Indeed, I have argued that questions of purpose in the universe are generally not a part of science, and the best example I know is that of Georges Lemaître, the Belgian priest who was also a physicist, and the first person to realize that Einstein’s General Relativity implied there was a Big Bang origin to our universe (a claim initially much derided by Einstein). Following this realization Pope Pius XII issued a statement that said science had proved Genesis. Lemaître responded appropriately. He wrote to the Pope and urged him to stop saying that. The theory in question was a scientific theory whose predictions could be tested. What religious implications one took from the theory depended upon one’s metaphysical leanings. One could take it to validate Genesis, by implying that the Universe had a beginning—a revolutionary scientific claim at the time. But one could equally well take it to imply that there is no need for a God, that the laws of physics are all that are required to understand the universe right back to the beginning. The point is that the science is accurate in describing how the universe works, independent of the metaphysical implications one derives from it. The same is of course true for evolution, which happened and is happening, whether or not one chooses to believe in God.
Dawkins: Of course Lemaître was very wise (although I must add that I am left wondering why he remained a priest at all). As for the option that his physics might or might not be taken to support Genesis, why is it even an interesting question? There never was reason to expect that the writings of an unknown scribe, probably less than a millennium ago in Babylon, might have any special insight into the origin of the universe. If Genesis happened to get something right, why would that be anything but a trivial accident?
Krauss: Well, the key point that you are neglecting here is that there is a reason to believe it might capture some truth about the universe, but only if you believe in God. Presumably Lemaître did. Getting back to the issue I raised earlier, I do not mean to say, of course, that science could never provide positive evidence of design or purpose. If, for example, tonight the stars suddenly lined up in the sky and spelled out ‘I am Here,’ most astronomers would be willing to consider a supernatural cause. However, the absence of such evidence of design—in spite of what the con artists and misguided pseudoscientists who presently claim that living systems currently provide such evidence—does not logically rule out the possibility that our universe, and life within it, has some purpose.
Dawkins: I am perennially baffled as to why anybody thinks it is an important point that you can't logically rule out some possibility. There is an infinite number of possibilities that we can't logically rule out but which we nevertheless don't take seriously because we have no positive reason to do so. This was the original point of Russell's teapot.
Krauss: My point is that if you cannot rule out some possibilities, probably best not to dwell on them, other than saying that they may be unlikely. You have argued, and I agree, that the complete absence of direct empirical evidence for God does suggest that the existence of divine intelligence is unlikely. However I think that is as far as one can go.
Dawkins: How much farther could one want to go? Unlikely is unlikely is unlikely. It is not the same as impossible, but science is replete with estimates of likelihoods that fall short of the demonstrably impossible. Global warming is highly likely to be happening and caused by human activities, but the alternative cannot be ruled out. It is very probable, but not certain, that the dinosaurs were killed by a large object colliding with Earth. It is almost but not totally certain that humans are closer cousins to chimpanzees than to gorillas. Just about everything we know in biology is supported by statistical evidence and is not totally certain. If you agree with me that the existence of divine intelligence is statistically unlikely, that is all I would claim. But I would claim that this low estimate of likelihood that we both agree upon is a scientific estimate, not something that is in principle immune to scientific discussion.
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add CommentDawkins & all atheist scientists conveniently take what they like and rejected what they don't like to present science as strictly materialistic and by default deny any non-physical reality. Human perception (& animal for that matter) is being supposedly researched and studied using what Dawkins describes as a "scientific standard", namely the double blind. This is utter rot and he knows it. Double blinding is used in drug trials precisely for the reason that it relationally distances the two parties and by such distance destroys insightful perception (not intuitive but insightful, which relies on relationship). To be scientific a control is run along side the experiment THAT IS ALL! Great Prayer experiment produced a nil or negative result. They did not even get a placebo effect. The negative result is interesting. It can only be done by administering a nocebo! See my website http://www.annavictoria.net and find that human perception points to a non-physical reality its science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA nice discussion, and balanced at least on the part of Krauss, whereas Dawkins is his usual self, pontificating and patronizing to those who dare to believe. Although I agree with their views on religious fundamentalism, scientific fundamentalism also has brought misery to the world, namely the belief in racial superiority - which stems from (incorrectly) evolutionary theory. Furthermore, it's preposterous to suggest that people of faith are somehow less intelligent. I try not to ridicule atheists, perhaps Dawkins shouldn't ridicule people or faith, or it makes him as narrow-minded as those who ridicule the non-believers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Milan320 at 04/15/2008 7:29 AM
Krauss is too symphatetic to religion (as an appendix), while Dawkins really pursuits the questioning of the beliefs. Overall it is an interesting discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this