Science Doesn't Disprove God: Where Richard Dawkins and New Atheist Go Wrong:
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/science_doesnt_disprove_god_where_richard_dawkins_and_new_atheists_go_wrong/
This is a great article. What's always fascinated me is if Neanderthals made art. Also look at this article:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthal-culture-old-masters-1.12974
There seems to be some evidence to support they at least buried their dead, which is ritualistic, which does point possibly to a belief in an afterlife / which could possibly mean they had a rudimentary religion of some sort. Maybe not. The art thing is still in dispute as the author of the Salon article points out.
However, when the Amir mentions how "art" seems to be the dividing point to separate us from other hominid species (and makes us officially "human") the point appears to be lost on Amir that this idea of "conceptualizing things" or "symbolizing things" (the very thing that probably separates us from other species of animals) is where A LOT of sociobiologists think the concept of "god" was created. At that very point in our history.
Also a friend of mine pointed out too trying to pinpoint a point where "we became human" with all these special features our species has that others do not is like trying to pin point when beavers exactly became more precise dam builders. As in all things with evolution, it is very gradual and impossible to pin down.
However When Amir writes,
To what extent can evolutionary theory answer this question? Evolutionary science cannot indicate to us the location of the point on the continuous evolutionary scale, which Dawkins believes is there, at which human consciousness arises. Evolutionary theory is unable to tell us how life began, how eukaryotic cells evolved, how intelligence came about, or how consciousness arose in living thing
I couldn't agree more with him. Evolutionary science isn't magic. It only tells us so much about our existence. Abiogenesis is a field of science that deals with origin of life questions as he mentions, but philosophy is still alive in my opinion (where I disagree when the brilliant Stephen Hawking says "philosophy is dead") and we need to create a working theory of the rise of consciousness in our species. Cognitive science is working on this too. It's a real thing. I just bought a book about this last night on my nook called "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory" by Chalmers
Here's the thing. I mostly agree with this article. Dawkins and some of the new atheists are not philosophers. I don't think science has disproven god necessarily. (though I think it has thoroughly disproven many historical or scientific truth claims made in the various ancient "holy" books of the big monotheistic religions alive today.) I do think that philosophy has disproven the idea of "god". Most working professional philosophers are atheists. Like most of academia, atheism is by far the norm (in all fields of study - minus theology of course. Though a great deal of Biblical scholars are nonbelievers. *See Robert M. Price). It's the "common people" the "citizenry" that are still struggling with this "is there a god or not" question still.
I personally think this question was settled years ago. There is no god. (at least not like any of the ones we've came up with over the years) There is just no evidence for him/her/it.
Amir is right. We have never seen consciousness be created by any other human being and should be very skeptical of claims that in the future this can happen with robots or whatever. He writes,
Consciousness, symbolic thinking, self-awareness, a sense of beauty, art, and music, and the ability to invent language and pursue science and mathematics—these are all qualities that transcend simple evolution: they may not be absolutely necessary for survival. These attributes of the human mind may well be described as divine: they belong to what is way above the ordinary or the compulsory for survival. The origins and purpose of consciousness and artistic and musical and literary and scientific creativity remain mysterious. Why would evolution alone bring about such developments that appear to have little to do with the survival of an individual or a species?
There is some problem here because some of these attributes can actually be connected to evolution. First, this self-awareness thing needs to not be a part of this list since other species of animals like some apes and dolphins are self aware (via mirror tests). Symbolic thinking may strictly be human. Of course art and music are interesting things that seem strictly human but like we said there could turn up to be evidence for cave paintings that are of Neanderthal origin. Not yet though. It's hard to be conclusive as you see in that Nature article I posted here. To me the invention of science and mathematics (just another form of symbolic thinking) is the greatest unique human accomplishment because it isn't "natural" for us to think scientifically because it goes against what "seems right" in our guts. Think about how most people don't know how to do science. Or math!
I wouldn't say these things are necessarily divine, just... mysterious. the one thing we don't NEED to do is attribute "mysteries" with supernatural gods, or "cosmic purposes" or whatever (we made these mistakes in the past, obviously ... just look at what used to be "god's wrath" now is just a hurricane) In science "The god hypothesis" is just completely useless and unnecessary. He's right that science can't disprove god. God is an ever-changing mystical idea. Science only uses what is useful for experiments. So to me, the God concept is just unhelpful and offers nothing to the conversation. This is what gave rise to the atheist mock god "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". We can postulate anything or anyone as "god". Religion can always move the goal post too, but makes liberal religions mold and change along side secular humanism. Why the rituals? Why the superstitious outdated silliness? I just don't see the point personally.
I still think that Amir would do well to read reports from primatologist like Francis deWaal to see just how "human" other primates are. His new book "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates". So in this regard the gap isn't quite as drastic as some would say. I would say our intelligence . Science - the very thing this article is arguing against (well, scientism I guess, basically) is the most unique human creation. Even more than art or music (though these are wonderfully beautiful human contributions)
BUT saying that, he is dead on when he says our brain is vastly more intelligent than all other animal species. He sites great examples of classical music to Einstein's theory. Brilliance is our mantra. I love the Daniel Dennett quote. That man is a goddamn genius. I can read his writing (even when most of it goes right over my head) any day! :)
He finishes with these very powerful words that I think sum up nicely where all the sciences and humanities must converge to find an answer to:
We are faced here with one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in the history of science: At what point in hominid development and evolution does human consciousness appear? What exactly is our consciousness? What makes us different from animals? What gives us the powers to create and to think symbolically and to develop language?
However, mysteries do not equal "God". The concept of God among those that are quite literally the smartest among us apes is a concept that has been settled. God IS dead.
Sorry Kevin Sorbo.
No comments:
Post a Comment