There is a wonderful essay by Scott Atran up on John Brockman’s website, in which he eviscerates Professor Dawkins and Sam Harris for their way with evidence.
I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems. Some scientists have some good and helpful insights into human beings’ existential problems some of the time, but some good scientists have done more to harm others than most people are remotely capable of.
(2) The belief that science can or should replace religion as a major factor in motivating and shaping — rather than just informing — politics or ethics, and by so doing steadily improve the human condition, is itself a delusion. The speculations I heard in the conference, about what religion can or cannot do and what the motives or consequences of religious belief are, have been almost entirely supported by the smallest of data sets, usually a N of 1 — the speculator himself or herself — and only on the basis of that person’s selectively uninformed opinion. Imagine if you tried to do science this way, you’d be met with embarrassment and bewilderment, not lauded or applauded.
There’s much more. Go read it all.
I know all this because Brockman asked me to contribute to the New Year “interesting thinkers” roundup, answering the question “What are youoptimistic about?” Anyone who reads here will know that the answer is just about “nothing”, so I find this a challenge. I will rise to it. Have also promised a contribution to a Swedish blog’s advent calendar. So I suppose I had better get translating.
Thank you for pointing me to this article. Incidentally, would I be right in thinking that modern science emerged from two societies shaped by religion: the Islamic world (before it was weakened by invasions, as Scott Atran points out) and Christian Europe, with its conviction of the essential rationality of the world created by God? Admittedly, in both cases the roots of scientific enquiry lay with the Greek world.
By the way, Socrates was sentenced to death for asking questions rather than for anything he said. The Socratic method of questioning everything is presumably at the root of the whole scientific endeavour. But sometimes we have to admit that we do not and cannot have the answer: sometimes we have to live with uncertainty, and we all find this incredibly difficult to do.
Finally, do please find some grounds for optimism…