Monday 13 August 2007

Richard Dawkins: Enemy of Reason

Apparently, Richard Dawkins has turned his attention to astrology. He is either unaware, or else pretends to be, that modern science was first able to arise precisely because of the Mediaeval Catholic Church condemnation from Scripture of the theories, as expressed by Aristotle but always held apart from the Biblical Revelation, of eternalism (that the universe has always existed and always will), animism (that the universe is a living thing, an animal), pantheism (that the universe is itself the supreme reality, is God), cyclicism (that everything which happens has already happened, in exactly the same form, an infinite number of times before, and will happen again, in exactly the same form, an infinite number of times), and astrology (that events on earth are controlled by the movements of the celestial bodies).

None of these propositions is self-evidently false, nor can that falsehood be proven scientifically. Rather, science must, and does, simply presuppose their falsehood. It was first able to do this, and thus to get going at all, because of the exercise of ecclesial authority by reference to Scriptural authority. “Post-Christian” culture is visibly regressing to all five of these errors. And if you believe in the first four (which I have sometimes heard it claimed might be compatible with science, although I cannot see how), then you must believe in the fifth one, namely astrology.

Perhaps Dawkins knows this and is declining to mention it to the common herd, contrary to his interdisciplinary responsibilities as a Professor, and specifically contrary to the whole purpose of the Chair that he occupies, which is “for the Public Understanding of Science”. In that case, he is morally unfit to occupy that Chair, or to comment on such matters generally. Or perhaps he does not know it. In that case, he is intellectually unfit to occupy that Chair, or to comment on such matters generally. Which is it?

7 comments:

  1. Since it is impossible to prove a negative then presupposeing everything to be false without evidence is the only logical way forward.

    Do you also belive in fairy's and invisible pink unicorns?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't, but it's not scientifically impossible that they might exist: science would not collapse if they did.

    Whereas it is scientifically impossible that the intimately related theories of eternalism, animism, pantheism, cyclicism and astrology might be correct. If they were, then science would just collapse.

    Yet those theories are always held apart from the Judaeo-Christian Revelation (apart from which, Dawkins, as a scientist, isn't, however much he might want to be), were first ever condemned by the authority of the Mediaeval Catholic Church and by reference to that revelation, that condemnation being the reason why science first took off in Mediaeval Europe rather than anywhere else.

    Just look at "Post-Christian" culture's regression to these notions. Or just look at the difficulties encountered by anyone who tries to teach science in a culture where the conceptual framework has not been defined by Christianity.

    After all, what makes you think that there is an investigable order in the material universe at all? Christianity makes you think that, whether you like it or not. People whose cultures have not been defined by Christianity seldom, if ever, think any such thing.

    Incidentally, something similar may be said about philosophy. Not only is it thanks to the Church that the Classical writings survived at all, but the rational and empirical theories (which, again, are in no sense self-evident) themselves derive from the Christianisation of that inheritance in the form of Augustinian illuminism.

    Once again, just look at the "Post-Christian" regression from rational and empirical criteria. And just look at the difficulty in communicatiing such ideas in intellectual environments not shaped by Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why can't I believe in animism without believing in astrology? Or vice versa? Plenty of animist traditions exist, and have existed, without any concept whatsoever of astrology. Plenty of believers in astrology are not, and have never been, animists. There is no necessary connection between them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But there is between animism and pantheism (which is how animistic traditions articulate themselves as they become philosophically more sophisticated, as in India), and there is between pantheism and astrology (again, as in India).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow. That's some pretty circular logic. You seem to have a certain world view and therefore think that everything that has ever happened reinforces your world view. Perhaps for you it does, when seen through your narrow lens.

    Example:

    "After all, what makes you think that there is an investigable order in the material universe at all? Christianity makes you think that, whether you like it or not. People whose cultures have not been defined by Christianity seldom, if ever, think any such thing."

    Seriously? Where do you get that?

    How about all the cultures across the planet that have immense, astronomically-accurate calendar structures that survive until this day? Did they not make precise observations of the motions that took place in the sky (from their POV)? Is that not an early form of astronomy?

    What about the ancient Sumerians creating/expanding the science of agriculture?

    How about the Greeks and political/social science? The Romans and civil engineering? Did the Chinese and Egyptians and Mayans offer nothing in the way of scientific thought?

    What "Christian" culture gave rise to concepts like, say, Zero - without which modern mathematics would not exist - or philosophy? Let's not forget all the great "Christians" of the near past like Einstein and Freud that limited their "Biblical" reading to the Old Testament.

    In fact, you refute your own point by mentioning that Aristotle (one of may pre- and non-Christians) was investigating his universe.

    How about Archimedes? Sitting in a bathtub and figuring out how to use water displacement for scientific measure is at least as insightful as Newton watching an apple fall and musing about gravity.

    My suggestion: Get out more and spend some time in areas with people and cultures that aren't exactly like you and try to see them for who they are, not who you think they are. It might also teach you a little about yourself.

    If you do so, don't bring your high horse. You'll have a hard time getting through the Eye of the Needle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, the catholic church, by threatening to burn those at the stake who argued against certain long held beliefs expressed in the bible, certainly helped move science along. I suppose, what you are talking about by "modern science" would coincide with the renaisance, which really had more to do with already established ideas coming from the middle east and far east to Europe, through contact in such events as the crusades and the exodus of christian scientist from Constantinople. Trust me, if you know anything about the initial contact between catholic europe and the middle east, the muslims were NOT impressed at all by catholic "science" and medicine. At the time of the first crusade, Europe was pretty much a backwards land, being surpassed by pretty much every other civilization. People had pretty much forsaken every discovery and science the greeks and romans had produced and replaced it with religous superstition. The rise of modern science in Europe happened in spite of the church, not because of it.

    Oh, and just to let you know,I'm not a hippy that believes in astrology or any of that crap; I was actually born and raised catholic, I just choose to recognize the facts and what really happened rather making up history to support my opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scientist are currently debating eternalism vs cyclicism. But the others are unlikely as they violate natural law. Animism and pantheism as you've defined them would violate speed of light limitations on communication. It would be difficult for an entity as big as a universe to communicate to it's constituent parts when such communication may take a Billion years. As for Astrology no correlation has been found between celestial motion and events on Earth. There is also no known mechanism for how a celestial body other than the Moon and Sun could affect life on Earth. It would also be a non sequitor logical fallacy to suggest belief in eternalism or cyclicism mandates belief in Astrology.

    BCReason

    ReplyDelete