OPINION & EDITORIAL
Science only part of human condition
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Science only part of human condition (March 12, 2008)
- Students should respond to bogus policy proposal (March 10, 2008)
- NAFTA not making the grade (March 7, 2008)
- GOP: Give credit where credit is due (March 6, 2008)
- SAFE bet: Smathers neglects need (March 5, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Contrary to common contention, religion inspires inquiry (March 12, 2008)
- Dawkins reveals beauty of science (March 11, 2008)
- Religious group funding not 'according to the gospel' (September 24, 2007)
- UWRCF deserves fair treatment (April 27, 2007)
- Sheahan's anaylsis ignores capitalism's flaws (September 12, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
In his most recent column (“Dawkins Reveals Beauty of Science,” March 11) Corey Sheahan revealed a towering ignorance of religious ideas and propositions.
First, there’s his idea that “understanding the wonder and majesty of the universe” is somehow at odds with religious belief. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can’t speak for all religions, but as a practicing Catholic I believe that studying and understanding the workings of the universe can only deepen my faith in God. Knowledge about the spectrum of light, the age of the universe, the intricacies of molecular biology and the laws of Newtonian physics do nothing to contradict my faith and can only increase my appreciation for the brilliance of divine creation. As an example, the Vatican astronomer — an actual professional position in the Vatican — does not hold to the literal seven-day creation theory.
Secondly, there’s the notion that religion discourages questions and rationality. I would suggest to Mr. Sheahan that he go beyond the sound bites of TV evangelists and into the 2000-plus years of Christian writing on the subject of faith and reason before he declares religion is closed to questions.
Thomas Aquinas, working at the University of Paris in the 14th century, did nearly all his work in the academic question-and-argument format of the time. He dealt with questions such as the existence of God using rational, philosophical arguments — not simply Biblical quotations or statements demanding, “You just have to believe.” For my part, I regularly ask questions — deep ones — about my religion. I do so in order to seek answers.
“Science vs. religion” is a false dichotomy. The aim of religion is not to provide us with facts about the natural, material universe — that is for the realm of scientific inquiry. Religion’s goal is to answer more fundamental questions about existence. Science might provide us with a how, but contrary to Mr. Sheahan’s assertion, it cannot answer “why.”
Questions about “why” relate to purpose. For what purpose do we exist? For what purpose do we love others? For what purpose do we restrain ourselves from doing things we know to be wrong? Can scientific knowledge really tell how I should treat my family, or why I should be honest in school and work, or why I shouldn’t crush whomever I can to get ahead?
A purely material view of the universe fails to quench the thirst for meaning that all humans experience. That is why, for thousands of years, humans have looked up to the stars and seen our creator looking back.
Sean Stiennon
UW Sophomore,
History and Economics
sstiennon@wisc.edu
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 9:21am):
Truely gruesome cruelty requires a firm religious faith!
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:16am):
I agree with Sean. The biggest question that most scientists really want to answer about any project they work on is "why," which is also about the only question that they cannot answer using just science. Dawkins, in his talk, according to the news article in the Herald this morning, seems to think that the existence of god or gods is within the scope of science, but this too is false. It will be curious to see if this is seen as offensive to science (and theology) as trying to use science to prove God (ie, intelligent design).
William Waller (March 12, 2008 @ 3:06pm):
"As an example, the Vatican astronomer â an actual professional position in the Vatican â does not hold to the literal seven-day creation theory."
That same astronomer was also removed by Pope Benedict (a firm believer in divine creation) shortly after making remarks in opposition to intelligent design. I'm not sure that this particular example helps your case.
"A purely material view of the universe fails to quench the thirst for meaning that all humans experience. That is why, for thousands of years, humans have looked up to the stars and seen our creator looking back."
I don't see the rational move from:
1. We all desire meaning for our existence
to
2. We actually have a purpose that gives meaning to our existence
to
2. A God exists who created us for that unarticulated purpose.
Indeed, it seems perfectly clear to both Dawkins and me that wanting something to be true has no bearing on its actual truth. You'll have to establish the existence of God on the basis of evidence rather than desire, and that is precisely what religion fails to do (where it even makes the attempt.)
But let's assume that you've got some brilliantly unassailable premises to bridge the logical gaps. As Sartre argued, if God existed, it would change nothing. Human beings are not inanimate objects; we are self-consciously free, and that sort of nature is simply incompatible with an externally conferred purpose. A thing which can deliberately reject the purpose it was allegedly made for can no longer be said to have that purpose; it has usurped the authority by which purpose is invested (i.e. consciousness). Hence, even if God exists, all of you thirsting after meaning might as well be Tantalus.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 4:12pm):
Well said, 3:06 pm.
-Corey Sheahan
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 4:58pm):
Ok, time for a longer response:
"First, thereâs his idea that âunderstanding the wonder and majesty of the universeâ is somehow at odds with religious belief."
-I never said this. Not once. I may have said that science does a BETTER job of revealing the beauty of the universe, but I never said that religious belief is at odds with revealing that beauty.
"For what purpose do we exist?"
-Why would you suppose that there is a purpose in the first place? Furthermore, what kind of 'purpose' is living for a God who wants unconditional worship and declares his own creation (humans) to be naturally sinful and in need of salvation?
"For what purpose do we love others?"
-We love others because it was evolutionary beneficial. It's a happy accident that we get so much joy and comfort out of doing so, but there's no reason to believe that our love of others comes from an incorporeal being who wants us to love others.
