Here’s an interesting answer to the New Statesman‘s recent query about why public figures and scientists believe in god. This answer comes from Nick Brewin, a molecular biologist at Britain’s John Innis Centre (my emphasis):
A crucial component of the question depends on the definition of “God”. As a scientist, the “God” that I believe in is not the same God(s) that I used to believe in. It is not the same God that my wife believes in; nor is it the same God that my six-year-old granddaughter believes in; nor is it the God that my brain-damaged and physically disabled brother believes in. Each person has their own concept of what gives value and purpose to their life. This concept of “God” is based on a combination of direct and indirect experience.
Humankind has become Godlike, in the sense that it has acquired the power to store and manipulate information. Language, books, computers and DNA genomics provide just a few illustrations of the amazing range of technologies at our fingertips. Was this all merely chance? Or should we try to make sense of the signs and wonders that are embedded in a “revealed religion”?
Perhaps by returning to the “faith” position of children or disabled adults, scientists can extend their own appreciation of the value and purpose of individual human existence. Science and religion are mutually complementary.
In other words, to grasp the truth of religion, you need to have an infantile or poorly functioning brain.
I appreciate my humane existence immensely without saying, “It’s because of magic.” In fact, I appreciate it more by knowing things.
And I don’t see it with its own inherent purpose, but I do appreciate the one I give it.
*human, but also hopefully humane
purpose is a concept that begs for refinement and frequently is dependent on the reference framework
much like sam harris grounds moral values in well being of conscious creatures and asserts that science eventually will determine what is morally wrong or right, “purpose” and “appreciation” can in principle be reduced to unumbiguos scientific facts if we want to do so
believing in a child-like fashion is the sign of a brain that is less developed than brain of the mature adult
this kind of answer to why scientists believe shows utmost disrespect to the generally accepted meanings of words and we should seriously question the sincerety and/or sanity of a “scientist” who thinks that returning to “faith” position of a child or disabled person can extend appreciation and value of individual human experience
he can call himself “scientist” but other scientist should not
Is he really trying to assert that experiencing awe and wonder at the universe we find ourselves in requires suboptimal cognitive faculties?
Why doesn’t it ever occur to the god-botherers that the better your grasp on how things work, the more rewarding your appreciation of it?
Haven’t any of them even heard of Unweaving the Rainbow?
Cheers,
b&
Jesus supposedly upheld children as the ideal believers:
Later in this chapter Jesus tells his followers to cut off their own limbs and gouge out their eyes if it will keep them from sinning. Funny that Christians don’t often bring up those verses (or, if they do, they say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically).
Is this Jesus or Santa Claus?
Next Hoffblau screed:
Jerry Coyne says all religious believers have infantile or poorly functioning brains…
Many are victims of brainwashing–beliefs that you are still holding at the age of 18 are hard to get rid of. Catholic schools I experienced were quite good at brainwashing, somehow they couldn’t affect me.
Sorry, really can’t allow this one. If God is only “what gives value and purpose to their life” then good for them and will they please keep very quiet about it and NOT insist that everyone else should believe it too. We have suffered far too much from people who believe in “what gives value and purpose” to their lives taking it out on “heretics”, unbelievers, women, even children. High time they shut up. If they are complaining that nobody is listening to them any more, then good. It is high time people stopped listening. No one can stop them believing what they like, just as long as they are NO LONGER ALLOWED to bully anyone else.
Or think themselves and their opinions important.
absolutely terrible.
Let’s not forget the community that threatens U4 unemployment, family discord, and social isolation via faith-based discrimination.
“Humankind has become Godlike, in the sense that it has acquired the power to store and manipulate information. Language, books, computers and DNA genomics provide just a few illustrations of the amazing range of technologies at our fingertips. Was this all merely chance? Or should we try to make sense of the signs and wonders that are embedded in a “revealed religion”?”
