In this round of the Dawkins season, screened by More4, society’s best loved or most hated atheist did not have to deal with religious zealots who are invariably more sinister and threatening than the type of person he designated the Enemies of Reason. The colourful array of astrologers, mediums, faith healers, fortune tellers, spiritualists, homeopaths, water dowsers, psychics appeared a bunch who took themselves much less seriously than religion’s devotees. They lacked the certainty, and arrogance that comes with it, of the ‘true believer’. Richard Dawkins seemed to be having genuine fun with them; and to their credit, they with him.
To me there is not a lot to choose between when looking at the peddlers of theology or astrology. The latter has the advantage in that we can at least see the stars they profess to study rather than have to settle for the unlikely story that they are invisible but nevertheless out there concealed behind a burning bush or something. And astrologers tend not to want your head chopped off or threaten you with hell fire if you don’t see their particular star shining as brightly as they do. Nor do they seem inclined toward charging around with their holy book trying to inflict its contents on to the rest of us or burn someone else’s for not being holy enough.
In Enemies of Reason, Dawkins continued with his theme that a growing threat to reason is on the march and should be treated more seriously than it is. He sites much of his fear in the evident decline in interest in science subjects in British classrooms. This when juxtaposed to the rise of what may be called quackery has sent Dawkins’ anxiety antennae bleeping.
I really wonder if Dawkins is not being a bit over the top. People who are obviously hoaxers, many seemingly for the sheer fun of it, with absolutely no intention of proselytising for the cause, hardly pose the same challenge to human understanding as organised religion. An astrologer is like an actor providing public entertainment. The blood is fake but we don’t ask for it to be banned or demand our money back at the cinema on the grounds that Dr Frankenstein could not possibly have created a man. It is hard to imagine the homeopaths stoning women to death because of medicinal promiscuity. The quack pack are a funny lot but you sense they know it already and have a fair measure of tolerance towards other who are baffled by their activity and thinking. Unlike the religious lot they seem not to mind having a bit of fun poked their way.
We live in a world of multi cultural dimensions and other cultures are just something we have to coexist with. And that includes the zany, the pot smoker the gambler, the boozer, the whatever we do. Otherwise, how far should Dawkins and his colleagues be allowed to take matters? Society neither wants nor needs a dictatorship of the scientists. It knows already that scientists between them have manufactured the means of human extinction, the most terrible array of powers any group can possess. To teach not dictate is the licence society should grant science.
Imaginative licence is part of the human condition. Great works like Bram Stoker’s Dracula would not have been produced without it. Science should strive to better explain the imagination instead of suggesting that is just in our imagination, not in reality, that vampires are to be found and we should abandon it because its truth status is negligible. There are things the human mind wants to enjoy without being reminded of the reality underneath. In exploring a beautiful city like Zaragoza few want to hear from their tour guide what the sewers running underground are like despite the fact that without them the city could not function.
Consider the fictions we live with and take pleasure from. Should Stephen King novels not be sold because there is no such thing as blood sucking creatures of the night taking over a town called Salem? The joy I used to derive from King novels during my imprisonment, having been introduced to them by Gary McNally who gave me Carrie, and Martin Livingstone who provided a copy of The Stand – after which I was hooked – would have been denied me, my life made duller than it already was. I didn’t believe Pet Sematery was a place that could have its own version of the resurrection. It was pure fiction but fantasy serves a purpose by inserting a few bends, chicanes and indolent waywardness into the straight highways of science.
Dawkins invariably professes a ‘passionate concern’ for truth and he fears for the science in the world of untruth. I fear for the world of fiction and the novel – even science fiction which I don’t particularly like - in a science defined by expansionism in the worst possible sense of the term.
If there is a danger posed by people being conned out of their money and paying for remedies that endanger their health then that is a matter to be addressed by the law of society. By all means expose Lourdes for the farce it is, the same with the healers-cum-money sucking televangelists in the US. But much of what was highlighted in Enemies of Reason was like gambling: pay your money, pull the arm and hope something bigger comes out than what you put in. Misplaced hope, an illusion, it hardly matters. Is it so necessary for science to purge it?
Dawkins made a play on human progress through modern medicine but had woefully little to say on the very real possibility of quack remedies being considered because the pharmaceutical companies have priced scientifically verified medicine outside the price range of many in dire need of it. Maybe that’s the lot of the ‘undeserving poor’ in a world subject to the laws of social Darwinism.
