Dawkins and Theology

[Ismael]

As I understand it, Richard Dawkins’s argument against theology is twofold.

Firstly, theology contributes nothing to our understanding of the world or of human nature - simply put, it contributes nothing useful, unless we wish to understand religion.

Secondly, it can actually do harm to both our understanding of human nature and to our understanding of the world. By circumscribing human nature in terms of objective, prescribed morality, it stifles the potential of human endeavour; by assuming supernatural explanations for the physical universe, it stalls scientific inquiry.

So, Dawkins’s argument against theology and against religion in general, can be simply stated - it does no good, and may do harm.

The point is that such arguments can be used against science as well, depending on one’s premises.

Dawkins simply bases his premesis, non on science, but on the metaphysical ideas of ‘materialism’ and ‘atheist positivism’.

He only thinks he’s basing his ideas on facts, but it is not so.

---

Besides many antropological and socielogical studies prove Dawkins wrong: Religion has often been a factor of improvement in a society, certainly in the pre-modern era.

I doubt it is a coincidence that the major philosohycal and scientific improvements in human history have been achieved in countries that were for a long time dominated by Christian ideology and that some of the greatest thinkers have been also theologians.

 

[Sair]

Sounds good.

A universal assertion, which statements are rarely justifiable. Evidence?

Subjective. Usefulness is not determined by a single observer.

Illogical. Inasmuch as the vast majority of humankind assert a religious belief, surely that would make it worth understanding?

Self-defeating. It was stated above that theology contributes nothing to our understanding and is thus illusory as a discipline, by which assertion it has no substance that could affect anything significantly.

Fuzzy logic. Understanding the default viewpoint of most cultures in human history would have to increase our understanding of the world.

Erroneous. Human nature is a fundamental concern of theology.

Contradictory terminology. Something that is objective (non-contingent on perception) need not be prescribed (contingent on the prescriber being perceived).

Another universal assertion. Evidence?

Reductionist. Most religious believers accept that science explains the nature of the physical universe. It does not, however, explain the creation event.

Over-simplified and grossly historically inaccurate.

With respect to you - and I actually do mean with respect, despite what is probably sounding like a very sarcastic reply to your mail - the argument as presented here is anything but simple.

Another unsupported assertion.

I agree. (Praise be!). And in that respect, theology is like other human endeavours, because it shares in a limitation of all things human - that what is human is capable of producing great good and great evil.

Dawkins’ argument, as you present it, is a sorites, where one weak position builds on another until the result is nonsense. Which, interestingly enough, is what a lot of people say about theology.

And in my humble opinion, sometimes they’re right. It might be that most theological arguments could be deconstructed in the smart-aleck way that I’ve just deconstructed this argument, and as far as I’m concerned, they’re fair game for such treatment.

What irritates me about the Dawkinite approach - which I am not assuming that you share, and if you do, that’s obviously your privilege - is the completely unwarranted air of objectivity that he assumes, whereby his comments have the credibility of scientific rigour because he’s a scientist (and I believe, a very good one).

He is, to my eyes and ears, a very bad philosopher and a very bad exponent of debate, and is utterly lacking in objectivity with regard to his views on religion. That’s my subjective impression, anyways. I won’t claim it is definitely true, because unlike the professor I think a little humility goes a long way, and I don’t want to label a single individual, let alone billions of religious adherents, as being invincibly stupid.

Theology, by definition, is the study of religious doctrine. If this is relevant to human nature, it is so only in a prescriptive sense. It does not study the behaviour of humans except in relation to religious observance – thus it is not fundamentally concerned with understanding people, but with constructing the scaffolding for religious faith. If it exposes any truths about human nature, it only does so incidentally.

As to there being any usefulness in theological study, except to those who wish to understand religious doctrine, I’ll have to put that back onto religious apologists. For the sake of this thread, it’s enough to say that Dawkins clearly sees no practical purpose to theology. Even though many people profess religious faith, theology is not concerned with what people actually DO believe, but with expounding the minutiae of what theologians claim people SHOULD believe. Sociological study would be much more to the purpose if we are seeking to understand what and why people believe.

