42

Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor, from Time magazine, Nov. 13: “People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob-twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable. Physicists have come up with other explanations…”

[Francis Collins, debating against him, brings up Occam’s Razor, which makes me happy]

later:

Time: “Could the answer be God?”

Dawkins: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”

Collins: “That’s God.”

Dawkins: “Yes. But…”

First, may I say that Dr. Dawkins has more intelligence than I can even imagine. But, given that, does he not seem to be narrowing himself unreasonably? Besides never explaining why God would be more improbable than these "vastly improbable" constants that are necessary for our survival and are in place, Dawkins also accuses his opponent (the man who headed the project that mapped the human genome, if I am not mistaken) of forfeiting his scientific credibility by allowing himself to believe in a supernatural he cannot prove by the scientific method. He assumes, without explanation or argument, science’s right to predominate over all of life.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I think that faith and science, with a small s, work together admirably. I think that what we can see of the world around us, using our wonderful tool, the scientific method, fits marvelously with what we are told of what we cannot see. But even if faith and science were opposed, why ought it to be (arbitrarily?) assumed that science is higher?

I am reminded of this, from G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy: “As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity…we have at once the sense of it covering everything and of it leaving everything out… [A materialist, like Mr. McCabe] understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cogwheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in…”

“The materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves…. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism….The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel. The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex….But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane…. Spiritual doctrines do not actually limit the mind, as do materialistic denials. Even if I believe in immortality I need not think about it. But if I disbelieve in immortality I must not think about it. In the first case the road is open and I can go as far as I like; in the second the road is shut.” [emphasis added]

Or this, from J. Budziszewski’s The Revenge of Conscience, explaining why he (formerly) chose to believe in nihilism when he knew his nihilism was self-referentially incoherent: “A sixth reason was that I had come to confuse science with a certain world view, one which many science writers hold but that really has nothing to do with science. I mean the view that nothing is real but matter. If nothing is real but matter, then there couldn’t be such things as minds [Hannah’s note: unless you are an epiphenominalist =], moral law, or God, could there? After all, none of those are matter. Of course, not even the properties of matter are matter, so after awhile it became hard to believe in matter itself. But by that time I was so disordered that I couldn’t tell how disordered I was. I recognized that I had committed yet another incoherence, but I concluded that reality itself was incoherent, and that I was pretty clever to have figured this our—even more so, because in an incoherent world, figuring didn’t make sense either.”

Or maybe just this: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” ~Romans 1:21, 22

Happy Thanks-giving.