Responding to the New Atheism: Scientific and Religious Perspectives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE WHEATLEY INSTITUTION Responding to the New Atheism: Scientific and Religious Perspectives Richard N. Williams and Edwin E. Gantt, Editors Wheatley Publications Responding to the New Atheism: Scientific and Religious Perspectives Richard N. Williams and Edwin E. Gantt, Editors Wheatley Publications The Wheatley Institution Brigham Young University 392 Hinckley Center Provo, UT 84602 Main: 801-422-5883 Fax: 801-422-0017 Email: [email protected] http://wheatleyinstitution.byu.edu Donor Liaison: Tom Mullen Phone: 801-422-4476 Email: [email protected] CONTENTS Responding to the New Atheism . 1 Richard N. Williams and Edwin E. Gantt Defending Against the Threat of the New Atheism . 7 Dinesh D’Souza, King’s College The Possibility of Atheism; the Place of Faith . .15 James E. Faulconer, Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding; Professor of Philosophy, Brigham Young University Scientific Fundamentalism and Its Cultural Impact . 23 Karl W. Giberson, Eastern Nazarene College Physics and Faith . 31 Stephen M. Barr, University of Delaware The Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology . 37 Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Outlines of an LDS Response to the New Atheism. 45 Edwin E. Gantt and Richard N. Williams, Brigham Young University RESPONDING TO THE NEW ATHEISM Richard N. Williams and Edwin E. Gantt t may be lamentable, but is nonetheless true, that many trustworthy, and just plain worthy in the intellectual life of I people speak and write English without ever consult- our culture, as well as what is incoherent, erroneous, and ing a dictionary of the English language or a grammar text. unworthy. Many, if not most Americans will defend our constitutional This is most often not an easy thing to do. It is almost democracy and the rights it guarantees without ever read- always an unpopular thing to do. Our own academic ing or understanding in detail the Constitution and with- careers provide numerous examples. These examples come out much concern for the difficult questions about what from a social science—psychology—but we believe they constitutes a right and how rights are to be guaranteed. apply across most disciplines. One of us has been described Most Christians manage to live fulfilling lives of faith with- as an intellectual “hair shirt.” We are not certain whether out sophisticated training or immersion in the formal the- the emphasis in the image was the penance associated with ology of their church or denomination. In one sense, this a hair shirt, or just the fact that it is irritating. The other has is probably how it should be. Christianity is robust enough been somewhat playfully described as an “annoying jerk.” to survive basically intact through most private interpre- Over the years, we have developed a repertoire of academic tations. Not every valid, useful, sufficient, or true under- conversation stoppers. For example, within the disciplinary standing needs to be a detailed analytical one. However, we discourse, it is frequently thought necessary to affirm that should never lose sight of the fact that “ideas matter,” that psychology is a real science. In the context of such discus- knowledge and understandings come from somewhere in sion we are often moved to ask questions like: the past and point to somewhere in the future. They are what they are, and teach what they teach, largely because • What do you mean by science? of the presumptions built into them and the implications • Do you insist that science is necessarily and only toward which they direct us—most often without our naturalistic explanation? explicit awareness, much less our deliberate assent (see, • Why does only naturalistic explanation count? e.g., Slife & Williams, 1995). • Do the observational data of science require that only More to the point for this volume of essays, many peo- naturalistic explanations can be tendered to account for ple—even well-educated people who, perhaps, should be them? more careful—will respect science, invoke science, and • What labs would have to shut down if we kept the believe science without careful discussion and understand- methods of science, but just rejected strict naturalism? ing about just what science is or what qualifies as scientific • What labs would have to close just in case there is a knowledge. Some well educated people, on the other hand, God? will reject science in the same way. This also seems to be • Do you mean science as a set of truth claims derived true regarding various scientific theories, models, explana- from a particular method? tions, and findings. Some are believed simply because they • Do you mean science as a method of systematic are “scientific,” without clear or critical understanding of investigation? the knotty metaphysical, epistemological, methodological, • Do we have to grant the same epistemological priority and ethical issues, commitments, and assumptions bun- to scientists’ explanations and theories as we do to their dled into such explanations and findings. It is unrealistic observations? to believe that the majority of the consumers of science and • Do you mean a purely empirical Baconian science, or other intellectual products of our universities, laboratories, something more like a Newtonian science? and think tanks will easily develop for themselves the skills • What about conceptual problems associated with and background necessary to ask the right questions and verification and falsification in any empirical science? examine the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical assumptions and implications running through scientific As one can imagine, about this time the conversation is “knowledge” and other offerings. It is, therefore, the obliga- over and our reputation as disciplinary hair shirts remains tion of scholars and students who produce these products intact. Maybe we really are annoying jerks. to do the careful analysis necessary to convey what is true, 1 The point here is not that we are particularly clever, that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feel- but, rather, to illustrate the importance of being careful ing that such a position, though logically sound, would have “educated consumers” of scientific and intellectual work, left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism particularly as it is filtered through various information might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin outlets, including print and electronic media. We have used made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (p. 6) this example because, we believe, it is relevant to the subject and the purpose of this volume. The topic of the volume To sow doubt is one thing, to demonstrate your oppo- is responding to a “new” (in the sense of recent) body of nent’s obsolescence and irrelevance is quite another—the work—or, perhaps, a new genre—that is often referred to former human, the latter irresistible. Thus, proponents of as the “New Atheism.” As we have become acquainted with the New Atheism have tried to appropriate for their pur- the genre, it seems to us that it looks a lot like the “old athe- poses both science and reason in general, and evolution in ism,” but there is something new about it that bears noting particular, greatly reinforcing the classical skepticism that and requires response. The heart of atheism—in any age— has always been at the heart of most atheist arguments. has always been skepticism; skepticism about the super- Indeed, in many ways, the New Atheists have sought to co- natural, about how supernatural things can be known, and opt science and scientific discourse for their own natural- about how supernatural things can “cause” natural ones. It istic ideological ends, maintaining in various ways that sci- has always relied on reason and rational argument, often in ence is really only science insofar as it conforms to (and, in the guise of one or another model of science as the alter- the end, confirms) a neo-Darwinian account of the world native to religion and religious knowledge. The rational (Goldsmith, 1990; Poppe, 2006). That is, one’s arguments or scientific alternative has served, for atheists, as the basis of findings only count as scientifically credible if they are the a profound skepticism about religion, claims of religious product of purely observational data that is explained solely knowledge, and the supernatural in general. But the role in naturalistic terms. Findings not couched in such fashion of a skeptic has always been that of a “spoiler,” always chal- are routinely derided as either simply nonsensical or reflec- lenging religion with the same question, “Yes, but how do tions of yet another attempt to sneak traditional biblical you know?” Such a question, if it’s your lead-in as well as creationism back into the halls of science from whence it your summation is a bit unsatisfying. Skepticism is not a was rightly ejected well over a century ago. very good offensive position because if religion really has The chief problem with such a strategy, however, is that no basis for truth claims, neither does a purely skeptical it ultimately makes neo-Darwinism not only impervious to atheism. So nobody knows, and nobody wins. serious critique but also impervious to refutation even by The energy and boldness behind “New Atheism” comes, science itself. After all, science is, on such an account, all but it seems to us, from a perceived opportunity to move synonymous with neo-Darwinism and, therefore, cannot beyond traditional skepticism and seize the offensive in be marshaled against itself in any critical or potentially fal- making affirmative declarations about the objective non- sifying fashion. In games of chance this approach is known existence of God and the actual harm religion has suppos- as “playing with loaded dice” and is a form of cheating that edly done. The opportunity for this bold move comes from is universally held to be in very bad form.