So, godlike = “can use computers”. Talk about making God in our own image. Of course this isn’t godlike, it’s just human, it’s what we do. If “godlike” means anything, it must mean something far beyond anything human beings could ever even imagine achieving. But the God Squad has always maintained consistently low standards.
“Was this all merely chance?”
Here we go again. No matter how many times Dawkins et alii praeclarissimi say “natural selection is not a chance process” the fools ask this question. You just can’t tell some people. Maybe atheists really are “bright” after all.
“Should we try to make sense of the signs and wonders that are embedded in a “revealed religion”?”
What signs, what wonders, what “revealed religion”? Oh come on. Why should we do anything of the kind? After all, it isn’t everyone who sees these “signs and wonders”. And what, exactly, is “revealed”, and how? and where does “religion” (whatever that is) come in? Can these people really THINK? It really really doesn’t appear that they can.
In fairness, we do other god-like things: we harness the power of the stars to make electricity to power our computers, we turn mountains into dust and make a profit too (mining), we’ve played golf on the moon, we alter the very being of the plants and the animals and the earth itself to benefit our ends, we drug ourselves with potions of unimaginable ecstasy, we create new life from old in the lab (Craig Venter), we build neon cities to keep away the dark, our skyscrapers put the pyramids to shame, we release smoke and thunder and light and the force of a dozen arrows with the twitch of a finger (guns), we even build robotic appliances with simple intelligence to do our bidding (Roombas).
Well, yes, Miles, we do these things, and they are astonishing, but they are not godlike, they are the result of knowledge and inquiry, and I still say that the God Squad have low standards, though perhaps “primitive” might have been equally apt.
I’m not saying we’re omnipotent, but we’ve surpassed Zeus and Thor. What more do we need to do to be considered god-like? Make another universe and fill it with intelligent beings? If so, do the NPCs in World of Warcraft qualify, or does the AI need to achieve sentience before we get to call ourselves gods?
P.S. I find it strangely thrilling that in listing the accomplishments of humanity I totally forgot television and cell phones, though I also left out supercolliders, so maybe I could be more nerdy yet.
Well,what I don’t understand is (1) why we need words like “godlike” at all, except in some historical or mythical sense, as when “the gods” are not really distinguishable from “heroes”. But here it appears in the context of a modern scientist’s religious belief; and (2) if he measures god by human capabilities, what should that be telling him about his concept of God?
I’d rather encourage the idea that humans are beginning to find that we belong here (which is why we’re getting to understand how it all works) than that we should think of ourselves as somehow supernatural. Surely we need to grow out of all that.
What! Was Craig Venter actually recycled from old protoplasm in a laboratory?
Religion is much more plausible if you don’t think critically about it very much. Spending a lot of time with others who accept it uncritically helps one accept it emotionally as well.
Once you start thinking about it, who knows where that could lead?
“Humankind has become Godlike…”
We still seem awfully social primate like to me.
Because God is a primate.
“Each person has their own concept of what gives value and purpose to their life. This concept of ‘God’ is based on a combination of direct and indirect experience.”
Why on Earth would one use the word “God” for the “concept of what gives value and purpose to their life?” What good does that do? Why not just stick with the longer, more concise description? Why associate it with a word which already has an enormous amount of baggage already?
Something else leapt out at me as I re-read the bit you quoted.
A theory which explains everything explains nothing. That is, if the “God” concept can be applied to such a huge variety of radically different and contradictory phenomenon, then it is meaningless and worse than useless.
That is, of course, one of the reasons why I always respond to the, “Do you believe in God?” question with, “Which god?”
If “God” is “that feeling you have when you have to burp but you can’t quite get it out,” then, sure. I believe in God, and I’m experiencing His presence as I type.
But if “God” is “Jesus Christ, the Jewish Cracker of Jerusalem’s Craziest,” then no way. I’ve long since grown out of faery stories and the monsters under the bed.
