![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42Well the big news is that Stephen Hawking has finally refuted all those religious apologists who were fond of quoting his final line from "A Brief History of Time": "For then we would know the mind of God".
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," added the wheelchair-bound expert.In response to this The Times decided it was a good idea to invite Richard Dawkins to debate this. They decided to put Dawkins up against their religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill. Richard Dawkins can feel like a bit of a broken record at the best of times, but putting him against Ruth Gledhill was particularly pointless.
...
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes in "The Grand Design", which is being serialised by The Times newspaper.
I have posted about Ruth Gledhill before when I noted a couple of previous articles of hers:
1 - "Catholic Church No Longer Swears By Truth Of The Bible" - In the older of the two, she reports on a reminder by the Vatican that they have no problem with the theory of evolution and are able to accept certain passages in the Bible as symbolic. Her response? The Vatican is now clarifying which bits of the Bible are right and which bits are wrong.
I feel the need to place the important bits of this article under the cut because, what with The Times now making the public pay for access to their site, there may come a time when you cannot use the link to the article anymore:
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
She saves the worst idiocy til last, finishing her article as follows:
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
TRUE
Exodus iii, 14
God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”
Leviticus xxvi,12
“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Mark viii,29
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
2 - Children Who Front Richard Dawkins' Atheist Ads Are Evangelicals Rather handily, in this case pretty much all the problems can be seen in the title. The advert under discussion is the following one from the BHA:
"Please Don't Label Me. Let Me Grow Up And Choose For Myself."
Just to confuse things there are two major atheist/agnostic lobbying groups in the UK. There's "The Secular Society" and "The British Humanist Society". The former is only intested in atheism, whereas the latter is concerned with the wider issues of "secularism" (e.g. issues like ensuring fair hiring practices for people of all faiths and none). No, I did not just get those mixed up.
So perhaps unsurprisingly, the BHA organised a campaign noting that children should not be used for the promotion of a particular belief system because they are too young to make such decisions. Gledhill's response? Well you've already seen it. She claims that these children are being used to promote atheism (um, no they aren't), but actually they are "Christian Evangelical children" (oh my goodness, you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried).
Their father, Brad Mason, is something of a celebrity within evangelical circles as the drummer for the popular Christian musician Noel Richards. ... He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.”
...
The British Humanist Association said that it did not matter whether the children were Christians. “That’s one of the points of our campaign,” said Andrew Copson, the association’s education director. “People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts.
Perhaps before choosing your article heading, Ms. Gledhill!
“The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.”So yeah, Gledhill isn't really someone you should expect a high level of debate from. In fact Hannah Devlin, who chairs the discussion, seems to do a better job of getting some clear answers out of Dawkins than Ruth Gledhill manages later:
14:34 Hannah Devlin:
To kick things off, I'd like to ask Richard what he makes of Hawking's thesis. Is this the new Darwinism?
14:35 Richard Dawkins:
Only the new Darwinism in the sense that it finishes off God. Darwin kicked him out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace
14:36 Richard Dawkins:
It is not like Darwinism in any other very strong sense.
14:38 Hannah Devlin:I get the impression that Devlin was deciding what comments would be displayed, so Tim H was being specifically put forward as a question from the floor. Sure, not much that's terribly challenging here and Devlin clearly (and mistakenly I feel) expects more interesting ideas to be raised by Gledhill later on.
If physics really has removed the need for a creator, how much does this weigh in on a debate about the possible existence of God - could there be another role for a deity beyond creation?
14:38 Richard Dawkins:
I can't even imagine what that would mean
14:39 Richard Dawkins:
If there is no deity in the first place, what other role could she play?
14:40 Richard Dawkins:
When people speak of another role for God, they might mean something like a personal role, looking after us, or forgiving our sins. But you can't do that sort of thing at all unless you exist in the first place!
14:40 Hannah Devlin:
I might wait for Ruth to come back on that one.. she will be with us very shortly. But first I've got a question from the floor
14:40 Comment From Tim H
on the basis of the celestial tea pot argument, will science ever be able to 'prove' that God does not exist even if we do find a unified theory or will religion continue to live in the interpretation of the ever smaller gaps
14:42 Richard Dawkins:
"on the basis of the celestial tea pot argument, will science ever be able to 'prove' that God does not exist even if we do find a unified theory or will religion continue to live in the interpretation of the ever smaller gaps" The ever smaller gaps will seem increasingly desperate as they shrink
14:43 Richard Dawkins:
The celestial teapot really knocks on the head all arguments of the form "You can't disprove God". There's an infinite number of things you can't disprove. Why should we bother?
Anyway, this is where Gledhill arrives and makes the statement which Pharyngula quotes and ridicules. These statements actually originate from an interview with David Wilkinson. Thanks to "Rupert Murdoch's Greed" (TM) you will need to subscribe to The Times if you want to read that. Fortunately, there is a site with some videos where David Wilkinson sets out his view on the "fine-tuning argument", not as an argument, but as a "pointer" to the truth of Jesus and Christianity (I'm not fantastic with google searches, so it took me a while to find that link btw) The basic gist of his position is that the set of events which took place in order for life to come about make us want to make shit up to explain it and making shit up is a sensible decision. Anyway, moving on...:
14:43 Ruth Gledhill:
Tim, I just interviewed David Wilkinson, principal of St John's Durham and astrophysicist, and this is what he said (full interview at my Times blog Articles of Faith):
The science Stephen Hawking uses raises a number of questions which for many opens the door to the possibility of an existence of a creator and for many points to the existence of a creator.
'One would be the the purpose of the universe. Although science might discover the mechanism, we are still left with the question of what is the purpose.
'Second is where the laws of physics come from. Science subsumes the laws but we are still left with the question of where the laws come from.
'Third is the intelligibility of the universe. It strikes me as interesting that Stephen Hawking can make it intelligible. Albert Einstein once said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For many of us who are struck by the intelligibility of the physical laws, the explanation is that the creator is the force of rationality both for the universe and for our minds.
Dawkins' Response To Statement One:
Why on Earth should anyone assume that there IS a purpose?
Ruth Gledhill:Richard, one might as well ask, equally, why assume there is no purpose?
Richard Dawkins: What is the purpose of a mountain? What is the purpose of a tsunami? What is the purpose of bubonic plague? Surely you can see that these are just silly questions? Same with the universe.
Ruth Gledhill: To say 'what is the purpose of a tsunami' is a 'silly question' is a silly thing to say, if you will forgive me. if asking questions is silly, what on earth are we all doing here, or anywhere, at all?
Richard Dawkins: OK then, what do you think is the purpose of a tsunami? Or of bubonic plague?
Richard Dawkins: Lots of questions are sensible. Like "How do nerve cells work?" "What is the Darwinian survival value of a peacock's tail?" There are huge numbers of sensible questions, which science spends its time answering. "What is the purpose of X?" is sensible only if there is a purposeful entity, such a human, to have that purpose. Tsunamis have no purpose. Or are you going to accept my challenge and tell me what its purpose is?
Hannah Devlin: Richard, are you saying that the only questions worth answering are scientific ones?
Richard Dawkins: No, not at all. But questions that begin "What is the purpose of . . ." require the existence of a purposeful agent. You cannot apply such a question to mountains or avalanches or tsunamis or the universe
Ruth Gledhill: I see no divine or godly purpose whatsoever in a tsunami... (followed by response to statement two*)
Richard Dawkins: Precisely, Ruth, so why did you deny it when I said that asking the purpose of everything was a silly question?
Dawkins' Response To Statement Two:
Even if we are left with that question, it is not going to be answered by a God, who raises more questions than he answers.
Ruth Gledhill: Richard, David is not suggesting God will answer the question, more that he could be the answer to the question.
Richard Dawkins: How can it be satisfying to answer a question by postulating something that raises a far bigger question?
Richard Dawkins (answering a question from the floor because Gledhill has gone a bit loopy at this stage - see below): "Why would a God raise more questions than he answers? That implies that you are making the assumption that God needs an explanation." Yes, I am making exactly that assumption, for the same reason as you (assuming you are a theist) think the universe needs an explanation. Hawking has pointed towards an explanation of the universe.
Ruth Gledhill (continued from response to statement one*): and as for why would God raise more questions than He answers, He would for exactly the same reason that top scientists do exactly the same, yourself among them.
Richard Dawkins: That doesn't seem to be properly formulated. Something mistyped?
Ruth Gledhill: apologies. I was not very articulate there. my keyboard is not working well. what I was trying to say is that one of the hugely exciting things about science, about the books that you and Hawking and others in your league write, is the immense questions that are raised by the answers you discover.
Richard Dakwins: Of course. Science is hugely exciting. What has that got to do with God?
Dawkins' Response To Statement Three:
What would an unintelligible universe even look like? Why SHOULDN't the universe be intelligible?
Hannah Devlin taking questions she's selected from the floor: Ruth, Richard, I'd be interested in your views on philc's point - is religious belief irrational? If not, why?
Ruth Gledhill: exactly philc. read Tony Blair's memoirs. how many true arguments are truly rational?
Ruth Gledhill:Hannah, it depends what you mean by 'rational'. Just as Hawking argues that science will triumph over religion because it works, so I argue that faith will not exactly triumph but will continue because it, also, works. Out there in the blogosphere and on The Times website I am being called a number of names - 'silly' foremost but plenty of others too. And I accept that faith is often sustained by subjective experience. Again, as David Wilkinson said in his interview with me, in full on my blog at this website, 'My own belief in the existence of God does not come from scientific evidence first and foremost, it comes from the belief that God spoke into the universe or revealed Himself as Christians would say, supremely in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
'It is that perspective that convinces me of the existence of God, rather than arguments to do with the creation of the universe.
