Month: December 2004

My uncle, below, summed up my thoughts on Reville’s article pretty well. He is forever trying to reconcile religious belief with scientific advancement and understanding. It is an impossible task. I especially liked this :

The main alternative to religion is secular humanism. This philosophy holds that nothing greater than mankind exists and we must work out our lives entirely reliant on our own resources. Some people, but I believe no more than a small minority, can live decent and fulfilled lives drawing on this philosophy. The majority of people need the solace of religion.

Colours to the mast here – I am a secular humanist. I do not beleive the majority of people need the solace of religion. I do believe that a huge amount of people are born into and indoctrinated into religious belief from a very early age.

Earlier this year I attended a lecture given by Dr. William Reville in UCC. The lecture concerned the same ideas – religion and science. I thought Reville lacked any cogent argument whatsoever. One of his arguments included, believe it or not, that old diamond – Einstein and Newton believed in god, they were intelligent, therefore we should believe in god and god is likely to exist. Crazy. Besides the fact that it is highly questionable whether Einstein believed in god or not.

Another gem he came up with is that the Earth is in exactly the right place for life to develop, that if the conditions were even slightly different life would have never come about – therefore an intelligent designer is likely to exist. The big elephant in the room is what most people reading this might realise. Life came about partly because conditions were right, granted, but he is getting his logic all mixed up here….

Uncle Anthony at it again, this time in response to William Reville article posted below.

Madam, – In his attempt to reconcile science and religion Prof William Reville reduces Christianity to the all-encompassing formula, “Love God, love your neighbour, forgive your enemy and take responsibility for your actions” (Science Today, November 25th). With the omission of God, this formula reflects a humanist philosophy that all reasonable people would agree with.

Unfortunately, it is the human capacity to invent gods and organise religions around them that causes so many problems for humanity.

Compulsory adherence to rituals and rules, on pain of punishment, including everlasting damnation, the wholesale indoctrination of children into the beliefs of whatever religion they happen to be born into and the extremes of war and terrorism based on religious fanaticism are just some of the serious consequences arising from religious belief. Give me the solace of secular humanism any day. – Yours, etc.,

ANTHONY SHERIDAN, Cobh, Co Cork.

I agree.

I think that many of the responses to Reville are good – I will publish them all.

First:
Madam, – My former colleague, the estimable William Reville, makes another of his occasional trips from the laboratory to the pulpit (Science Today, November 25th).

In attacking Richard Dawkins’s crusading atheism, Prof Reville claims that religion by and large, has been beneficial to humanity and enables people to live “decent and fulfilled lives”. Interestingly, this essentially utilitarian point is made by Machiavelli, who advises his Prince to recognise that religion is food for the masses and helps to keep them in line.

But Prof Reville does not take on Dawkins’s main argument that “the concept of God is man-made and that religion was invented as a comfort-blanket” – and it might be added, as a weapon of mass control.

Anyway, your admirable science columnist might be persuaded to tell us why he feels impelled every so often to make a (not very convincing) case for the faith of his fathers.

Perhaps it’s a case of is “treise dachas na oiliint”. – Yours, etc.,

Second:
Madam, – Thank God for Prof William Reville, who certainly speaks for me. While Richard Dawkins battles with the complexities of this life I am aware daily of the marvels of Creation and, as Patrick Kavanagh says, “Of the One and the Endless, the Mind that has baulked the profoundest of mortals”. – Yours, etc.,

Third:
Madam, – Prof William Reville warns that secular humanists “would be well advised to stop trying to reduce [ Christianity] to a position of no significance. . [ as] a greatly weakened Christianity could be replaced by some other form of religion hostile to social progress”.

Could this argument be summarised as: “Better the the devil you know. . .”? – Yours, etc.,

Fourth:
Madam, – I’m surprised at the shallowness of Dr William Reville’s challenge to the view that religion is an invented comfort-blanket (Science Today, November 25th).

Doesn’t he subscribe to this very notion in concluding feebly that “the majority of people need the solace of religion”. And how convincing is his proposition that “the average person’s need for religion remains and a greatly weakened Christianity could be replaced by some other form of religion hostile to social progress”? Is this not a classic case of advocating the devil you know?

In considering the main alternative to religion – secular humanism – and holding (with what authority?) that “some people, but I believe no more than a small minority, can live decent and fulfilled lives drawing on this (secular humanism) philosophy”, he then presents humanism negatively, describing it as an ethos where “we must work out our lives entirely reliant on our own resources”.

No, Dr Reville, it’s not a case of “must”; rather a case of our having the capacity and wherewithal so to do – with due regard for the dignity and rights of others. – Yours, etc.,

Fifth:
Madam, – It is good to see Dr William Reville, a man of science, take issue with Prof Richard Dawkins, who sees religion as the greatest evil afflicting humankind. Of course religion has been greatly abused in the past, is no doubt being abused at present and will be in the future. The same is true of science and technology and true also of all human activity.

Everything about our existence is enveloped in mystery. Indeed, we are all a mystery unto ourselves. But is it not true that our minds need mystery as our body needs food? Deprived of these essentials, both wither.The really great news is that God, reflecting his own essential nature, has provided us with an infinitude of mystery. That should warm the cockles of Prof Dawkins’s heart. – Yours, etc.,

Sixth:
Madam, – It is great to see William Reville once again face down the proud and arrogant atheism of Richard Dawkins (Science Today, November 25th); if anything, Prof Reville was too nice to him.

There has certainly been evolution, but belief in Darwin’s traditional theory of evolution where the entire creation developed by purely random changes at the genetic level, a doctrine so adhered to by Dawkins, requires more faith than believing that God is behind it all.

Dawkins’s god is time. . .everything in Dawkins’s eyes is possible, given only time. The mists of Time conjured up the first self-replicating particle, assembled the first cell, an incredibly complex thing in itself. For Dawkins Time allowed for order to come out of disorder, allowed absence of intelligence to beget intelligence, and chaos to produce a vast array of creatures oozing with evidence of incredible design. . . and there was of course no designer, no intelligence behind it all!

We have been beguiled by this unscientific thinking. It is time to call his bluff. The laws of chance working at the genetic level do not in fact allow for the evolution of the range of creatures in this creation within a mere three billion years. Or if they did, the odds are so long that it is an absolute miracle – back to God again!

So whichever way you look at it, we’re looking at a designer here. Revel in that, Prof Dawkins. – Yours, etc.,

Seventh:
A chara, – Surely, the whole point of a public debate is to convince others? But if the average person has a “need” for religion, as suggested by Dr William Reville, why does he bother proselytising?

If he thinks belief is innate (this ignores Christian teaching that God gave freedom not to believe) Dr Reville should chill out and enjoy his status as an a la carte Christian.

But before leaving the scene to the genetic code it would be a matter of interest to some of us if Dr Reville detailed his own religious beliefs. Which, if any, tenets or “fundamentals” – to use a pertinent phrase coined by early 20th century American Christians – does he subscribe to?

It would be especially interesting to know if, as his writings suggest, he agrees with everyone who believes in any god. If so, surely this brings him into conflict with Christianity which, though praised in his article, wears its monotheism as a badge of honour. – Is mise,

Ninth:
Madam, – Dr Michael Telford (November 30th) writes that Richard Dawkins adheres to the idea that “the entire creation developed by purely random changes at the genetic level” – and then argues against this on various grounds. Unfortunately, his argument fails at the first hurdle because Dawkins has never claimed that pure random chance shapes evolution but that natural selection, which is far from random, is the force that drives it. – Yours, etc.,

…or so claimed Dr William Reville in last Thursdays Irish Times. (Sub. required)

The article has caused a great deal of controversy in the letters pages for the last week, see what you think yourself:

