Why Darwin Matters
POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Monday, September 11, 2006 18:05
VIEWED: 12064
PAGE 1 of 9
The following article can be found in its entirety at: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/ It's an interesting read regardless of one's faith or lack of faith. Here are few excerpts from the article:
The Joys Of Life Without God
Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer explains why Darwin matters, how believing in God is the same as believing in astrology, and why it doesn't take divine faith to experience something bigger than ourselves.
Why does Darwin matter?
Because we live in the age of science. And the Darwinian worldview is the preeminent and best supported theory for the explanation of the natural and biological world. Marx is gone. Freud is gone. History and data have not supported their theories. But Darwin was right. You have to know evolution to understand the natural world. And that cannot be a threat to people of faith. There's a serious problem if you are forced by your faith to reject the most well supported theory in all of science.
What's your best answer for why there is no God?
It's not why there is no God, it's why there's not compelling evidence to believe in God. That's a better way to put it. And from my perspective, it's just not there for me. With training in science, I have high standards of evidence. If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals Science or Nature for publication, you'd be laughed out of the room; you wouldn't get past the first reviewer.
On the other side, the best evidence that there probably isn't a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded. When you study world religions, it's obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God. If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you? From a Christian perspective, it means we need to get more missionaries over there to tell them the truth! From an anthropological perspective, it's another case. Christians today might say, I don't believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god.
So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we're all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I'm an atheist on one more god.
So what's the real agenda of I.D.?
They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.
Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!
What do you believe in?
I believe in the indomitable human spirit and the amazing capacity we have for understanding the world; for love, joy and happiness. Science not only does not take away any of those things, it adds to the sum of human knowledge. When I look through my little telescope in my backyard at the planets, moon or Andromeda galaxy that is 2.9 million light-years away, I can enjoy the beauty of the night sky and appreciate it on an emotional level. Then I can think that the photons of light that are landing on my retina left 2.9 mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for this link! I will have to read the whole thing, but what you have posted is excellent!
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is nicely written. But I still don't see why someone can't be a scientist AND believe in God AND endorse evolution at the same time. In my view, it is utterly silly to compare God with astrology.
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index1.html
Do you think the impulse to believe in God is the same as believing in astrology?
Yes, it's a similar foundation of magical superstitious thinking. And our need to be spiritual takes all forms. Given that traits vary in populations, it's natural that some people will gravitate toward New Age spiritualism and others toward conservative Christianity. Even secularists believe in all kinds of transcendent things, such as "mind." This is the Deepak Chopra school. He says, I don't believe that Christian conservative stuff, but the universe is intelligent, it's alive, it knows we're here. What? You're goofier than the Christians!
Here's a relatively new book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief " by Francis Collins, one of the guys who headed the Human Genome Project.
Quote:
... the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743286391/002-5597673-5717640?v=glan
ce&n=283155
I know many well respected and well published scientists who have a very deep faith in God. Hell, I'm married to one. Whoever says God and science are mutually exclusive is ignoring evidence to the contrary.
I'm a scientist, if not by trade, then by training. I LOVE science. I love the method. But it has its limits--it is better for investigating some things than others. It makes no sense to assume, that if a subject cannot be investigated by science, it cannot exist.
It is my observation that many good scientists understand that science has its limits, and are open to other avenues of knowledge. Maybe it boils down to whether one believes science is omniscient and omnipotent, or if it can be supplemented by other branches of epistemology.
(Edited to add:
Just found this on a FAQ on evolution at PBS.org. It says it better than I can, so I am copying and pasting.
Quote:
Does evolution prove there is no God?
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because science is based on evidence, and religion is based on lack of evidence (faith)? Because once you go back to the a priori assumptions of each system you find that they are incompatible? Because scientists who think they can straddle both systems have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?
This is nicely written. But I still don't see why someone can't be a scientist AND believe in God AND endorse evolution at the same time.
It's not that science can prove or disprove god, or god(s) or whatever. It's just that the stuff outside of science is UNKNOWABLE. And being unknowable, it doesn't make sense when people claim to know it.
Anyway, I have two VERY GOOD REASONS why Darwin matters!
FIRST- Without Darwin there would be no capitalism. And especially there would be no underlying philosophy for all those right-wing pro-business lunatics: SOCIAL DARWINISM!
Think of it. Doesn't the irony just blow you away?
The pro-business, pro-greed, right-wing religious conservatives base their social agenda on the dog-eat-dog model that they THINK Darwin postulated, and they use psuedo-science (but science nonetheless, not religion) as the basis for all of their economic evil-mongering. SECOND- There would be no SURVIVOR. I mean, how could we have all those reality shows if someone didn't secretly think that Darwin had a good model of nature, society, and human behavior?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you think carpenters who use BOTH a hammer AND a saw straddle 2 systems and have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because scientists who think they can straddle both systems have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?
Science is a tool. Faith is a tool. They are used for different functions. Some people want science to be the ONLY tool, but many professional scientists disagree. Why must they be forced to accept science as the ONLY right tool or face accusations of "schisms"? See, many scientists just aren't that dogmatic about the tool of their trade.
Quote:Actually, they claim that Darwin was heavily influenced by Adam Smith, and simply transposed the economic model onto the biological sytem. (Not saying I agree with them, I didn't look into it. It's just what they say.)
The pro-business, pro-greed, right-wing religious conservatives base their social agenda on the dog-eat-dog model that they THINK Darwin postulated, and they use psuedo-science (but science nonetheless, not religion) as the basis for all of their economic evil-mongering.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, I never got the Science versus Faith thing (other than the Buffy versus Faith thing, but that's another TV-Series 
).
Can I prove, that my boyfriend loves me? - NO
Is it then better to presume, he doesn't? - NO
Would it help my relationship to him, if I asked him to prove his love? - Not really
It all boils down to one question:
Is god a "thing", that we can prove or disprove, or is he a "someone" we can relate to.
And about Darvin: I love God, but I have no problem with Darvin - although some secular biologists I know say, that he's disproven already (there are new theories now - constructions morphology by example). But I still think, his basic thoughts were rather ingenious at the time and covered the basic systematic behind how life came to pass on earth.
However, he only talked about the "how", never about the "why" (since that's the question of religion and philosophy, not of biology). I think, Christians make a big mistake by mixing thee two questions up.
That's my two (Euro) cents.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:CTS: Science is a tool for understanding the physical nature of the universe. Religion is a tool for... for... for.... Not sure what it's a tool for, altho it HAS been used as a tool by the ruling classes for societal control. Anyway, you tell me what religion is used for because I'm not sure.
Science is a tool. Faith is a tool. They are used for different functions. Some people want science to be the ONLY tool, but many professional scientists disagree. Why must they be forced to accept science as the ONLY right tool?
Also, my point was not that god doesn't exist. My point is that whatever is outside of science is by definition untestable, and that therefore anyone who claims to "know" whether god exists or his/her/their nature has no way of demonstrating it. That doesn't seem to stop many of the faithful from insisting that others believe along with them.
As I recall, from a previous thread you said that religion was not "just" a belief in a supernatural deity but also included ethics and philosophy. (Maybe that wasn't you. If so, I apologize.) Although there are a lot of concepts that have no correlates in science, concepts like "right and "wrong", beauty and ugliness, that doesn't automatically mean that they are a religion. IMHO most religions generally have three aspects. While they are often used to support each other, only ONE aspect makes it a religion:
a system of ethics
an explanation of the nature of the universe
a belief in the supernatural
Atheists have proved for years that one can have ethics w/o religion, and scientists have been busy developing alternate explanations for how the universe works. That leaves the aspect of the supernatural, which is unknowable.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, you tell me what religion is used for because I'm not sure.
Religion or spirituality is a tool for understanding non-physical issues. Many people find atheistic philosophy sufficient for addressing these issues, and others prefer theistic philosophy. I don't see why the people who like vanilla have to put down people who like chocolate, and vice versa.
Quote:Nobody said it was, Sig. I think your point was that scientists have some sort of "schism" if they believe in both God and science at the same time.
Also, my point was not that god doesn't exist.
Quote:Proselytizing, whether using science or not, is a different matter altogether. My objection with the author of the Salon article is his insistence that scientists have some sort of philosophical flaw if they also believe in God. Your "schism" comment appear to be in support of this author. That was what I was arguing.
That doesn't seem to stop many of the faithful from insisting that others believe along with them.
Quote:Yes, that was me. And I gave the examples of Buddhism, Taoism, and some types of Hinduism.
As I recall, from a previous thread you said that religion was not "just" a belief in a supernatural deity but also included ethics and philosophy.
Quote:Yep. No argument here.
Atheists have proved for years that one can have ethics w/o religion, and scientists have been busy developing alternate explanations for how the universe works. That leaves the aspect of the supernatural, which is unknowable.
We digress a lot, don't we?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SignyM
Saying Religion is a tool for (whatever) for me sounds like love is a tool for having a cleaning woman without paying her (or having your rent paid without going to work yourself).
True, religion can (as everything) be used and misused, but does that mean, it IS a tool? Do you know, that the Nazis used Darwin to argue, that some people (mainly disabled) need to be killed, to cleanse the genetic pool (it's called euthanasia)? Darwinism is a good way to explain evolution and biology, but I don't want to live in a society, which lives by Darwins survival-of-the-fittest-rules (ever heared the expression "social darwinism?) Then I rather go back to my old bible (do onto others, as you want them to do onto you).
Quote:
only ONE aspect makes it a religion:
a system of ethics
an explanation of the nature of the universe
a belief in the supernatural
I think, there are two things, that can define a religion:
God (astrology is in a way also "supernatural", but you wouldn't call it a religion. Buddism has no "God", only principles, and they ceonsequently don't call themselfs "religion" but "philosopy")
A different use of the word is, if you just say a religion is, what you put your whole life on (Marxism could be a religion for someone, although there is nothing supernatural about it). In this definition, "Firefly" could be a religion (hey, are we the congregation of the Browncoats or what?)
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
Quote:Having read several editions of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", all I can say is ... hunhhhh ????
Darwin was heavily influenced by Adam Smith
What is the evidence for that statement?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME