Of Atheism and Theism: Science, Religion, and the Great Lakes – Discussion at Episcopal Church Group

There is an interesting discussion over at an unofficial Episcopal Church Yahoo-based group between two people who frequently debate atheism and theism:

Lou starts the conversation: 

For reasons I don't know, the thought came to me last night that a glacial origin for the North American Great Lakes, which is the commonly accepted explanation, seems a bit fishy. The lakes are so deep and so irregular and, in my limited experience, lack the pattern usually associated with glacial scouring. I began looking at different ideas, and it became obvious that nobody really knows, and that every theory is confounded by the differences in what lies beneath various of the lakes, their several shapes, and their different orientations. There is, therefore, no dearth of theories–glacial scouring, meltwater from retreating glaciers, currents beneath a larger Arctic sea, and vulcanism, for instance. The amusing part of all this is that each person pushes her or his pet theory as if it were fact and as if anyone who didn't accept it is a knuckle-dragger.

I point all this out because there is a common misunderstanding about what science is for. Science is never for the purpose of discovering ultimate truth. Science is a method of seeking understanding of observations made on the world around us. The understandings that fit observations made SO FAR are accepted as "scientifically proved." Such proven theories are subject to reversal or modification at any time that observations which cannot be explained by them are made.

Science, real science, is never "wrong." A discarded theory may have fit known observations very well but subsequently had to be cast aside because of new data. But, real science is never "right" in any ultimate sense, either. The problem with understanding how the Great Lakes formed is that we either don't have enough observations of the right kind or nobody has come up with an idea that is a good enough fit to answer the question with any degree of confidence.

The cheerleaders for various theories of Great Lake formation are examples of scientism in action. Scientism is worship of science, the elevation of its conclusions to the level of Holy Writ, and it ultimately leads to sectarianism and absolutism, both of which are enemies of real science. Even real scientists can be afflicted with
scientism, e.g., Richard Dawkins.

"So what?" you may ask. The reason a proper understanding of science is important is that science is no more an adequate tool for understanding ultimate questions than the Scriptures are for determining answers to such penultimate queries as "How did the Great Lakes form?"

Aaron responds:

Lou,

Your summary of science is on the money - and a good set up for understanding why science undercuts religious faith. It's not that science disproves the supernatural in some philosophically absolute way. Rather, the history of science demonstrates just how bad we are at truth-seeking and erodes any rationale for adopting a religious tenet as an ultimate truth.

Neither the Bible nor Jesus nor the gospel nor any particular religious message or dogma has any impact on us. It is our acceptance of these things as authoritative and the shaping of our lives around them that makes a difference. If we cannot be absolutely sure of even mundane things like the history of the Great Lakes, what makes us think we are justified in accepting a religious claim as absolutely true?

Lou writes:

Aaron, we agree on a good deal, but even after all this time I have not made my point clearly. Let's see if we can at least come to see together where we diverge.

Let's try this:  I accept your first two propositions.

• Proposition 1: "We are bad at truth-seeking."
• Proposition 2: "[This] erodes any rationale for adopting a religious
  tenet as an ultimate truth."

Deductive conclusion: Both theism and atheism are faith statements. [Since the belief that there is/are no God or gods depends upon acceptance of said absence as a religious tenet, then we have no more rational reason to accept atheism as ultimate truth than we do for accepting theism.]

Proposition A: "Neither the Bible nor Jesus nor the gospel nor any particular religious message or dogma has any impact on us." [Argument for which no evidence has been offered and which is manifestly false. One need only look at the legal  systems of the world, most of which are impacted by religious messages, even if they are divorced from them.]

Proposition B: "It is our acceptance of these things as authoritative and the shaping of our lives around them that makes a difference." [This is true only if "religion" is entirely subjective. If Christian dogma is true, then the objective truth or falsehood of the empty tomb makes all the difference in the world.]

No conclusion can be reached.

Proposition: ". . . we cannot be absolutely sure of even mundane things like the history of the Great Lakes . . ."

Inductive conclusion: ". . . [W]e are [not] justified in accepting a religious claim as absolutely true."

Comment: I fully agree that we cannot logically prove [or disprove, as you earlier said] any religious system. In particular, if I may quote 1 Corinthians 1:21, "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." In other words, any eschatological system at all, even the belief that there is no metaphysical sphere, is not logically demonstrable. As you deduce, any human-derived justification for our existence, even the belief that there is no justification, is outside the bounds of logic and is likely to be wrong.

The bottom line is that Christians who use science to attempt to prove God are just as foolish as adherents of Scientism (Naturalism) are in attempting to disprove God. Faith is faith. It is not in conflict with logic unless it depends upon a logical contradiction. I believe with other Christians that faith is a gift. As the Apostle said, (1 Corinthians 1:24-25) "but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." The only possible absolute truth is that which God reveals. The only reason to accept it is if "by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

Aaron responds:

Lou,

I understand what you're saying, and I see how it could make sense to someone predisposed to believing it, but a few common-sense touchstones prevent me from joining you.

"I don't believe X because there is not enough evidence." That is not a statement of faith. It is not a religion. It is not an "ultimate truth." If X is God, it sufficiently defines atheism.

The fact that no convincing evidence can be presented for or against a claim is not a reason to believe it. It certainly does not mean that belief and unbelief are equally rational.

