Dennett on Religion

In a recent issue of Science & Spirit, a journal begun by the Templeton folks to look at connections between science and religion was an interview by Chris Floyd with the philosopher, Daniel Dennett. Dennett is identified by many as one of the "neo-atheists" and has written extensively about the demise of religion. Though lengthy, let me encourage you to persevere to the end. This quote speaks to his understanding of the erosion of the significance of religion.

S&S: What then of religion, or, more specifically, of the relationship between religion and science? Stephen Jay Gould speaks of "Non-Overlapping Magesteria," where the two realms of knowledge—or inquiry—stay within their own spheres, operating with mutual respect but maintaining a strict policy of non-interference. Is this possible, in your views? Is it even desirable?
Dennett: The problem with any proposed detente in which science and religion are ceded separate bailiwicks or "magisteria" is that, as some wag has put it, this amounts to rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which Caesar says God can have. The most recent attempt, by Gould, has not found much favor among the religious precisely because he proposes to leave them so little. Of course, I’m certainly not suggesting that he should have left them more.

There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science. Many who readily grant this have not considered its implications. It means, for instance, that there are no factual assertions about the origin of the universe or its future trajectory, or about historical events (floods, the parting of seas, burning bushes, etc.), about the goal or purpose of life, or about the existence of an afterlife and so on, that are off limits to science. After all, assertions about the purpose or function of organs, the lack of purpose or function of, say, pebbles or galaxies, and assertions about the physical impossibility of psychokinesis, clairvoyance, poltergeists, trance channeling, etc. are all within the purview of science; so are the parallel assertions that strike closer to the traditionally exempt dogmas of long-established religions. You can’t consistently accept that expert scientific testimony can convict a charlatan of faking miracle cures and then deny that the same testimony counts just as conclusively—"beyond a reasonable doubt"—against any factual claims of violations of physical law to be found in the Bible or other religious texts or traditions.

What does that leave for religion to talk about? Moral injunctions and declarations of love (and hate, unfortunately), and other ceremonial speech acts. The moral codes of all the major religions are a treasury of ethical wisdom, agreeing on core precepts, and disagreeing on others that are intuitively less compelling, both to those who honor them and those who don’t. The very fact that we agree that there are moral limits that trump any claim of religious freedom—we wouldn’t accept a religion that engaged in human sacrifice or slavery, for instance—shows that we do not cede to religion, to any religion, the final authority on moral injunctions.

Centuries of ethical research and reflection, by philosophers, political theorists, economists, and other secular thinkers have not yet achieved a consensus on any Grand Unified Theory of ethics, but there is a broad, stable consensus on how to conduct such an inquiry, how to resolve ethical quandaries, and how to deal with as-yet unresolved differences. Religion plays a major role as a source of possible injunctions and precepts, and as a rallying point for public appeal and organization, but it does not set the ground rules of ethical agreement and disagreement, and hence cannot claim ethics or morality as its particular province.

That leaves ceremonial speech acts as religion’s surviving domain. These play a huge role in stabilizing the attitudes and policies of those who participate in them, but the trouble is that ceremony without power does not appear to be a stable arrangement—and appearances here are all important. Once a monarch is stripped of all political power, as in Great Britain, the traditions and trappings tend to lose some of their psychological force, so that their sole surviving function—focusing the solidarity of the citizenry—is somewhat undercut. Whether or not to abolish the monarchy becomes an ever less momentous decision, rather like whether or not to celebrate a national holiday always on a Monday, instead of on its traditional calendar date. Recognizing this threat of erosion, religious people will seldom acknowledge in public that their God has been reduced to something like a figurehead, a mere constitutional monarch, even while their practices and decisions presuppose that this is so.

It is seldom remarked (though often observed in private, I daresay) that many, many people who profess belief in God do not really act the way people who believed in God would act; they act the way people would act who believed in believing in God. That is, they manifestly think that believing in God is—would be—a good thing, a state of mind to be encouraged, by example if possible, so they defend belief-in-God with whatever rhetorical and political tools they can muster. They ask for God’s help, but do not risk anything on receiving it, for instance. They thank God for their blessings, but, following the principle that God helps those who help themselves, they proceed with the major decisions of their lives as if they were going it alone.

Those few individuals who clearly do act as if they believed in God, really believed in God, are in striking contrast: the Christian Scientists who opt for divine intervention over medical attention, for instance, or those who give all their goods to one church or another in expectation of the Apocalypse, or those who eagerly seek martyrdom.

