Category: Science

"Charles Darwin could not have written Origin of Species without the homeopathic treatment that he received from Dr. Gully (based on Darwin’s own letters!)."  

The truth is that homeopathy may have played a pivotal role, but only in its utter failure to save the life of Darwin’s precious daughter. Darwin was torn with doubts whilst working on his theory about the effect it would have on his wife, who was devout, and on the religious authority and structures in society in general. Having his own faith ripped away was an important removal of a barrier to publication.  

I often read statements to the effect that "evolution is just a theory…", usually written by an American, but also (depressingly) increasingly by Europeans. It’s a statement that is a sure sign of ignorance. The writer, either genuinely, or disingenuously, does not realise that the word "theory" has a special significance in the scientific method. 

Here’s a short, pithy primer on the scientific meaning of the word.

(hat tip to The Bad Astronomer for the link)

Richard Dawkins seems to attract more than his fair share of unfounded attacks, and not always from the other side of the religious dialogue’s divide. Here, for example, is David Sloan Wilson, atheist and Distinguished Professor in the Departments of Biology and Anthropology at Binghampton University, writing in a recent article of eSkeptic:

When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues.

Er, excuse me? I can almost see Wilson perched on top of his high horse in a state of affront. Dawkins has responded entirely reasonably, I feel:

Why would Wilson ‘naturally assume’ any such thing? Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks? The God Delusion does, as it happens, have a chapter on the evolutionary origins of religion. But to say that this chapter is peripheral to my main critique would be an understatement. 

…

The central theme of the book is the question of whether God exists. I agree that it is also interesting to ask whether religion has some kind of Darwinian survival value. But whatever the answer to that might turn out to be, it will make no difference to the central question of whether God exists. 

Wilson also can’t resist an ad hominem attack on Dawkins:

Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.  

This probably accounts for the fact that methinks I detect a slight sense of exasperation, and I can’t say I blame him, in Dawkins’ reply when he writes that he even refers the readers of The God Delusion to the work of Wilson:

As for group selection (either as normally understood or in the idiosyncratic sense of Wilson’s private re-definition, about which he has been obsessing for thirty years), The God Delusion devotes a sympathetic page and half to the possibility that something like it might apply to the special case of religion. But a page and a half was all I could spare because I had more interesting matters to talk about, for example the "moth in the candle flame" theory of the origins of religion. I referred my readers to Wilson for a fuller treatment of what he calls group selection, and moved on. I thought it a generous gesture at the time, and I see no reason now to regret my choice to write my own book rather than his. 

I would just like to make a couple of further points. The first is that much of Wilson’s article in eSkeptic is most interesting, and worth reading in its own right. But I do note that Wilson has received funding from the Templeton Foundation for some of his research, which I personally find somewhat questionable. That seems to me to be rather like research into astrology being funded by those who have a stake in proving that astrology works. One should not be surprised to see that the result is often bad science to produce the required result. A charge of using the language of statistics in a misleading manner is also being levelled at some of Wilson’s findings. 

Here’s an article that states that Wilson has received funding from the Templeton Foundation and it is also indicative of why I am suspicious of such foundations and those associated with them. It’s an article by William Grassie, founder and former executive director of the Metanexus Institute on Religion and Science and who managed the Templeton Advanced Research Project. He opens the article with:

Noted philosopher Daniel Dennett recently published a book entitled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, arguing for the necessity of engaging in the scientific study of religious and spiritual phenomena.

The John Templeton Foundation shares with Dennett the conviction that the scientific study of religious and spiritual phenomena is a wholesome and worthwhile endeavor and has done much in the last decade to promote such research. However, for Dennett the assumption at the outset is that there is no truth-value in religion and that the result of this inquiry will be the disenchantment of religion. The Templeton Foundation’s approach is to assume, indeed, that there is truth and other value to religion. God, by whatever name, exists. Humans can learn a lot more about themselves and also something more about ultimate reality by appropriately studying and interpreting religious traditions with the help of science, including the human sciences.  

I have a couple of issues with this. The first is the statement that "Dennett has the assumption at the outset that there is no truth-value in religion and that the result of this inquiry will be the disenchantment of religion". This is simply not true. Grassie is either deliberately or inadvertently being extremely economical with the truth. Dennett has quite clearly written in Breaking the Spell, and gone on record in interviews, that he, himself, simply does not know:

Wouldn’t such an exhaustive and invasive examination damage the phenomenon itself? Mightn’t it break the spell? That is a good question and I don’t know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. That is why I raise the question, to explore it carefully now, so that we (1) don’t rush headlong into inquiries we would all be much better off not undertaking, and yet (2) don’t hide facts from ourselves that could guide us to better lives for all.

For Grassie to state at the outset that, in effect, he knows the answer, simply underlines to me why I am suspicious of such foundations and their "research". I’ll leave the last word to Dennett:

Who is right? I don’t know. Neither do the billions of people with their passionate religious convictions. Neither do those atheists who are sure the world would be a much better place if all religions were extinct. There is an asymmetry: atheists in general welcome the most intensive and objective examination of their views, practices and reasons. (In fact, their incessant demand for self-examination can become quite tedious.) The religious, in contrast, often bristle at the impertinence, the lack of respect, the sacrilege, implied by anybody who wants to investigate their views. I respectfully demur: there is indeed an ancient tradition to which they are appealing here, but it is mistaken and should not be permitted to continue. This spell must be broken and broken now. Those who are religious and believe religion to be the best hope of humankind cannot reasonably expect those of us who are skeptical to refrain from expressing our doubts if they themselves are unwilling to put their convictions under the microscope. If they are right – especially if they are obviously right, on further reflection – we skeptics will not only concede this but enthusiastically join the cause. We want what they (mostly) say they want: a world at peace, with as little suffering as we can manage, with freedom and justice and well-being and meaning for all. If the case for their path cannot be made, this is something that they themselves should want to know. It is as simple as that. They claim the moral high ground; maybe they deserve it and maybe they don’t. Let’s find out.