ToddHDow Studios

Category: philosophy

  • Responses to Dawkins Comments – Part 2 of 4

    A couple of comments were left on the post Dawkins Part 8: Are All Ideologies Bad. I offer the following responses:

    Bad suggests that “One can claim faith beliefs to justify good things, but the method can be equally employed for bad with equal measure: the method is simply capable of anything, assuring nothing.” I would argue that faith beliefs can be used to justify good or bad, but to truly discern whether the motivations are pure or not must be examined from a view of the whole. Christianity is a religion that takes Jesus as its central figure. Thus, living out a life in a way that would be pleasing to Jesus is extremely important. And, if we look at Jesus’ sayings, it is hard to establish that Jesus was about anything other than love. Thus, if one is able to use the Christian worldview to incite violence or hatred, then it would be obvious that the intention was misplaced. If you immerse yourself in the words of Christ himself, it is difficult to find any reason to fault this worldview.

    The problem comes when certain texts are taken out of context or when they are adopted in a less than honest manner. I’ve tackled some of the heavy lifting on this topic already in a previous series entitled What Are We Fighting For? In this series, I provide an overview of the “Christian warrior movement” and how the Christian Scriptures have been hijacked to justify violence throughout history. It is disappointing to see how the Bible has been twisted to support events such as the crusades. Check out this series for an in-depth examination of this topic.

    If we are to look at Jesus and sincerely ask what he expects of us, we find a clear outline of the sort of moral life that we should live. By contrast, what does science provide in terms of a moral bearing? I’d argue that science is silent on this front. Like I argue late in this series on Dawkins, science is great for providing us with some great tools for surival, science definitely lacks the tools to help us discern how best to use these tools.

    So, as Ed asks in his counter to Bad in the comments section of Part 8, “Tell me, what clear side would scientism or evolutionism take on that subject? And on what grounds?”

    Todd

  • Responses to Dawkins Comments – Part 1 of 4

    Alrighty… today’s post will be a response to a few comments I received in my series on Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”.

    A couple of comments were left on the post Dawkins Part 4: The Objective Roots of Morality. I offer the following responses:

    To Dave: Dawkins’ argument in support of morality is troublesome to me. Dawkins supports a scientific worldview that provides no moral guidance whatsoever. This is problematic as it provides no grounding for moral good and bad. Thus, how are we to decipher the right and wrong way of doing things. This is evident when we look at utilitarianism as a decision making tool. Utilitarianism, remember, suggests that the decision that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people is considered the best decision. Some would argue that the Nazi final solution was using this decision making model. It ultimately disregards the rights of the individual in favour of the collective whole of society. Pretty dangerous stuff, as morality will shift as social needs shift. This does not suggest a good moral compass to me. I speak more about the problems of morality and science in week 10: “While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.”

    As for evidence… what evidence does science have that it has determined the final explanation for where we came from, how we are to live and what we are to believe? I’d love to know how the scientific worldview can be so certain that it has a monopoly on the “evidence” or lack thereof. While spiritual belief and experience is not as repeatable and measurable as scientific research requires for “proof”, this does not mean that it does not matter or that it should be so easily excused.

    To Ed: You pointed to some great questions that Dawkins’ brought up in this section of his book. These questions are ultimately questions of theology, dogma and church polity. I purposely skipped these questions for a couple of reasons. First, I feel that I am not sufficiently equipped to answer these questions. He asked some questions about church doctrine and the questions assume a lot. Not all denominations believe the same interpretations that Dawkins assumed. And, I don’t have the skills to adequately untangle his cross-denominational assumptions, nor do I have the theological expertise to answer them once I get them untangled. I don’t think it was fair of Dawkins to compress these questions into the short section that he did, as I think he gave them short thrift without doing sufficient research to understand what he was explaining and how best to approach the subject. So… I will respectfully defer any answers to these questions to another forum as I don’t feel that I could do them justice. And, I don’t feel that this response should in any way weaken my arguments against Dawkins’ book.

