Dawkins said what?
On October 21st I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford's Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins's overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox's argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.
This week's debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God.
This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that 'a serious case could be made for a deistic god' is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that
...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
In Oxford on Tuesday night, however, virtually the first thing he said was that a serious case could be made for believing that it could.
Anthony Flew, the celebrated philosopher and former high priest of atheism, spectacularly changed his mind and concluded -- as set out in his book There Is A God -- that life had indeed been created by a governing and purposeful intelligence, a change of mind that occurred because he followed where the scientific evidence led him. The conversion of Flew, whose book contains a cutting critique of Dawkins's thinking, has been dismissed with unbridled scorn by Dawkins – who now says there is a serious case for the position that Flew now adopts!
Unfortunately, so stunning was this declaration it was not pursued on Tuesday evening. Instead, Dawkins was able to move the debate onto a specific attack on Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, which is a very different argument and obscured the central point of contention – the claim that science had buried God. The fact that Dawkins now appears to be so reluctant publicly to defend his own position on his own territory of scientific rationalism – and indeed, even to have shifted his ground – is a tribute above all to the man he was debating once again on Tuesday evening.
Afterwards, I asked Dawkins whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm. He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression. But he also said other things which suggested to me that some of his own views simply don't meet the criteria of empirical evidence that he insists must govern all our thinking.
For example, I put to him that, since he is prepared to believe that the origin of all matter was an entirely spontaneous event, he therefore believes that something can be created out of nothing -- and that since such a belief runs counter to the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all our thinking, this is itself precisely the kind of irrationality, or 'magic', which he scorns. In reply he said that, although he agreed this was a problematic position, he did indeed believe that the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing, because the alternative explanation – God -- was more incredible. Later, he amplified this by saying that physics was coming up with theories to show how matter could spontaneously be created from nothing. But as far as I can see – and as Anthony Flew elaborates – these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self–reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent. So such a belief, whether adduced by physicists or anyone else, does not rest upon rational foundations.
Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?
The other thing that jumped out at me from this debate was that, although Dawkins insisted over and over again that all he was concerned with was whether or not something was true, he himself seems to be pretty careless with historical evidence. Anthony Flew, for example, points out in his own book that Dawkins's claim in The God Delusion that Einstein was an atheist is manifestly false, since Einstein had specifically denied that he was either a pantheist or an atheist. In the debate, under pressure from Lennox Dawkins was actually forced to retract his previous claim that Jesus had probably 'never existed'. And in a revealing aside, when Lennox remarked that the Natural History Museum in which they were debating – in front of dinosaur skeletons -- had been founded for the glory of God, Dawkins scoffed that of course this was absolutely untrue.
But it was true. Construction of the museum was instigated between 1855 and 1860 by the Regius Professor of Medicine, Sir Henry Acland. According to Keith Thomson of the Sigma XI Scientific Research Society, the funds for the project came from the surplus in the University Press's Bible account as this was deemed only appropriate for a building dedicated to science as a glorification of God's works. Giving his reasons for building the museum, Acland himself said that it would provide the opportunity to obtain the
knowledge of the great material design of which the Supreme Master-Worker has made us a constituent part...The student of life, bearing in mind the more general laws which in the several departments above named he will have sought to appreciate, will find in the collections of Zoology, combined with the Geological specimens and the dissections of the Anatomist, a boundless field of interest and of inquiry, to which almost every other science lends its aid : from each Science he borrows a special light to guide him through the ranges of extinct and existing animal forms, from the lowest up to the highest type, which; last and most perfect, but pre-shadowed in previous ages, is seen in Man. By the aid of physiological illustrations he begins to understand how hard to unravel are the complex mechanisms and prescient intentions of the Maker of all; and he slowly learns to appreciate what exquisite care is needed for discovering the real action of even an apparently comprehended machine.
Truth is indeed the crux of the matter – but Dawkins seems to understand the word rather differently from the rest of us.The great question, however, is whether his own theory is now in the process of further evolution -- and whether it might even jump the species barrier into what is vulgarly known by lesser mortals as faith.
Atheist ad campaign gets underway with anti-God advertisements plastered on the sides of London's bendy buses. The campaign is funded by Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.
In a victory for proponents of traditional marriage, hotly-contested constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage won approval Tuesday in California, Florida and Arizona in one of the most expensive campaigns in the nation's history.
The supporters and opponents of the measures defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman spent more than $90 million nationwide on campaigns that prompted heated debate across the country.
"We asked God for a miracle and he granted it to us," said Jim Garlow, senior pastor of the Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, Calif. who spearheaded an effort involving thousands of pastors to pass the measure. "We had a 40-day fast that culminated with 33,000 people gathering at Qualcomm Stadium Nov. 1 for a 12-hour prayer meeting. It was intense praying. I mean people on their faces, literally weeping before God for hours at a time."
With 97 percent of precincts reporting in California, Proposition 8 had passed with 52 percent of the vote. In Arizona, Prop. 102 passed with 56 percent of the vote. And in Florida, Amendment 2 passed with 62 percent of the vote.
"These three wins will without question result in increased momentum nationwide to see similar amendments passed in the 20 states that have yet to do so," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento. "But make no mistake. This is just one battle."
On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a petition with the California Supreme Court urging the court to invalidate Prop. 8. The petition charges that Prop. 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the state Constitution's "commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians."
In the months leading up to the election, one of the top issues that emerged in the debate was whether same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools if the constitutional amendments failed.
The proponents of traditional marriage cited the case of 7-year-old Joey Wirthlin in Massachusetts who came home from school in 2006 and told his mother his teacher had read a book to the class entitled, "King and King." The book is about a prince ordered by his mother, the queen, to find a princess to marry. But the prince rejects the princesses he meets, falls in love with another prince and gets married.
In response, Lexington, Mass. residents Joseph and Robin Wirthlin sued the school district, alleging it was attempting to indoctrinate their son with the belief that same-sex marriage is morally acceptable, according to court records.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston dismissed the case, saying same-sex marriage was legalized in the state in 2003 and public schools are entitled to teach anything that helps reduce discrimination and is reasonably related to preparing students to become productive citizens.
The Massachusetts case become a lightning rod in the national debate whether same-sex marriage would open the door for schools to teach children about gay and lesbian marriage.
In these states, opponents say teachers will not be required to teach students about same-sex marriage if the measures fail. But while there will be no statewide mandate to teach about same-sex marriage, state education officials say local school boards could decide to include the materials in their curricula.
In California, where the state Supreme Court in May overturned a ban on same-sex marriage, proponents of Prop. 8 cite the recent case of a public charter school in San Francisco that took its first-graders on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall. The first-graders watched as their teacher married her partner in a ceremony officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Opponents say the Prop. 8 television ads that claimed children would learn about same-sex marriage in public schools if the measure failed were misleading. They pointed to an analysis by Morris A. Thurston, a professor at Brigham Young University Law School, that found the failure of Prop. 8 would not affect California schools.
Meanwhile, thousands of ministers in the United States also expressed concern that the legalization of same-sex marriage would result in a loss of religious liberties.
These pastors participated in a series of conference calls and simulcasts to learn what they could legally tell their congregations. Many read "The Ten Declarations for Protecting Biblical Marriage" to their congregations.
But Derek Newton, the campaign manager for Florida Red and Blue, a Miami-based bipartisan campaign opposing Amendment 2, said religious liberties were not at stake. He noted Arizona voters rejected a marriage amendment in 2006 and religious liberties haven't been restricted.
"I think it's fear without any evidence to support that fear," Newton says. "I think very clearly the argument for religious freedoms and liberties is best made when the same people aren't seeking to change the law in a way that impacts everyone."
Supporters had argued the constitutional amendments would give voters an opportunity to strengthen the foundation of society – the family - ensuring future generations of children are raised by a father and mother united in the bond of marriage.
The ACLU and other groups argued the measures were "divisive" and would re-write state constitutions, denying gays and lesbians the same freedoms and rights others enjoy.
"I believe everyone should have the right to be married, regardless of sexual orientation," said Scott Landis, the openly gay pastor of Mission Hills United Church of Christ in San Diego. "When the California Supreme Court made its decision to grant marriage licenses to all people, I thought that was a compassionate move and a move of fairness so that everyone would be treated equally and no one would be treated differently."
Now that the measures have passed, Dacus said the institute plans to work with other organizations to ensure passage of an initiative that would protect the rights of parents to not have their children taught about same-sex marriage in public schools.
"Make no mistake," Dacus said. "We intend to fight in court any attempt to once again skirt the voice of California voters with regards to the protection of the institution of marriage."
In a prepared statement, the No on Prop. 8 Campaign said Wednesday the election was too close to call because only 400,000 voters separate the yes from no votes out of 10 million counted.
Troy Anderson
“Reductionism in Science and Ethics”
The science-religion debate is about the status of the universe. The ethics debate is about the status of morality, the bioethics debate in particular being about the status of human life. Contemporary science in the West is dominated by a materialistic/naturalistic reductionism that is increasingly being used not only to undermine the traditional theistic base for ethics but to suggest that science can provide a replacement for it. This means that the science-religion debate has increasing relevance for the much broader ethics debate and therefore for society as a whole.
John Lennox
http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2007/03/turkeys_first_intelligent_design_conference.php
A Good Read
God's Undertaker by John Lennox evaluates the evidence of modern science in relation to the debate between the atheistic and theistic interpretations of the universe, and provides a fresh basis for discussion.
The book has grown out of the author's lengthy experience of lecturing and debating on this subject in the UK, USA, Germany and Russia, and has been written in response to endless requests for the argumentation in written form.
Lion Hudson
Use this link to read a review of God's Undertaker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/08/society
Use this link to buy God's Undertaker
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/082546188X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225930371&sr=1-1
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.