June 24, 2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete?
Over at the Templeton Foundation, several thinkers, Steven Pinker, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Mary Midgley, Christopher Hitchens, and Stuart Kauffman among them, discuss the issue and give very divergent answers. Pervez Hoodbhoy:
Not necessarily.
But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one.
The God of your choice must be a stickler for divine principles. Science does not take kindly to a deity who, if piqued or euphoric, sets aside seismological or cosmological principles and causes the moon to shiver, the earth to split asunder, or the universe to suddenly reverse its expansion. This God must, among other things, be stoically indifferent to supplications for changing local meteorological conditions, the task having already been assigned to the discipline of fluid dynamics. Therefore, indigenous peoples, even if they dance with great energy around totem poles, shall not cause even a drop of rain to fall on parched soil. Your rule-abiding and science-respecting God equally well dispenses with tearful Christians singing the Book of Job, pious Hindus feverishly reciting the havan yajna, or earnest Muslims performing the salat-i-istisqa as they face the Holy Ka'aba. The equations of fluid flow, not the number of earnest supplicants or quality of their prayers, determine weather outcomes. This is slightly unfortunate because one could imagine joining the faithful of all religions in a huge simultaneous global prayer that wipes away the pernicious effects of anthropogenic global climate change.
Your chosen God cannot entertain private petitions for good health and longevity, prevent an air crash, or send woe upon demand to the enemy. Mindful of microbiology and physiology, She cannot cure leprosy by dipping the afflicted in rivers or have humans remain in unscathed condition after being devoured by a huge fish. Faster-than-light travel is also out of the question, even for prophets and special messengers. Instead, She must run the world lawfully and unto the letter, closely following the Book of Nature.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:24 AM | Permalink










Comments
RELIGION IS A LANCET FLUKE. RELIGION DESTROYS OUR MINDS AND INVADES OUR CHILDREN.
IT HURTS WHEN I PEE, AND RELIGION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 24, 2008 1:28:42 AM
Hey
Thanks for a great blog. Well done, I really enjoyed reading it. I spend my spare time searching online for blogs and websites that I am interested in. In fact I have become a sort of a health conscious recently and I buy a lot of my herbal products from http://www.youherbal.com , anyways thanks again and I look forward to all the updates.
Jessica
Posted by: jessica freeman | Jun 24, 2008 1:29:54 AM
Pervez Hoodbhoy's God is so vague, so undefined and so utterly unconcerned with our universe he might as well not exist.
Historically, the progression of science has been to peel away layers of God like an onion, forcing the supernatural to retreat further and further into obscurity.
Waving away the problem of God as something along the lines of Supreme Intelligence is so blurred and confused with the laws of Nature, Pervez is committing the laziest form of intellectual cowardice by finding this non-existent nook to stack a greatly reduced God in.
Posted by: Adri C | Jun 24, 2008 3:42:54 AM
Nick: I think they're talking about God, not religion. But I feel your pain. Maybe some of Jessica's herbs could help...
Posted by: buddyjolie | Jun 24, 2008 4:29:07 AM
Well done Nick. Now you're getting into the swing of things.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 24, 2008 6:49:03 AM
*sob*... I just want to be liked...
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 24, 2008 11:03:38 AM
You know, Nick, wanting to be liked is very possibly a lancet fluke also. You've really got no hope, man. Biological imperatives are stacked against you.
:)
Posted by: reader | Jun 24, 2008 4:35:50 PM
Anyone else feel that Hitchens seems nearly unhinged in the exchange with Ken Miller? I expect (and look forward to) his acerbic wit and take no prisoners rhetoric, even though I'm obviously 100% in disagreement with him on this subject, but here he seems almost to be waging a schoolyard taunt-fest rather than an adult discussion. Jilted lover, even.
Anyway, I was disturbed, your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 24, 2008 7:38:13 PM
Sorry about releasing the Lancet Fluke meme into 3 quarks--
It does seem to be replicating.
Daniel Dennett released into my brian---
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 24, 2008 8:56:16 PM
Why apologize. What choice did you have?
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 24, 2008 10:55:22 PM
Carlos FTW!
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 25, 2008 1:47:42 PM
Post a comment