3E Challenges from science Flashcards
What are the basic contrasting views of Dawkins and McGrath?
- Dawkins: evi. suggests that r. offers no real answers to the questions we ask; it is prone to anti-intellectualism and violence; science = unlocking life’s mysteries - “I am thrilled to be alive in a time when humanity is pushing the limits of understanding.”
- McGrath: there are some questions that science cannot answer; sci. + r. need each other
According to Dawkins, when faced with something, what does humanity tend to turn towards?
• Religious answers
What is Dawkin’s modern version Paley’s watch? What weakness does Dawkins demonstrate?
• “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” (first associated with Fred Hoyle)
• The “probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a Boeing 747”
• Plane = life = complex
• Problem
- Saying that G designed complex things means that G would have to be at least as complex as the thing he designed
- “The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical probability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.”; G must be the “ultimate Boeing 747”, the superintelligent designer
- AKA, ‘who designed the designer?’ - first ass. w/ Socrates
What solution does Dawkins provide to the design argument?
• Abiogenesis + natural selection = the only workable solution to explain complexity
- This breaks down the problem of improbability into small pieces
- The development of the eye is not improbable from an evolutionary perspective
- God hypothesis = inferior to evo. by nat. sel.
- “any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.”
According to Dawkins, how did life originate?
• Nat. sel. does not explain why there is life/how life came to be?
- Instead of turning to a G hypothesis (i.e. we do not understand, ∴ God), nat. sel. should inspire us to find an explanation to the improbable existence of life)
• He proses the ‘anthropic approach’
- Since we are alive, eukaryotic, and conscious, our planet must be one of the rare planets that has bridged all gaps
- Multiverse theory: endless universes w/ diff. variation
- ‘Darwinian’ feel to this thinking; explaining life in terms of developments rather than just positing a G
How does Dawkins believe religion is an aberration?
- R does not offer reasonable answers ∵ it is flawed from the beginning
- R originated as a misfiring in the brain of an otherwise useful activity
Dawkins: what is an example of something that can give a creature survival value but lead to destruction? How does he link this to religion?
• Moths = guided to light/warmth; can guide them to a flame
• Religion = death by flame; by-product of two qualities that provide survival value:
1) Human tendency to obey elders; saves lives + increases safety; but, elders can be mistaken
2) Biologically programmed tendency to assign meaning + purpose to animals/objects (e.g. the lion is snarling - he must want to eat me); humans have said ‘the being that made this universe loves me’
Explain Dawkins’ concept of ‘memes’. How does he link this to religion?
• Memes = elements of culture passed down by non-genetic means (i.e. imitation)
- The meme first appeared in Richard Dawkins’ first book, ‘The Selfish Gene’ (1976), and was an attempt to understand why some behaviours, from an evolutionary perspective, seemed to make no sense but, somehow or other, were found to be very common in human societies.
• Uses concept of memes to explain how we came up with details of r. belief
- There are many memes that include G and have added appeal ∵ associated w/ other memes
- These memes can be manipulated by r. leaders in ways that give rise to r. beliefs ∴ we culturally inherit belief in G
Explain ‘the wall between religion and science’ from Dawkins’ perspective.
- As r. only provides unreasonable answers and sci. only proceeds on evi., , how can any scientist be a r. believer?
- He accuses many contemporary scientists of accepting prizes from r. based bodies by passing themselves off as ‘faith-friendly’
Explain ‘the wall between religion and science’ from McGrath’s perspective.
- Notes that there are many C.tian scientists
- US survey in 1916 and 1997: 40% believe in a ‘God who actively communicates with humanity’
- How can Dawkins speak for the entire sci. community?
From McGrath’s perspective, what are some arguments against Dawkins?
• Many become C.tians in their adult years (you would not expect that if belief in G were like Santa/tooth fairy)
- e.g. Flew’s ‘There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind’
• One of the greatest weakness of atheism is the “persistence of belief in God, when there is supposedly no God in which to believe”
• If r. really were a “virus of the mind” with a biological foundation, there would be sci. evi.
• Similarly, the idea that r. belief reflects a deficient psychology which makes faulty assumptions = no evi.
• Lack of evi. indicates that Dawkins’ work = polemic - “more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers and others seeking for truth.”
• “I started out as an atheist, who went on to become a Christian - precisely the reverse of Dawkins’ intellectual journey.”
How does McGrath explain that there are limits to religion?
• Points to writings of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (a sceptic of r .belief)
- sci. + r. = non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) - the view that sci. + r. = two different areas of study; sci. = empirical realm and r. = questions of ultimate meaning
- Do not overlap: focus on separate realms of enquiry
• The McGraths prefer the concept of partially overlapping magisteria (POMA)
- sci. + faith can interpenetrate each other, helping each other to become more informed
• Regarding nat. sel., the McGraths’ view is that it can be interpreted atheistically, theistically, or other - we bring our world views; D has confused the worldview of atheism w/ the fact of nat. sel.
Explain Dawkins’ view of the God of the Gaps argument.
• Intelligent design theorists invoke G to fill gaps in our knowledge
• But, as the gaps in our knowledge decrease, G becomes increasingly irrelevant
• Since Darwinian evolution explains the complexity of life, gap theologians now pin their remaining hopes on the origin of life
- As soon as sci. discovers evi. pointing to a theory, G will have disappeared
• Notes that Bonhoeeffer rejected the G.o.t.g approach
What is the view of astrophysicist, Martin Rees?
• Ultimate questions lie beyond science; there is never enough evi. to prove answers
According to biologist Sir Peter Medwar, what are three questions that science cannot answer?
1) How did everything begin?
2) What are we here for?
3) What is the point of living?
