I think that [he] may have been (maybe still is) an ultra green goon who used to be tied up with the STS (Science and Technology Studies) criminals and leftwing ratbags at Wollongong.
Hmm...
---
John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician and philosopher of science, is currently in Sydney making several appearances for the Centre for Public Christianity, EU and National Science Week. I've met him once at a conference, where he was supporting Intelligent Design in the midst of an unfriendly audience (in a fairly theoretical, speculative, "let's just think about this" kind of way), and he seems a nice and very interesting guy. I don't agree with everything he says (I'm not terribly sympathetic to Intelligent Design) but I thought his opinion piece in yesterday's SMH was spot on.
I was not so keen on the responses today from Vic Stenger and Paul Gittings, so I wrote a couple of letters to the editor. They probably won't get published, so I'll post them here instead, in the tradition of Andrew's Daily Vowel Movements.
The first is a response to Vic Stenger's opinion piece, "Science demands that seeing is believing."
Vic Stenger (“Science demands that seeing is believing”, August 19) claims that science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist, and yet also states that science cannot be used to answer purely metaphysical questions. He argues that if God exists, evidence of his intervention in creation should be seen in our study of the natural world. However, a scientist and philosopher such as Stenger should be aware of the principle of underdetermination. For any evidence we collect about nature, we can develop multiple theories to explain it. Scientific data cannot necessarily decide between theories – these decisions are based on other criteria, such as simplicity, elegance and coherence. As John Lennox (“Why not every scientist worships at Darwin’s feet”, August 18) pointed out, scientific evidence alone cannot adjudicate between naturalism and theism. For a theist, science involves understanding the world and the processes by which God created. But the belief in God comes from outside science, and so does an assumption that there is no God.
The second is in response to Paul Gitting's letter about John Lennox.
Paul Gittings (Letters, August 19) writes that theism says “I don’t know, I don’t want to understand, I just want to be happy in my irrational beliefs.” Can he really believe this of an Oxford professor of mathematics and philosophy of science?
It really seemed to me that both Stenger and Gittings just weren't getting what Lennox was saying. Nowhere in the opinion piece did Lennox come out in support of Intelligent Design, nor did he promote any kind of "god of the gaps" theory. He wasn't arguing that positing God as creator solves any problems currently unresolved by science. Rather, he pointed out that, as an underlying assumption about the world, theism (assuming an intelligent creator) is no more faith-based than naturalism (assuming that everything in the universe came about by purely natural means).
Update: I received an email to say that my letter had been shortlisted for publication in tomorrow's Herald. Just don't know which one...
7 comments:
Re Lennox's original piece
A professor of mine who was a student of Gould's has taught me to be wary of how people quote him. He made overtures to the religious community that have been taken out of all proportion (and now that he's dead he can't reply). But even a proper understanding of his "non-overlapping magisteria" thesis is completely incompatible with ID. Intelligent Design is the claim that we can infer things about the supernatural realm (broadly construed) by studying the natural world. In this article Lennox seems to understand Gould's claim that ne'er the twain shall meet. Why then is he quoting Gould in an article aimed at undermining Darwin? Because his real target is Dawkins! Why do people feel compelled to downplay Darwin's genius ever time Dawkins is rude and condescending to them? Beats me!
I think he's wrong about Sagan, though, when he says 'The Genesis statement is a statement of belief, not a statement of science. This is precisely the case with Sagan's assertion as well. He is expressing a personal belief that emanates from a world view, rather than science.' Seems to me Sagan was just marking out territory. To say "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever shall be." is more of an axiom than anything else; I think he's saying that no matter how far it extends in space or time, cosmologists should try to study it. Yes, tacit in this claim is the assertion that scientists should study any gods we might discover. But what's wrong with that?
Re Vic Stenger and your reply:
You're right that it's underdetermined but, bearing in mind that you granted him "beyond reasonable doubt", that doesn't mean that we can't rule out certain things. So if we're using science to test the God hypothesis and it seems prima facie that there are no Judaeo-Christian God, then we bring in the Duhem-Quine thesis to insist that some auxiliary hypothesis failed the test.
