God vs. Science: guess who wins?

Science kicked ass in TIME magazine’s “God vs. Science” cover story debate. Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins pretty much blew Christian geneticist Francis Collins out of the theological water.

The article points out that Dawkins is riding the quest of an atheist/agnostic literary wave, each of which I’ve read, or am reading. And can heartily recommend. Cited are Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Dawkin’s The God Delusion, and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell.

Some other titles mentioned, each of which provides support to the religious skeptic, are Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds, Lewis Wolpert’s Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, and Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Reading the debate between Dawkins and Collins, it’s easy to see why authors have no trouble poking religiosity full of holes. Whenever Collins was backed into a corner, all he could do was stammer out some platitude that had nothing behind it but blind faith. For example:

Many of us think these qualities [of altruism] may come from God—especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.

Well, it’s nice that many of you think that way. Many of you also believe the Earth was created a few thousand years ago and that fossils were planted by the Devil to throw people off the scent of God.

It’s also nice to observe such a marvelous example of circular thinking. Believers posit a God who has some positive anthropomorphic moral qualities. Then when people manifest those human qualities, this is taken as evidence that they come from God.

Such faulty reasoning would be laughable if it weren’t practiced by billions of believers. Some of whom fly airplanes full of other people into buildings because of their deluded faith. That makes religious belief unfunny.

Another example of Collins’ empty arguments:

Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation.

Good try, Dr. Collins. Problem is, once you add revelation to reason, you no longer have reason. Those who believe that the Bible or Koran is the revealed word of God shut off their rational faculties.

Dawkins tells the story of the American geologist Kurt Wise who earned two advanced degrees in geology and paleontology at Harvard. Then he found that he couldn’t stand the conflict between his religion and his science.

He took a bible and went right through it, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true.

There was little left. Wise decided that he would accept the Bible and throw out his dreams and hopes in science. Dawkins says that he finds this terribly sad. So do I. This statement by Wise is pathetic:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

On exceedingly shaky ground, Dr. Wise. Along with Francis Collins and everyone else who elevates faith above facts.

Reality has a way of winning out in the end. Richard Dawkins won the TIME magazine debate, but religion will bounce back on other fronts.

Temporarily. A thousand years from now, I’m quite sure, our 21st century belief in imaginary gods will seem as quaint as the Greek’s embrace of their own divine pantheon. Zeus in various guises will remain alive and kicking until reality finally knocks him dead.

[Note: I originally said "Ten thousand years from now" above. Someone on a Yahoo discussion group said that I was 90% off on my time line estimate and I agree with them. Let's be optimistic and hope that religion as we know it will be dead and gone by 3006, not 13,006.]

Comments

[benandante]

Brian, I'd just like to point out that more correctly Religion battled Science and Science won. No doubt about it.

I do not believe that we just exist with no Higher Intelligence. I look at the intricate human body, the absolute patterns in nature examined by Fibonnacci and the impeccably exact and marvelous subatomic structure to life and I cannot deny God.

However, I believe that those same things cause wonder in everyone, some simply do not see the Creator in Creation, do not attribute the wonders to an Intelligence. To each his own.

I believe in BOTH evolution and in God, they coexist beautifully.

What is truly tragic is those who are immersed in the creation, who live in this world, and are so blind and deaf to its precise, infinite beauties.

Jeanine

[Steve]

Brian,

How fortuitous that yesterday, while I was waiting in the family doctor's lobby with my youngest son, that I saw this issue of Time and read part of it.

That each of us see things differently was driven home to me by your take on the debate. I didn't see Dawkins blowing Collins out of the water at all. Now, I wasn't able to read the entire article (our stay in the lobby was surprisingly brief), so you have the clear advantage. I also am unable to quote responses since I don't own the issue. However, I do remember one comment where Collins was suggesting to Dawkins that name calling isn't the best of strategies.

My take on what I was able to read was the article was fairly balanced. Both admitted their biases and basically agreed to disagree. That Dawkins wasn't his usual emphatic self won him kudos from me; I thought both behaved rather well. But I didn't see any clear 'winner'; both made good points.

Regarding faith and reason; in Christianity (and I would assume also in Judaism, since it was the mother faith) the two are not mutually exclusive. Not being a fundamentalist bot, I can't spout the location of these verses, but two come to mind: 'Come, let us *reason* together' (God is the speaker) and 'Test the spirits, to see if they are of God' (advice from John, an agrument not to dismiss issues out of hand). [Just looked the verses up online - the first is Isaiah 1:18, the second 1 John 4:1.]