Cheers,
b&
The thing that people do that irritates me most is when they define God as something so abstract and fluffy that it really implies and demands nothing, and then just go right on going to church, singing hymns and donating their 10%.
Updike’s Beauty of Lilies had a really wonderful section where a priest more or less explained that there were more nebulous definitions of God available if one could no longer believe in the standard model. But they all are there only to accomplish the simple goal of keeping butts in church.
Updike has somehow come to be seen as a socially conservative voice, but his writing on religion was wonderfully acidic. Pigeon Feathers, with its message that faith reassures the self-centered, seems particularly relevant to the current post.
Because to “belong” in the liberal-religious group, you have to be able to say that you “believe in God.” You can make up any definition for the placeholder “God” that you like, but if you can’t make the statement then you are an outsider, and probably are not a good person. He can’t use a standard definition of God, because he doesn’t believe in that God and can’t make himself say the lie that he does.
As a recovering cultural Christian, I can only acknowledge, J’accuse. You’ve nailed it concisely.
You nailed it.
That’s one reason the liberal “God” is difficult to refute, because it means anything the speaker wants it to mean (subject to change in mid conversation).
I agree, but I think “longer, more concise” is an oxymoron.
Now that I think about, I think we should add a definition to the term oxymoron – one who abuses oxycontin, and is also a moron…this applies well to Rush Limbaugh.
I’d accuse him of poor reasoning, but that would require that I be able to understand what the hell he’s actually trying to say. Who is his “God”? What is his “revealed religion”? That thing is so full of confounded “quotes” that it’s difficult to glean his meaning. The only thing I can solidly argue with is — no, you don’t need undeveloped or impaired cognitive abilities to have a sense of wonder at the world, and if that’s what your “God” requires, you can keep “him.”
“Was this all merely chance?”
Chance or God. Those are your only two choices.
What about Humperdinck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GXry902OIg
Cheers,
b&
You have 10 seconds to decide…
How are you defining “chance?” Unplanned?
I’m not defining it. I’m just (hopefully) pointing out the false dichotomy in whatever the hell Brewin means by “chance”.
Full quote:
“Humankind has become Godlike, in the sense that it has acquired the power to store and manipulate information. Language, books, computers and DNA genomics provide just a few illustrations of the amazing range of technologies at our fingertips. Was this all merely chance?”
I’m wondering whether the writer is trying to imply that the desirable “faith” position of children and the disabled consists in not caring about inconsistency. Hey, whatever. If so, then the writer seems to have achieved his happy, carefree, freeform goal of making “God” mean anything to everyone.
This is what happens when people decide, up front, that God exists — and then go hunting around for some way to make God not as stupid an idea as it might be. They are not raising the bar — they are lowering it. In his case, lowering it to the level of childishness.
What do you want to bet that this scientist would respond to Jerry’s critique with some version of “hey, I’m not trying to convince you of anything; I’m just explaining how I see God. Leave me alone, this is none of your business?”
the writer seems to have achieved his happy, carefree, freeform goal of making “God” mean anything to everyone.
This is how it works:
(1) God means the value and purpose of individual human existence
(2) But you have to accept my vision of the value and etc because it’s what God told me
(3) and because he’s God, for Christ’s sake, and you can’t argue with him or you’ll go to hell
(4) and I’ll boil you in oil, too.
Naw, I don’t think it quite works that way, because most of the people who define God in a vague, sloppy way that can be interpreted in a secular way if you are so inclined tend to be the liberal, ecumenical sorts who either don’t believe in Hell or have also defined Hell in a vague, sloppy way that can be interpreted in a secular way if you’re so inclined.
It’s more like:
(1) God means the value and purpose of individual human existence.
(2) The value and purpose of individual human existence is to obey God, whom I like to think of as a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
(3) No, I didn’t say YOU had to think of God as a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Think of God however you want — as your own purpose of individual existence.