Not wanting the contrast to be so stark, the believers in belief-in-God respond with the doctrine that it is a sin (or at least a doctrinal error) to count on God’s existence to have any particular effect. This has the nice effect of making the behavior of a believer in belief-in-God and the behavior of a believer in God so similar as to be all but indistinguishable.

Once nothing follows from a belief in God that doesn’t equally follow from the presumably weaker creed that it would be good if I believed in God—a doctrine that is readily available to the atheist, after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science. Peter de Vries, a genuine believer in God and probably the funniest writer on religion ever, has his hyper-liberal Reverend Mackerel (in his book The Mackerel Plaza) preach the following line: "It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us."

The Reverend Mackerel’s God can co-exist peacefully with science. So can Santa Claus, who need not exist in order to make our yuletide season more jolly.

Do you agree with Gould that there are areas where religion speaks, but science cannot? Or, do you agree with Dennett that there is nothing in religion that is off-limits to science?

Blasphemy

No, that is not a self-confession, but the title of a novel written by Douglas Preston that Vicki bought me after we arrived in SLC. I had read a review of the book after it was published and had wanted to read it. Anything dealing with religious themes interests me. One Saturday at our local chain book store, Vicki found it on the sale table, which made it even better, and purchased it for me.

The book has an interesting premise. Scientists built a massive particle accelerator controlled by the most powerful computer yet built to investigate conditions at the moment of the Big Bang. At the moment of the device achieving 100% power, from inside the black hole created in the experiment, there is a voice that speaks. This voice claims to be the voice of God and proceeds to impart new truth for the good of humanity. While the premise is interesting, the execution is lacking. The book is filled with predictable plot lines and stereotypic characters. If you are in SLC and want to read it, contact me and borrow my copy.

I found one quote, though, that ought to provide grist for the mill for readers of this blog. The voice explains the rise of and calls for the demise of religion, traditional religion that is.
Religion arose as an effort to explicate the inexplicable, control the uncontrollable, make bearable the unbearable. Belief in a higher power became the most powerful innovation in late human evolution. Tribes with religion had an advantage over those with without. They had direction and purpose, motivation and a mission. The survival value of religion was so spectacular that the thirst for belief became embedded in the human genome. What religion tried, science has finally achieved. You now have a way to explain the inexplicable, control the uncontrollable. You no longer need "revealed" religion. The human race has finally grown up. Religion is as essential to human survival as food and water. If you try to replace religion with science, you will fail. You will, instead, offer science as religion. For I say to you, science is religion. The one, true religion. Instead of offering a book of truth, science offers a method of truth. Science is a search for truth, not the revelation of truth. It is a means, not a dogma. It is a journey, not a destination.

There is way more to unpack in this statement than I will be able to address in this short posting. Instead, I want to focus on the assertion that "science is religion." That is what many who oppose the teaching of evolution have claimed. These folks believe that science in general, and evolution in particular, has become just as much a position of faith and belief as anything taught in a church. They also believe that the goal of "scientists" is to replace traditional religious faith with the scientific worldview.

So, do you see traditional religion on the decline and being replaced by faith in science?

One more thought

This weekend marks the Presidential Campaign event at Saddleback Valley Church, a Southern Baptist mega-church, hosted by its pastor, the Reverend Rick Warren, he of The Purpose-Driven Life fame. Warren explains that he will ask questions more in line of principles and motivations for actions and not related to policy statements. Should you have the opportunity to submit a question to Rev. Warren to ask John McCain or Barack Obama, what would you want to ask them?

Thought for the weekend

One of the many quotes I have saved from the pages of The Christian Century (regrettably without more detailed citation than that) is one from an Egyptian Coptic monk named Ruwals el-Anthony, who said,
There's nothing wrong with microwaves or mobile phones - they save time. But God will ask you what you have done with the time that was saved.

As we are part of a culture with more "labor-saving" devices than ever before and as we start our weekend filled with "free time", it might be instructive to think about what we have done with all the time we have saved. If our answer has just been to cram more things into our days, then perhaps we have missed the boat.

Interesting Comments from Kirk Cameron

For those who do not remember, Cameron played the wise-cracking Mike Seaver on the TV show "Growing Pains" back in the 1980's and 1990's. I watched the show a lot because Adam, our older son, loved it. During the final years of the show, Cameron became a Christian. He began a Christian ministry, The Way of the Master, and became associated with films and other projects with an explicit Christian message.