Christianity can (and should) coexist with reason (and science by extension) because it makes some truth claims firmly grounded in history. The salvation Christ came to bring was not just a 'get-into-heaven' pass for humans, but a restoration of the *whole* human to pre-Fall status; the whole human being body, mind and spirit. But that goes back to your previous post.

I noticed that all the books you list are of a single position. I know you're open-minded and have read pro-faith books in the past. One I would recommend is 'How Should We Then Live?' by Francis Schaeffer.

Regarding the geologist Wise, I didn't read about him in the issue, but I don't agree with his viewpoint and response. I doubt seriously that the Bible steps on science's toes in that many places. And really, science doesn't step on the toes of faith either as the supernatural is outside the scope of science.

God gave us senses to see, admire and appreciate His handiwork (which I don't see the Bible specifying as happening in 6 literal days, 6000 years ago). He also gave us minds to understand and intuit His existence. But that's as far as reason can take us - an inkling that *perhaps* there was a creator, a first mover. Revelation carries specifics of that creator, that he is personal and has certain expectations of us but also certain blessings to bestow and certain promises to fulfill.

I apologize for a post that may be percieved as preachy or evangelistic. My sole intent was to shed some light on your current and last posts. Unfortunately, your desire to understand the Christian mind can't be sated as the result of a few comments on your blog. And I am a poor example of a Christian mind; there are many smarter, more eloquent apologists out there. And 'Christian' can mean so many things these days... But I think the respectful exchange of ideas your website fosters is a great help in bridging the chasm.

[John]

I can't be an atheist no matter how hard i try. I like it tho.

What if evolution isn't done yet. Human kingdom came from animal kingdom. Animals, tho they live right w/ us, cannot comprehend or know the human kingdom. they live w/ us everyday yet our kingdom is utterly and completely hidden to them.

What if humans consiousness is not the end but that there is still a higher universal consiousness.

It seems to me that God (we have to use some word) is all around me but that i can't get a direct connection.

just idle thoughts..

[Edward]

So science wins... um, what does science win? A Maytag refrigerator? A cruise?

Time magazine allows us to use these avatars to argue premises none of us really has the wit or wisdom to fulfill. These men have neither the time nor space, even in their own lives, to settle such an argument without resorting to jargon or metaphor. This article is as satisfying to the soul as a sasafras sucker is to the digestion.

The pervasive influence of God won't stop in our world, science is going to have to find out why. Science won't give up explaining the world, religion will just have to subsume it into the rituals.

I am writing this, and you should be able to hear the music I have set it to. That music is outside the scope of the applied science of reading, so scientists have to conclude the music does not exist. Members of religions will have been previously instructed not to believe in magic, so they will also be unable to hear the music.
If, however, God is already there, I don't have to tell you about the music, because you already hear it.

[GuessWho]

Brian wrote: "Let's be optimistic and hope that religion as we know it will be dead and gone by 3006, not 13,006."

It would be optimistic to see us around past the year 2030 at the rate we are chewing up the environment, i.e., global warming, pollution of all sorts, nuclear waste (oh dear where do we bury the toxins?!) The nuclear bomb was made possible by---hummm.... let me see--- oh, ya, advances in science/technology. Makes the consequences of religious idiocy PALE in comparison.

Given a little power humans just do not seem to know how to act properly--whether that power is gained via science (technology) or socially through brainwashing large groups of people, sometimes over thousands of years, with various religious concepts or articles of faith.

We are cleaning out our navel with QTips while Rome burns (ecologically speaking).

[Marcel Cairo]

For those who don't know, I am a spiritual medium, and a short time ago, I was lucky to meet Brian and his family and also sit down with them for a reading. After the reading, Brian wrote about the experience on his blog, and he also appeared on the October 11th debut of my internet radio show (http://www.achieveradio.com/~goodspirit)

Since then, I have watched Brian entertain us with his essays and missives. I, like you, love to check in on this blog ever so often to see what Brian's brain has to say. Now, though, I want to check in on Brian's soul. Maybe, in fact, I'll take this opportunity to speak to Brian's soul directly.

Dear Brian's soul...

I just want you to know that sooner or later, soldiers grow old, and they have to come home from the battle. You told me that you've been searching for God for over 30 years and that you've crossed the entire globe on your search. Still, I'm sure the whole time you've known that God is inside, waiting in that one place you would rather not go to.

