Colin Blakemore, the renowned British neurobiologist, has a pretty hard-hitting article in today’s Guardian about the irreconcilability of faith and science.
. . . . Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation, provoking denial or surrender from the church. Christian leaders, even the Catholic church, have reluctantly accommodated the discoveries of scientists, with the odd burning at the stake and excommunication along the way.
But I was astounded to discover how topical the issue of Galileo’s trial still is in the Vatican and how resistant many Christians are to scientific ideas that challenge scriptural accounts. More than half of Americans, even a third of Brits, still believe that God created humans in their present form.
The process of Christian accommodation is a bit like the fate of fieldmice confronted by a combine harvester, continuously retreating into the shrinking patch of uncut wheat. . . . .
. . . . Human beings are supremely social animals. We recognise people and judge their feelings and intentions from their expressions and actions. Our thoughts about ourselves, and the words we use to describe those thoughts, are infused with wishes and wants. We feel that we are the helmsmen of our actions, free to choose, even to sin.
But increasingly, those who study the human brain see our experiences, even of our own intentions, as being an illusory commentary on what our brains have already decided to do.
Perhaps we humans come with a false model of ourselves, which works well as a means of predicting the behaviour of other people – a belief that actions are the result of conscious intentions. Then could the pervasive human belief in supernatural forces and spiritual agents, controlling the physical world, and influencing our moral judgments, be an extension of that false logic, a misconception no more significant than a visual illusion?
I’m dubious about those “why” questions: why are we here? Why do we have a sense of right and wrong? Either they make no sense or they can be recast as the kind of “how” questions that science answers so well.
When we understand how our brains generate religious ideas, and what the Darwinian adaptive value of such brain processes is, what will be left for religion?
Finally, over at Freespace, Timothy Sandefur comments on my article in the New Republic on accommodationism and the reactions by the scientists at Edge.
My comments on this article as I stated on RD.net:
This article is all over the place. The author:
1. Misstated what transpired at the public conversation in the Oxford University Museum.
2. Makes declarative statements without evidence which back them up, without attribution. “It’s true that…”
3. Gives the author’s own opinions near the end.
Jerry, I was wondering if you might be willing to start an errata for WEIT. I’m sure you’re already aware of some of the little errors that have slipped in.
I’ve just started reading it, and so far I’ve found these ones:
pg. 9 Systema Naturae is listed as being published in 1635 when it was really 1735
pg. 253 Steven Pinker is listed as arguing for “nurture” in The Blank Slate, whereas this should almost certainly be “nature”.
As I’m not really an expert in the material, it would be useful for me to have a corrigendum, in case I’m not able to find some of the other typos. (Plus then I won’t be penalized for picking up the first edition of the book, since I assume the second edition will have these things corrected.)
I was particularly struck in Blakemore’s piece, the following:
‘I’m dubious about those “why” questions: why are we here? Why do we have a sense of right and wrong? Either they make no sense or they can be recast as the kind of “how” questions that science answers so well.’
It’s long occurred to me that this is a nonsensical division too. Answering the “whys” with “because God said so” answers nothing. It immediately raises the question, “Why did God say so?” The supposition of a god’s existence doesn’t give any greater meaning to existence. All it does is push the question of “why” back a stage.
(Er…. “BY the following.” Doncha hate not being able to edit?!)
I’m a big a fan of that “combine harvester” of reason. Nice metaphor.
Blakemore: Either they make no sense or they can be recast as the kind of “how” questions that science answers so well.
I have noticed the same. For example: “Why do demons possess people and drive them mad?” becomes “How does neurochemical imbalance explain a significant portion of mental illness?” once you dig a little deeper.
I’m a big a fan of that “combine harvester” of reason. Nice metaphor.
Sort of like The Grim Reaper, eh?