Insofar as theology shapes religious doctrine, it can, by that means, do harm, even though it does not bestow any benefit. Let us say, for the sake of simplicity, that there are two possible purposes to life – the achievement of happiness in the afterlife, or the pursuit and enjoyment of happiness in the life we know we have. For the sake of unverifiable gains, religions often recommend that we forgo tangible and experiential gains, and therefore can do harm, both physical and, perhaps to a greater extent, psychological. To put it plainly, religions claim greater importance for the desires of an unverifiable god than they do for the needs of human beings. No matter how this is dressed up in theological terms to make it seem like this god has our best interests at heart, the claim remains the same.

To the extent that I have observed the claims of religious believers, there is little practical difference in what they see as prescribed morality and objective morality. Theists, in my experience, tend to equate moral goodness with God, who is also claimed to be the prescriber of moral rules. Thus, the object and the prescription are, for all intents and purposes, rendered virtually identical.

 

[Sair]

The point is that such arguments can be used against science as well, depending on one’s premises.

Dawkins simply bases his premesis, non on science, but on the metaphysical ideas of ‘materialism’ and ‘atheist positivism’.

He only thinks he’s basing his ideas on facts, but it is not so.

---

Besides many antropological and socielogical studies prove Dawkins wrong: Religion has often been a factor of improvement in a society, certainly in the pre-modern era.

I doubt it is a coincidence that the major philosohycal and scientific improvements in human history have been achieved in countries that were for a long time dominated by Christian ideology and that some of the greatest thinkers have been also theologians.

The premises upon which science is based, certainly in Dawkins’s view, are far more tangible and verifiable than those upon which religions are based. More importantly, the methods employed in scientific inquiry are very different to those employed by religious exposition. Both claim to seek truth, but only science does so through the use of rigorous observation, experimentation and verification, whereas many religions operate by handing down rules for their adherents to follow, without usually offering a reason more concrete than ‘God said so’.

I think it’s erroneous to attribute Dawkins’s arguments to anything other than his profound respect for the scientific method, his sense of wonder at the truths it reveals about the natural world, and his disdain for anything that interferes with the purposes of discovery and understanding. What you call materialism and atheist positivism are perspectives built upon a scientific approach to acquiring knowledge - an approach that renders supernaturalism profoundly unnecessary.

In a historical context, I also think it is simplistic to credit religions with advances in knowledge. If we focus upon Western history, it so happened that those who acquired more than a rudimentary education generally did so under the auspices of the church - it was, after all (and remains, though with less relative influence) a powerful political and social institution, and one of the few means through which those not born to wealth and social standing could achieve them. Furthermore, the coexistence of Christianity with scientific advancement does not imply causality. If anything, the church stood in opposition to some of the more important breakthroughs in the history of science (such as the heliocentric solar system and evolution) until its position was worn down by the weight of evidence.

 

[Ismael]

The premises upon which science is based, certainly in Dawkins’s view, are far more tangible and verifiable than those upon which religions are based. More importantly, the methods employed in scientific inquiry are very different to those employed by religious exposition. Both claim to seek truth, but only science does so through the use of rigorous observation, experimentation and verification, whereas many religions operate by handing down rules for their adherents to follow, without usually offering a reason more concrete than ‘God said so’.

Because materialism is scientifically veryfieble? Think again.

Besides Religion and Science claim two very different Truths that are not in comeptiton with each other (or at least need not to be).

I think it’s erroneous to attribute Dawkins’s arguments to anything other than his profound respect for the scientific method, his sense of wonder at the truths it reveals about the natural world, and his disdain for anything that interferes with the purposes of discovery and understanding. What you call materialism and atheist positivism are perspectives built upon a scientific approach to acquiring knowledge - an approach that renders supernaturalism profoundly unnecessary.

No they are assumptions made a priori, since they are not falsifible concepts.

Materialism and atheist positivism have no higher status that the idea that “everything is an illusion” (some monist currents believe that).

Scientifically you can NOT prove that one or the other is right. Because if you do an experiment how do you know that what you sense (ie the results) are not an illusion too?

Dawkins might have " disdain for anything that interferes with the purposes of discovery and understanding. "… but then he acts in a very contraddictive way, for example making derogatory statements without investigating the matters properly. That is HARDLY scientific.

He might be a good biologist, but he’s hardly the model for the perfect scientist, I am sorry,

In a historical context, I also think it is simplistic to credit religions with advances in knowledge. If we focus upon Western history, it so happened that those who acquired more than a rudimentary education generally did so under the auspices of the church - it was, after all (and remains, though with less relative influence) a powerful political and social institution, and one of the few means through which those not born to wealth and social standing could achieve them…

It is even more simplistic if not plainly false to think religion has nothing to do with it or that it even goes against development. Which is Dawkins position.