Under The Microscope: Europe has become strongly secular, in contrast to the US where religion plays a prominent part, as demonstrated by the recent presidential election, writes Dr William Reville

Traditional Christianity has been in retreat for many years in Europe, too jaded to effectively fight off attacks from the secular left. Religion is also under attack from some scientists – most notably from Richard Dawkins, who has written several fine books explaining the importance and implications of the main scientific theory in biology: the theory of evolution. Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and he interprets his brief to be much wider than explaining evolution. He is a proselytising atheist, believing religion is bad – principally because, in his opinion, religion prevents its adherents from acquiring a true understanding of the world. He speaks frequently against religion and his onslaught has become much more forceful and bitter since 9/11.

Dawkins believes the concept of God is man-made and that religion was invented as a “comfort-blanket”. He believes the concept of religion has infected the human mind as a mental virus that is transmitted from generation to generation. This hypothesis can be presented in a plausible manner and, although impossible to prove, it is also impossible to disprove.

Dawkins rails against the media for routinely inviting religious leaders to express opinions on important technological developments in society, for example when Dolly, the first cloned adult animal, was produced in 1997. Dawkins believes that only people who have expert professional knowledge in the particular area – pre-eminent people such as himself, of course – should be asked to express views, and not people whose only claim to prominence is that they are spokespersons for what he sees as irrational beliefs.

Dawkins claims religion teaches people to be content with not understanding (or misunderstanding) the world. For example, fundamentalist Christianity does not believe in biological evolution. He also believes religion is a convenient badge of identity for groups intent on attacking each other over ancient grievances, as in Northern Ireland. You can read more of his ideas in A Devil’s Chaplain (Phoenix, 2004).

Although not all of Dawkins’ points are wrong, in my view he is entirely wrong in his overall argument. It is true that some terrible things have been done in the name of religion. But what about the countless number of people whose lives have been enriched by religion? I can speak only of Christianity because I don’t know enough about other religions. I fail to see how the basic Christian message of love God, love your neighbour, forgive your enemy and take responsibility for your actions can do anything but good for those who abide by it.

It is true that the Christian churches, as human institutions, have often erred grievously – but name any human institution that has not. The failings of churches as institutions do not discredit the basic Christian message. Many people are killed by cars every year. So what do we do – ban cars? No, cars are useful things. The problem is careless driving.

All human institutions have a tendency to err. Science is a human institution and it has erred. Eugenics was a very popular scientific movement in the late 1800s and the first half of the 20th century. It advocates the improvement of the human stock by selective breeding and was enthusiastically promoted by prominent biologists. The movement degenerated into notions of racial hygiene and racial superiority and was an important underpinning of Nazi philosophy.

In A Devil’s Chaplin, Dawkins charges that much of Hitler’s anti-Semitism can be attributed to his never-renounced Catholicism and his belief that Christ’s real mission was to fight the Jews. He never mentions Hitler’s clear and acknowledged dependence on “scientific” racial hygiene. If Dawkins applied the same criteria to science as to religion he would also have to denounce science.

If religion has such a bad influence, one would expect that regimes in which religion played no part would be singularly happy and thriving places. We had two such notable regimes in the 20th century – Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. We must hold our nerve in Europe. Because religion has erred we should not heave the water out of the bath – the baby is in there. Institutions that err need reform, not obliteration. When Gandhi was asked for his opinion on western civilisation, he replied: “It would be a good idea.” You could say the same for basic Christianity.

The main alternative to religion is secular humanism. This philosophy holds that nothing greater than mankind exists and we must work out our lives entirely reliant on our own resources. Some people, but I believe no more than a small minority, can live decent and fulfilled lives drawing on this philosophy. The majority of people need the solace of religion.

Conventional Christianity is a decent philosophy with predictable societal consequences when practised genuinely. Secularists would be well advised to stop trying to reduce it to a position of no significance.

The average person’s need for religion remains and a greatly weakened Christianity could be replaced by some other form of religion hostile to social progress.

William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Director of Microscopy at UCC