(4.) Yes, I guess that means that for you the value and purpose of existence is to obey the value and purpose of existence, and it’s all very circular. Now go away.
(5.) That atheist who just left the room cannot believe in the value of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth … because they don’t believe in God. Sad, isn’t it?
You’re very likely right, Sastra. It will all fit neatly into my first point, and from history I would guess that it can only happen that way in a secular democracy. My other points are about what happens next.
That’s very clever. Thanks.
Into which category does his wife fall?
And lest I lose my snarky atheist cred, I’ve had my dad tell me that he wished he taught me more religion as a child because I am so atheistic today. Normally he’s a bastion of intellectualism but it doesn’t strike him as being the least bit odd that “true” facts about the world must be absorbed as a child lest they be ridiculed as an adult.
Perhaps by returning to the “faith” position of children or disabled adults, scientists can extend their own appreciation of the value and purpose of individual human existence. Science and religion are mutually complementary.
“Perhaps by returning to the “faith” position of children or disabled adults”
The “‘faith position” of children: well, they trust mummy and daddy, because they’re made that way, and they have no choice. Children don’t know anything, can’t protect themselves… but they do a lot of thinking and working-out-of-things, and if mummy and daddy have any sense they’ll help their child to grow and not accept any bullshit, even if it comes from mummy and daddy (in a careless moment). Somehow, I think, Nick Brewin’s analogy goes wrong here, because, I suspect, he imagines children as passive. No, they ain’t. He should remember about snakes and apples and young women with inquiring minds.
The “faith position” of disabled adults. Again, we are talking about people who have no choice. People who, perhaps, are not even fully aware of what is happening to them, as well as people who might have better ideas but have no choice but to accept what they receive.
No, it won’t do. We are growing up, and we have ideas which we think are better than the ones which the religious would like us to accept. The faith-position of children is the condition of helplessness, ignorance, inexperience and hope, and the faith-position of the disabled (where it exists) is the condition of helplessness, incapacity, loss and despair. These are the models which we are recommended to pursue, and note that Brewin can’t even tell the difference between them. He wears rosy pink spectacles, and if, to him, everything looks the same “nice” colour it seems a good reason, to him, to recommend that everyone else wear them.
“scientists can extend their own appreciation of the value and purpose of individual human existence“.
Why scientists? Does he mean “people”? Does he mean himself? I mean, a person (who is a taxidermist or a dustman or a book-keeper or a grave-digger) might have “their own appreciation of the value and purpose of individual human existence”, so why can’t a scientist? More specifically, why does a scientist have to believe in fairies in order to be like other human beings? Why not spaghetti twisters or cowgirls or hog-wranglers (don’t ask)? Why do any of these people have to become childish or disabled? And aren’t scientists human beings? Well, I am surprised. We live and learn. Well, some of us do.
“Science and religion are mutually complementary.”
Where did this come from? You know, I strongly suspect that the view through rosy pink spectacles has been supplemented with liberal draughts of Olde Nick’s Moste Potente Brew. Or just a large whisky or two. Where did this come from? How did we get from the view from childhood, disability and scientists to the complementariness of science and religion? Well, anyway, if he can make blunt statements so can I. They ain’t.
Perhaps the easiest way to return to the “faith” position of children and disabled adults would be through a well-applied lobotomy. That might even be considered a successful application of a complementary relationship between science and religion.
To adapt an old joke: A New Zealander wanted to become an Australian but they told him he’d have to have one-tenth of his brain removed. He agreed, but when he woke, they said
“We made a terrible mistake, we removed nine-tenths of your brain!”
And the patient said
“Bless you my child.”
Exactly backward. Godkind has always been humanlike.
Why do these scientists who still believe (in a god) give their god the same name as the bible character, if it’s not the same guy.
Give him another name, just don’t call him God!
Worse, we’ve got all the contemporary gods named “God,” and not a single one of them is the same.