I believe in the scientific explanation of our world and have no belief whatsoever in religious explanations of my surroundings. Science is to be valued for its explanatory power of the universe above any other interpretation. One reason I respect it is because of its potential to be liberating rather than restrictive. While there is no reason for it to exist on the same intellectual plane as other explanatory frameworks, for it to adopt a religious-like approach to all practices that have a very dubious truth value and seek to suppress them on those grounds is to dangerously politicise science. Given its power coupled with the political ends to which scientific power has been applied, such as gas chambers and atomic bombs, society can only afford to travel down the scientific road to truth not oblivion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mackers, don't think science is all it is cracked up to be either.
ReplyDeleteI once read that science will find what it is paid to find and I think that is fair comment.
Scientists have always been presented as some elite clique, they know a little bit more than the rest of us and in most instances that may well be the case.
Science has also caused more than its fair share of suffering and misery. Every year 100 million animals are tortured in the name of science.
Genetics, bio-medics, cosmetics and the rest all argue their case for millions of pounds of qovernment money to produce, flourascent chickens, gentically modified pigs, vivisections and any other useless research schemes.
Claude Bernard, known as the father of 'Physciology' once said 'The science of life is superb' bet the animals whose brains he removed daily without the aid of anaesthetic would disagree!
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteI think science is a bit like they once said of democracy and public inquires – they are the worst except for all the rest. Its strength lies in the ability to test its findings by empirical means. It does not rely on the word of someone hiding up mountains or behind burning bushes. For all its shortcomings I still hitch my wagon to it. It really is without competitors when it comes to explaining life and the natural world.
Mackers, I think cruelty on that scale is more than a shortcoming.
ReplyDeleteIt has been proven, scientifically of course, that stem cells provide much more reliable results than animal testing, however, there are apparently religious and cost arguments, so most scientists opt for the cheaper option.
Apart from the cruelty argument, how often have we heard something has been scientifically proven, only to be told x years later it has not.
Scientists, once said it had been scientifically proven, than Black people and women had smaller brains.
Science is value laden and at times subjective rather than objective.
Two eldery couples are enjoying a friendly conversation when one of them asks the other,"Fred how was that memory clinic you went to last month?" "outstanding"Fred replies "they taught us all the latest psychological techniques-visualisation,association,it made a huge difference for me. "thats great,what was the name of the clinic?" Fred goes blank,he thinks and thinks,but cant remember,then a smile breaks across his face and he asks "what do you call that red flower with the long stem and thorns?" "you mean a rose" "yes thats it" he turns to his wife "Rose whats the name of that clinic?"
ReplyDeleteNuala, for all the faults, shortcomings, failings - call them what we will - of science imagine a world without it. We could quite easily get by without religion but not wthout science. It is without equal as a system of knowledge. Its finding can aways be tested. The inferences drawn from findings are a different matter. The uses to which it can be put also - think of the Nazi scientists experimenting with Jewish kids. I am sure there are scientists in the pay of tobacco companies who try to show no link between smoking and cancer but that does not invalidate science's findings on such a link.
ReplyDelete'Scientists, once said it had been scientifically proven, than Black people and women had smaller brains.' Marty probably thinks only half of that statement is true! I hope Albert doesn't agree with him!
Was this science or some scientist? Brains are easily measurable and this is where the value of science lies.
Until a better system of explaining our natural world comes up I'm sticking with science!!
Anthony , Mickeyboys brain cell what do you think scientists would make of that, I think the guy makes a powerful argument in favour of euthanasia,after all it could be catching,nah ya need two to breed!!
ReplyDeleteMackers, only a idiot would claim that science has not made major advances, however, I still believe scientists are subjective.
ReplyDeleteYou made a very valid point about the tabacco companies, however, will scientists ever say there is a direct link between meat eating, breast cancer and all kinds of tumors? No! Why Not?
That is what I meant, when I said science will find what it is paid to find and allowed to find.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteeverybody is subjective although that does not mean the application of deliberate bias.
'will scientists ever say there is a direct link between meat eating, breast cancer and all kinds of tumors?'
How is the link established unless scientifically demonstrated? What other sort of knowledge coud prove the link for us? I recall doing a technology course 25 years ago and then it was being said about the links between red meat eating and cancer of the colon.
All science is to me is an empirical way of observing the natural world. It explains it much better than any other system. Nobody offers an alternative to it that sounds plausibe.
But scientists disagree and in that sense it is not a monolith.
Mackers, A few years ago a leading scientist was booted out as head of a top scientific organistion in Britain. Although, he was a proclaimed evolutionary biologist and a geneicist he was thrown out because he was a priest.
