Dawkins is coming!

November 1, 2011, 12:00 pm


By Eymard de Silva Wijeyeratne

I refer to my friend and Peradeniya colleague, Leo Fernando’s article in the Island of 18th October 2011. Considerable interest has been generated by the prospect of Dawkins arrival in Sri Lanka. He is certainly an eminent biologist and therefore there is no reason why he should not do what other foreign litterateurs have done in addressing audiences in Sri Lanka. Atheists enjoy the fundamental and inalienable right to propagate their belief that God does not exist, just as much as scientists and non-scientists believe that there is an underlying principle of intelligent design immanent in the universe: some calling it God and others calling it the principle of creative intelligence and yet others like Albert Einstein calling it Spinoza’s impersonal God, "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" (Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, ed. P.A Schlipp). The problem lies in the key word ‘belief’. The element of belief can be eliminated only by adhering strictly to the scientific method. Let me first quote a passage from Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’.

"I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence, who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion". (God Delusion, Chapter 2).

Though Dawkins claims that he is not attacking specific qualities of Yahweh or Jesus and God by other names, he has done precisely that in the paragraphs preceding the one that I have quoted, with the additional observation that it may not be fair to attack such an easy target. I have not quoted these insulting comments because I do not wish to be a party to propagating them. These comments, apart from being contradictory, are in poor taste. Not accepting the tenets of a religion is one thing but gaining vicarious satisfaction from trading insults is neither science nor metaphysics. The book as a whole may pass off as a mediocre work of creative literature but it is very unlikely that it would qualify for classification as a great work of science or art.

The Artful Dodger of Metaphysics

Whether we like it or not religion is a voyage into metaphysics because the propositions that form the core belief of any specific religion are open to intellectual acceptance and dedicated praxis but not amenable to scientific proof. As Karl Popper has explained with great clarity, religious beliefs as well as other philosophical propositions are not falsifiable. There is no defined method, by way of controlled experiment or direct observation, through which any religious belief can be proved to be true or false. The following statement made by Dawkins, which is a part of the passage I have already quoted, is not science but metaphysics because it is not falsifiable: "any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it". Shifting the relative position of ‘creative intelligence/intelligent design from being a motivating principle to that of an end-result wrought by natural selection is essentially metaphysics. This statement is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. The validity of evolution in explaining the development of species is not denied. It is certainly a part of science. To extend it to explain the source and origin of the entire universe is a metaphysical enterprise. In any event Richard Dawkins despite his eminence as a biologist cannot claim a patent for his views because many others long before him have declared an option for atheism with much less venom and much more intellectual disinterest.

Atheism

Long before Richard Dawkins made his sensational diatribe against God and religion, many scientists and poets had expressed their disagreement with a belief in God, but they did so without cocksure arrogance and dismissive ridicule. The Latin poet Titus Lucretius (BCE 99 – 55) expressed his views in the following words, "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" (Religion is strongly disposed to invite evil) (De Rerum Natura Book I). His overall view of the universe was one of a random aggregation of atoms and not the product of a creative act on the part of God (personal or impersonal). The distinguished mathematician, scientist and philosopher, Bertrand Russell’s contribution to mathematics, science and philosophy is far greater than the contribution made by Dawkins to biology. Though Russell too was a confirmed atheist as revealed in his book ‘Why I am not a Christian’ and in his debate with Jesuit priest Fr. Frederick Coplestone, he did not stoop to ridicule religion for the sake of creating a sensational impact on an audience. The following passage summarizes his position regarding religion. "I do not myself believe that philosophy can either prove or disprove the truth of religious dogmas, but ever since Plato most philosophers have considered it a part of their business to produce proofs of immortality and the existence of God…In order to make their proofs seem valid, they have had to falsify logic, to make mathematics mystical, and to pretend that deep-seated prejudices were heaven-sent intuitions (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, Chap. XXXI, Logical Analysis).