BeliefNet.com has featured an interview with him for the last several days. He is obviously a very sincere believer and expresses his beliefs in a very humble and compelling way. One of the Q&A's, though, struck my interest. Not necessarily because of any original thoughts in his answer, but, probably because of the timing of the interview in the midst of the rapidly heating up political campaigns. Let me share the complete question and answer with you:

It seems like so many bad things are going on in the world right now. Do you think God is angry at the way things are going and is He punishing us?

That's the exact same question that I ask people on the streets on our TV show, "The Way of the Master." 'Do you think God is angry with Americans? Does He have anything to do with hurricanes and floods and tornadoes?" You'd be shocked at the answers that people give.

You look at all of the countless hurricanes and tornadoes that line up off the coasts and just destroy crops and houses and everything, and you start to wonder who is in charge of the weather department anyway? I mean, does God have anything to do with cancer and floods and droughts and these kinds of things?

I think we can get a clue about the way God deals with nations by looking at the nation of Israel. If you go back into the Old Testament you'll see that God promised this special nation of Israel [and] that if they would obey His commands that He would bless their crops and bless their nation and their children and their marriages and things would go well for them. But, that if they didn't, if they turned and rebelled against Him and followed after other gods, that he'd remove that hand of blessing and they instead would inherit a curse and He would allow their enemies to overtake them.

The Bible says that God will bless those nations who honor Him. America was founded on biblical principles, but no longer do we honor those principles as a nation. We kicked God out of schools and we can't pray there, and we're giving more honor to the right of free speech and let people burn our flag and curse the God that's blessed us that I think we're watching, perhaps, God remove His hand of blessing from a country that once had it in generous amounts.

I think the hope is not going to be in who our next president is. I think our hope is not going to be in the laws that govern us, but in the power of God working in the hearts of people who turn their back to the Lord and humble themselves and read His word and honor Him in the things that they do and that they say. That's why I'm so concerned about getting the gospel out to people because that really is what it's all about, is people coming to know God through faith in Christ.

There are several things about his answer which I question.
1) This puts Cameron in the camp of those who have said for years that various natural disasters and various diseases came from the hand of God as a judgment on people. That would suggest that anyone afflicted by any of these things was judged sinful by God, and God did smite them. Knowing many people on the Gulf Coast who were affected by Katrina and knowing many people who have dealt with cancer, including my wife and her brother, I take umbrage at this broad generalization. Historically, there have always been storms and diseases; these have not just come about as a result of no longer having school-led prayers in public schools. If you equate the occurrences disasters and diseases with a nation no longer honoring God, then can anyone say that any nation, including America, has ever honored God? If you argue that innocent people may have been caught in the middle, so to speak, as God sent judgment on the sinners, what does that say about the nature of God that God is willing to smite the innocent just to get the guilty?

2) Cameron is confident that America once enjoyed the bountiful blessings of God. What do we do with the Great Depression, with the Spanish flu epidemic, with the Civil War, with the sufferings during the Revolutionary War? When was this golden age of which he is so confident?

3) He asserts the fact that America was founded on Biblical principles without defining precisely what those principles are. Does he suggest that slavery and the lack of rights for women are Biblical principles? Both existed in this country at its beginnings and continued on for quite some time.

4) He conflates Biblical principles with particular views of patriotism when he mentions the lack of prayer in public schools and rights of free speech and flag burning. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Biblical text that speaks against free speech or prohibits flag burning.

5) He is just incorrect when he trots out the standard "we have kicked God out of school" argument. It is true that the Supreme Court prohibited officially mandated prayer, but that ruling in no way prohibits anyone, student or teacher, from praying.

I applaud Kirk Cameron for having the strength of his convictions and being willing to put his beliefs on display. I certainly would defend his right to hold his beliefs and express them freely. I also defend my right to disagree, respectfully.

Poll Vaulting

As part of my research for a sermon illustration recently, I looked at the J.K. Harris Polling Company polls over the last few years. I know that poll results can be skewed by the way questions are asked and by who is asking the questions and by any number of other factors, BUT there is an interesting poll from November 29, 2007. It is identified by the Harris company as Poll #119.

The title of the Poll says a lot, "The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans." In a reasonably straight forward way, those taking the poll were asked to indicate whether they "believe in" or "don't believe in" or are "not sure" about a list of subjects. Then, they were asked, again from a list, which collections of writings they considered to be "The Word of God", and how religious they considered themselves and how often they attended religious services. Each of these results was further parsed by religious affiliation.

Many of the results could have been predicted. The overwhelming majority of Americans affirmed their belief in God (82%) with strong support for the other typical beliefs of the Christian faith, as in miracles, angels, heaven, Jesus as God or the Son of God, and the resurrection of Jesus. And, those self-identified as "born-again Christians" had the highest % of belief in each of these; though there was never a 100% result in this group.

Yet, there were some surprising results for me as well. Let me list just a few of these:
** 42% of all believed in evolution; 39% of all believed in creationism. Based on the rhetoric I hear, I would have thought many more would affirm creationism than evolution. Of course, the numbers for the "born-again" group were on target with my expectations with 60% affirming creationism and only 16% evolution.
** 35% of all believe in UFO's, with 29% of the "born-again" group agreeing. This means that more evangelicals believe in UFO's than in evolution.
** Here is a kicker: 21% of all people believe in reincarnation, with 8% of "born-again" Christians agreeing. I always thought that reincarnation is so antithetical to conservative Christian beliefs that I am shocked at this number, even as low as it is.
** "Born-again" Christians accept the "Old Testament" texts (88%) and the "New Testament" texts (86%) as the "Word of God", but only 33% accept "The Torah" as the "Word of God" even though the Torah is a Jewish term referencing the first five books that comprise the Christian "Old Testament." It would seem that, whatever you call it, if it is God's Word, it is God's Word.
** 50% of the "Born-Again" Christians said they attended worship services every week or more, which I would expect - though I find it curious that more of them do not attend more often or claim to attend more often. Yet, 12% of this group say they attend less than 1 time a year; that means they do not even make the minimum Christmas and Easter visit.

After much reading and study into the nature of the American religious experience, I am still amazed by what religious Americans say they do or do not believe.

Mix of Politics and Religion -- Again

There are two relatively minor currents swirling around the presidential elections involving things religious that have caught my fancy. Those looking for deep thoughts will be disappointed, I know, but, then, what do you expect from me by now?

The first is one I have commented on before and is the continuing frenzy that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ or has Anti-Christ like tendencies. If you want to see my previous reference check July 14 on the blog. At that time, there were about 650,000 hits for "Obama and antichrist" on Google. As a result of recent speculation fueled by a McCain ad, that number is now up over 800,000.

On the feature "Fundamentalist" from The American Prospect, comes this 'clarification.'
1. Religious Right Debates Whether Obama Has "A Spirit of the Antichrist."
At a state GOP convention and across the American Family Association's (AFA) radio airwaves, religious-right activists reacted to Obama's speech in Berlin by suggesting that he will undermine America's sovereignty and greatness and that he might just be channeling the Antichrist.
Mike Huckabee, speaking at the Arkansas GOP convention, said that "the kind of change [Obama] would bring makes us more of a part of some global, mushy, middle-of-the-ground [sic], milquetoast world in which America loses its sovereignty and distinction."
The AFA reaches a rural audience through its radio stations -- it owns over a hundred of them, making it the sixth-largest radio-station owner in the country -- and its daily AFA Report show presents a "Christian worldview" on the news of the day. On Friday, the day after Obama's Berlin speech, the AFA Report's host, Fred Jackson, made note of the "messianic tone" of the speech, then quickly denied that he believes Obama is messianic. Ed Vitagliano, one of the program's roundtable guests, chimed in, "I don't think he's the Antichrist, but there is a spirit of Antichrist at work in the West in a very strong and open way that is leading people to want to solve their problems and have a desire to have their lives improved without Christ. That's what the spirit of Antichrist does, it denies Christ." In other words, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just like the Antichrist.

It seems that this may be an on-going undercurrent among the religious right until the election. Then, if Obama is elected, I can see this being the unspoken accusation throughout his administration.

One of the fears of the religious right about the endtimes is the creation of a one-world government headed by the Anti-Christ. Thus, I can see any treaty arrangements in an Obama administration being looked at through this lens. It will be interesting to see what continues to happen in this regard.

The second item was also found on The Fundamentalist. It probably speaks for itself.
2. Pray for Rain
"Would it be wrong if we asked people to pray…to pray for rain? Abundant rain, torrential rain. Urban and small stream advisory rain. At a particular time, and a particular location? Say at August 28, right here at Mile High Stadium in Denver? During prime-time TV hour when a certain presumptive nominee is scheduled to make a certain acceptance speech at a certain Democratic National Convention?" That's Stuart Shepherd, managing editor of Focus on the Family's Citizen Link, who recently mocked hate crimes legislation in a mid-July CitizenLink video, and now aims to set prayer warriors about the task of drowning out Barack Obama at the DNC convention at the end of the month.

This may have been a suggestion made in jest or, at least, with tongue-in-cheek, but I still find the suggestion to invoke God's power to rain out a political rival reprehensible.