Thought for the Day
--Baruch Spinoza
Read more!
Encountering Jesus in the Creative Play of the Imagination



In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universals human traits . It's going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.I have found in the field of psychology a Buddhist religious orientation is cropping up more frequently in conferences and seminars.
Dawkins suspects that kin selection and other factors associated with gene-survival theory are also too simple to account for faith. They do not explain adequately the arbitrariness and utter insanity of so many religious fantasies that people believe in without any evidence. So how is the evolutionist going to account for the persistence of gods in an age of science? Doesn't the evolutionary explanation of religion break down completely at this point? Apparently realizing that it does, although without admitting it, Dawkins hands over the task of fully naturalizing religion to other experts, one of whom is the anthropologist Pascal Boyer. The effect of passing the buck to Boyer is deeply ironic. After promising to provide a fully naturalistic account of religious faith, Dawkins ends up breaking almost completely away from Darwin. Together with Boyer he speculates that the brain does not have any specifically religious character after all. Wok the, what is religious faith" It is an accidental by-product of cerebral systems that evolved for other purposes. Religious faith is "a misfiring of something useful," a Darwinian mistake! Here then we leave Darwin almost completely behind. The only important evolutionary thing left to be said, as Dawkins theorizes, is that religion is like a virus--parasitic on cognitive systems that had earlier been selected because of a survival value that had nothing to do with their capacity to be carriers of truth (57).The unlinking of religion from a Darwinian explanation, Haught writes, demonstrates just how difficult the modern atheists have of completely debunking religious faith.
Dawkins and the other new atheists have made things entirely too easy for themselves. In the first place, as is typical of all their writings, in order to dispose of God they first shrink the idea of divinity to that of a lawgiver, cosmic engineer, or intelligent designer. This sets the stage for showing everybody that Darwinian evolution obviously proves that nature was not intelligently designed after all, and that the God hypothesis has at least been decisively defeated...there is nothing terribly bright about debating creationism and ID while avoiding any direct engagement with theology. The new atheists make no mention, for example of the most important Protestant theologian of the past century, Karl Barth, who, along with most other recent theologians, has argued in effect that any God who functions as a "hypothesis" is not worth defending anyway. The new atheists are actually doing theology a favor by disposing of the God hypothesis (43).Haught doesn't stop here however. He turns the tables on the new atheists and asks them about the status of the scientific method and independent method of justifying science. He writes,
Exactly what are the independent scientific experiments...that could provide "evidence" for the hypothesis that all true knowledge must be based on the paradigm of scientific inquiry? If faith requires independent confirmation, what is the independent (nonfaith) method of demonstrating that their own faith in the all-encompassing cognitional scope of science is reasonable?...there are many channels other than science through which we all experience, understand, and know the world...Do your new atheists seriously believe, therefore, that if a personal God of infinite beauty and unbounded love actually exists, the "evidence" for this God's existence could be gathered as cheaply as the evidence for a scientific hypothesis?From here Haught argues that every truth claim at some level resorts to a leap of faith. "Most of us simply believe that seeking truth is worthwhile,"he writes. "We cannot prove it since even the attempt to do so already presupposes this trust...basic trust is not the outcome of any regime of scientific experimentation" (47).
Science is simply not wired to either detect or rule out the existence of God. God is not a hypothesis...at a usually tacit level of awareness, both the atheist and the theist participate in a common faith. They both believe that reality is intelligible and that truth is worth seeking. What theology adds is that the existence of God--that is of Infinite Being, Meaning, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty--provides an adequate justification of this belief, as well as an answer to the question of why the universe is intelligible at all (51-52).