If anything, the church stood in opposition to some of the more important breakthroughs in the history of science (such as the heliocentric solar system and evolution) until its position was worn down by the weight of evidence

This is historical ignorance, I am sorry.

The ‘Galileo-affair’ so often used against the Church went quite different that what most people think and also the reason for his trial was also quite different that what people usually think it is.

First of all Copernicus, who first thought that the Earth rotated arounbd the Sun and the universe had no defines center was a priest. Some Church officials did dislike Copernicus works but the Church never condamned as heretical or otherwise.

Second: Galileo was not condemned because of his scientific ideas but because he criticized the inerrancy of the scriptures (which is a quite different story)

Third: At Galileo’s time there was hardly any substantial evidence for heliocentrism. He proved that some moons orbited Jupiter, this however does not prove that he sun is still and the Earth actually rotated around it.
Of course now we know that Copernicus and Galileo were right, but at the time there was no strong proof yet.

This is historical fact, not opinions.

 

[Ocarm]

Theology, by definition, is the study of religious doctrine.

No, its the study of God, and the consequences thereof. Doctrine is one sub-discipline within that - usually the one that people are most inclined to go on about, and most loudly, I would agree.

If this is relevant to human nature, it is so only in a prescriptive sense.

That is a huge leap. The level of prescription involved in theology will depend on the nature of the God that is envisaged. Some visions of God picture a deity that is not concerned with human expereince, and so does not prescribe anything. At the other extreme is a control freak God, who doesn’t even permit free will. And there’s everything in between.

It does not study the behaviour of humans except in relation to religious observance – thus it is not fundamentally concerned with understanding people, but with constructing the scaffolding for religious faith.

I wouldn’t agree. A great deal of theology is about God looking ‘down’ at humanity, and providing a framework for their lives, granted. A great deal of theology is also concerned with humanity looking upwards and analysing/explaining their behaviour in relation to the putative existence of a deity. That is a much more varied field of study than you seem to acknowledge, dependent on the level of blind certainty as opposed to healthy scepticism that the theologian possesses.

If it exposes any truths about human nature, it only does so incidentally.

That’s a very bold claim. Its beginning to feel like your starting point is that theology is bad, a means of social or cultural control, and so you will thus deny any definition of theology that encompasses anything else.

Dawkins clearly sees no practical purpose to theology.

We agree on that.

Even though many people profess religious faith, theology is not concerned with what people actually DO believe, but with expounding the minutiae of what theologians claim people SHOULD believe.

Again, you are commenting on a particular kind of theology, and I would concede, one that has a very loud voice.

Insofar as theology shapes religious doctrine, it can, by that means, do harm, even though it does not bestow any benefit.

Only if you make the *a priori *assumption that religious doctrine is inherently and universally bad, and can only lead to negative outcomes. I think reality presents a much more mixed picture, as it does of science, which has produced many good things and no few bad things.

Let us say, for the sake of simplicity, that there are two possible purposes to life – the achievement of happiness in the afterlife, or the pursuit and enjoyment of happiness in the life we know we have.

Interestingly enough, taking either view would be to take a theological position. Just like saying that there is no God is a theological position.

For the sake of unverifiable gains, religions often recommend that we forgo tangible and experiential gains, and therefore can do harm, both physical and, perhaps to a greater extent, psychological.

Only if you make another a priori assumption, which is that looking for tangible and experiential gains is always a good thing. That self-denial, or sharing, or focus on non-material things, can be beneficial is a view not only held by believers in God.

To put it plainly, religions claim greater importance for the desires of an unverifiable god than they do for the needs of human beings. No matter how this is dressed up in theological terms to make it seem like this god has our best interests at heart, the claim remains the same.

A third a priori assumption would be needed here, that what is perceived to be good for God must ipso facto be bad for people. In Catholic (and most other forms of) Christianity, we believe that faith in and service to God is meaningless unless this is evidenced in service to other people. That service may not meet short-term approval, or indeed could be expressed in a way that is misguided or plain useless, but the simple equation you draw that: faith in God= people get hurt is invalid.

To the extent that I have observed the claims of religious believers, there is little practical difference in what they see as prescribed morality and objective morality.