    I’m going to skip over Part 5 (The Historical Jesus) for a bit. Don’t worry, we’ll come back to this. In fact, it’ll make a great segue into my next series. So hold your thoughts for a bit… I’m going to address some of the other feedback I received first.

    Todd

  • Coming Up Next: Dawkins Responses and the Historical Jesus

    Folks, my apologies for being absent for the last few of weeks. I’ve got a bunch of excuses for my tardy responses to The God Delusion series, but I’ll spare you the details.

    The good news is that I have a bunch of new content for you. I haven’t forgotten about the numerous comments that I received to my Dawkins series. I have been thinking these through and will be addressing some of the more prominent responses in the upcoming days.

    And, related to that, I’ve been working hard on a paper for school that discusses the historical Jesus. The book, In Defense Of Atheism by Michel Onfray, challenges the validity of the historical Jesus and my paper critiques Onfray’s arguments. I’ll be posting this paper as a multi-part series over the next week or so.

    So stay tuned. There’s plenty of exciting content to come. And again, my apologies for the gap in my posts…

    Todd

  • Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and Concluding Thoughts

    Dawkins flogs the factual accuracy of evolution throughout this book. He is an evolutionary biologist, so I would expect nothing less. I respect his authority in this area of study and I appreciate the scientific explanations that it provides for the development and ongoing manipulations to life that see around us.

    Unfortunately, Dawkins is out of his league when he tries to apply his learning to the religious domain. At best, he misses some key details when he attempts to criticize religious faith and its historical, philosophical and ideological ideals. At worst, he fails at the basics of which he should know better: he uses red herrings to distract from articulating and dealing with the topics at hand, he fails at applying proper logic in many of his arguments and when he questions Christianity, he fails to address the great volume of academic literature in support of Christian source validity. This is disappointing, as Dawkins’ valuable academic accomplishments should better equip him than what we see in this book.

    For a moment, let’s take a look at “science as God-killer”:

    The scientific method is not perfect. Early research into new areas of study can look like a child dipping a toe into a pool of water to check the temperature. If scientific method was bang on, there would be no wasted research or hypotheses that fail to obtain a tangible result. I know… I know… all research is valuable as even in failure, it can discount potential theories so that they can be discounted for further study. That is valuable, yes. But if science has all the answers, then why wouldn’t the hypotheses be right the first time?

    As an example of science-gone-wrong, consider the recent problems highlighted in recent reports about Dr. Charles Smith, a high profile coroner who specialized in the field of forensic child pathology. His scientific conclusions significantly contributed to several convictions in suspected child abuse cases. The problem is that under closer examination, Smith’s findings were found to be problematic. Science definitely failed the ruined lives of those that were potentially falsely accused.

    Or, closer to this discussion of evolution, let’s look at a recent finding by Maeve Leakey and his colleagues in Africa: Paleontologists continue to question the factual accuracy of evolution. Consider this article in The Washington Post as just one example off the ongoing debate:
    Fossil shakes evolutionary tree

    Nature, the “International Weekly Journal of Science” published these findings as well, so this is peer-reviewed work.

    While I don’t dispute the basic claims made by Dawkins about evolutionary theory, I do question the logic that says that evolution completely replaces the idea of a creator God. Who’s to say that God didn’t use evolution as his tool to generate life.

    My point here isn’t that evolution is wrong or that Leakey has disproved evolution. My point here is just that evolution has yet to be fully explained or understood. I would argue that we may never fully understand evolution. And similarly, God is not fully understood, nor do I think God ever will be. This doesn’t disprove God though.

    And for those that are still claiming that there is no evidence for God, well… just because you refuse to examine the evidence and consider it in support of God doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist.

    I’ve got two more “scientific conundrums” for you:

    LOVE: Science has tried to explain love for years but with little success. For those materialistic atheists out there, I’d love to understand how you can explain love if you strictly look to the material world and empirical evidence to support your claims. Why do we love? Does love not exist because we can’t scientifically explain it?