It's the same for all of us, kid.

You know, Brian's soul, you're like that middle school bully who likes to endlessly torture the geeky girl with braces, but then meets up with her later in high school when she's blossomed out of her ackward stage and become the most desireable lass in class. Don't you know that many loves have begun with shoves. You are still shoving.

Yes, Brian's soul, you're going to fall in love, and you're going to fall hard. It's a matter of time and maturity. No worries, son, God has waited for bullies more hard-headed than you.

Trust the force, Luke.

[Marcel Cairo]

Here's another interview with Richard Dawkins for those who, like Dawkins himself, are "hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds." http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.html

[Augustine]

Brian,
I do not believe science won the debate simply because Dawkins' arguments were not scientific. He says the answer to the scientific question of the existence of God is 'no'. But where is the scientific method he used to derive that answer? Secondly he says miracles do not happen. That is not the approach of a scientist. A scientist will ask ' do miracles happen?' and try and answer the question. As any good scientist knows scientific beliefs stand or fall on the basis of observations. A good scientist will never say an observation did not take place. I read the article looking for something difficult that would challenge my faith and found nothing new of note in that debate.

[tao]

To Marcel Cairo:

You wrote (in quotation marks):

"For those who don't know, I am a spiritual medium,"

Well you might be a "medium"... but then I'm a XXX-Large. heh heh

"Now, though, I want to check in on Brian's soul."

What makes you think that Brian or anyone has a "soul"? What does he need with a "soul"? He is quite complete just as he is. I don't think he needs any such unnecessary baggage. And as a matter of fact, I think that he has a habit of cleaning house and his head, and letting go of such notions.

"God is inside, waiting in that one place you would rather not go to."

God is not "inside". There is nothing inside... or outside for that matter. And just what is God? Some idea that you have. And who says that there is some "place" that Brian would "rather not go to"? What "place" would that be?

And then what makes you think that you know Brian better than he knows himself? In fact, in light of your comments, it is quite doubtful that you even truly know who you yourself are, much less who Brian is, or where he's at, or where he's been, or where he hasn't been.

Seriously dude, do you really think that Brian and others are such fools as to actually think along these lines? You may fool your gullible and naive psychic clients, but you sure ain't foolin us. Get real dude. Dump that archaic "God" and "soul" trip, and awaken to reality. Before you start telling Brian who he is and what he's missing, you ought to first find out Who and what YOU are. You obviously don't know... otherwise you would not have said what you said.

"It's the same for all of us"

No it's not. Not at all. Its a different path for each. And to each his own. There is no "God inside waiting" for anyone or anything. There is nothing lacking. There is nothing apart or separate. There is no "God" who is "waiting" for anyone. Nor is there anyone for "God" to wait for.

"God has waited for bullies more hard-headed than you."

Again, there is no "waiting" God, nor is Brian a hard-headed bully. Your self-assured attitude and trip is quite transparent, and it reeks of presumptious judgement and self-righteousness about things which you just really have no clue about whatsoever.

How Brian ever got mixed up with your trip is rather odd to me. But you are where you are at and you believe what you believe, and thats all OK... just as long as you don't try, as you have, to foist it upon others like Brian.

There are people in this group that are just way ahead of you spiritually, and if you were really wise, you would not attempt to act so smarty and self-assured. There is a whole lot you could learn from Brian (and others) that you don't even have the slighest inkling about yet. Maybe you should be asking Brian, instead of trying to tell Brian what he's missing.

Aum Shanti

[Dennis]

I'd love to see the expression on Richard Dawkins and other atheists faces when they die and the Yamdoots(Like the black demons in the film "Ghost") rip their souls from their bodies that feels like the stings of a 1000 scorpions and they get beaten and dragged wailing before Yama the God of Death. Talk about a major 'Opps' moment!

[Marcel Cairo]

Tao,

You amuse me. Thank you for your heartfelt and semi-ridiculous diatribe. You should have been born an evangelical minister with your power of attack. BTW, you seem to be very literal seeing how caught up you were in my use of the word "waiting". It's just a figure of speech, so don't get your panties in a twist.

FYI, I was not trying to sell Brian any one type of spirituality, or convey the notion that I knew him or myself better than what he knows. All I was doing was talking to Brian using a cutesy conversational conceit to remind him in a coded message of some things we discussed in our personal reading. I think Brian understood them (maybe?).