You are probably right in the case of many religious believers. But you’re also equating bad religion with all religion, as does Dawkins. I’m all for a critique of bad religious practice.

Theists, in my experience, tend to equate moral goodness with God, who is also claimed to be the prescriber of moral rules. Thus, the object and the prescription are, for all intents and purposes, rendered virtually identical.

Again, I think you’re right in some cases. The key issue is how such moral rules are codified, and what level of subtlety they possess. and for religious people, that is the concern of theology. Hence a positive use of theology is that believers in God can achieve ethical understanding through use of the discipline. And just as with science, they can also achieve something much less palatable than that.

We don’t have to agree on whether theology is a good thing. But I do think that you are employing circular logic here; theology produces nothing good, so anything that might be good can’t be the province of theology. With the greatest respect, I don’t think that your defintion of what theological discourse can and does include is at all accurate.

 

[Sair]

Because materialism is scientifically veryfieble? Think again.

Besides Religion and Science claim two very different Truths that are not in comeptiton with each other (or at least need not to be).

Part of the point of a lot of Dawkins’s criticism of religions is that there is a conflict of interest, at the very least because many religious claims, such as the creation of the world, the origins of humans, and so forth, have been found to be false through the discoveries of science. You’ll notice that he reserves his most strident antireligious rhetoric for young-earth creationists, but he is generally much kinder to those of a religious bent who accept that the findings of science reflect the true nature of the world.

Incidentally, how much of Dawkins’s work have you read? From what I have read, I’ve had the impression that his atheist stance is based not only on an encyclopaedic knowledge of biology, but upon respect for reasoning, critical thinking and evidence-based research. He may, of course, not be the world’s greatest or most important biologist (I think that honour might actually go to Darwin…) but his credentials are unimpeachable. As it happens, the vast majority of his writing concerns biology. I think you’ll agree that the attempted encroachment by Intelligent Design advocates into school science classes, not to mention the rise of dogmatic religious fundamentalists in both the US and the Middle East constituted a fair impetus for him to turn his hand to criticising religion.

Scientifically you can NOT prove that one or the other is right. Because if you do an experiment how do you know that what you sense (ie the results) are not an illusion too?

Insofar as what we see is our brain’s interpretation of the world, it could be said that everything we sense is just a version of how the world is. But that is why the standards for scientific proof are so rigorous, why experiments have to be repeatable. If multiple people get the same results from the same experiments, then we can assume for all practical purposes that these results represent an objective truth - which you would know, if you’ve read Dawkins closely.

Dawkins might have " disdain for anything that interferes with the purposes of discovery and understanding. "… but then he acts in a very contraddictive way, for example making derogatory statements without investigating the matters properly.

So, what are these matters that you’ve gone into more deeply than Dawkins?

The ‘Galileo-affair’ so often used against the Church went quite different that what most people think and also the reason for his trial was also quite different that what people usually think it is.

First of all Copernicus, who first thought that the Earth rotated arounbd the Sun and the universe had no defines center was a priest. Some Church officials did dislike Copernicus works but the Church never condamned as heretical or otherwise.

Second: Galileo was not condemned because of his scientific ideas but because he criticized the inerrancy of the scriptures (which is a quite different story)

Third: At Galileo’s time there was hardly any substantial evidence for heliocentrism. He proved that some moons orbited Jupiter, this however does not prove that he sun is still and the Earth actually rotated around it.
Of course now we know that Copernicus and Galileo were right, but at the time there was no strong proof yet.

This is historical fact, not opinions.

One would think it was bad enough that Galileo was tortured for the sake of religious doctrine, regardless of which particular doctrine he was caught disagreeing with. It is, however, to the Catholic church’s credit that it has generally accepted the findings of scientific research. Unfortunately the same can’t be said of many other religious denominations.

Oh, and another thing - why, but for the notion of the resurrection of the body, did Andreas Vesalius have to steal bodies in secret in order to dissect them for the purposes of anatomical research?

And why were people burned at the stake for possessing copies of the Bible in their own language?

I certainly don’t deny that science has been abused, but it was not, to the best of my knowledge, ever used to punish people for criticising the scientific method. It is simply not possible to claim that science has anything like the immovable, dogmatic structure of many religious faiths, despite the multitude of ignorant accusations of ‘scientism’.