    FREE WILL: Does the scientific worldview support free will? Science can’t seem to answer either way, as it will end up contradicting itself either way:

    • If yes, then doesn’t free will run contradictory to the idea that everything can be predicted based on the conditions and circumstances that lead up to each action? If science can ultimately answer everything, then it must subscribe to a worldview based on predestination.
    • If no, then are we really capable of making any decisions for ourselves, including whether or not we follow a religion? In this case, does Dawkins feel powerless to make a difference on his own, or is he simply following the predestined path that has been set out for him?
    • No – part 2 And further, if no, what caused this “causal chain”? And then where did that first un-moved mover come from? The 18th century Enlightenment philosophers questioned the validity of the causal chain, saying that we don’t necessarily live within the boundaries of a causal chain. So, if Dawkins’ scientific worldview does not support free will, then how does the idea of cause and effect balance out based on this paradox? Don’t we need cause and effect in order for evolution to work?

    So, just as we don’t have all the answers about religion, there are plenty of problems there with the scientific worldview as well. I’m no expert in this area, but if my simple mind can understand these scientific problems, then I can just imagine the more complex problems that exist and that have no answer. So Dawkins, my question to you is, “Why are you so arrogant?” You don’t have all of the answers. You’re hardly in the right place to be talking down to other people with such an authoritative tone.

    Ultimately, I think the answer becomes one of cohabitation. I feel the presence of God in my life every day. And, I appreciate God’s presence, just as I appreciate the scientific progress in understanding the world that God has provided for us. I am thankful for the scientific research that allows us to lead fuller, richer lives. But I am conscious of the limitations that surround practical scientific research. While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.

    A quick thanks to everyone who has been patient and dedicated enough to take this trip through Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” with me. I hope that you’ve found it as valuable as I have found it. I’ll take the next couple of posts to respond to some reader comments. Thanks to everyone that has submitted comments so far. Your questions and comments have been enjoyable. I’m especially grateful to the skeptics out there who I have been constantly aware of when writing my posts. You’ve kept me honest and at the top of my game.

    Thanks again and talk soon,

    Todd Dow

  • Dawkins Part 9: Childhood abuse and brainwashing

    I do agree that religious types have abused their children in the name of religion. This still continues to happen. In fact, we need look no further than a current story in the US media pertaining to polygamy and child marriages: Man Charged in Rape of Teenager in Fundamentalist Sect.

    Mormonism encourages polygamy and marriage to minors. Mormons have claimed that this is part of their religious beliefs and that they are entitled to live their lives in this way. To some extent, that argument should be allowed to stand. But, that right should not extend to harming other people in the process. And, in my personal opinion, I think it’s great that the US attorney’s office has finally found a way to deal with some of these crimes that are being committed in the name of religion.

    Protection for the weak and vulnerable among us is something that I hold in high regard. In some cases, this competes against some other rights that I hold quite high, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There are numerous ideas that I do not want to introduce my children to, but I don’t think it is right that those ideas and opinions be abolished. If we allow that, then what’s next? Burning books and censoring our news sources? Censorship is occuring in the world, notably in China. The state control of media and information can lead to population control, which can then be abused for the sake of state motivations. Without checks and balances like freedom of speech and freedom of information, there is no way to ensure that abuses are not taking place.

    Which brings me back to religion… Some religious people try to limit the amount of information available to believers. I remember when I first started taking an interest in my own Christian faith. I asked my pastor for a good resource that would explain the various types of religions to me and that would provide a good explanation for what made my faith something that I should believe. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive the response I had hoped for. I was told that there is no need to look at other faiths. I should just focus on the my own faith by reading the bible and some “my-faith-specific” reading to solidify my beliefs. It was disappointing, to say the least. And, when I mentioned that I was going to go to University to study philosophy and religious studies as a potential precursor to ministry, I was again disuaded. I was told that questioning my faith in this way wouldn’t strengthen it, but instead, would only weaken my faith and my ability to believe.

    Good advice or bad? What do you think? I didn’t buy it… I’ve always been one to question things. I think questioning things is healthy. Unfortunately, any opinion is open to question. Any time someone puts a stake in the ground, someone else will come along and challenge it. I think debate is good. It is healthy. It leads to more understanding. It leads to increased awareness and if the argument is a good one, it will stand up to scrutiny. And, bad arguments will be exposed for what they are: bad arguments.

