Gary Gutting (professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) interviewing Michael Ruse (philosopher of science who specializes in the philosophy of biology of Florida State University), “Does Evolution Explain Religious Beliefs?,” New York Times, July 8, 2014 AD
GARY GUTTING: What do you think of the claim that scientific accounts provide all the explanations needed to understand the existence and nature of the world, so that there’s no need to posit God as the ultimate explanation?
MICHAEL RUSE: Let me start at a more general level by saying that I don’t think science as such can explain everything. Therefore, assuming that the existence and nature of the world can be fully understood (I’m not sure it can!), this is going to require something more than science. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!
Gutting may be relating that which is popularly conceptualized yet, the premise if faulty. By definition, God created the material realm so as to be a time, space, matter continuum:
In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the Earth [matter]—Genesis 1:1
Moreover, within the continuum linear time means that cause is followed by effect—linear time, I tell ya, it’s just one thing after another!
The history of science is that, mostly, Bible believers reasoned that God is a rational being who created a rational creation and populated it with rational humans who could therefore rationally discern the rational creation. This is the premise upon which scientific method was established (that is, the rigors of the scientific method and not mere curiosity, mere observation or even mere experimentation).
Thus, we could scientifically explain all of creation but that would only be explaining creation, the within the box continuum—the universe, since science was specifically designed to perform such a task. Science is blind to anything else because it is a tool that was designed for a specific job; the discernment of the material realm. Since the universe had a beginning then by definition that which caused it would be outside of, beyond, not subject to, the continuum’s time, space, matter and investigative procedures; science.
It is folly to apply a tool designed for discerning the material realm, applying towards the discernment of immaterial entities and conclude that immaterial entities do not exist. It would be like wearing glasses with red lenses, seeing only shades of red and concluding that no other color exists. And yet, via the scientifically verified fine tuning for life of the universe; we can discern things about its originator even whilst not directly observing the immaterial realm. Consider Genesis 1:1 again and recall that above we derived a basic cosmology therefrom, now we will derive a basic theology:
In the beginning God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond, the continuum and thus not subject to the universe’s constraints; laws of thermodynamics, laws of nature, etc.] created [conceived of a plan and volitionally brought it about] the heavens and the earth.
Moreover:
In the beginning [time – thus, God is timeless or eternal] God created [infused creation with energy; is omnipotent and fine-tuned it; is omniscient] the heavens [space – thus, God is not subject to locality; is omnipresent] and the earth [matter – thus, God is immaterial or spirit].
GARY GUTTING: Could you say a bit more about why you think that science can’t fully explain everything? MICHAEL RUSE: In my view, none of our knowledge, including science, just “tells it like it is.” Knowledge, even the best scientific knowledge, interprets experience through human cultural understanding and experience, and above all (just as it is for poets and preachers) metaphor is the key to the whole enterprise.
As I developed my own career path, as a historian and philosopher of evolutionary biology, this insight grew and grew. Everything was metaphorical — struggle for existence, natural selection, division of labor, genetic code, arms races and more.
Ruse make a point I have been emphasizing for some time, “none of our knowledge…‘tells it like it is’…interprets experience…metaphor is the key.” In the Scientific Cenobites series I evidenced that much which passes for science is, in reality, interpretations of evidence based on schools of thought, worldview philosophies, professional rivalries, bias for preferred theories and seeking to protect them, assuring grants/funding, etc.
Then the Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling series compiles evidence of narrative story telling passed off as science.
GARY GUTTING: It’s clear that metaphors are useful when scientists try to explain complex ideas in terms that nonscientists can understand, but why do you think metaphors have an essential role in the development of scientific knowledge?
