In 2006, Oxford
biologist Richard Dawkins published his best-seller The God Delusion, a scathing attack on religion in general and the
Christian faith in particular. With generous doses of ridicule and scorn, he sought
to convince people why there almost certainly is no God. For Dawkins, religion
is what happens when people persistently choose to believe in a delusion
despite contrary evidence. But has science really disproved the existence of a
personal Creator? Well, just the opposite may be true. According to John
Lennox, professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford ,
the evidence actually points us to belief in a purposeful Creator of the
universe.
His monograph “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” represents a sustained
response to Dawkins’ challenges from a Christian perspective. Since then, both
eminent scientists had conducted their debate live before sold-out crowds. The most recent encounter was held at the Oxford Museum of Natural History where the famed
evolution debate between Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce took place in
1860. More than 150 years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin
of the Species, the question of God in relation to science is as
fascinating and fierce a topic to engage the human mind as ever. The format of this debate also entitled “Has Science Buried God?” was unusual in
that both proponents engaged in extended conversations without much
intervention from a moderator. Although it allowed for more spontaneous
exchanges, the lack of a clear structure also meant that various issues cropped
up that deviated somewhat from the main topics.
The Intelligible Universe
In his
opening gambit, Dawkins made a surprising concession that “a reasonably
respectable case” can be made for a deistic God, who merely set up the laws of
nature, sat back and watched the show. It seemed like an about-turn from his de facto atheist position. In The God
Delusion, Dawkins rated belief in God as highly improbable comparable to
belief in fairies beneath a garden[1].
But he immediately went on the offensive by chastening Lennox for
his specifically theistic beliefs, such as Jesus’ miracle of turning water into
wine. Dawkins found it unbelievable that the Creator of the universe, this
Paragon of mathematical laws and physical science, should intervene to rid the
world of sin by being personally tortured and executed. In start contrast, what
he saw as “profoundly unscientific” and “petty” would inspire the Psalmist’s
awesome wonder when he marveled in song, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the
moon and the stars, which you have set in place, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of
man that you care for him?”[2]
In
response, Lennox found it equally hard to believe the atheist’s claim that
there is no rationality behind the universe’s existence. How could an
intelligent mind such as Dawkins’ be produced by “freak accident”? As
scientists, both men operate on the assumption that the world and its laws
could be studied and understood rationally. But how do we account for the intelligibility of the universe? The
entire scientific enterprise is undermined if the reliability of our cognitive
faculties is in doubt. For Dawkins, the truth-discovering faculty of a brain is
obviously useful for our survival in the real world. It would not help the propagation
of genes if animals often made misguided jumps off a cliff. Lennox
quipped that some human beings do very well by telling lies. The problem is
also known as “Darwin ’s doubt”: How can we really trust a mind that has been determined
by unguided, mindless evolution interested only in reproductive success rather
than the truth? For a Christian scientist, the world is ultimately intelligible
because there is Logos (or a rational
Mind) behind it. The present impasse may be transcended with further exploration
into whether truth-discovery is necessarily
helpful to survival or paranoid false beliefs could function as a survival strategy
too.
The Origin of Everything
Fred Hoyle once said that the
probability of life appearing on Earth is like the chance that a hurricane,
sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a Boeing 747. Dawkins admitted that scientists do not yet have an answer
to explain how the extremely precise balance of physical laws and gravitational
constants necessary for organic life came about. However, such gaps in our
current knowledge should not be a license to bring in God as an explanation.
The “parable” of Darwin ’s theory showed that even seemingly designed living
organisms could emerge from blind processes of natural selection. Perhaps we
should wait patiently for a cosmologist “Darwin” to arrive on the scene. But even
if science could never fill these gaps, he added, the God hypothesis would still
be far more complex to explain than the “simpler” problem of the universe’s
origin. Dawkins also had little patience for the idea that God may guide the evolutionary
process in order to create life because it would be an unnecessary add-on
explanation for something that could be exhaustively explained with natural
causes. If we can explain a falling object by gravitational force, we wouldn’t
dream of saying “Oh! There must be a God pushing it down”?
As an
analogy, we may imagine the sight of a tree being struck down by lightning while
driving north from Simpang Pulai on a rainy monsoon day. The tree fell from a
hill, washed down by pouring water and triggered an avalanche of rocks. At the
end of these observable natural processes, a long string of rocks formed the
words “Welcome to Ipoh !” Would we be inclined to think that it was no freak accident
and that the natural processes themselves were directed by intelligence? It is
not a superfluous but reasonable inference to the best explanation. If that
simple rock-based information leads us to such a conclusion, how much more
compelling is the complex, ancient DNA language written in each and every cell within
our bodies? To borrow a quote from Lennox , “You don’t argue away the existence of an agent by
explaining the natural mechanism.”
Ultimate Meaning and Purpose in Life
What can
science tell us about morality and the purpose of life? Is there any ultimate
justice in a world of suffering and injustice? The practical implications from
both worldviews came into stark relief when such fundamental issues were
addressed. When pressed for his own position, Dawkins bit the bullet with admirable
clarity, “OK, suppose there is no hope. Suppose there is no justice. Suppose
there’s nothing but misery and darkness and bleakness. Suppose there’s nothing
that we would wish for… Too bad!” He proposed that it is a nobler alternative
to face up to our inevitable death in a silent and cold universe than pinning
our hopes on childhood illusions and imaginary friends. It is completely
irrelevant whether a belief is comforting because the psychological benefits
don’t make it true. We need to have solid evidence to ground our beliefs. Within
an atheistic framework, Dawkins believed that each one of us could make up a
meaning for our own lives. However, not all constructed meanings are equally valid.
From his own subjective standards, Dawkins believed that it would be a “tragedy”
that people waste their lives devoted to religion.
Under the
looming shadows of a T-Rex skeleton, both participants did a good job comparing
the worldviews they represented. Dawkins held the rhetorical edge with his
engaging analogies, but Lennox held his own with careful philosophical
arguments. It is a worthwhile experience to listen in order to understand the views of someone you do
not agree with. The full debate may be viewed from YouTube or
Fixed-Point.org.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment