Answering Dawkins Part 2

Yesterday I offered my answers to some stated questions on famed atheist Richard Dawkins' website for secularism. Yesterday's post examined questions about free will, morality and meaning.

Today is the second installment, and the questions again come directly from Dawkins' website:

Purpose. Do teleological concepts play a useful role in our description of natural phenomena?

Epistemology. Is science unique as a method for discovering true knowledge?

(Skipped question on Emergence and reductionism) 

Consciousness. How do the phenomena of consciousness arise from the collective behavior of inanimate matter?

The question pertaining to purpose is more familiar to the rest of us as, "Why am I here?", and is strangely universal across humankind. The fact that we ask the question suggests, to me at least, that legitimate grounds exist  for our inquiry; that in fact, there really may be a 'why' element to our existence.  After all, do we ever ask about things that are completely unfamiliar and unknown to us?  We may ponder the plausibility of  life on other planets, because we observe life here, and its requirements, and are naturally inclined to wonder if those far away worlds might also be hospitable to life.  But this musing presumes that the possible life we contemplate will be recognizable to us as life, that it will be in some small way similar to what we know to be life. It will be familiar. I believe that all of our inquiries about 'unknowns' are  fixed in the familiar, even if quite distantly, thereby making them not so much unknowns, but rather as yet undiscovered, unexplored prospects.

So when we inquire as to our purpose the question stems from a context that is vaguely familiar to us, as if nearby, though not yet grasped.  It is familiar to us because it is coded by our maker into our very being.  Romans 1:19 says, "...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

God uses creation, from the tiniest, complex component of a microorganism to the vastness of the cosmos as a universal language that points to his own existence and primacy, that we might observe nature and look for the source of its genius.  We are here primarily to be loved by God, and to know and love him, and by extension, his creation.

Epistemology. Is science unique as a method for discovering true knowledge?
Now there's a word I don't throw around on a weekly basis.  Basically, epistemology asks 'How do we know what we know is right and true?', and 'by what   avenues do we obtain knowledge, and are they valid?'

It is peculiar that the question on Dawkins' website is qualified with the adjective 'true' before the word knowledge. Because science is limited to the five senses, it is only interested in one kind of knowledge and it presumes that this one variety of knowledge represents the sum of all knowledge to be had, and anoints it as 'true' knowledge.

Yet consider civilization.  We tend to think of it as buildings and infrastructure and order and economy. But in reality, the civilized world exists because of an invisible and immaterial quality known as Integrity.  Integrity is doing the right thing - the promised and principled thing, even at the expense of damage or peril to the doer.  The global economy is built upon words, written and spoken, that promise to repay borrowed monies.  If one day every corporation, government and individual with outstanding loans suddenly said, 'Nah, I'm not going to repay that debt', we witness total economic collapse and failure. Lending would cease, and each person, government or corporation would have only its own existing capital to work with. Economies and civilizations are built upon words, because words convey intent, and intent must be coupled with integrity, or we are left with just so much alphabet soup dancing on parchment.  Promises are down payments on integrity.  I am unclear as to how science could study a promise. And yet, the promise is a powerful 'thing' that is unseen, untouchable, unheard and unknown, until made good on. Up to that point it is merely believed.  And after that point, it is no longer a promise, but a fact.

Trust is another means of obtaining knowledge. We trust (rightly or wrongly) the words of others.  We trust their experiences when they witness events. Without this source of knowledge, life in the courtroom would be very dull and inconclusive. Scientists trust the words of other scientists, even in the absence of repeatable claims. Much of evolutionary science is by consensus, and highly subjective extrapolations are made with the best of intentions.  The Bible is God's revelation of himself,  written using human minds at God's own urging. It has been given to mankind as an unchanging record of who he is, and how he has interacted with humanity throughout history. Much of the Bible is a retelling of real people's personal experiences with God. Through their recorded experiences we obtain knowledge.

So while it is true that science seeks knowledge, it does not necessarily seek the truth.

Consciousness.  How do the phenomena of consciousness arise from the collective behavior of inanimate matter?  

The question seems to be asking, "How do mindless atoms manage to collect themselves  into arrangements capable of asking questions such as "why are we here?".

They don't, is the short answer.  Does anyone seriously look at a printout of computer code and think for a moment that the order and meaning inherent in the code is the product of random chance? Don't we intuitively know that a human being skilled in the language of computers organized the code into coherent strings that would be cogent to a computer?  And yet we want to look at a DNA molecule and attribute it to chance. So, who is this Chance guy? Chance is not a being, nor is it even a thing. Chance is a no-thing.... or we could shorten that to nothing. It is one of those things that science would be ill-equipped to study, because it is precisely what hasn't yet happened. It stands in the gap between two or more outcomes, ready to take credit for whichever one prevails. Chance is nothing.  Human beings, on the other hand, are really something.

