ThePickards
standards, accessibility, and ranting and general stuff by the web chemist

…or rather, they may be, but atheism is not a scientific theory. It is an untestable belief in the lack of a God. I’ve argued about this issue many times, partly because while I would like to believe in a God (as that might help my thanatophobia), I personally find it difficult to believe. However, what has got my goat in the past is when people (usually my dad) are critical of books I’ve read, such as The Marian Conspiracy without having read them themselves.

Now, the Marian Conspiracy is about the idea that the Virgin Mary ends up in hiding, and eventually buried in the UK. My father dismisses this as a load of rubbish. That it may well be, but for someone who claims to be a scientist to dismiss it because “anyone with any sense can see it is rubbish” is not science.

This is the argument from incredulity, often used in support of the belief in a God. “I don’t believe it could be so, therefore it isn’t so”. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the truth of the matter is dependent only on itself, and not on what anyone else thinks about it. And that scientific truth can only be established by working through the evidence and arriving at a conclusion, not simply by deciding that the conclusions — even though you don’t know what they are — must be nonsense because you don’t like the title of the book.

As it happens, I believe the author makes a reasonable case, in an entertaining and intelligently contructed book, for a lot of things that could well have happened. However, to my mind the final case is not made because the chain of possible and plausible links required to take the book to it’s ultimate conclusion are so long that, in my mind at least, the balance of probability is that one of the claims, while plausible, will have been incorrect, and therefore that the final conclusion is incorrect.

I therefore differ in this respect from another bloke I work with, who seems convinced that aliens landed in around 10000 BC and are coming back in 2012 when the stars re-align. Of course, he says he knows he is right. My argument is that he believes he is right; whereas I believe he is wrong, but do not know that to be true.

Now, I’m not a religious historian — but I am fascinated by religious history and interpretation, particularly the Judeo-Christian “Mythos”. I would like to call myself a Christian, as I believe that my outlook on how I should live my life is Christian, but I don’t feel that my personal beliefs in a God, afterlife, or Jesus Christ as the Son of God are sufficiently strong to consider myself a Christian, so mostly I don’t call myself it. You could possibly term me an Agnostic Christian, I suppose.

Agnosticism is an easily defensible position. All you’re really saying is that you don’t know about ther hereafter, the creation of the universe and so on. Any deviation from this belief, whether it’s a belief that natural laws just happened to be the way they were — or whether these natural laws were set by some kind of a creator, can be nothing more than belief. We have no way of proving either.

To some extent we’re getting into WAP, which basically states that “conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist”. Which is not the same as saying that conditions are this way — they plainly are — but that the conditions for the universe must be in this way. In other words, the universe (universes?) are set up in such a way as to create life.

Basically, there are a number of physical constants which just are set up in such a way as to be convenient for life, when they presumably didn’t have to be:

• The nuclear strong force holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, by as little as 2%, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If the strong force were slightly stronger, by as little as 1%, hydrogen would be rare in the universe and elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from fusion during the explosion of supernovae) would also be rare.
• The nuclear weak force affects the behavior of leptons (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and muons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. If the weak force were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available, and little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life as we know it would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. If the weak force were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and life as we know it would not be possible.
• The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were different atoms and molecules would be significantly different.
• The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of the orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. If the electron to proton mass ratio were different, atoms and molecules would be significantly different.
• The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains about one billion photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the systems into stars. In either case, the universe would be devoid of stars and solar systems.
• The force of gravity affects the interaction of particles. In order for life as we know it to form, the force of gravity must be 1040 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. The relationship of gravity to electromagnetism as it currently exists is this: The positively charged particles must equal in charge the numbers negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will not form. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 1037 (10 to the 37th power).

Wikipedia

The standard argument proposed by the evolutionary biologist (for which I much admire his work, having read most of his “popular science” books) and the anti-theist (which I find uncomfortable to read, as I don’t like being harangued) Richard Dawkins is that regardless of how improbable the chances of intelligent life ever existing in the first place (requiring a planet with the right conditions, laws of physics to be just so etc), it did here, as we’re here to talk about it, and therefore even if it is vanishingly unlikely, it did happen. That’s fine, and I’m happy with the possibility that these conditions could have randomly existed: however there are other possibilities — Lee Smollin’s theory of Cosmological Natural Selection, the theory of a multiverse of an vast number of universes with different physical laws, or the possibility that our physical laws were fine-tuned and/or designed by a Creator of some description.

