“Science Must Ultimately Destroy Organized Religion”
| October 12, 2007 | Posted by GilDodgen under Darwinism, Religion, Science |
This is the wisdom promulgated by the “new atheists” at a recent conference.
From the cnsnews.com article: “Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals who spoke at a recent atheist conference in Northern Virginia.”
They might as well dream of destroying humankind’s urge to eat.
Here’s the irony: Modern science is making belief in God ever more rational and reasonable, not destroying it. As a former atheist, I can say that science has made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian. I would be curious to know what the relative contemporary conversion rates are for atheist to theist as opposed to theist to atheist, especially on the basis of modern scientific discoveries.
In 1998 I read a book by Patrick Glynn, a Harvard Ph.D. who abandoned his atheism primarily as a result of evidence. The book is titled, “God: The Evidence — The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World.” Glynn comments: “The ‘death of God’ had been based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of the universe, on a very partial and flawed picture that science had come up with by the late nineteenth century. Now that picture was being replaced by a new one, vastly more complex — and decisively more compatible with the notion that the universe had been designed by an intelligent Creator.”
Another irony is that Dawkins abandoned his faith on the basis of Darwinism, which turns out not to explain what he thinks it does. It is materialism/atheism that requires blind faith in the face of evidence, not theism.
33 Responses to “Science Must Ultimately Destroy Organized Religion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A thought or two:
Pardon my filling up the mod pile overnight. But, a couple of points on atheism, “religion,” and “fundamentalism” [NB: smear-word] are IMHCO, in order.
1] Atheism and intellectual and moral incoherence
Long-term readers will recall the exchanges on these themes in July-August-Sept. After literally hundreds of posts, it was clear that [1] evolutionary materialism is hopelessly logically incoherent — it cannot account for the arising of a credible mind relative to RV + NS etc (the same mind it must use to arrive at Evo mat as a conclusion; and [2] that it has no GROUNDS for morality as an objectively binding obligation beyond some species or other of relativism — the very antithesis of objectively binding principles.
(Oddly, the major phil argument to atheism then trades on the problem of evil . . . and manages to overlook Plantinga’s now longstandingly successful Free Will defense.)
2] A Puzzle
Until a few days ago, I found it a bit puzzling that many Evo Mat advocates seems to want to tilt at the strawman argument that we are saying that atheists are necessarily imbecilically irrational and immoral.
But the threads on Dawkins’ recent escapades reveals all. It is plain that the agenda on the part of too many atheists is to try to saddle “religion” with being irrational and a — indeed, often, “the” — major source of evils and troubles int he world. As even Sam Harris tried to point out, such rhetoric unfairly pushes say the Christian faith into the same boat as the violent extremists the Algerian moderates termed Is^lamo^fas^cists.
But more directly, a simple read of Rom 1 – 3 will show that the Christian faith has always taught in its foundational sources that effective reason, the ability to make accurate observations of the world and our own inner lives, and associated moral intuitions are all innate and God-given. Indeed, that is why those who reject the truth they know or should know, are self-seeking and follow evil face God’s wrath. But those who penitently persist in the way of the good, the right and the true, God welcomes and blesses with eternal life. [Cf Rom 2:6 - 8.]
That is why men are “without excuse,” and it is why men who habitually and insistently turn their backs on the truth and right that they know or should know and practice are en-darkened in heart and mind.
BTW, this last is a point emphasised by Locke in Section 5 of his “candle” comment in the introduction to his Essay on Human Understanding, complete with several Biblical citations and allusions, including one in the original Greek:
So, we see that we have effective minds and moral intuitions, both of which we too often fail to live up to. In that context, it is a telling test to see people — in this case, sadly, especially the recent conference’s atheism advocates, cf. the above and Mr Dawkins’ recent Guardian interview! — protesting too much: claiming to be “moral” and “decent” (and that without recourse to God!), while at best struggling to live up to the reasonable standards we expect of others, especially when we quarrel.
But in fact, if we draw out the implications of what Mr Dawkins and his ilk are declaring in their recent Crystal Clear Atheism conference, it is shocking, saddening and telling.
3] On “Fundamentalism”
It is now so commonplace for this term to be used as a broad-brush dismissal of those so-labelled as irrational, potentially or actually violent would-be theo^crats, that I have come to view the very use of the term as highly suspect. Too often it is little more than a smear word.
I think a balancing corrective is in order. Even Sam Harris, in his [unfortunately poorly received] speech at the Crystal Clear conference, recognises this:
That contrast is all too sadly telling.
GEM of TKI
According to Judge Jones, science has already destroyed organized religion. He said in a commencement speech at Dickinson College,
And, of course, everything that the Founders believed is right.
Whether or not Intelligent Design is religion, Jones’ above statement showed prejudice against the Dover defendants and he therefore should have recused himself.
I think it’s pretty clear that it’s time to start requiring a Hippocritic Oath for scientists, like they have for doctors. Why don’t we propose something here, and Dembski and Dave Scot can share this with the scientists that they know. Something like:
1) Scientists won’t do any harm.
2) Scientists will practice their craft as good Christians do – mindful of their place in God’s Creation.
3) Scientists will focus their work on diseases that kill moral folk (like cancer and heart disease).
Anyone else have any suggestions?