This is fallacious: "All mammals have blood. Fish have blood. Therefore, fish are mammals." So is this: "Religion is based on assumptions that cannot be absolutely proven. Atheism is based on assumptions that cannot be absolutely proven. Therefore, atheism is a religion."

This is fallacious, too: "Light is good for trees. Feathers are light. Therefore, feathers are good for trees." So is this: "Christians have faith in things for which there is insufficient evidence. Scientists have faith in things that cannot be proven beyond all doubt. Therefore, Christianity and science are faith systems."

The fact that we can construct a logically consistent belief system around an arbitrary claim (axiom, as you call it) is not sufficient reason to believe it. You can do that with just about anything. Something independent of our belief system must be used. The observable universe fits the bill. Penicillin will cure your illness (or not) regardless of what you believe about it.

So, my original point still seems valid. Science undercuts religious faith not because it absolutely disproves religious claims, but because it removes any rational justification for accepting them. If we're so often wrong about things we can test, why should we have much confidence in things we can't?

Lou writes:

Oh, my! You cannot hear me, and I don't know how to get through the noise that scientism is generating in your heart. You say that, "I don't believe X because there is not enough evidence," is not a faith statement. Wrong! It certainly is a faith statement, and it is irrational. It would not be a faith statement to say, "My belief in the reality of X depends on sufficient objective evidence, and that evidence is lacking, so I don't know if X is real, but I will make the assumption that it is not."

That would be old-fashioned agnosticism, not atheism. Its flaw is that it attempts to concretize the abstract, a common feature in schizophrenia. But, to say that you don't believe in the reality of something because you lack evidence is to deify yourself as omniscient. Atheism means that there IS no God. Rational atheism would require sufficient evidence that God is incompatible with the objective universe, not an argument from the negative.

And, Aaron, how could you get back to the "rational" argument? We had gotten beyond that rabbit trail. Rationality is enough to tell us that things are unsatisfactory, but it cannot tell us why. It can allow us to guess, and most people in most of history have concluded that there is metaphysical reality. The great majority of said persons have decided that there is a purpose for our lives, whether
they can see it clearly all the time or not. Most but not all of those have concluded that there is a Theos. Doing all this is a rational process, and it involves proposing a theorem to account for the general crappiness of life and the human race. Concluding that there is no metaphysical reality is also a theorem that, in and of
itself, gives no explanation for why things are as they are. But, to go much beyond any of these theorems requires something suprarational. It requires revelation, spiritual insight, faith in something that cannot be wrong and cannot be either proved or disproved by rational means. Let me say again what I have often said before. Faith is not rational. It is not contrary to what is rational unless either the faith is false or the rational is not what it seems to our limited senses. (Even poor Richard Dawkins knows that we perceive only a tiny bit of the information the universe has to give.)

As for your setting up a series of false premises and then showing that they are laughable, why do you waste that fine mind on tautologies? I guess the belief that such an irrational exercise is useful is a matter of faith[.]

Aaron then writes:

I believe in God (theist) or I don't (atheist). There is nothing in between. How could there be?

I can say, "I have no opinion," but that by definition means that I lack belief in God, which puts me in the latter category. I can say, "I don't know," which would make me agnostic, but that's irrelevant. The question is about belief, not knowledge. "I don't know if there's a God, but I have faith that there is!" How else would you categorize that common sentiment if not "agnostic theism?"

This should be obvious if only we took a moment to think about it. Belief is not the same as knowledge. But I realize that a very different notion exists in popular culture. Agnosticism is seen as something between two equally untenable positions. I think that notion is wrong, but if you insist on using it, fine. I hate
definition debates.

Call me an agnostic if you like. Just know that as far as I'm concerned, "I don't believe in God;" "There is no God;" and "I make the assumption that God does not exist" all express the same basic thing: a lack of belief in God. So they are all appropriate expressions of atheism in common speech.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

By the way, I still insist that according to the definition of rationality we agreed on several months ago, theism is irrational. Atheism can be rational or irrational depending on why one does not believe.

And the conversation will certainly continue.

Technorati Tags: Atheism,Theism,Religion,Science,Episcopal Church,Scientism

.

Comments

[Chris P]

Oh dear - what a waste of time. Atheism is defined as non-belief. It is not a religion.

FACT.

There has never been any experiment carried out that shows even an inkling of a God. Scientific experiments are validated all the time and are therefore facts. I have relied on these facts to design machines for the last several decades.

Experiments on the effectiveness of prayer show no effect - therefore a god does not exist.

There are many religions on this planet all of which claim to be divinely inspired. If there is only one god then this cannot be true.

It is all made up BS to make up for people's lack of understanding of what is going on. This gets in the way of looking after this planet properly. We have religious nuts who think god told them to have 18 kids.

It's to do with control and megalomania. Religious leaders want to propagate their churches to make more money and have more control.

Even mother Theresa was a control freak. Deliberately knocking down birth control so there would be a continuing supply of orphans to keep her in business.

[Dan Porter]

Chris, thanks for commenting. Fly fishing is a waste of time -- well it is to my way of thinking -- but some people find it fulfilling. Debate about the existence of God is perhaps a waste of time for you, but not for everyone.

I'm not sure your last point is factually correct, as stated. I may agree with your social attitude on birth control but I don't see any evidence for what you claim. As a matter of fact, I don't think any of your points are really all that factually correct.

Dan