"For what purpose do we restrain ourselves from doing things we know to be wrong?"
-Because we know they are wrong. (I know, this raises the bigger question of how we know right from wrong. I do not have a perfect answer, but I think it has something to do with the norms of the society we live in and the evolutionary beneficial aspects of behaving nicely to one another.)
"Can scientific knowledge really tell how I should treat my family, or why I should be honest in school and work, or why I shouldnât crush whomever I can to get ahead?"
-Because then you would open yourself to be 'crushed' by others. It's mutually beneficial for you and I to help each other. It doesn't take a genius to see that a constant 'war of all against all' would be awful for society and everyone in it. (To be clear, I really don't have anything personal against you or anyone else who is a religious believer. I take issue with the arguments, not the person).
"A purely material [sic] view of the universe fails to quench the thirst for meaning that all humans experience. That is why, for thousands of years, humans have looked up to the stars and seen our creator looking back."
-Really? You can see God in the stars? You must be looking at different stars. I look up and see balls of gas that are thousands and sometimes millions of light years away. I feel awe at the beauty, and with the knowledge that I am looking far into the past. The light that we're seeing has been traveling an incredibly long time, and it's possible that the stars we're seeing don't even exist anymore. If that's not awe-inspiring, I don't know what is.
Furthermore, just because humans the the desire to believe there is something more to our lives, it does not follow that there actually IS something deeper to our lives. Comforting thoughts are not necessarily true thoughts.
-Corey Sheahan
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 6:31pm):
Corey Sheahan wrote:
"For what purpose do we restrain ourselves from doing things we know to be wrong?"
-Because we know they are wrong. (I know, this raises the bigger question of how we know right from wrong. I do not have a perfect answer, but I think it has something to do with the norms of the society we live in and the evolutionary beneficial aspects of behaving nicely to one another.)
The inability of secular thinkers to answer this question is one of the reasons religion is still seen as a value to many people. The idea that right and wrong is just a matter of evolution or societal opinion is not very comforting when it is clear that humans face moral questions on a daily basis.
What is needed is a secular philosophy that provides real, objective answers to moral and metaphysical questions. Fortunately, one exists: Ayn Rand's Objectivism. (www.aynrand.org)
William Waller (March 12, 2008 @ 7:28pm):
6:31, the vast majority of moral theorizing is secular, in that it never appeals to a divinity of any sort. This includes the three major moral systems of utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue ethics. Objectivism is hardly unique in this respect, nor is it very well regarded in philosophical circles (though businessman and members of Congress really seem to like it--which ought to speak against it.) There is something absurd about a moral system where altruism is regarded to be a grave immorality. It's like the conscience of an utter sociopath, systematized. This is supposed to comfort humanity in lieu of explicit divine commands?
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 8:13pm):
If all of this should have a reason we would be the last to know.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 9:44pm):
Mr. Sheahan,
Two things I'd point out. The first is this: Can you place any material or scientific value, measurement on feelings of beauty or awe? I would submit to you that our appreciation of beauty is, itself, evidence of a supernatural dimension. What's the evolutionary benefit in Mozart's music, or Van Gogh's paintings? How can your feelings of awe towards the stars be encompassed by a purely biological view of humanity?
That's actually the main point I wanted to make about your column: That I have exactly the same feelings of awe regarding the natural world, and they fit in very nicely with my theistic worldview. There's no contradiction there, and it seemed that you were trying to set one up by placing religion and appreciation for natural beauty in opposition.
Here's one thing to consider: It's obvious that humans have many desires. Desires for food, sex, sleep, drink. There are natural fulfilments for all those desires, and it's not recorded that any animal desires or feels an urge for anything which doesn't exist.
I don't think I'm alone in having desires for other things, too, with love and beauty topping the list. I also have a desire for purpose.
I think you'll agree that it would be very strange for us to have deep desires--obviously a part of our existence--for things that don't exist. In fact, the vast majority of humans have a natural desire for a supernatural dimension and purpose to life which, in Dawkins' view, don't exist. So what quirk of evolution has caused humans to manifest a whole range of desires which have no possible fulfillment?
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 1:12am):
6:31/9:44-- hard science (like physics and biology) can't necessarily explain these things, but social science can. A lot of it is socializing processes and value systems. Anthro, Econ, Soc, and Psych are particularly well suited for these endeavors, and have gone after these problems with some success. I'm not as familiar with that body of work (I'm political soc) but I know it's there. I know there's some people at UW doing Happiness indexes and culture and such things... look into it.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 2:16pm):
William Waller wrote:
"Objectivism is hardly unique in this respect, nor is it very well regarded in philosophical circles (though businessman and members of Congress really seem to like it--which ought to speak against it.) There is something absurd about a moral system where altruism is regarded to be a grave immorality."
Objectivism is unique, not for being secular, but for providing a rational basis for morality. Kantianism, Utilitarianism, etc. all attack reason and adopt some irrational basis for their morality. Kant, for example, explicitly declared his desire to destroy reason to save faith.
Yes, Objectivism holds that altruim is immoral and that rational egoism is the proper morality. This alone, makes it unique in moral thinking.
But the fact that Objectivism challenges all other moral views, does not make it absurb. As Rand shows, if you accept reality and reason, then egoism follows. Altruism, she shows, cannot be justified rationally, and all the proponents of altruism rely on some form of faith or feelings.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
