A group of researchers posted their results1 in Nature revealing that since the year 1914 to 1998, there have been an increasing number of great scientists of the National Academy of Science (NAS) who have a personal disbelief in God– from 52।2% to 72.2%. On total, those who have personal-disbelief, doubt, or agnosticism, constitutes 93% of all scientists in NAS in 1998 – as opposed to a total of 78% in 1914. We have witnessed many events such as the Dover Trial and the monkey trial that tested our faith in the existence of a higher intelligence. Ultimately, it is not a question of science versus science, but of philosophies.
For convenient sakes of introduction, I will describe a presently ‘dead’ argument I had with a Christian about the issue with Adam and Eve, and will show how this has to do with my argument. I began enquiring first into the nature of the language used in the bible, and had asked why the word ‘men’, or ‘man’, were referred to both male and female, when it clearly means male. He (the Christian) said that the supposed discrepancy has nothing to do with textual issues, but with the use of language – apparently a sexist type of usage. I had then questioned, as I had always been curious, how people could come to believe in Adam and Eve being two literal people, as opposed to being figurative. I reasoned that since Eve came from Adam, that since she was made from his bones and flesh, then Eve must be genetically immediate to him. Therefore mating must therefore be considered to be incestuous, and thus their children should be prone to genetic disorders – due to the similar copies of chromosomes contained within the fertilized egg. Therefore, we expect that the majority of humankind be filled with genetic disorders (such as Down syndrome) – and this is not the case. He then answered by saying that God, having all that is perfect, could have created perfect human beings, such that their descendants would never come to have genetic issues in big numbers. So I then pushed him to provide me an empirical basis as to what ‘perfect’ means, that being what kind of chromosomes or genetic make-up should we expect of Adam and Eve. Also, if such is possible, could we trace such a lineage through out mitochondrial DNA (since this DNA is largely unchanged due to its form of inheritance)? I also expected that this come from academic journals, of which has much of their material thoroughly peer-reviewed. Till today, I receive no answer.
I have come to believe that, from a purely scientific and empirical perspective, that religion does not have much of a high regard for empirical proof. Who could proof by scientific experimentation and observation that Jesus walked on water, used his saliva to cure the blind, or change sticks into snakes? Magicians find it hard to replicate the fantastic miracles (such as the walking on water), and some have thus concluded that these must be the works of a higher intelligence. As in philosophies, the problem with science and religion is Naturalism and Metaphysics.
For the purposes of introducing the reader into the theologians’ conception of God, I shall show two arguments (though there may be more) typical of their type of argumentation – which essentially takes empirical proof to be utterly unnecessary:
--------------------------------------------------------
Type I: I dub it as “Human Inconceivability”
This argument is derivative of a type of philosophical argument called “Occam’s razor”. Ockham reasoned that if two or more explanations were possible, the one which assumes lesser is more likely to be true, and that this explanation is to be able to differentiate between its hypothesis and its theory. A hypothesis is an explanation that is suggested to explain, while a theory is a logical, mathematical explanation based on hypotheses, experimentation, and observation. Simply put, the ‘simpler’ explanation is more likely than the more ‘complex’ one.
The argument of Human Inconceivability is generally structured in such a way that if humans cannot conceive of, God must exist to conceive of. An example argument (out of many others) goes like this:
It is simpler for the non-existence of something and of nothingness itself than for the existence of both something and nothingness. Since humans are unable to conceive of the non-existence of nothingness itself (to which even the use of the pronoun ‘it’ is inappropriate since we cannot provide any understandable attribute to the non-existence of nothingness), and since the simpler one must be true, God must therefore exist to conceive of this.
It is interesting to note that a rebuttal to this argument regarding what exactly non-existence of nothingness is would be self-refuting, since the argument itself has used sufficient reasoning to rule out any such rebuttals. Some say this is not only an un-provable argument, but also an un-disprovable one, since the argument has sufficiently explained itself.
Indeed, to many scientists this argument sounds weird. While Astronomy being of a higher ‘dimension’ (in the mathematical sense) than to biology, and it be a higher ‘dimension’ to chemistry, then we must also understand quite soundly that mathematics be ‘derivative’ of all such fields of scientific inquiry. What then, if the argument shown above does the non-existence of integrals, harmonic sequences, and derivatives mean? Indeed, in the intellectual enterprise of science for the systematic pursuit of knowledge, such arguments do not confer meaningful (meaning predictable or testable) hypotheses and knowledge.
Note, however, many derivative arguments of Human Inconceivability (such as Irreducible Complexity – biology) commit logical fallacies such as the fallacy of False Dilemma (ex. Chance vs. Intelligent Design – and forgetting Natural Selection) and Arguing from Ignorance. [See how Kenneth Miller debunked Irreducible Complexity with the use of an example of the flagellum.]
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Type II: I dub as “Divine Design and Planning”
Such an argument usually depends on theological interpretation, and largely sees scientific evidence as proof of theology. Yet, one must note that the assumptions that theology makes are not as critically and empirically examined as scholarly science, and as such post a threat to the very foundations of theologically unsubstantiated reasoning. Here is an example of an argument I once had with a Christian:
I had asked a Christian why there are people who, till this date, believe the Earth to be an approximate 6000 years old. He (use of pronoun for convenient sakes) answered that this is because if one were to count the days in the bible carefully, it is so. I then said that the Earth’s crust produces magma at a known testable and many-a-time re-verified rate, and thus by concentration levels and change in different types of rock layers, we deduce the Earth to be billions of years old. However, he then said that God made it so 6000 years ago so that we may keep our free will and believe what we want. He also pointed out that the reduction of the outer radius of the sun would have rendered the earth non-existent thousands of years ago if the Earth were billions of years old. So I immediately said that this piece of evidence is characteristic of creationist fallacies, since research shows that it is the inner radius of the sun that is reducing, as combustion becomes more and more concentrated and gravity holds them stronger together. He then replied that God made the solar system seem to be so because, in this way, we could preserve our free will.
Notice that whatever scientific fact I revealed he rebutted it with an unsubstantiated theological assumption that free will must exist. Is there a way we may test if it was God who gave us free will? No (answer same as his). Again with theology, it never provides any meaningful, or testable, information one could verify through mathematical logical means. I wonder what he might say to China’s long history that which lasted for more than six millennia (6000 years).
--------------------------------------------------------
Indeed many of the past theological enquiries into the soul, mind, consciousness, and eternity itself have largely been answered and their explanations debunked by science, while science provides substantiated answers to such enquiries. Descartes thought mind and body were one, but recent accidents and use of state-of-the-art modern technology showed that impact of parts of the brain do not necessarily impact the general functionality of the body. Eternity also, has to do with Energy and matter, but not with consciousness (as in Buddhism, the so-called to be with the oneness of the universe). Earth turned out to be spherical, as opposed to flat, and the planets of the galaxies are the ones like ours, and are not a part of the heavens.
So what is the underlying definition of faith? I think it is to believe in what cannot be seen, perceived, or thought of. There is no way one could proof Adam and Eve’s genetic purity or God-given free will. Scientists believe nature to be much simpler than metaphysics, since nature can be empirically tested and observed, and thus mathematically reasoned. Metaphysics relies on theological ad-hoc hypotheses that rely on nothing but silly superstition.
Bibliography
- “Leading Scientists still Reject God” Nature, Vol.394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)
No comments:
Post a Comment