In that which follows I will 1) agree with Richard Dawkins, 2) point out his “faith” based adherence to atheistic materialism and 3) answer his ultimate question.
In part 1; I explained that atheists who claim to base their atheism on science are actually admitting to purposefully employing a method, the scientific method, that was intelligently designed to only explore the material, which observes and experiments upon the material and does so in order to come to material conclusions and then claim that the material is all that there is.
In part 2, we saw how Massimo Pigliucci explained the difference between science and philosophy and elucidated that science is premised upon philosophy. That is to say that science, methodological materialism, and atheism (of which ever sect) is based on metaphysics: intangible, immaterial, unobserved, un-experimented upon, not proved nor evidenced but assumed—first principles, axioms, propositions, presuppositions, which are intuited.
Richard Dawkins has made various statements about how religion, theism, etc. are really irrelevant since 1) he is an atheist and such is what follows but more specific to our point 2) “science” (by which he means methods meant to prove his view of atheism) will ultimately answer all and every question or they will be left unanswered as “religious” answers are to be rejected—he is a big fan of answering question by appealing to the scientists-are-working-on-it of the gaps.
This means that, in this view, evidence of creation via Intelligent Design is not only lacking but is impossible since not matter what is being evidenced the answer will be that someday, oh someday, we will surely find a God-free materialistic explanation—this is “faith”; thy kinglessdom come.
My interest is in his statements, a mere couple which I reproduce here, to the affect of if science cannot explain it religion cannot either (or, as a convenient byproduct if religion does explain it, it is not science):
the deep questions — why do we exist, why does the universe exist, how big is the universe, how old is the universe, how old is the world…They are the questions that I suppose historically have been answered by religion — or have attempted to be answered by religion.[1]
I am tempted to parse the deep question considering that we must ascertain what sort of answers we seek. For example, one could answer “why do we exist” by claiming that nothing caused an eternal and uncaused piece of matter to explode for no reason and made everything. Or, that lightning struck a swamp and life came from non-life. Or, God created the heavens and the Earth and human beings in His image.
When asked “What about the old adage that science deals with the ‘how’ questions and religion deals with the ‘why’ questions?” Richard Dawkins responded:
I think that’s remarkably stupid, if I may say so. What on earth is a “why” question?…They mean “why” in a deliberate, purposeful sense…Those of us who don’t believe in religion — supernatural religion — would say there is no such thing as a “why” question in that sense. Now, the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence beginning with the word “why” does not mean that English sentence should receive an answer…[2]
If you have read the transcript of the 1948 AD debate between Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston you know that this is a paraphrase of Russell who seemed to think that if he claims that a question or statement is meaningless then he can simply sidestep the issue—“the universe is just there and that’s all” was stated during this exchange.
Dawkins also stated:
There are core questions like, how did the universe begin? Where do the laws of physics come from? Where does life come from?…Those are all perfectly legitimate questions to which science can give answers, if not now, then we hope in the future. There may be some very, very deep questions, perhaps even where do the laws of physics come from, that science will never answer. That is perfectly possible. I am hopeful, along with some physicists, that science will one day answer that question. But even if it doesn’t — even if there are some supremely deep questions to which science can never answer — what on earth makes you think that religion can answer those questions?[3]
Also:
Consciousness is the biggest puzzle facing biology, neurobiology, computational studies and evolutionary biology. It is a very, very big problem. I don’t know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. I think one day they probably will know the answer. But even if science doesn’t know the answer, I return to the question, what on earth makes you think that religion will? Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous. Nobody has an explanation for consciousness. That should be a spur to work harder and try to understand it. Not to give up and just say, “Oh well, it must be a soul.” That doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t explain anything. You’ve said absolutely nothing when you’ve said that.[4]
Sadly, Richard Dawkins and others in his school of thought have concocted and promulgated this false dichotomy; that it is either an atheistic scientific explanation or else a claimed act of God. Certainly, stating something like, “God created life” is only one category of explanation. For example, it does not explain “how” God did it but could explain “why.” The point of asking “how” versus “why” questions is an attempt to narrow down what sort of answers we seek.
Claiming that God did it, “why,” does not preclude seeking to explain “how” God did it. In fact, the people who established methods and fields of science believed that God was a rational being and created a rational creation which functions according to material cause followed by material effect and that this creation and its functions could be discerned, repeatedly experimented upon and that thus, we could learn about the material realm and its creator.
The bottom line of the point which I seek to make is Dawkins’ ultimate question/statement, “what on earth makes you think that religion can answer those questions?”
Well, science functions within certain parameters whilst philosophy (theology being a branch of philosophy) is not bound by those same parameters. This is why “religion” can answer questions that science cannot. It can also answer the questions in a different way. For example, “religion” can claim that “In the beginning [time] God [a preexisting being outside of the universe] created [volitionally carried out a plan] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]” and via the scientific method we can then discern how universe expanded, is fine tuned, etc.
By understanding that there are different levels of answers to be offered and different disciplines which function under different rules we answer the question as to how and why “religion” answers certain question in certain ways that science cannot and how and why science answers certain question in certain ways that “religion” cannot.
[1] Edward Keenan, “Richard Dawkins – The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution,” Eye Weekly, September 29, 2009 [2] Steve Paulson, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Salon, Oct 13, 2006 [3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.