Evolution and the Origin of the Universe

The position taken by Dawkins, as well as others, is based on the Theory of Evolution and the principle of Natural Selection. We need to acknowledge with detached judgement that Darwin did make a positive contribution to the study of biology. Men like T. H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer supported his quest not only because they appreciated the scientific value of his observations, but also because they recoiled at what they perceived as the pervasive influence of religion and the limits it imposed on scientific enterprise. Though the evidence that supports Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection is not spurious as it applies to a limited range of investigation, it cannot be accepted as a macro-scientific theory that fully explains the origins of all forms of life in the universe. Karl Popper admits that separate elements in the theory of Natural Selection are scientific to the extent that they are empirically testable. Yet, he argues that that overarching theory of Darwinian evolution "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme" (Karl Popper: Unended Quest, Glasgow: Fontana Collins, p. 151). He explains this further by saying: "The earlier naturalistic revolution against God replaced the name, God, by the name, Nature. Almost everything else was left unchanged. Theology, the science of God was replaced by the science of Nature and God’s laws by the laws of Nature. God’s will and power by the will and power of Nature (natural forces) and later, God’s design and God’s judgement by Natural Selection: theological determinism by naturalistic determinism. God’s omnipotence and omniscience were replaced by the omnipotence and omniscience of Nature" (Karl Popper: Conjectures and Refutations). The limitations that apply to theory of macro-evolution, also applies to the Big-Bang theory on the origin of the universe.

Religion and Physics

Max Planck (1858 -1947), the man who formulated the Quantum Theory, made the following observation, "There can never be any real opposition between science and religion, for the one is the complement of the other… Science enhances the moral value of life because it furthers a love of truth and reverence – love of truth displaying itself in a constant endeavour to arrive at a more exact knowledge of the world of mind and matter around us; and reverence, because every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being (Max Planck: Where is Science Going?). Albert Einstein explains the status of science in the following words. "The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense-perception gives information of this external world indirectly; we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most logically perfect way". (Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, ed. P. A. Schlipp). Though Einstein’s General and Special Theories of Relativity have been accepted as being valid, since there has been no subsequent empirical evidence to falsify them, doubts have been cast on its validity by the recent evidence (yet to be proved and confirmed beyond doubt) by physicists at the CERN laboratory that neutrinos can travel faster than light (photons). This incident confirms Karl Popper’s position: "Since we should call empirical or scientific, only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation, which distinguishes empirical and scientific theories" (Karl Popper: Conjectures and Refutations, p. 197). We see here that scientific speculation that goes beyond these theories that are in principle falsifiable, lie in the area called metaphysics.

Conclusion

Many scientists and others who are mesmerised by the magic wand of science believe that it alone can provide the answers to all aspects of life: material, existential, emotional, aesthetic and eschatological. It is true that the scientific method, as it is used by great scientists is exacting in its demand for investigative rigour. This approach is complemented by the modesty of these scientists who confine their claim to reveal the hidden structure of reality to a very narrow area. The procedures for empirical verification and the potential for exact prediction that validate scientific theories, which are essentially falsifiable, do provide an element of certainty that generally eludes us during the course of the ephemeral meanderings of our lives. Though science has been expanding its frontiers with new discoveries, scientists have not been able to arrive at a composite theory that explains and unifies all phenomena that fall within the fields of biology, physics and chemistry. Even Albert Einstein, who made a staggering contribution to the science of physics with his Special and General Theories of Relativity, was unable to establish his dream of a ‘Unified Field theory’ that would apply to the realm of physics alone. A guiding principle that drives scientific investigation is that no claims are made for a complete and final answer to all features of the universe. The universe is manifold in its manifestations as one layer on top of another: the macrocosm as the gay deceiver stays on top while the microcosm recedes further and further away by getting smaller and smaller: from molecules to atoms to neutrons and electrons, and from there to quarks. The horizons recede in the same way that Murray Gell-Mann’s Quarks function as the physics-equivalent of James Joyce’s fictional deposit; "Three quarks for Muster Mark! Sure he has not got much of a bark.

And sure any he has, it’s all beside the mark." (Finnegan’s Wake). Considering the fact that science describes a limited and closed system beyond which any speculative voyage would constitute a metaphysical adventure, it is surprising that some scientists choose to ridicule religion as a hallucination, and believers as a credulous herd. Nevertheless, believers in any religion acquire and develop a firm existential basis for their beliefs and this they enjoy as a fundamental right. As long as religion does not degenerate into fanatic intolerance and programmed discrimination there is no valid reason to denigrate it. Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe, because "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, -that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know" (John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn).

The Anglo-Saxon world that Dawkins represents has banished the revered God of religion by playing god. The Church pews are empty but the quality of life has not improved. Dawkins’ "end product of an extended process of gradual evolution", god, Nature, has been vacuum-cleaned of the protective grace of ozone. Human warmth has been replaced with global warming. The new god of human rights (hum-bug in short) is served by NATO, the Supreme Council of Presbyters. Animal sacrifice has been replaced with human sacrifice that puts Channel 4 to shame. Did you see the abomination of how the body of Muammar Gaddaffi was molested and desecrated?