    So… I didn’t particularly like the advice to keep my head in the sand and sit still. If my faith was worth following, it should stand up to scrutiny. So, I did the opposite of what I was advised to do. I went out and compared and questioned my faith. I believed then, and I still believe now. And my faith is stronger now because of this journey. To be fair, I must say that not everybody learns or believes or requires this level of commitment. And that is fine. But I do think that there is danger in not being able to explain what we believe and why. “Just because…” is not sufficient. There’s gotta be something more.

    And that’s where I think that many abuses stem from… isolation and lack of information. If people are kept in the dark and are unable to ask the tough questions, then how can this work out for the best?

    As with other abuses that we’ve already discussed in this series, I do think that the church has contributed to numerous abuses within society in the past. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that these abuses are identified, corrected and that proper controls are put in place so that they cannot happen again. But, no system is foolproof… didn’t World War Two prompt the expression, “Never again” in response to the holocaust? Well… what do we make of the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or Darfur? I say this only to say that even the most visible of abuses cannot always be prevented. They should be prevented, but they aren’t. But at the very least, they should be recorded and their perpetrators brought to justice.

    So… what can we do? Well… we should start with open minds. We should be allowed to question. If our beliefs are worth believing, then we should be able to explain them and defend them. As I’ve demonstrated over the course of this series, Dawkins hasn’t provided anything that should disuade our beliefs in religion. He’s highlighted some of the abuses that can occur as a result of belief, but that doesn’t discount the belief itself. All it does is highlight the crimes that have been committed by misrepresenting the belief.

    And, we should also ensure that sufficient controls are in place to avoid the obvious abuses that can occur. We can easily ensure that physical and sexual abuse are guarded against. Censorship… well, that’s a matter of opinion. The argument over what to believe and why is a tough one. It’s quite subjective in nature. Just look at the current “should creationism be taught in schools” argument. I think that kids should be taught about the debate, if only so that they understand that there are different worldviews. And, part of that education process can be to help kids assess what they believe and why. But I don’t think the people that are most invested in the debate want that… they don’t want the kids to think for themselves. They are too busy fighting about what they want their kids to believe. And that’s the real shame of that situation.

    As for my two cents on what worldview a child should be given… well… it’s not my place to push my worldview on anyone else, but I have written a series that has taken on a life of its own since I published it. This article started as a philosophy assignment during my undergrad. I wrote it quite sincerely, but from the perspective of a philosophy student. I don’t intend for this to become public policy in any way, shape or form. My only request is that it make you think about what you believe and why. This series has earned me more scorn and vilified hatred from anonymous readers than I thought possible… So much for freedom of expression, eh? hahaha. Anywho… Give it a read and let me know your thoughts:

    Should atheists have children?

    But back to today’s discussion…

    Dawkins and others within this genre offer the following argument: Religion has led to the abuse of people throughout history. Because of this, religion should be abolished. Well… our global economy is currently supporting the slavery of children in the manufacture of the products that keep our global economy humming along. Should we abandon our current economic system in favour of more local production so that we can do away with these abuses? But that would be crazy talk… the global economy has opened doors and created opportunities for untold numbers of people that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. That’s the typical response that we hear.

    The obvious point here is that we should try and correct the wrongs and to continue to support the rights. So, onward and upward. Let’s keep an open mind. Let’s open up the dialogue. It’s already happening in a lot of places. Educational institutions are rife with debate over the pros and cons of reliigon. I think it’s great. I think that the critical reflection that we’re currently experiencing will strengthen the church in extremely positive ways.

    So… I guess I should be thanking Dawkins, Harris, Onfrey, Hitchens and the gang. So thanks guys. Thanks again for the great press you’re giving to religion. And thanks for your criticism. I view you guys as external auditors. You’re doing a great job of keeping religious folks honest. And, you’re also helping to weed out the bad apples. Soon enough we’ll be in tip top shape. Couldn’t have done it without you.

    Much appreciated,

    Todd

    Next up: “Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and concluding thoughts“.