MICHAEL RUSE: Because metaphor helps you move forward. It is heuristic, forcing you to ask new questions. If your love is like a rose, what color is the rose? But note that it does so at a cost. A metaphor puts blinkers on us. Some questions are unanswerable within the context of the metaphor. “My love is a rose” tells me about her beauty. It does not tell me about her mathematical abilities. Now combine this fact with history. Since the scientific revolution, one metaphor above all — the root metaphor — has dictated the nature and progress of science. This is the metaphor of the world as a machine, the mechanical metaphor. What questions are ruled out by this metaphor? One is about ultimate origins. Of course you can ask about the origins of the metal and plastics in your automobile, but ultimately the questions must end and you must take the materials as given. So with the world. I think the machine metaphor rules out an answer to what Martin Heidegger called the “fundamental question of metaphysics”: Why is there something rather than nothing? Unlike Wittgenstein, I think it is a genuine question, but not one answerable by modern science.
Coming now to my own field of evolutionary biology, I see some questions that it simply doesn’t ask but that can be asked and answered by other areas of science. I think here about the natural origins of the universe and the Big Bang theory. I see some questions that it doesn’t ask and that neither it nor any other science can answer. One such question is why there is something rather than nothing, or if you like why ultimately there are material substances from which organisms are formed.
The issue is that metaphor may help us move forward, etc. and yet, metaphor is premised on worldview philosophy and this is where, for example, the theory of evolution becomes a template via which all subsequent evidence is interpreted. Therefore, any evidence is forced to fit into the temple, the theory, the metaphor.
Since, ultimate origins, why is there something rather than nothing, is answerable by modern science some, such as Richard Dawkins, have simply shrugged off the most important questions humanity has ever asked. 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…
—Steve Paulson, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Salon, Oct 13, 2006 AD; see Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 3 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Richard Dawkins
As for origins, he is just as unhelpful as he appeals to, get this, “luck”—keep in mind that this is a scientist speaking:
It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck.
—Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986 AD), p. 139
He even applies this to the universe’s existence as a whole:
Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006 AD), p. 158; see here for this book in free e-book format.
GARY GUTTING: So do you think that we need religion to answer the ultimate question of the world’s origin?
MICHAEL RUSE: If the person of faith wants to say that God created the world, I don’t think you can deny this on scientific grounds. But you can go after the theist on other grounds. I would raise philosophical objections: for example, about the notion of a necessary being. I would also fault Christian theology: I don’t think you can mesh the ancient Greek philosophers’ notion of a god outside time and space with the Jewish notion of a god as a person. But these are not scientific objections.
This is rather odd as he abandons science in order to tackle God but appeals to a most unusual objection that we cannot mesh Greek notions of a god with Jewish ones. But why not seek to mesh Hindu with Islam or Zoroastrian with Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
Well, in any case there is no issue except that which Ruse sees as some unanswerable question and yet, one that is arbitrary being based, as of course it is, his presuppositions.
The supposed contradiction between “a god outside time and space” and “a god as a person” within Jewish theology would refer to the more specific and accurate question of “a god outside time and space” and “a god as a” personal being that is, one exhibiting characteristics of personhood. But how is this problematic?
Personhood primarily denotes, in one way or another, the activity of mind (such as per the exercise of volition, etc.). The fact is that there is a difference between mind and brain as mind is immaterial whilst brain is material. This is tantamount to a computer’s software being immaterial but the hardware being material. Thus, an eternal mind not only could but would exist “outside time and space” and this eternal mind is that which we call God.
The supposed contradiction between “a god outside time and space” and “a god as a person” within Christian theology would refer to the more specific and accurate question of “a god outside time and space” and “a god as a” personal being that is, one exhibiting characteristics of personhood as well as God becoming incarnated that is, taking on human form. But how is this problematic?
There is no reason to think that “a god outside time and space” cannot incarnate that is, cannot enter into “time and space” particularly if, as per Genesis 1:1 above, the “god outside time and space” created “time and space.”
In the next segment we will consider Michael Ruse’s statements regarding Richard Dawkins tantamount to a first-year undergraduate student in philosophy—clearly, Ruse is being very generous!