D'Souza on the "Atheist Indoctrination Project"

Response to Dinesh D’Souza’s blog The Atheist Indoctrination Project of October 12, 2007

In his blogs D'Souza has said that evolution and religion can be consistent. This is of course obvious and is consistent in his acceptance of both evolution and religion

It does not follow that evolution is consistent with all religions or all interpretations of Christianity

I disagree with the people D'Souza calls 'atheists' and 'defenders of Darwinism' who are against religion and believe that religion should not be taught until a child has reached the age of reason

My first reason for disagreement is the invasion of privacy. To bar teaching of religion in the home would be a precedent for a variety of abuses. It seems wrong to bar the teaching of religion per se for there is nothing intrinsic to Religion that is objectionable. Particular religions may have objectionable content. There should, if anything, be criteria rather than names (religion, Christianity) for the kinds of things that cannot be taught. However, except for things that meet general criteria for abuse, it is not clear how objectionable content would be decided. In an environment that favored religion, the principle could be turned against science

It remains true that a literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with the idea of evolution and assumed by many Christians to be inconsistent with the idea of evolution. This includes many non-fundamentalist Christians. Additionally, there are many conservative preachers who teach that evolution is wrong -- in light of the scripture. Some of these people believe that 'Intelligent Design' should be taught as an alternate 'theory.' Others believe that evolution should not be taught

There is a problem with intelligent design. Unlike the theory of evolution, ‘intelligent design’ is not even a theory—it provides no explanation for it shifts the burden of explanation from ‘endogenous genesis’ one step back to an external but unexplained creator. Thus, the theory of evolution explains origins in terms that are simpler than what is explained—the simplest terms available—while ID ‘explains’ origins in terms of something of unknown form and unexplained origins. Thus to promote ID as an alternate ‘theory’ is a distortion and, if truth is important and untruth dangerous, then it is a dangerous distortion. The ID backers and others sometimes refer to the theory of evolution as a ‘mere’ theory. While the theory of evolution has not explained everything about life, e.g. the origins of chemical replicators, it is much more than ‘mere’ and there are definite answers to the standard objections such as the fossil record and the problem of the origin of complexity that the ID promoters such as Duane Gish PhD systematically ignore. Finally, a word on theory. It may have been Ronald Reagan who ‘popularized’ the description of theories as ‘mere.’ There are, of course, such things as mere hypotheses and mere theories. It does not follow that all theories are ‘mere’ and many are factual within their domain of validity. A problem with some attitudes towards theories, the opposite extreme of those who describe them as ‘mere,’ is that the theories are taken to universalize far beyond their domain of validity

It is my opinion, and I believe that it is not a mere opinion, that a non-literal and liberal interpretation of Christianity has much to offer. I further believe that the present age is not an age of religion -- I state that as a fact but not as something that should or should not be the case. A consequence of this fact and of the fact that most religious people adhere to their belief system seems to be that the world, today, is not open to another, new, religion

However, I believe that there is a place for a new religion. Why? First, science -- especially physical science and cosmology -- is incomplete; modern physics and cosmology recognize their own limits -- the Planck length, the size of this cosmological system and so on. Thus according to science we do not know what is beyond the edge of science -- if anything. But the history of science suggests that there is something beyond the edge and certainly the researches put in to science indicates that scientists hope and believe that there is something beyond the edge. What do most scientists see beyond the edge? They see something that is rather like a continuation of present science and cosmology; they do not see anything like most religious cosmologies. It is this line of thinking, I imagine, that makes many scientists such as Steven Weinberg atheists. Undoubtedly, the problems with literal religion and the abuses of religion contribute to the beliefs of such scientists. My own background is in mathematics, science, and engineering. I sympathize but do not agree with the scientists such as Steven Weinberg when it comes to religion and the ultimate nature of things. What is beyond the edge of modern science? It is reasonable to think that the next few fundamental discoveries—the ones in the immediate future—will be a continuation of present science. However, there will be some surprises -- else the discoveries would not be fundamental; think of the radical changes in thinking introduced by relativity and quantum mechanics (and, of course, evolution.) In the long term, though, e.g. the science of 4000 AD—if there is one—what might we expect? There is no reason to think that it will all be more of the same. That is the factual reason for my thinking that there is a place for religion. The 'human' side of this thinking is that science, in its modern form, does not address a number of real human concerns that religion does address -- and these include the concern with what lies beyond the edge of scientific-empirical knowledge -- which has implications for our destiny as well as for how we live our present life. While many scientists think that what lies beyond the edge is 'more of the same' I have shown why there is no real reason to think this. This concern is addressed in the religious cosmologies. However, the religious cosmologies, except perhaps Buddhism which originally eschewed cosmology and the abstract parts of Hinduism, appear to generally be very much off the mark -- unless peppered with a dose of liberal interpretation. Christians may note that this concern need not touch the spiritual significance and value of Christ. Thus, there is indeed, in my opinion, a place for a new kind of religious thinking that would learn from the established religions, from science and, perhaps from other sources