ReplyDeleteHe did not go against scientific rationale in relation to creation, nor did he adhere to Adam & Eve.
Infact, he was not thrown out for anything he said, but rather for what he might say!
I don't think life is geared essentially around empirical positivism, how could it be!
We all have to have blind faith somethings. We cannot measure what people tell us and no matter who a person is, there will always be a time when they have to take a leap of faith, be it in the literal sense.
I appreciate your arguement, that science has and continues to make major advances. Maybe I could appreciate it more however,if they stopped needles inflicting so much suffering in the process.
Nuala,
ReplyDelete‘A few years ago a leading scientist was booted out as head of
a top scientific organisation in Britain. Although, he was a proclaimed
evolutionary biologist and a geneticist he was thrown out because he was
a priest.’
Do you know who he was?
‘he was not thrown out for anything he said, but rather for what
he might say!’
No justification for that.
‘We all have to have blind faith in some things.’
I don’t agree. We might take a chance that something will work out even against the odds but that doesn’t amount to blind faith. If there is no reason to suspect someone’s judgement on the basis of past evidence then we might well take their view of something which we don’t check out. But that is not blind faith. Like if big Percy came to your door selling you half price goods that were packaged well would you buy them? !!! Not a chance. If someone else who had a track record of delivering on these things you would take a chance.
I too would like science to deliver less pain. I appreciate it for its liberating and enabling capacities rather than its restrictive ones. But I am always drawn back to the base line that science better explains the world than anything else. But it must be subject to free inquiry from every quarter including religious ones. Otherwise the freedom it claims to deliver is dubious.
Mackers, the name of the scientist was Professor Michael Reiss.
ReplyDeleteHe was thrown out, because they thought eventually his religious views would overtake his scientific knowledge.
I do not believe science can be totally objective, unless it was carried out by machines, humans will bring a degree of themselves into every experiment even those carried out in a rigourously controlled environments.
Despite millions and millions of pounds funding and the needless torture of countless animals they still have not found a fix for any the incurable illnesses.
Mackers, if Big Percy came to my door, the shock would be too much for one of us, hopefully not me.
Albert is calling me for my dinner, fresh ingredients he says, blind faith or what?
Nuala,
ReplyDeletewhat little I know about the Reiss case is that he was a Protestant minister who was not expelled because of that but because he suggested that creationism should be dealt with in the class room. He argued that in the context of chldren raising it. He did not argue for it to be taught as science. His critics said, with some justification, that it was as plausible to discusss flying tea pots and so on.
Nevertheless, I think he was right to raise the matter because some children are going to bring up the issue of creationism given that they come from religious backgrounds. Few are going to ask about the role of the flying teapot in creating the universe. And I think it is right to show them why creationism is bunkum. As Reiss was not asking for creationism to be taught in the classroom I think he was hard done by. His critics went over the top.
'humans will bring a degree of themselves into every experiment even those carried out in a rigourously controlled environments.'
Have we examples of where this happens?
'Despite millions and millions of pounds funding and the needless torture of countless animals they still have not found a fix for any the incurable illnesses.'
I think this demonstrates the limits of humankind thus far. What we do know for certain is that science will cure more diseases than prayer, coloured water or star gazing.
At the same time it might destroy us all. It is the world we live in unfortunately.
You will go for your dinner in the full knowledge that there are no fresh ingredients in it!
Mackers, science has been manipulated for decades.
ReplyDeletePharmaceutical companies, usually require a quick yes for their latest product.
Contract research is a billion pound industry which has little time for the ethical requirements of value free research, rather they want to know how quickly they can get a medicore seal of approval.
However, even in the closed labs, the concept of pure science, will still be subject to value-laden logic of those carrying out the experiment.
The eventual findings however pure will always be tainted by individual interpretation.
How many times have we heard scientific experts argue over so called conclusive evidence?
Mackers, my faith in Albert even though blind was justified. Everything that went into today's dinner was dated October!
Nuala,
ReplyDelete'science has been manipulated for decades.'
As have all spheres of human activity. It is in its ability to deliver what those who manipulate it don’t want that one of its greatest strengths lie. And where science has been manipulated I think it is easier to see it and allow a critique to be mounted.
What I like about science is the measures that can be taken to verify its findings.
'Pharmaceutical companies, usually require a quick yes for their latest product.'
Yet so many don't get it with the speed they want.