Anyway, when I refer to God, I am referring to the God of your choice, not to my version of that energy source. From my conversations with Brian, I don't think he is an atheist, though judging from recent blogs, he may be investigating the possibility of becoming one. On my radio show, Brian talked about be an "agnostic", someone who doesn't know, but is seeking to find out.

Tao (nice disguise), you do bring up one good point. I can and do learn a lot from Brian and from this blog, hence the reason I visit here. I always find something to stir my thought process and I often incorporate these learnings into my own belief system.

You are also right in that I am self-assured. I am self-assured in what I know to be true, not just a belief. I have worked with over a thousand clients, all people I have never met before, and the evidence to survival of consciousness is unquestionable in my world. This is not "psychic" work as I am not a psychic. The work I do is centered around a personal and evidential proof, not on traditionally accepted laboratory repitition.

Anyway, the difference between those with faith and those without is just that; believers have something that can't be touched, and those who doubt, just doubt.

I would never in a million years trade places with you, or even Brian for that matter, no matter how much pleasure you get from intellectual masturbation.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,
Wow! Egotism surely runs rampant here in your Church of the Churchless!
Robert Paul Howard

[tao]

To Marcel Cairo:

Unfortunately for you, being amused does not alter the fact that you are a pompous and pretentious asshole who talks God garbage.

And oh, by the way, I often fry up "evangelical ministers" for lunch, and then have some baked "cutesy conversational conceit" cake for dessert.

You wrote: Anyway, when I refer to God, I am referring to the God of your choice, not to my version of that energy source."

Just more typically useless "God" garbage.

You wrote: "I am self-assured in what I know to be true, not just a belief."

He who says, does not know... He who knows, does not say.

You wrote: "the evidence to survival of consciousness is unquestionable in my world."

It is not "unquestionable" "evidence" if it cannot be substantiated or proven. If not, then it is merely a belief.

You wrote: "believers have something that can't be touched"

Beliefs are merely thoughts and ideas. Believers have nothing more than ideas.
When confronted by the reality of what is, their beliefs will be revealed for what they are, and be forced to crumble into nothing.

You wrote: "I would never in a million years trade places with you"

You couldn't even if you wanted to, but if you did, all your cherished beliefs would be turned to dust.

And then I wonder what Brian thinks about your describing him and his blog articles as "intellectual masturbation"? Ahh... but then you are obviously someone who is a real master-bater yourself. Maybe you could give some expert masterbating advice to Brian and the readers.

[Marcel Cairo]

Tee hee hee, Tao so funny. Giggle giggle.

[Joshua Dudley]

I started to read your article and after getting throught the first 3 paragraphs I stopped since I had seen it all before.

I just finished reading the Time article myself and I came out with quite a different perspective, Collins actually made Dawkins look a bit churlish while it was Dawkins who was stammering especially at the end when he was flustered and talked about how "he wasn't as close minded as you think I am."

Additionally Collins said he pretty much agrees with Dawkins work except about the stuff of God not existing.

I think you're looking at the article from a very abstract perspective. If the point of a debate is to one up the other person and get them rattled while clearly expostulating your own points then collins suceeded quite handily.

[e]

hahahahaha.owned!

[Anon]

I read a shitty fiction book yesterday. It was called the "holy bible."

[Dustin Applebee-Whipp]

Im would have to classify my self as agnostic for the moment. I too like Brian continue to search for something. The only person that can discover that is myself. I dont get why religions feel the need to force feed information if Im not going to accept there is nothing you can do about it. This is for christianity, there are so many damn confusing ideas about what God actually wants. Any one and everyone has taken his words into their own and if i did decide hey maybe this god fellow is alright and i would follow which one do i follow. There are so many questions i have for a pastor or preist. Honestly i dont think anyone would ever be able to fully explain or answer me. This is exactly why i cannot follow a religion yet. on an opposite note I have read The Teachings of Buddha (a copy from singapore not that it matters) The Tibetan Book of The Dead (the title for westerners) And right now I am reading Paradise Lost ( probably one of the coolest books ever). I just thought i might share some of my bankround in recent readings.

[tucson]

Dear Mr. Applegate-Whipp,

This book is pretty good. It may offer a perspective you haven't come across yet... "Once the clear silent space that is free of dualistic concepts is recognized it is seen that birth, existence and death do not happen TO you, but IN you."

http://www.amazon.com/Awakening-Dream-Leo-Hartong/dp/0954779215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283370420&sr=8-1