Science, Reason and God : The clash for civilization

Friday, March 16, 2007
Science, Reason and God: The clash for civilization
“It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity,” Abraham Lincoln.The question of whether faith can stand the test of rational scrutiny predates the former American President, at least as far back as the Copernican theory.The historically bitter and often politically contentious tug-o-war between religion and science (which is based on evidence and reason) is, however, an inevitable product of the human condition • our desire to seek the more fundamental answers regarding our existence.While there have been attempts at a convenient compartmentalization - suggesting that science seeks to answer the "how we exist" (Darwinian evolution) question and religion offers us the answer to "why we exist" (Creationism) and proposing the convergence hypothesis (scientific inquiry being a mechanism for the study of divine design), an uneasy co-existence is all that humanity has attained. However, with religion once again occupying primacy in global political debates in the context of its influence on public policy and fundamentalism, there is a raging clash, particularly in the West, between "secular, scientific atheists" and the "men of god" - the process and outcome of which will shape our definition of "civilized society." At the forefront of the atheist charge is British scientist and chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford University Richard Dawkins, whose new book The God Delusion is a scathing attack on faith and the idea of God defined primarily as the creator, an omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural entity that is interested in the daily affairs of mankind.If I could take the liberty to paraphrase his central argument, then it would read: ‘we know what we know through scientific study, experiment, proof and probability; but for what we do not know, substituting god to fill those gaps is a lack of imagination or sheer ignorance at best and a serious mental disorder at worst (ergo “Delusion”)'.Dawkins' unapologetically intemperate approach (which by the author’s own confession is aimed at conversion) and the works of his vociferous contemporaries such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have earned them condemnation of militant atheism synonymous with fundamentalism and intolerance on display by religious extremists.However, shrouded in the inflammatory language is a larger and principle quest, i.e., that an equitable and scientific burden on proof be placed on religion to prove divine existence. In the present-day liberal secularist system, theoretically the separation of church and state and, besides equidistance, tolerance and respect for the various belief systems is sacrosanct.And it is at this key tenant of modern society that the above demand impinges on religion as it seeks to not veil faith in the cozy private domain but rather bring it to a scientific and rational trial, thereby redefining civilization.While the gauntlet they throw down may be robust, the task at hand is a tall order and faces a number of innate difficulties; however, I limit myself to just three.The first is a pragmatic and policy level concern, which I term as the education and communication gap.According to UNESCO’s recent estimates, there are around 781 million adult illiterates in the world and around 100 million children are out of school.Moreover, there exists a clear conceptual and definitional difference between literacy and education, i.e., based on the traditional UNESCO definition, we can conclude that literacy is essentially a tool to attain “education,” and therefore, being literate does not in itself imply being “educated.”This in effect suggests that at least around one-sixth of the world’s population lacks the basic skills necessary to begin to grasp the scientific message.In addition, the complexity of scientific evidence, terminology and its communication also allows us to conjecture that at least a certain number of people, although literate and probably even educated (in the traditional sense), may find it difficult to absorb in earnest what is being communicated.In contrast, the fact that the idea of divine existence and religious doctrines are a matter of personal belief and experience along with societal conditioning implies that accepting the probability of god does not essentially require scriptural mastery or ritual maintenance.The second difficulty is an epistemological one, which is rooted in the proposition that argues that God is beyond reason and evidence.For instance, in The changing face of God, Karen Armstrong quotes the great Greek Orthodox theologian who wrote under the pen name of Denys the Areopagite arguing that: “God does not exist. Don’t be afraid to say that. It’s simply that our concept of existence, our experience of existence is so limited that it cannot be applied to God.” Inherent in Armstrong’s argument, which relies on a number of rationalist theologians from different faiths, is the debunking of scriptural literalism and the notion of God being an objective fact and the postulation that it is rather an unlimited reality that lies beyond our words, thoughts and concepts.The reason that such a proposition poses a serious challenge to the atheist camp is that it takes the rational scientific atheist out of his element.This, in fact, is evident as one goes through the pages of The God Delusion, where while Professor Dawkins’ answer to such a question - one that cannot be answered no matter how much ever evidence is gathered, because the idea of evidence is not applicable to it - sees him clutch at the straws of probability while failing to offer a philosophical counter. The third and final difficulty that I posit is rather utopian in nature that resonates in the epistemological argument, i.e., does personal faith in God essentially need to answer to scientific evidence? What I am basically suggesting is that for an individual even if God as a supernatural entity is a figment of his/her imagination, but one that is harmless and that offers comfort, direction and purpose, then does it matter whether scientific rationality argues otherwise.If, in sum, the “delusion” does “good,” then how can it be “bad?” While some may be tempted to construe the above as the old “if ignorance is bliss…” adage, that would be a complete misrepresentation, although utilitarian it could be seen as. The question is that the search for answers regarding our purpose, aim, role, existence, etc, has been a constant throughout human history, and if it is within this context that individuals and/or collectives construct a benchmark that encourages positive personal behaviour that even in a miniscule bit serves for personal growth and/or the betterment of humanity, then is it necessary for such a God to stand a scientific trial.
Moreover, the possibility of a negative impact of such a concept on humanity is about the same as the probability of scientific and technological advancements being used for fulfilling a malacious agenda.
Just as that doesn't mean that we abandon scientific pursuit, the same parameter of judgement must apply to religion.
While the above are a few of the arguments from various dispositions that form a part of the whole debate that will eventually shape our notion of civilization.The question, however, of rising fundamentalism from either pole is what threatens and muddies appropriate dialogue, and therefore, necessitates mass public participation and requires that each one scratch beneath the surface of their beliefs and seek, if nothing else, then a reasonable bridge between scientific rationality and faith.
7:40:21 PM
Posted By Manoj Kewalramani Comments (0) Uncategorized