The God Delusion - Part 4 - Pick a Side, Einstein
Jun 20th, 2007 by Michael Krahn
Theist – believes in a supernatural intelligence who can be personally known and is interested in human affairs
Deist - believes in a supernatural intelligence with no specific interest in human affairs
Pantheist – does not believe in a supernatural God at all, but uses the word ‘god’ as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings
Dawkins:
“An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no souls that outlast the body and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.”
Here Dawkins is simply stating the essence of his beliefs and that is helpful. I’ve been critical of Dawkins’ style so far and there will be many more eye-rolling statements to come, but here he is really communicating in the way I wish he would continue.
This is probably as close to an atheist creed I’ve come across, and I know atheism is a system built on free-thinking but are there many of you – atheists that is – who would not affirm the following:
I believe there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world
I believe there is no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe
I believe there is no soul that outlasts the body
I believe there are no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand
Is that a fairly representative creed?
I do admire Dawkins’ lust for learning, a desire that many Christians have given up on, or worse believe to be sinful. There is no doubt that we will someday understand things that seem mysterious now. And the church erred greatly in centuries past in claiming unknowable that which was about to be discovered and known. In the words of one of my favorite Indigo Girls songs, “Galileo’s head was on the block, his crime was looking up the truth…” What are today’s examples of people whose heads are on the block for looking up the truth?
Some Christians may find this heretical, but my religion, in the words of Madeleine L’engle is “subject to change at a moment’s notice” should science prove conclusively, beyond a doubt that, for example, Jesus did in fact have a biological father. Obviously I do not believe such a statement heretical but this was the main reason I wrote a previous series about a popular young American pastor who seemed to call into question the usefulness of this belief. My biggest argument with commenters of that series was about whether or not a discovery of this kind would cause me to reevaluate my faith. It would – I would not dance around it. I would have to reevaluate a great number of things.
Dawkins spends quite a bit of time on Einstein and whether or not he was a religious man. It is a matter of some debate, with both sides able to formulate a reasonable case for Einstein being “on their side”. But I think Dawkins’ case is the most compelling I’ve heard and that doesn’t bother me in the least.
Suggested rule of engagement: let’s stop arguing about whose team people were/are on. If they were ambiguous about it it was probably intentional. If they claim to be on one side but act in a way that does not reflect the generally recognized creed of that side, let’s not force them onto that team. Fair enough?
*****************************
To read more posts in this series visit my Richard Dawkins page.
subscribe
Dawkins, I think, defines “philosophical naturalism” rather than “atheism,” which can mean “non-theism.” I hope to read Dawkins’ book over the next week; but from what I’ve read to date, he and his fellow “New Atheists” tend to redefine terms to suit their purposes.
Regarding Einstein, I would agree that it really doesn’t matter how you qualify him. I’ve seen a quote recently where he was upset that people called him an atheist, but he was definitely not a theist. Again, the argument is pointless, unless you buy the argument from authority that Einstein is right about whatever he says.
Alden,
The book is pretty good after you get through the opening chapters where Dawkins seems to be trying to scare off anyone with opposing views.
Can you give examples of “redefining terms to suit their purposes”?
I don’t know many Christians who can adaquately state why they believe what they believe. How many really ever contemplate the whys? What is a Christian? Why is it important that Jesus Christ was virgin born? Can one be a Christian and not believe in the virgin birth? Is there a genetic reason Christ had to be virgin born? Why would he die on a cross? Why was he born in Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah? These questions and more are simply accepted by faith without many really thinking these things through. There are answers to the whys, but many a Christian and atheist really contemplate them.
Worse yet is the new-ish sentiment that the ‘why’ questions aren’t really important, or that they might have more than one answer, or that if you think about them too much you’re not doing what’s REALLY important.
I won’t name any names here, but is any of this ringing a Bell? Or perhaps a McLaren?
;-)
You’ve just been tagged with a blog meme: http://tinyurl.com/3dkf7g
Enjoy!
Michael, One example of “redefining terms …” is when Dawkins (as well as many others) defines Intelligent Design as Creationism. I haven’t kept track, but I’ll try to keep my eye out for other specific examples.
I still haven’t had time to read the book… perhaps this weekend.
Alden: Intelligent Design is definitely creationism, or more specifically, neo-creationism, and this is not something Dawkins or some atheist conspiracy has made up but something you can read in a mainstream encyclopædia such as Wikipedia. This really shouldn’t be a point of debate, and I’ll end by quoting Judge Jones: “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” That’s from the Dover trial ruling, which you can read more about on Wikipedia.
“Is that a fairly representative creed?”
It’s a creed of naturalism, not atheism. I’d assume that, at least in the Occident, most atheists are naturalists, but in the East and historically in the West there have been many non-naturalist atheists, who have believed in such things as souls, ghosts, karma and whatnot.
In my opinion, atheism is only important as part of what one might call the naturalist movement of the enlightenment, and one should always view it in this context. As an atheist and a naturalist, I feel a greater affinity with the deist Voltaire than with an atheist Buddhist monk gathering karma points for his next life; for the atheism is but a consequence of the main system of thought, not an important doctrine in and of itself. Theism is the main target of naturalists now simply because it’s seen as the most dangerous of present-day superstitions.
brtkrbzhnv, you quote Wikipedia and a Judge?? While I like Wikipedia, it is not authoritative. Re Judge Jones, from his opinion, it is clear that the IDists put on a lousy case. The Judge ruled from what was put in front of him, not the real world. IDists generally do not base their opinions on issues of faith, but on the evidence; Creationists generally argue from a theological position, but of course may refer to science. Then, there are IDists who do not accept any religious group’s creation account.
Wikipedia may not “authorative”. How about from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (2007) then?
“Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-432604.html
“In the late 20th century many creationists advocated a view known as intelligent design, which was essentially a scientifically modern version of the argument from design for the existence of God as set forth in the late 18th century by the Anglican clergyman William Paley.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-361850.html
If you don’t like those then I’m sure you could take the few minutes I did to find quotes that support your view.
“it is clear that the IDists put on a lousy case.” Clear? How so. This seems to be your opinion. “The Judge ruled from what was put in front of him, not the real world.” Yes, yes, of course he did. Silly old judge. How foolish to base a ruling on the evidence.