Just got back from Louvain-la-Neuve, where a highly interesting series of lectures was given by Michael Ruse, a professor visiting from Florida State. He's been quite outspoken on the evolution-creationism debate, particularly as it's been shaped in the U.S., and he's also been quite critical of Daniel Dennett and Richard &^$#ing Dawkins. (Oops, did I say that out loud?) Knowing that, it's no surprise that his lectures were on Darwinism.
Let me just say up front that I found his position refreshing: while firmly convinced that Darwin was correct, he refrains from going the way of Dennett and Dawkins, regarding (and rightly so, in my opinion) their doctrine as another religiosity. Prof. Ruse has single-handedly made me interested in the Darwinian theory, simply by not being ham-fisted about it. Strongly convinced, true, but not in such a way that blindly swept away serious issues connected with it.
His final lecture was on Darwinism and Christianity. To be honest, I was fully expecting the "religion-must-go" shpiel that many Darwinian disciples like to bray. Prof. Ruse gave none of that, thankfully; instead (wonder of wonders!) he gave Christian thought a serious look before coming to his own conclusions. By distinguishing four questions, he put the matter into a clearer light:
1. Does the fact of evolution make Christianity impossible? Ruse says no.
2. Does the fact of evolution make Christianity unnecessary? Again, Ruse says no.
3. Does Darwinism make Christianity unnecessary? Yes, says Ruse.
4. Does Darwinism make Christianity impossible? No.
To this I would add another:
5. Does Darwinism make bad theology impossible? I'd say yes, to some extent, and I'd like to think Prof. Ruse would agree.
6. Does Darwinism make bad science impossible? Again I'd say yes, to some extent.
These are actually nothing more than restatements of important features of his lecture, I think.
Question #3 is especially interesting, because it connects with Yours Truly's #5 & 6: Prof. Ruse holds that Christianity is not needed for explanatory value, since Darwinian theory does that sufficiently well. I think good theology would abstain from trying to give scientific explanations, just as good science would abstain from trying to give theological explanations. They are different universes of discourse. Where those universes overlap, they must agree; if they didn't, we'd be forced to believe that incompatible truth-claims could stand side by side.
We'd have to say, for example, that one fellow could proclaim the world's creation in six 24-hour days while another fellow could hold that it took eons for the world to come into existence - and they would not be disagreeing!?
Obviously, that's impossible as long as scientists and theologians assert that they are after truth. So what I'm saying is this: if it's been pretty well established that the physical origin of the world happened way more than 6000 years ago and took more than six days, the literalist theologian will have to account for that in his/her own work. Not to do so is intellectually irresponsible.
Similarly, a biologist who argues that God does not exist because a benevolent Supreme Being would never allow suffering in the world - i.e. natural evil - is clearly ignorant of the theologians' work on this question.
This would seem to be obvious, but the fact that creationism is seriously considered as a scientific theory by some people only shows that they don't have a clear idea what a scientific theory is. Even if they're practicing scientists. Natural science has the natural world for its domain, and it seeks answers in the empirical domain; a transcendant God stands outside that domain, and therefore is not amenable to the procedures of physics or biology. So don't try to push Him in there under the banner of ID.
By the same token, the arrogance of some scientists to hold forth on matters theological is to overstep their own bounds - especially arrogant when they perceive no need to study religion at all. Just because God is not for empirical testing does not mean He is a delusion, only that He is not an object of natural science. (So put away the prayer experiments, please. Why should God play by your rules, or anyone's?) I wouldn't call ID a scientific theory, but so what? It in no way entails my becoming an atheist.
I believe the so-called debate last year between Kirk Cameron and the so-called "Rational Response Squad" encapsulates much of the controversy: nobody's listening to anybody, everybody's talking past each other, they're slinging the same tired words back and forth. This has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with power.
(I'd love to sound off about all the "debate" between Kirk & Co., but that's another post. Dear readers, both of you will have to wait.)
So what Prof. Ruse's position achieves is clarification of the fields of science and religion. Imagine that - some scientists and theologians could actually get back to doing what they do best, and not be at each other's throats.
"OK, so where do you get off considering yourself competent enough to pass judgment on science and religion?" I'm neither scientist nor theologian; I study philosophy, with metaphysics as a major interest. But I have a concern for definitions, among other things, and that is a matter common to everyone. The definition of a field of inquiry marks out what it treats; it does this by way of the questions it asks. So ballistics asks what are the characteristics of objects in motion; psychology has other questions to ask. (Let's not digress into the status of scientific explanations. No space for it here.)
Often questions do cross borders, providing fertile ground for new ideas or even new disciplines - take biochemistry, for example. So I'm not against interdisciplinary studies by any means; in fact it's at the borders where the really interesting work takes place. But asking questions that touch boundaries is one thing, drawing conclusions that cross boundaries is another, and drawing unwarranted conclusions in other fields yet another. I have no problem with the first, or even the second, but the third merely displays a failure to think things through. And when willfully done, it just reeks of disingenuousness.
If philosophy existed for no other reason, the role of intellectual gadfly would be enough to justify it. Socrates pissed off a lot of folks, and went to the tomb for it. Fortunately he did a lot more. Prof. Ruse has done that in a wonderfully constructive way, and then some; I hope there's more to come - preferably without hemlock or anything.
(Image unwittingly courtesy of http://images.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/Gadfly.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/controversies.html&h=551&w=547&sz=11&hl=nl&start=1&um=1&tbnid=rqXqvqjbnCNx4M:&tbnh=133&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgadfly%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)
No comments:
Post a Comment