My argument from incredulity here — by which I accept this is not sound reasoning — is that I do not accept it as possible that these constants could just have fallen how we need them by random chance. However, thinking rationally I cannot in any way justify one of the theories presented for this “fine-tuning” more than another. I use “fine -tuning” in quotation marks because the term implies deliberateness, whereas I am not making this claim — merely stating that it is a possibility.

So I’m not seeking to demonstrate that there must have been a creator, merely that we need an explanation for why these various constants are set “just so” in such a way that allows life.

Remember, I’m not arguing from a position of faith here. I’m arguing from a position of one who is open minded. I fear the certainty of death because I fear it is the end; I am willing to accept the possibility that it is, even though I would naturally prefer to believe otherwise. I’m just sick of being told by people who claim to be scientists that atheism is a scientific position. It isn’t. It’s a belief. I’m not seeking to argue that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Hinduism are any better or any worse as beliefs, but that science is doing itself a disservice if it is prepared to question these but not the position of Atheism.

I was delighted therefore do come across a book called Dawkins’ God by Alister McGrath which attempted to look at some of the anti-religious arguments within Dawkins’ texts and argue the case on their own merits. Interestingly enough, despite the book being written by a Christian theologian, there was no attempt to justify belief in Christianity, merely an argument similar to my own — and much better worked out, it has to be said — that atheism is not a scientific viewpoint.

What made the book more appealing to me was that the writer had taken a similar journey to my own, starting life as an atheist, being a student of and fascinated by biology and looking into spiritual beliefs only as an adult. Presumably this is why the pair of us have both come across Dawkins’ works, although I suspect we’ve done so at different times, given that he’s about 20 years older than me.

He argues that one of Dawkins’ arguments that atheism is a natural extension of scientific belief by quoting the famed biological writer (and another favourite of mine) Stephen Jay Gould:

Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs — and equally compatible with atheismStephen Jay Gould

He also suggests that Dawkins frequently sets up and then attacks a religious “straw man” who supports beliefs which are not commonly held by religious people but purports them to be, and by so doing appears to make those who are religious look foolish. He cites a number of examples where I am in full agreement with him — and some where I am not. He quotes Dawkins saying:

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and to evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, or perhaps because of, the lack of evidence … Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.Richard Dawkins

Now McGrath takes exception to this definition of faith:

I don’t accept this idea of faith and I have yet to meet a theologian who takes it seriously. It cannot be defended from any offical declaration of faith from any Christian denomination … What is really worrying is that Dawkins genuinely seems to believe that faith actually is “blind trust” despite the fact that no major Christian writer adopts such a definitionAlister McGrath

…as someone who doesn’t have a great deal of religious knowledge, Dawkins’ definition of what religious “faith” means is closer to my own understanding than the alternative provided by McGrath, so while Dawkins should have possibly looked for a religious definition of faith to find what the religious academics believe, it is not perhaps surprising that he used the defition that he did. Possibly McGrath would suggest that my questioning, and yearning towards belief is in itself a type of faith — but to me it isn’t. To me, “faith” is represented by the Bible-thumping, “fire in the soul” Hellfire and Damnation preachers on American TV. It’s interesting to find that isn’t the definition of religious academics, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who shares Dawkins’ interpretation of what is meant by faith. In this case then, I’d forgive him his straw man to some extent because I think it’s based on a common interpretation of what faith is — although in other cases, McGrath is right to bring him to book — notably when McGrath points out that Dawkins’ suggesting that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy — you’d tend to grow out of it — is a nonsense argument because many adults go from being an atheist to having a religious belief, but adults tend not to go from a stage of not believing in the Tooth Fairy to believing in the Tooth Fairy, and suggesting that so far as he is aware (and I agree with him) there is no evidence that believing in God is generally considered the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus.

Well, at this rate, neither of them will be getting any presents this year…

Similarly, McGrath makes that point that the majority of religious people are quite happy to believe in natural laws, and believe in the scientific worldview, whereas he quotes Dawkins as suggesting that religious people are “irrational”.

I’m with McGrath on this point. Certainly the vast majority of people I know who are religious are quite happy to accept scientific explanations for pretty much everything that science is prepared to explain — I don’t personally know a single religious person (and I’ll include members of the clergy in that) who doesn’t believe mankind evolved from apes, for example. However, religion isn’t always presented thus…

There was a program on TV last week presented to Tony Robinson about Eschatology (the end of times) called The Doomsday Code discussing the seemingly common belief in the US of things like “the Rapture”, that we’re approaching the end of the world, that the Earth isn’t millions of years old and so on, because The Bible says so. As Bill Hicks famously pointed out:

These people actually believe that the bi.., er, the world is 12 thousand years old. Swear to God. What the..? Based on what? I asked them.

“Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added ‘em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages - 12 thousand years.”

“Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn’t know that you’d gone to so much trouble”

Bill Hicks — Revelations

This is what I believe Dawkins thinks he is attempting to combat with his anti-religious message. I was going to use the term “hectoring” instead of message because that’s the way it feels to me, but that would be perjorative — other people might not feel that, although it is fair to note that I feel that). I think while McGrath is fairly representing the viewpoint of most rational believers with some kind of scientific background, not everyone has the same scientific and questioning background, and there are many people who will simply look to an authority to tell them what to believe.

I believe therefore that if Dawkins thinks this view is an accurate reflection of the views of all believers or religious communities, he’s plainly wrong — although it may certainly be representative of some groups.

McGrath also freely admits that there are times when the church and science have clashed — such as over the church’s insistence on the Ptolemaic view of the universe but he argues that this in some cases the argument represents a kind of power struggle, and in some cases the arguments are because the views believed by the church were the established views, and even the scientific community have great arguments and debates when there are new radical ideas launches there.

Not that I’m saying Dawkins necessarily fits into this category — although it has been suggested that distinguished scientists, of which Dawkins certainly is one, can fall into a mindset which is actually unscientific, dismissing anything outside their own particular beliefs:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.Arthur C Clarke

The person I am saying who fits into this category is — from my personal experience — my father. But the book has an explanation for that too. Or at least, given my father’s particular political beliefs and background, the book has an explanation for it. For those of you who were unaware — and I suspect that’s many of you — my dad used to be very political active in left wing politics, producing writings on Marxist topics such as Dialectical Materialism and so on.

To begin with, we say that the basis of Marxism is materialism. That is to say, Marxism starts from the idea that matter is the essence of all reality, and that matter creates mind, and not vice versa.John Pickard

This Marxist philosophy, or idea is a sound idea and may be correct. However, it is not scientific to assert that it is correct — this is an extension of belief. It can be debated alongside other options, but unless you can frame an experiment in such a way as to produce a testable hypothesis that there was or wasn’t a Creator, or is or isn’t such things as souls, it’s going to be bloody difficult to prove one way or the other — and if it’s not in the realm of what’s testable, it’s not science.

Of course, there are great evils that have been wrought in the name of religion. There’s the burning of women as witches, the crusades, and terrorist atrocities like the Twin Towers, as well as more minor things such as beatings, and the imprisonment of women simply for having a child out of wedlock. However, it’s fair to point out that none of these things have been carried out by a religion. They’ve all been carried out by people who have interpreted a religion to fit their own purposes. There have been plenty of atrocities committed by people in the name of religion. There have been plenty of atrocities committed by people who weren’t religious. There have even been atrocities committed by people in the name of atheism. The common factor in all cases is that the atrocities weren’t committed by a belief system, but by the relevant people.

McGrath also points out that the atheist ideology of Stalinist Russia was responsible for its own atrocities:

One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century is that many of the most deplorable acts of murder, intolerance and repression were carried out by those who thought that religion was murderous, intolerant and oppressive — and thus thought to remove it from the face of the planet as a humanitarian act.Alister McGrath

Should religion not be a choice that we make ourselves, rather than a choice that some authority (whether that be Dawkins or the Pope) seeks to make for us? Although if God were to descend from the sky in a fiery chariot, turn up in my garden for a cup of tea and a chat and ask me to believe in Him, I might consider that sufficient authority…

I would not hesitate to recommend Dawkins’ God to anyone interested in Dawkins, or in a rational defense of religion, or in a critique of atheism. I’d particularly recommend it to anyone who believes that an atheist’s view of the world is “more scientific” than that of a believer. Unfortunately, the atheists I have tended to find have been very closed-minded in their approach, dismissing the idea of a creator as nonsense and as to whether or not they’d actually be prepared to buy the book, read it, weigh the arguments and draw their own conclusions, I don’t actually know. But if they aren’t prepared to listen to the arguments and their conclusions are set in stone before they start, then they aren’t scientists. They may be believers in Atheism, but they’re certainly not scientists.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 at 11:53 pm and is filed under Articles, Faith & Forteana, Life, Science. You can follow responses via my RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your site.