In my last post, I failed to clarify an important point. Coyne, in his argument, seems to be accusing theists of arguing that because science originated within a theistic context, theistic belief is necessary for science. Coyne then attempts to make a historical refutation of this claim. So far as I know, no historian has ever made the claim that theistic belief is necessary to do science. The historical point (or points) that they make, rather, is that (1) a full-blown scientific movement only originated once in history, within a theistic (specifically Christian) culture and, (2) that the religious beliefs of late medieval and early modern scientists inspired them in their exploration of science. Some historians would go further and argue that, (3) considering the fact that the proto-scientific practices that existed in the ancient Greek and medieval Islamic worlds foundered and never produced a truly scientific movement, in the sense we understand it today, therefore there was something unique to late medieval European Christian culture that enabled it to produce such a movement when other cultures failed. Strong arguments can be made for each of this historical claims. To make the further claim that (4) a theistic worldview is essential in order to rationally explain why science is possible at all, is to go beyond history and make a philosophical claim. This additional claim can, I think, be defended, and has been powerfully defended by theistic philosophers from Thomas Aquinas to Richard Swinburne. However, I would argue that you cannot defend a metaphysical claim using history; nor can you refute such a claim using history.
I make this point because there is often much confusion about this issue - not just among atheists but also among popular religious apologists. Coyne is not the only prominent atheist figure to get confused on this issue. Richard Dawkins' discussion of the relation between science and religion in The God Delusion is a mash-up of philosophical and historical claims (pp. 97-103). For example, Dawkins makes the philosophical claim that science and religion (i.e., religious theism) are incompatible and tries to support this claim using sociological/historical arguments to the effect that, because many prominent scientists today (he specifically quotes James Watson) regard science and religion as incompatible, or at least disbelieve in the existence of God, then this is proof of Dawkins' claim that religion is the enemy of science. This is a ridiculous argument.
Indeed, Dawkins' argument is particularly ridiculous, considering the fact that Dawkins makes this argument while in the process of refuting an argument he falsely accuses theists of making, the 'Argument from Admired Religious Scientists'. Dawkins claims that religious people argue that, because great scientists like Newton, Galileo and others were religious it is irrational and arrogant to oppose the views of these eminent scientists. But, instead of pointing out that the historical fact that the greatest scientists throughout the history of science were theists does not prove the existence of God, Dawkins attempts to refute this argument with an equally erroneous argument, which we might call the 'Argument from Admired Irreligious Scientists'.
If Dawkins thinks that science and religion are incompatible, he needs to present philosophical arguments to support his claim - and citing the opinions of prominent atheist scientists in support of this view does not count as philosophical argument. If Dawkins thinks James Watson's view holds such weight, he should elaborate on Watson's reasons and arguments for thinking so, not simply reference Watson's surprise and embarrassment at meeting religious scientists (p. 99).
One last point about Dawkins' argument: Dawkins has a nasty habit of attempting to put down famous theists by negatively contrasting them with atheists/agnostics. He does this when he mentions Francis Collins, putting him down and contrasting him with the 'genius' of James Watson (p. 99). He does the same with Antony Flew, contrasting him with Bertrand Russell, whom he describes as a 'great philosopher' who 'won the Nobel Prize', in contrast to Flew's "over-publicized tergiversation [apostasy]" (p. 82). (It is true that Russell was a great philosopher and an expert in the philosophy of mathematics and science, although a more relevant contrast would be to point out that Flew was an expert in the philosophy of religion with decades of research in that specialized field, whereas Russell only ever had a passing interest in the subject and never made a systematic study of the subject.) He similarly emphasizes Lord Kelvin's mistakes about about the potential lasting power of the sun. In this case, he acknowledges that Kelvin couldn't have known about nuclear fusion, which raises the question: why mention it at all? Because Dawkins can then go on to contrast Kelvin with "Sir George Darwin, Charles's second son, to vindicate his un-knighted father by invoking the Curies' discovery of radium, and confound the earlier estimate of the still living Lord Kelvin" (p. 99). Darwin delivered! Kelvin confounded! This is how science triumphs over religion!
This is what historians rightly despise as 'Whig history' - presenting history as "an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy...and scientific progress." If you were to add 'secularism and religious scepticism' onto the previous list (with the possible exception of constitutional monarchy, which I have never read Dawkins defending), you would encapsulate Dawkins' view of history. Such approaches to history are, of course, patently self-serving, as well as completely inaccurate. If Dawkins disagrees with historians' interpretation of the origins of science, then he should present a historical argument against it, not fabricate a triumphalist view of the history of science, where the religious figures are always one-upped by their more skeptical colleagues. However, this would require two things that Dawkins lacks: (1) a skill for in-depth historical research and (2) a willingness to 'follow the evidence wherever it leads'.
Comments
Post a Comment