Consciousness is the awareness we possess of our own existence. It facilitates our reaching beyond our own physical confines to obtain knowledge through inquiry - scientific and otherwise.  With it we examine our place in the cosmos as we think contextually and contemplate the effect of our behavior on others. In so doing, we exhibit an integral part of our humanness: our conscience. Without a conscience, our ability to perceive the existence of  good and bad, of right and wrong, does not exist.  Do away with conscience, and integrity is not possible. And as integrity goes, so goes civilization.

Answering Dawkins

On his website, "Innovating for a Secular World", iconic atheist Richard Dawkins posits the following:

"We would like to understand how to construct meaningful human lives in a world governed by the laws of nature. Some specific questions include:
(And I am including only the first three in this installment).

Free will. If people are collections of atoms obeying the laws of physics, is it sensible to say that they make choices?

Morality. What is the origin of right and wrong? Are there objective standards?

Meaning. Why live? Is there a rational justification for finding meaning in human existence?


Well, just for fun, I will offer some responses.

To the question of free will. His question includes a premise which is exclusionary: "If people are collections of atoms..." Using an unproven premise as the platform for the question negates the question, in my opinion. It is no longer pure inquiry, but rhetoric. The answer is, of course, if we are nothing more than a collection of atoms, we are mindless slaves to the laws of physics and free will is not even a notion we are capable of contemplating.

To the question of morality. He asks about the origins of right and wrong. By asking the question, he seems to be implying these two benchmarks 'exist', though to do so they must, by definition, exist outside of the scope of the natural world, since the laws of nature are what they are. Period. They are neither good, nor bad.

How can qualities such as 'right' and 'wrong' exist in a cosmos spawned by chance and governed by heartless, value-neutral natural laws? Answer: right and wrong do not even exist in such a place, because they are immaterial. The laws of nature act upon the material world. Ideology is not self-existent in nature. Humanity exists in a fallen state, i.e. not as designed, and with a propensity for wrongdoing. Yet God has not abandoned us in our fallenness, but has revealed, literally manifested, his nature perfectly in Jesus. He tells us in Micah 6:8 what we are to be about, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

His morality follow up question is "are there objective standards?" (for right and wrong). Well, what is a standard? A 'standard', according to Merriam-Webster.com,  is "something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model."  That definition, at least, is fraught with subjectivity.  'general consent'... 'basis'... 'comparison'...'approved'....  In the purely secular realm of scientific naturalism, just how much tolerance is there for such speculative reasoning?  None, one would think.  I would have supposed there could only be objective standards in such an environment.

Dawkin's list then moves on to the question of meaning. 'Why live'? he asks.  In the secularists' realm, that's a good question.  It is perhaps best answered by asking about the ramifications of death, not for the deceased, but upon those who 'loved' them. Why are we more grieved by the death of a child than by totaling our car?  Are not both just collections of atoms, held in temporary arrangements in the space-time fabric?

When you boil it all down, what people most value in life, the thing that imparts meaning to their existence, is relationship. We treasure our relationships above all else, and the love that is cultivated within them. When death terminates a relationship, and our love can no longer be given to, and received by, the one we love, we are left devastated, crippled by a gaping wound in the heart. This is not the happenstance result of evolution. It occurs because we are made for relationships, first and foremost with God.  Our very propensity for relationships is a reflection of God's purpose for us, that we might experience His unfailing, unflinching, unending love in relationship with him.

"Meaning" and "life" are co-dependents living under the shelter of love.  Death stings because of the damage it inflicts upon the living.  Mere atomic bundles do not suffer the way human beings suffer in the soul when a loved one dies. Period.

When he further asks, "Is there a rational justification  for  finding meaning in human existence?",  I must ask, what is rational? And who gets to define meaning?  Rational in this context must refer to making a logical argument for or against the idea of meaning, but an argument is nothing but a hypothetical set of contexts and premises, because if they were already proven, there would be nothing to argue about.  So what choice does an argument have but to follow the laws of nature? And it seems to me that things go all Darwinian at that point, survival of the fittest, etc.  That's where meaning must be found, if it exists at all, in the naturalistic worldview.  Meaning is equated with surviving long enough to pass along ones genes. That would seem to me, at least, to be the epitome of meaningless.

Next time I will offer answers to a few more of Mr. Dawkins questions.

What is Truth?

“What is truth?”. Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Jerusalem in the first century AD, asked this question as he stared into the face of a prisoner brought before him on charges of sedition against the ruling religious leaders of his day. And while Pilate failed to grasp the truth, at the very least, he asked the question.