"There's a skeptic in the room" is the best way but I think Stenger is right to say that 'a beneficent God would not deliberately hide from people who are honestly open to belief but do not believe for lack of evidence. The very presence of such non-believers in the world proves that a beneficent God does not exist.' If you grant him this, the hypothesis that was falsified is that God is not a tease. Or you can decide not to grant him that premise and simply say that people like Peter and myself are insincere in claiming to be open to belief.
Likewise, vestigial organs and childhood illnesses seem to indicate that organisms not designed by a benevolent god. Again, Duhem-Quine will allow you to lay the blame somewhere else, but where? A non-omnipotent god who couldn't have done any better? Some vague "best of all possible worlds"? (Remind me, where do you stand on the voluntarist question?)
You're quite right to use the Duhem-Quine thesis but please specify which auxiliary hypothesis have been falsified.
Re Paul Gittings's letter, your reply and on naturalism in general:
Well, the reason Gittings is attacking Lennox is not because of what appeared in the article but because of what he read between the lines. Lennox wasn't attacking Darwin in order to argue for Lamarckian evolution and from what you're said he understood Lennox's goal rightly enough.
Lennox didn't promote a god-of-the-gaps but. by invoking Gould, that's the logical result. (Because Gould's two magesteria cannot overlap, the more the natural realm grows, the more the supernatural must shrink, until all that's left is ethics and aesthetics, if that.)
As for naturalism being faith-based, that really depend on how you read it. Most claims of naturalism can be interpreted undogmatically (like Sagan's above) to mean just that science should never stop investigating, even investigate what has in the past been deemed supernatural. Methodologically speaking, it's one of the two extremes away from Gould's unhappy compromise (religious dogma being the other extreme). Still, I have to admit that it it a metaphysical claim of sorts. But of the broadest sort and somehow that seems a whole lot less metaphysical. It's the opposite to Wittgenstein's "The world is a collection of facts, not of things."
Good job on keeping those letters concise. (I'd publish them!) They're much more thought-provoking than the standard fare.
Sometimes it sucks having such an intelligent and thoughtful friend to argue with - I just don't have the time or mental energy right not to think about responses to the comments you've made!
But just one quick thought. I don't think Lennox was aiming to undermine Darwin. I know he has some sympathies towards Intelligent Design (but since I never got around to reviewing his book like I was supposed to, I don't know exactly what his views are), but in this piece, all he's saying is that Darwinian evolution does not disprove the existence of God. Evolutionary biology can be consistent with both a naturalistic or a theistic worldview (a view shared by Michael Ruse, I believe). Sure that's not terribly controversial, except for a rabid scientific atheist such as Dawkins?
P.S. I've got a friend at uni who's thinking about converting to religion (doesn't really matter which one) because he hates intolerant atheists such as Dawkins so much.
P.P.S. Did you know that Alan Sokal has a new book out called Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture?
It's not so surprising that Dawkins could turn off people who are not religious, esp. if they are one of those "not religious but spiritual" sorts. I'd be interested to know what he'd think about converting to. (My suggestion - Zoroastrianism!) Here in the US the Unitarian-Universalist church is quite big and good at accommodating those sorts. It's surprising, even that hard-nosed science-warrior Noretta Koertge goes to one!
Dawkins does seem to misjudge his own impact, partly due to cultural insensitivity. He and creationists like Phillip Johnson use the same universal -- evolution implies atheism -- to prove opposite theses. Dawkins assumes that everyone believes in evolution (coming from a middle-class UK background, you can see why) so he does a modus ponens. But these American creationists assert not p and do a modus tollens with the same major premis!
I'm not too sure about Ruse's current position. At first he was criticised for (being to much of a philosopher and) admitting that naturalism is a metaphysical position. That's not the same as saying that evolution is compatible with theism. I guess it's not all that controversial but it depends what you mean by theism (as opposed to deism) and just how you think supernatural agency cashes-out in the natural realm. All tricky stuff!
Congrats on getting into print; section lead and all!
But I must say that I also liked the last one, '"The Lord has blessed us with antibodies our whole lifetime." Perhaps he can enlighten us with the identity of the blighter who allowed 50 million people to perish in the process.'
Hi Lara
Great letter today. But if you want to boast as unashamedly as I do (on the rare occasions I get a letter published), you need to add a part to your post saying "Published - 20 August 2008" and link it to the SMH.
Whether you do or you don't, congrats on a great letter.
Andrew
Post a Comment