*************************************************************
The Misleading Character of Contemporary Religion/Science Discussions
What if Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, Futuyma, etc. are correct? What if
the geological/biological data really does support their contention
that life as we know it now is contingent on past random events?
Where does that leave Christians? Philosophically speaking, it leaves
us in every bit as good a position as Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, and
Futuyma.
Christian writing's silence concerning problems posed by the findings
of modern science (in particular neo-Darwinian theory) to other
philosophical/religious commitments misleads people. Christian
religion/science discussions focus so strongly on either attacking the
empirical basis of naturalistic critiques of religious belief (in the
case of Creationists) or alternatively, convincing us that the bible
is complementary and was not intended to be a science textbook that
they implicitly affirm a double standard: Christians must justify
their high view of humans; other religions/philosophies do not. This
remains true despite the fact that many other worldviews share
substantial common ground with Christianity with regard to the focal
point of most naturalistic attacks: its high view of man.
In short, the nature of the Christian response to explicit attacks on
religion from hostile scientists (or hostile writers using science)
reinforces the mistaken impression that the findings of science threaten
Christian belief, but are inconsequential to other worldviews.
However, The logic of a naturalistic critique of this idea, an
``Argument from the absence of design'' may be applied equally
well to any worldview which holds a high view of humans. If the
findings of science pose a problem IT IS HUMAN PROBLEM, NOT A
CHRISTIAN PROBLEM! For example, Futuyma's concise summary of
objections to Man being special in the way claimed by Christianity,
that the ``human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the
product of mere mechanical mechanisms'' seems to critique quite nicely
any world view which holds:
1. That man has intrinsic value (i.e. man is more valuable compared to
other plants or animals).
2. That humans are free to make moral decisions and should be held
accountable for those decisions.
Since these views comprise virtually the whole human race with the
possible exceptions of hard-core SPCA members, die-hard nihilists,
personalities similar to Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot or my former neighbor,
Futuyma and others are forced to choose between the possibilities that
1. The naturalistic critique of a Christian view of man manifest in
Futyma's quote is invalid or;
2. That virtually all human belief systems are illogical, or at least
cannot be justified by the same standards demanded by Futuyma and
others of Christianity.
In short, even the mildly humanistic view that holds no more
than that the death of a person is worse than the death of a cockroach
and that that humans are to be more accountable for killing human
beings than a tiger for killing its prey are equally vulnerable to
critiques such as this. If humans have no purpose why insist that the
loss of human life might be tragic, that they should be held accountable
for their actions, or that there should be a different standard for
them than tigers?
Given the absurdity of this critique, or at least of the situation it
leads to, we must wonder why we Christians find ourselves on the
defensive with regard to the subject of evolution. The answer, I
suspect, lies firstly in the fact that many actually believe the
double standard (e.g. Phillip Johnson), and secondly a belief that our
faith in the truth of Christianity implies to many that we must have a nice
hermetic system of beliefs impervious to any doubts and able to answer
any questions the world throws at us.
I suggest that both these beliefs are false: The first is demonstrably
absurd; and profound truth loses nothing from an honest presentation
that affirms that our knowledge is incomplete.
***********************************
As a footnote to this essay, anyone doubting that evolutionary theory
might pose problems to a non-Christian humanism should view the last
video of the Carl Sagan Cosmos video series, titled, ``Who speaks for
the earth?'' An interview with Ted Turner, in it Sagan argues that we
should be ecologically involved because life is ``precious'' and needs
to be ``cherished'' and preserved BECAUSE it is so ``rare,''
``improbable,'' and ``so hard to come by.'' (Notice the non-empirical
value-laden words.)
I doubt that this could survive much scrutiny. Should we determine
which life is most improbable and declare it the most precious of all?
Probabilisticly, the set of events leading to where we are now is no
more improbable than an infinite number of other sets, so why call
this improbable or precious?
Ironically, the randomness that is the reason for Futuyma's rejection
of a high view of man has become the cornerstone of Sagan's
humanism. As someone who knows nothing but probability, he must naturally
justify any belief he has on the basis of probability. While many may
agree with his high view of life, and some may appreciate his candor
in attempting to justify what is at heart a religious view, very few
will be convinced by his epistemology. It turns out that Sagan is
religious after all!
-------
Joel W. Cannon cannon@alpha.centenary.edu
Dept. of Physics
Centenary College of Louisiana
P. O. Box 41188
Shreveport, LA 71134-1188
(318)869-5160
(318)869-5026 FAX