'My faith in the resurrection comes from personal religious experience coupled with a judicious assessment of the historicity of the New Testament narratives. (Oh dear)
Hannah Devlin (trying to get Gledhill to cease her irrelevant rambling): What does science have to say about aesthetics or history (religion aside for a moment)?
Richard Dawkins:Science may not have anything direct to say about them, or about some aspects of them. But that doesn't mean they are in principle beyond science in a supernatural sense. Only that science is not equipped, in practice, to answer detailed questions about history or aesthetics.
Hannah Devlin: Ruth, an interesting one from Mike... "I'd like to know what it would take for Ruth to believe that God does not exist. What does Science need to prove for her that there is no God."
Ruth Gledhill: Mike, I did once believe there was no God. As someone once said, I have tried the way of faith and the way of no faith. I know now which I prefer. If that points to some psychological deficit in me, well so be it. As I said in my commentary today, belief 'works' for some people. This is not at all the same, by the way, as saying that God finds a parking space when you need one or cures illness or anything of that sort at all. I find that faith helps me as an individual remain balanced and thus it makes me a better person and more importantly, better to live with for those I love. Some people, many people, are good enough to be able to manage to live a good life without faith. I'm not one of them. That's why today, I choose to believe.
Richard Dawkins: Ruth, that won't do. Either there is a God or there isn't. You really can't use 'what feels right for me' as an argument. Nor can you use "Lots of good people believe in God". Imagine if somebody said "I believe in the Loch Ness Monster because it feels right to me." You'd answer, 'To hell with what feels right, what is the EVIDENCE that the Loch Ness Monster exists?"
Comment From TheRationalizer: Ruth: If science showed that god created the universe I assume you would accept it. If however the same evidence showed that god died in the process would you then reject it? On what basis do you accept/reject evidence? Does it first have to reflect what you want to be true
Ruth Gledhill: @TheRationalizer. If science came up with a proof for either of those, then of course I would accept it, but science would have to prove a lot of other unprovable things first before it got to either of those unlikely points. Believing in God is not the same as believing that God created the universe, by the way.
@Richard Dawkins I would never use 'lots of people believe in God' as an argument! As for believing in 'what feels right for me', it is too simplistic to dismiss that. Agreed, feelings are not facts. But if believing in God works for me, just as setting my alarm in the morning to get to work on time works, and if not believing in God leads to - well whatever it leads to - I don't see why I should stop believing, just because someone thinks I should.
Richard Dawkins: "Works for me? Works for me?" What are you talking about? A lunatic who believes he is Napoleon could say, "My belief that I am Napoleon WORKS FOR ME". Who is supposed to be convinced?
Ruth Gledhill: Oh dear. I wondered if doing this debate might be a mistake. My answer to such challenges is usually this: 'The only thing I know for certain about God is that I am not it.' The same could be said for Napoleon I suppose....
The debate goes on longer than this, but then again this re-organising thing is a bit too much of a time-waster, so I'm going to stop there. I kinda feel sorry for Gledhill on this point. It's irritating for me seeing Dawkins pulling "my belief that I am Napoleon" out of his old bag of tricks again, so it must be even worse for someone who disagrees with the point behind it. That said, her response is quite vacuous to the point where I'd actually have been more impressed with "oh don't be so daft Richard" as a response. If the only thing you know about God is that you are not it, you aren't really in a good position to be a religion correspondent (not that this comes as any surprise).
Still, one last thing that could do with a quotation is the following point where Dawkins' decides to betray Islamophobic sentiment (and annoyingly Gledhill isn't interested in responding to it, never mind tackling it).
Comment From Jerry Coyne: Question to Ruth: If faith helps you, then does it make any difference to you whether what you believe about God, Jesus, the Resurrection, and the like is true? Devout Muslims, for example, are also consoled by their faith, but their beliefs about Jesus, Mohamed, etc. are completely contradictory to those of Christianity. Both can't be true.
Richard Dawkins: Quite right, Jerry. And even if there is some similarity between the Abrahamic religions, the Greeks believed just as sincerely in their pantheon. I agree with Dan Dennett that universal education in comparative religion would be a hammer blow to religious faith.
Ruth Gledhill: Jerry, in some liberal theological circles, it is not regarded as impossible that there is truth in both Islam and Christianity.
Richard Dawkins:The Islamic penalty for converting to Christianity is what, Ruth, perhaps you know?
And the Jewish penalty for having anal sex with another man is? I mean seriously, what was he trying to prove?