In a lab things either happen or they don't. Water boils at whatever temperature and so on. Now somebody can come out from a lab and tell us that it boils at some other temperature. Yet it is so easy to verify or refute this.
I think what happens at times is not the experiment but the interpretation put on the result. Trial and error figure in it all the time. Scientists will frequently disagree on this. I am sure too that like the rest of humanity they will spin and shade it their own way. But I always dissociate science from individual scientists and see science, despite the limitations, as the way forward in the field of human knowledge.
Anthony
ReplyDeleteFollowing your articles on science vs. Religion and not for the first time I found myself questioning my own belief concluding it is more environmental and circumstantial and still is a residual from growing up in the north with that label. I did not grow up in a religious home, as my father was anti-church so we were spared the Sunday trip to mass.
Long story short I went digging about in the neuropsychology world looking for answers as to why we believe rather than what we believe.
Below is a short excerpt from an article entitled “Is science just a new religion?”
“Are we doing ourselves a disservice when we speak about our "belief" in evolution? Should we find a new way to talk about the "theories" that underlie our ideas? What about when we talk about the "design" of human anatomy? Why are we always finding ourselves on the defensive? Doesn't all of the natural evidence that the universe has to offer support the conclusions that scientists have drawn (and modified) over the past five centuries? I've had religious friends confront me about my passion for neuroscience, noting that my excitement often sounds suspiciously like religious fervor. And, very matter-of-factly, I must explain that there are two enormous differences between science and religion: doubt and faith.
Science is riddled with doubt, and religion is completely founded on faith. Rely on faith, and the scientific method falls apart. Insert doubt, and religious certainty quickly dwindles. Something tells me that the fundamentalist religious folks who want to add "creation-science" to state mandated science curricula don't really understand what the hell the word science actually means. Because let's face it, once intelligent design squeezes its way into the pages following evolution in our biology books, we might as well add astrology to our astrophysics lectures and toss some alchemy education into the chemistry lab.”
Tain Bo,
ReplyDeleteThe whole issue of why people believe in gods interests me. I would believe myself if there were any evidence for it. I know that some from the world of neurosurgery argue that our brains are wired for religious belief. They don’t necessarily argue that what they believe in is true.
Anthony
ReplyDeleteBy chance I caught part of a show on one of those so called Christian channels odd enough it was a neurosurgeon making parallels between the bible and the structure of the brain. Which is incongruous as the human brain was around long before the bible.
Claiming we are naturally hardwired or pre-programmed to instinctively believe in the bible.
I assume she was referring to the exclusive Christian brain, as she made no mention of other faiths or indeed the non-believers offering no explanation as to why their brains would be structured different. If her theory was plausible after two thousand years of Christianity I would think there would be only a Christian world. Considering the disorder of religion her argument shows that perhaps god is not so powerful which is always explained away with free will.
I have tried to watch a few of those shows in short doses only to conclude they make a better argument for rational skepticism.
Tain Bo
ReplyDeleteTo me it is all rubbish. We are hardwired to survive. More than that I cannot see. As you point out there are so many outside Christianity believing in their own bible. How Christian apologists can’t seem to fathom that tells us much about them.
The free will argument always catches them short. Then they come up with lots of theological twists to deal with it. Norman Mailer had this view of god as not being all-powerful. A strange book he did on the matter – a series of interviews.
Life
ReplyDeleteLife is a vocation
A call to seek God
An escape
From falsehood
To the truth
An adventure
In which
God initiates
Our value
Is when
We acknowledge
Creature - hood
So
Let us follow
The Author of life
Liam Ó Comáin
PS-Our origins through a 'big bang' (some say)but who caused the latter?
The Revolutionary
ReplyDeleteYou may talk about revolutionaries
but in truth there is only one
And he is Our Saviour, Jesus,
Our Creator's loving Son.
~
Born to the Virgin Mary
for the salvation of our lives,
The source of what is required-
upon which we all shall thrive.
~
So let us follow Jesus,
the Saviour of our race,
and build a new world
Based upon His love and grace.
Oh! you may talk about
revolutionaries
but in truth there is only One
And I refer to our Brother, Jesus,
Our Father's Word and Son.
Liam Ó Comáin
I suppose it takes all sorts
ReplyDeleteOH f##k yer mans back,
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteit took me back to the days of John McGirr. Although McGirr could certainly make reasoned arguments even if we could never agree with him.
It was John I was thinking of Anthony got a feeling he is locked up in an iron maiden in a cellar in Maynooth,his punishment for conspiring with members of the FSM church .
ReplyDelete