Jeune Street

Interesting take on the new atheism, Geoff. Coyne’s statement is very neat.

I just spent a useful hour reading Coyne’s whole article (your blog is endangering my work ethic, Geoff!)… his bottom line after reviewing the two books written by religious scientists – and he makes his argument uncompromisingly – is that they are wrong; science is not compatible with a belief in a personal God with a plan for mankind.
“Now I am not claiming that all faith is incompatible with science and secular reason–only those faiths whose claims about the nature of the universe flatly contradict scientific observations. Pantheism and some forms of Buddhism seem to pass the test. But the vast majority of the faithful–those 90 percent of Americans who believe in a personal God, most Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, and adherents to hundreds of other faiths–fall into the “incompatible” category.”
This is the argument of “secular reason” that therefore God should not be taught beside evolution – the result being science students are taught implicitly or explicitly that God does not exist. I would have a hard time making an argument with Coyne if those intellects can’t convince him, but it makes me wonder how Baha’is will argue the co-existence of evolution and God … here’s an attempt that perhaps someone else can read and comment on … my desk calls!

http://www.bahai-library.org/unpubl.articles/originality/intro.html

Preach it! I second the original poster’s remarks entirely.

Okay, I admit it. I didn’t read all of Coyne’s article. But I still agree with him, to a certain extent.

Religion is all about interpretation, whereas science is all about description. In the absence of verifiable description of the world, in the past we have interpreted into the void. Reigning back interpretation doesn’t mean religion is wrong, it just means that imperfect humans drew the wrong conclusions. They took it too far. Ultimately, as scientific description impinges on religious interpretation we need to accept the merits of science and re-evaluate our religious beliefs.

I think this is what ‘Abdu’l-Baha is saying in the following:

“Among other principles of Baha’u'llah’s teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination. Innumerable doctrines and beliefs of this character have arisen in the past ages. Consider the superstitions and mythology of the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians; all were contrary to religion and science. It is now evident that the beliefs of these nations were superstitions, but in those times they held to them most tenaciously. For example, one of the many Egyptian idols was to those people an authenticated miracle, whereas in reality it was a piece of stone. As science could not sanction the miraculous origin and nature of a piece of rock, the belief in it must have been superstition. It is now evident that it was superstition. Therefore, we must cast aside such beliefs and investigate reality. That which is found to be real and conformable to reason must be accepted, and whatever science and reason cannot support must be rejected as imitation and not reality. Then differences of belief will disappear. All will become as one family, one people, and the same susceptibility to the divine bounty and education will be witnessed among mankind.”

Second, I think that biological evolution should be taught alongside cultural evolution — looking for unifying principles that indicate a direction to history. But I’m not sure what it means to “teach God” beside evolution. If it means learning creation stories and religious writings about the purpose of the human species, then great. But if it means speculating about rapid brain development or the miracle of the eye (as some intelligent designers have done) then I’d prefer it stay out of the classroom.

Thanks for the comments!

I think you’ve identified Coyne’s fallacy, Geoff … social/religious/cultural evolution does not necessarily follow the “law” of natural selection. He would likely argue that evolution should lead to the triumph of atheism over religion; but the evidence of the world at present sure contradicts him.

I dunno… my favourite evolutionary biologist (yes, I have a favourite) is Robert Wright. He argues that evolution (from biological to cultural) inclines towards increasing complexity — from the earliest germ the oneness of humanity was a foregone conclusion. That, I think, is profoundly spiritual.

Anyway, here’s what he says in the New Yorker:

“To note the ample dark side of evolution is simply to re-state the problem that any honest religion must confront: the problem of evil. And solving timeless theological quandaries is beyond Darwinism’s job description. My point is just that Darwinism needn’t put theologians out of a job. Granted, it may force them to abandon beliefs. Scientific progress, as the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote, has long spurred the amendment of religious doctrine—”to the great advantage of religion”—while religion’s essence remained intact. For many religious people, part of that essence is the belief that, above and beyond the vestigial cruelties and absurdities of the human experience, there is a point to it all, a point that, even if obscure, may yet become manifest. So far, biological science has provided no reason to conclude otherwise.”

See: http://www.nonzero.org

[...] bits from a discussion below about science and religion got buried under new postings, but I thought they were worth bringing [...]