God. Within this nation there is further selection: some die in the desert, some remain behind in Babylon. There is further selection still. The process grows narrower and narrower, sharpens at last into one small bright point like the head of a spear. It is a Jewish girl at her prayers. All humanity (so far as concerns its redemption) has narrowed to that.” (From Miracles, Chapter 14; C.S. Lewis)
This is mere eloquence, and in no way an argument, and the only reason one could have for agreeing with it is because it sounds nice (to some at least: I find it sentimental blather)and in no way powerful in its eloquence) and because one already agrees with it, not because you have have been argued into agreeing with it. I remarked in response: ‘There are Tertullian’s words in De carne Christi : ‘credibile est, quia ineptum est’ – which seems to derive from a point made by Aristotle, in his Rhetoric , that some stories are so wildly implausible that it may be reasonable to believe them. That is what your quotation from Lewis’s Miracles (which rehearses the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament) draws upon. But I do not think that Aristotle is suggesting that it is necessarily reasonable to believe such stories.’
But I suppose the whole odd structure of Christianity lies in the discrepancy between the ineffable god of theology, which owes much to Greek philosophy, and the ‘human’ story of Joseph & Mary and their son. In fact, it is surely the latter that is, or should be, more important to a believer than any speculation about an ineffable First Mover – the latter is an irrelevance, except to those who want to try to make belief intellectually respectable. Which is why I find the debates between theologians and atheists so pointless and unlistenable to.
Exactly so about the mere eloquence – I was hating the writing as I read, because of the pompous pseudo-eloquent style. It’s very Templeton Foundation, that kind of writing.
It’s not just knowledge that religious authorities pretend to. Some of them claim to have particular skills and abilities. Take transubstantiation. How exactly does one teach candidates for the priesthood how to do this? What would one of those classes look like…?
We’re in a SEMINARY CLASSROOM, filled with STUDENTS studying for the priesthood. Each has his own little station, complete with a practice Altar and practice set of pyx and chalice. The TEACHING PRIEST stands at the front of the class. We’re reaching the end of this particular class. Some students are looking at their watches, eager to escape, knowing they can’t.
TEACHER (rolling up his sleeves): Alright gentlemen, eyes up front. One of the finer points of the process is the follow through. If you don’t complete the gesture thusly (waves hands with a quick flourish, tight, practiced, and not at all extravagant ,or exagerated), you don’t achieve the full effect. Watch again, I’ll do it a little slower this time. (He repeats the gesture, but more slowly. He does it again, pausing partway).The angle between the hand and wrist is important, but not critical. Keep the movement flowing and vigourous, and don’t get too hung up on the details at this point. Okay lads, give it a go.
The STUDENTS start gesturing, some better than others at reproducing the movements exemplified by their Teacher, who is now walking around the room, noting successes, pointing out shortfalls in technique. There is much concentration and effort, some exasperated sighs, some cheers of delight and elation.
TEACHER: Getting the feel of it is what matters, the overall motion, including the follow through, is what counts.
(He stops at one student’s side, watching, impassive. This student is being particularly broad and dramatic with his arm and hand work. The word “flailing” might best capture it. The student hasn’t noticed him watching, but his classmates have. Most of them are holding their breath, knowing what is about to happen.) TEACHER: Flash and ostentation will impress amateurs, but are no substitute for proper form. Who are you trying to impress, GOD? HE’S SEEN IT ALL BEFORE. You think you’re going to come up with a move HE HASN’T SEEN BEFORE?Besides, you don’t want to PUT YOUR OWN EYE OUT! You can’t expect OUR SAVIOUR to waste a miracle on restoring YOUR sight if YOU were the spastic git responsible for losing it in the FIRST PLACE! (The STUDENT blushes, and sits down, devestated. His classmates chuckle quietly, but nervously, each relieved that they hadn’t been made today’s example. But tomorrow? They might not be so lucky.)
TEACHER (continuing, turning and facing the rest of the class): You need to PACE yourself, you don’t want to tire yourself out needlessly. You want to make sure that the entire wafer and all of the wine are converted, otherwise you’re going to need more of each. You don’t want Our Lord stuck halfway in and halfway out. He’s counting on YOU! You’ve got a job to do, and once you’re up there at the altar in your own parish, you’re not going to have me there to BAIL YOU OUT!
(He returns to the front of the classroom)TEACHER: Most of you are doing pretty well with your “Bread into Body,” but – (he pauses, his gaze surveying his students)ALL of you need to work on your Wine into Blood! Jesus Christ! Most of you are struggling to manage even a thin PLASMA! THIS WILL NOT DO! We need to end up with something with at least a HINT of hemoglobin! We need to see some CORPUSCLES, Gentlemen! I want you ALL to have another look at Chapter Six, (quiet muttering from the class) AND have a brief summary of its most important points on my desk first thing tomorrow morning! (louder groans). And just you count yourself LUCKY you’re not having to do it in LATIN, GREEK, HEBREW and ARAMAIC!
(Bell rings) TEACHER: Dismissed! GET OUT OF HERE!
I am irritated beyond measure by even the opening sentence: “To be quite frank, we do not at all like the idea of a ‘chosen people’.” Who is ‘we’? ‘We’ refers to well-meaning, non-Jewish, civilised people everywhere who are supposed to be shocked by the ‘scandal’ of Christianity: the incarnation. Well, I really don’t care about (not ‘for’) any claims about the ‘chosen people’. It means nothing to me. But Lewis has to pretend that Christianity is rejected by ‘reasonable people’ precisely because of its strangeness, a strangeness that imparts power. I have noticed this pattern of argumentation in more than one Christian apologist. It is supposed to be a refutation of the alleged doubts a non-Christian milksop (as opposed to a confident believer) might have, but is fundamentally a dishonest, ad hominem ploy. As are the subsequent remarks, headed by the false concession ‘It must be admitted’, about our being ‘democrats by birth and nation’, and about Christianity making no concessions at all to democratic sentimentality. This, of course, is something that is courageous and to be proud of in Lewis’s eyes, and something that, though he doesn’t say so, makes Christianity true. The whole passage is Tertullian’s ‘credibile est, quia ineptum est’ dressed up in sentimental, dishonest orotundity.
Re YNNB#8. But of course transubstantiation is fundamentally about power. The priest has this power given to him by God. He also has the power to absolve people of sin. He is a man with supernatural powers, unlike the laity. And because he possesses these powers, he is above merely human law. Even if he sins himself, by fiddling about with under-age boys, for example, or by behaving cruelly to orphans and indigenous children, or to unmarried mothers, he still retains these powers, and so deserves protection by the church, as the orphans, unmarried mothers and indigenous children do not. G.K. Chesterton’s ‘Father Brown’ stories bring out this fundamental problem of priestly impunity (where human law is concerned) rather well, though he of course approves of it. Saving souls is more important than human justice. Compare Chesterton’s bluff and C.S. Lewisian acceptance & propagation of this fundamentally antinomian nonsense with the greatest little-known novel in the English language, James Hogg’s ‘The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ (the ‘justified’ refers to the Calvinist ‘elect’), and you will see who is the better man and more honest writer.
And, of course, the question you have all been dying to ask:
Can vegetarians receive the Holy communion without violating their principles?
This was the ethical dilemma presented to the local diocese by Swiss (Ex-)Catholic “Fredi Kummer”* sometime in the 1980s (from memory, I may get some of the details wrong). The ensuing (lengthy!) correspondence between Kummer and the diocese (later published in its entirety in Karlheinz Deschner’s Die Gefälschte Glaube), is one of the most glorious exercises in theological evasive tactic and obscurantism (as well as one of the most hilarious things in general) I have ever read.
*Obviously “trolling” as we would say today. “Kummer” had already left the faith some time ago at this point.
So true about “dressed up in sentimental, dishonest orotundity.” That kind of thing brings me out in a rash.
With a few tweaks, this could be an apology for Nazism.