Reading: Dawkins, “Science Discredits Religion”, pp. 523-526
Optional Link (if you’re interested in seeing more about a Catholic perspective on evolution): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
Reading Guide: This is a short, clear reading. Unlike Gould, Dawkins is not at all conciliatory to religious belief. After arguing that religion has no “special expertise to offer us on moral questions”, he argues that the Pope’s message on evolution itself intrudes into the domain of science. (The passage he quotes here is the passage I referred to or quoted in class last time.) He then identifies other ways in which the Catholic Church intrudes into the domain of science. Basically, he denies that religion and science inhabit separate domains - at least in practice. As you read, think about how Gould might respond to Dawkins’ claims and how Christians might respond to Dawkins.
Terminology: Some of you may be unfamiliar with the term “speciesism”. The term, as you will gather, is derogatory; those who believe that humans are importantly different from the rest of the animal kingdom and therefore deserving of special consideration are referred to as “speciesists” by animal rights activists, some evolutionists, and others who see no morally significant difference between human beings and other animals. Such critics compare those who invest species with special significance to racists and sexists. The idea here is that species does not in itself make a moral difference, any more than race or sex makes a moral difference. Two points are relevant here: (1) It is speciesist to claim for human beings special consideration that we are not willing to extend to non-human animals who, like us, have the properties that make us deserving of special consideration. (2) It is said to be speciesist to insist that human beings who no longer have the capacities that distinguish us from most of the rest of the animal kingdom be given the same protections as normal human beings; given that they are not superior to other animals, why should they be treated as if they were? (This has implications for the debate over euthanasia.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I take some exception to the statement at the bottom of the first column on page 525, “religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.” I am assuming this means Dawkins rejects the existence of all a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge makes existence claims but certainly not scientific claims as scientific claims are empirical not a priori. I am not so sure Dawkins has the philosophical authority to deny the existence of a priori knowledge unless he is willing to explain why all knowledge must be empirical. Yet Dawkins doesn’t seem interested providing such an explanation. Is he implying an “If Hume is right” precedes his claim about religion? That would be a big if indeed. This may seem somewhat off-topic but I think it gets to the root of the debate between Dawkins and Gould. If it is indeed true that a priori knowledge does not exist then certainly Dawkins is correct that religion makes indefensible scientific claims. However, if a priori knowledge exists (not too big of an if in my mind) then religions could make many a priori claims that lie comfortably outside the realm of science. Dawkins’ insistence that the existence of a soul is a scientific claim is a curious one that he never begins to explain. Dawkins lumps it right along with the miraculous at the end of page 525. How would he address a Kantian who accepts the soul on an a priori basis but not the miraculous for the very same reason that Dawkins himself rejects the miraculous?
I like Dawkin's piece overall. He is definately rougher on religion than Gould, which is good and bad. Good because I think he has more solid claims. There is no quesstion where Dawkins stands on this issue. Bad because it is harsh to read for the believer I would presume. I like when he spoke about scriptures and how theist enjoy picking and choosing parts of the scriptures to fit a certain topic or argument and leaving other parts out when they don't fit the situation. How many greeting cards do we see that have a soft loving verse? Where are the greeting cards that talk about all the horrible atrocities that happened throughout the bible?
I think the difference that Dawkins is sincerely missing is the goal of the two realms: while yes, there are Christians who try to find proof of things like the Ark, for the most part, when dealing with things like the Resurrection of Jesus and the Assumption of Mary, most religious folk don't tend to prod into the "how" of the issue, which is what I see as the scientific side of the event. Instead, the church focuses, and asks their parishoners to focus, on the why: why Jesus died on the cross for our sins and what it means for us, not how it is scientifically possible for these things to happen. I stick with my idea from last class, that they do usually stay out of each other's way and say that the two realms search for the truth, but different kinds of truth.
Edit: I would also like to add that Dawkins seems to be a very angry man... and I don't take kindly to it. I didn't enjoy reading what he had to say. I've read some pretty abrasive things about reigion and about atheism and felt like they were justified, and for some reason this just rubs me the wrong way.
Though Dawkins' writing seems short, he says what he has to say effectively. He does seem to digress in the beginning when he goes on a rant about using scripture in certain circumstances and ignoring it in other circumstances, but his main point that "the sudden injection of an immortal soul in the time-line is an anti-evolutionary intrusion in to the domain of science" is well argued and I agree with him.
Dawkins directly addresses the issue that I raised in our last class discussion: Where do miracles fit into the concept of separate spheres? Although he does not automatically discredit all miracles, Dawkins remains highly skeptical of their scientific plausibility. By claiming that such phenomena reside within the realm of religion, believers unjustly give miracles immunity to scientific criticism. Dawkins also argues that religion is not the sole source of morality. Although religious teachers and traditions present a solid moral foundation for a vast number of the world’s population, there are many secular equivalents which function in the same manner. The only flaw I observed in Dawkins’ reasoning was found in his exploration of Biblical accounts filled with “pitilessly vengeful jealousy, racism, sexism, and terrifying bloodlust.” God’s actions in the Old Testament are “rectified” by the New Covenant. Dawkins makes such a generic claim as a means of further undermining religious authority, an endeavor pursued actively throughout his article.
I am a believer and I would agrre with dawkins that religion and science cannot coexist in their own seperate domains. They over lap so much it is almost assinine to believe that they could. I don't agree with Gould at all. I think the challenges put forth by both make the other stronger. It makes them both more defined.
I agree with Dawkins. It is evident that science and religion overlap domains and have their own claims in things such as the origins of the earth. On the other hand, I can't agree with science being more or less right because neither science nor religion can be 100% proven because we weren't there. We can only look at evidence we have to make claims on what might have happened.
I agree with Dawkins' primary assertion as to the falsehood of the presumption that there is a gap between physicality and spirituality. However, it would aslo be helpful in selling his argument if he did not show such disdain for the Catholic Church and the Pope. The virgin birth and Resurrectoin of Jesus are both good examples of instances to which a scientific and spiritual explanation may be attributed. However, I don't think most people refuse to recognize this, as he seems to be proposing. Most people do tend not to explore it though, which is peculiar. It's like a conservative administration and global warming. Despite their beliefs, a part of them does not want to humor the opposing argument (or research it) for the fear that they may be wrong.
I think Dawkins makes a good point. Espically with the fact that no one really basis thier moral judgements off of scripture. This might be a bit of a generalization, but for the most part I think he is correct. Jesus or Buddah can inspire people to do good, but no on really calls upon scripture in moments where a quick percise moral judgement needs to be made. He is more dominate and harsh than Gould and I think this could back fire on the popularity of his article.
Post a Comment