There’s the Catholic god named, “God,” who’ll roast you forever if you get an abortion; the liberal Protestant god, also named, “God,” who would really rather you didn’t get an abortion but certainly wouldn’t roast you if you decide in good conscience that it’s the best choice; and the orthodox Jewish god, still named “God,” who’ll roast you if you murder a woman by neglecting to perform a medically-necessary abortion.
Fred Phelps has a god named, “God,” who hates fags; the Episcopalians have a god named, “God,” who ordains lesbians as bishops. Some Mormons have a god named, “God,” who wants men to have lots of wives; other Mormons have a god named, “God,” who thinks marriage is between one man and one woman, full stop. Most of the gods named “God” who reside in New York are Democrats; in Oklahoma, if you’re a god named, “God,” chances are excellent you vote a straight Republican ticket.
I know I sure don’t have a clue which god somebody is referring to when the name is, “God.” To be honest, I rather doubt anybody else does, either.
Cheers,
b&
Thanks for that! 😀
It’s very sad for a scientist to talk like this, since science is about loking for answers (and sometimes finding them). You can’t look for answers if you know them already. Whenever I hear a new scientific discovery I go “Wow!” and that serves me quite well for religion. I get a lot of comfort knowing how much more there is that we don’t know yet and may never know. My Wow! is without end. I don’t get any when I hear a new religious claim. “Legions of angels” Really? “Xenu” Yawn. “Jesus unbaked on Easter morning.” The biochemistry says no.
John Innes Centre – agricultural research.
Back to the old belief of the innocents? Yet plenty of’primitive’ peoples were ‘innocent’ & their god/s were not the gods/s of the mohammedans & christians. So perhaps we should multiply gods. Just idiotic.
Hey, hey. John Innes is David Hopwood.
A few points come to mind:
1) I am pretty sure these things were developed independently of religious revelation or even despite active suppression by religious authorities.
2) If these things are equivalent to god-like qualities, why didn’t god tell us how to make them? There were other quite detailed instructions on what clothes to wear or not wear, what to eat or not eat and when to work or not work. Why didn’t the deity also reveal at least the tools for how to make sense of the world by scientific techniques? We had to work that one out by ourselves, even despite religious authority. Heck, just the recipe for soap would have gone a long way to helping.
3) Was it all chance? Yes and no. Life took about 1.3 billion years to get to where we are today. That is a long time for any deliberate project to run if it was planned. If all of this was planned or engineered (planning is not much use without actioning the plan) then there would have been some pretty interesting miracles. Imagine if 65 million years ago some reptiles were getting to the point of evolving god-like intelligence (as quoted above) so the deity has to do something about it, as reptiles are not the shape he is looking for. So the logical and most simple way of getting things back on track is to lob in a meteor during a prolonged drought and hope that some other intelligence would evolve from that which is more the right form.
4) You would think a molecular biologist would understand how complexity can arise from the interactions of trillions upon trillions of actors over billions of years?
I thought this might have been taken out of context, but I followed the link to New Statesman and I’ll be damned if Jerry didn’t quote the man’s full post verbatim. Given that, the only thing I can say about a scientist who thinks that cognitive impairment helps people “appreciate the value and purpose of individual human existence” is…
Poe!
What else could explain such a mind-numblingly stupid assertion?
Make that “mind-numbingly”.
I like “mind-numbling”. Reminds me of tummies rumbling and idols tumbling. A mind that is numbed is merely frozen, but one that is numbled has really been scumbled and fumbled into confusion. Can wee haz numbling?
I like it.
Ditto
He is advocating we all catch the ‘Anthony Flu’.
“Humankind has become Godlike, in the sense that it has acquired the power to store and manipulate information.”
I was looking for a reason to post this for the Canadians in the audience:
Today is the first day of the advance polls for the Canadian election, so take information you have stored and manipulated and exercise your power by voting in the advance polls.
I don’t care how you explain or rationalize it, there is no god. no god, no god.