In today’s post-modern world the situation is much bleaker, particularly In the Western world, where we seem to make little inquiry as to what the truth of a matter is, any matter. Truth does not matter. Truth is relative and has become a commodity leveraged for its political or economic sway. Truth exists to whatever degree we manage to make it, market it and influence with it. Relativism has become so entrenched in the DNA of Western society that it is easy to believe that there is no such thing as truth in the absolute sense of the word; there's only 'your truth' and 'my truth' and 'their truth'.

But the ramifications of such reckless handling of so seeming a passive entity as truth are far reaching. Humans know that to craft a lie is to aim for deceiving someone, with a desired end result in view. Meanwhile, the truth, more often than not, sits mutely on the sidelines, awaiting discovery, always ready to be revealed, but rarely, if ever, the subject of the grandiose production that goes into the manufacture of the lie.

In 2007 the Kansas state school board was involved in a shooting match vis-à-vis the state’s science standards. During the debate Kansas became fruitful fodder for late night television hosts and scientific opinion journals alike. The world lined up courtside to denigrate or congratulate the wheat state, depending upon their personal worldview.

But the missing link in this debate would seem to be none other than Pilate's query, ‘What is the truth?’ Because in the end this debate was not about seeking and discovering the truth, but about promoting agendas and worldviews.

The science standards implemented in 2007 are a move away from broader inquiry and toward the narrower view of naturalism. Naturalism, commonly known as materialism, is a worldview in which everything can be explained in terms of natural causes. Physical matter, i.e. the atomic world, is presumed to be the only reality, so everything can in fact be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. By definition, Naturalism excludes any supernatural agent. It is not a stretch to say that naturalism is atheism, and the natural moral climate in the absence of God is moral relativism.

What is truth? The question is deep, and deserves much thought and reflection, and I will leave that part to you. But it is fair to state that those who genuinely seek The Truth have always fought uphill battles, have always encountered resistance. Because if someone is in the position of seeking the truth, than they are seeking something that is thought to be unknown at present, meaning they do not accept the prevailing wisdom or professional edict regarding the matter in question. Otherwise, why would they be seeking it? It would be plain as day and a known quantity. Galileo and Copernicus studied the heavens and arrived at a conclusion that rocked humanity’s belief about where the Earth sat relative to the sun and the remaining planets (hint: we are NOT the center of the universe), ending the 1000 year supremacy of the Ptolemaic premise that the Earth sits at the center of the solar system.

Newton pondered the fall of apples from a tree, and eventually uncovered the truth of one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, gravity. Yet today no one has seen gravity, held or smelled or heard gravity, let alone touched gravity, but no one denies it exists. Why? Because we see its effects all around us. Newtonian gravity is reliable and predictable… at least until we enter the world of quantum mechanics.

Van Leeuwenhoek refined the microscope of his day and discovered a world that had previously been invisible to humans. The twentieth century saw the invention of the electron microscope, enabling scientists to magnify objects otherwise invisible up to 2 million times, and alas, another previously unknown world was unveiled, a world where life's simplest manifestation, the single-celled microorganism, is found to be comprised of exceedingly complex molecular factories possessed of exquisite molecular-sized machinery.

The truth is always present, but it is not always detectable. And if the public education system teaches ‘truths’ that turn out not to be true at all, can such a belief system be undone spontaneously? Naturalism and evolutionary theory take on a worldview-shaping function, namely that there is no God; and worldviews shape values, and values shape people and their actions which in turn shape a society. What is reaped originates from what is sown.

If public policy is to be sculpted so as to forever eliminate anything that echoes even faintly of Judeo-Christian teachings, here are some further topics the school board may be forced to consider for removal: Love. Honesty. Honor. Kindness. Gentleness. Self control. Peace. Respect. Wisdom. Integrity. All of these concepts are taught extensively in the bible, from its beginning to its end. And all are taught as being traits of the God of the cosmos, traits which have been conveyed to humans as standards of behavior, rules for living, just as the atomic world is subjected to the laws of nature.

The bible instructs that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, abusive language is wrong, bigotry and prejudice are wrong, rape is wrong, battery is wrong, neglect is wrong. And yet, where there is a wrong, by definition must there not be a right, a quality that exists in opposition to these wrongs? But this quest is summarily absent from public discourse and education, precisely because it deviates from the underpinnings of scientific naturalism and its inherent atheism. Are we skewing the quest for knowledge away from the truth in our eagerness to presume against the existence of God? Why would anyone do that?

It is safe to say that as a society we covet the fruit of the bible, namely the decency and uprightness it prescribes, but we are loathe to attribute such traits to anything outside of the material world. Are we really so dull of mind that we never ponder what might lie beyond this veil of atoms which we have declared to be the sum of all reality? Who are the power brokers that have taken it upon themselves to dictate via the public education system that God is dead and the one who seeks Him is on a fool's errand? Who are you?