Would such a new religion be at all literal in its extra-scientific cosmology? We have seen that there is likely to be an extra-scientific cosmology -- which simply means that today's cosmology is incomplete and it does not mean that the 'final' cosmology will / will not be 'scientific.' Well, there are two ways to be literal. One is to say precisely what there is beyond the edges of the empirical -- there would be no way to assess the truth of any such cosmology. 'But we have the Bible' you may respond. I say that those who believe in the Biblical cosmology quote revelation but are ultimately on their own; they have to justify that what is said to be revealed was in fact revealed and was revealed correctly. The second way to generate an 'extra-empirical' cosmology is to talk of what is possible. This would be a mythology but much can be done with story telling. Actually, it is possible to go beyond story telling. I will not tell you here where it is possible to go but if you are interested you may visit my web site http:/www.horizons-2000.org. The site is large and the writing may be difficult. I have been developing the ideas and have not yet had the time to write a 'plain English' version -- but plan to do so. Anyway, I have not developed a 'new religion' and do not plan to do so but my thought, as written on my site, shows that there is the real possibility and potential for a 'new religion.' I hope that this should not be interpreted to say that I envisage a new system of 'belief' that will require adherence by faith alone. Although I argue that faith is important as a complement to our limited reason, I have shown that it is possible to develop the contours of a universal empirical cosmology that does not require faith—that is based in reason and, even though some will shudder at the phrase, cold logic. Earlier, I said that such a cosmology may have implications for our destiny. This remark may draw sympathy from the religious, the spiritual and others but may also draw sharp reaction from scientists such as Steven Weinberg who hold that we are essentially a lonely accident at the edge of a rather alien universe. I shall not address this kind of reaction here in detail but note that it is addressed in my site http:/www.horizons-2000.org. What I have said here suggests how the factual side of the argument might go. However, there is also another aspect to the argument which is best brought out by supposing that that the whole universe, the known and the unknown, is made of matter—atoms and galaxies and so on that know and care for nothing of human concerns—and nothing but matter. Some thinkers, who hold this as fact, find it to be uncomfortable. Why should it be uncomfortable if it is entirely true? If it is true, then here we are; we too are nothing but matter but still we can have warmth and love—just as can many other animal species who appear to not be concerned with questions of the infinite, of life beyond death, of meaning and so on. Why then do we care? We have a conceptual apparatus that enables us to conceive of a universe that is more than it is on the material view and I suppose that this will make some nervous; however, we can also grow beyond such nervousness and, on the materialist assumption, we ‘should’—at any rate we would benefit from growing beyond the fear. But there is more to it than that and I suspect that it is the expectations that we have been taught, e.g. in religion, that makes us see a material universe as ‘alien:’ there is nothing essentially or intrinsically alien or lonely about it at all if that—nothing but matter—is what it is

I should add that although I think there is a place for something new in religion, I am not altogether sure about that. Perhaps the world can continue on under the paradigms of ‘secularism’ or ‘secular humanism.’ I do believe, and believe that I have shown, see my site, that there is a place where knowledge can replace faith even in the domain of what has been previously that of faith. Whatever would be new in religion would perhaps be sketched within that realm. I am not sure whether the term ‘religion’ should be used. There are many today who think that ‘spirituality’ should be private. That is a strange position. I do think that whether an individual chooses to keep his or her spirituality private is his or her concern; it does not follow that everyone ‘should’ have a spirituality that is private. What matters is that you and I do not force our spirituality—or our privacy or lack of spirituality and privacy—on one another. The situation is similar to that of science. Only some people have the inclination and ability to ‘do science.’ There are many others who are interested in science and enjoy and otherwise benefit from reading science. Similarly only some, e.g. Jesus and Mohammed have the charisma and intuition to ‘do religion’ but many may ‘enjoy’ the result of their insight. There is, however, a difference—we do not gather communally to share our belief in science; why should we do so for religion. Well, it is not altogether that there is no communal gathering under the umbrella of science—scientists have gatherings and share their appreciation of science as more than an intellectual endeavor, as one that reveals the beauty of the universe. However, science does not touch the entire human being in the way that religion may. It is because religion has the potential to touch the core of the individual—in addition to the sharing of what is of moral worth which is also related to the core of the individual—that religion would naturally be communal. I do admit the ‘danger’ in any religion, the tendency to dogma and abuse and the demand of adherence—but this danger is perhaps characteristic of any institution and is not an intrinsic reason to deny an institution

Where does that leave us with regard to the topic of D'Souza's blog?

I believe that the 'atheists' as D'Souza calls them, and moderate academics, have a point when they are concerned that our youth are not getting a good education and that our set of attitudes toward religion is one factor that is involved. However, it is not the only factor; I suspect that entertainment, politics, and the economics of consumerism and advertisement also contribute. I also think that they go overboard in their advocacy of what we can and cannot teach our children. Although D'Souza presents himself as rational and as an adherent, not of fundamentalism, but of the core Christian system and, although there is value in Christianity, I believe that the core Christian cosmology -- genesis and the eschatology -- have serious problems. What's more, in setting himself up as the champion of Christianity and opposed to the 'atheists' and in saying that 'all the mass murders of the world are due to atheism' D'Souza sets him self up in the same camp as those he opposes -- the camp of extremism

I believe that the 'atheists' -- Dawkins, Dennett and so on -- do us a disservice when they overreact. However, the core reaction is valid. The fundamentalists and the D'Souza's, intentionally or not, make the world a place that is, if not hostile, less welcoming to truth

It may be an attractive camp to be in -- extremism. It may set you up to be and to be seen as a champion of something. And, I would be mistaken if I were to say that there is no role for the roles of 'champion' and 'defender'

But most of life is not like that. The extremism and extremist debate goes on. And their debate lends a slant to the way we see things that is a distortion of the way things are. Meanwhile there are all kinds of real works to do -- work that lies outside the high pitch of the extremists and the counter-extremists... and outside of the 'work' what else? To live our lives without the fears of the extreme -- to enjoy the moment at times -- the world has its dangers -- we don't need invented ones