All of us have known a know-it-all at some point in our lives. I’ve never met any who didn’t embarrass themselves with their own foolishness, though. Every know-it-all I’ve ever met has carried with him or her a boatload of “false facts,” which he or she presented with total assurance and finality.
Nick Cohen at The Observer fits the “know-it-all” description quite nicely when he says “Science has vanquished religion, but not its evils. He is so sure of himself:
Today, you have to be a very ignorant believer to imagine that your religion or any religion can provide comprehensive explanations. When they study beyond a certain level, all believers learn that the most reliable theories of the origins of life have no need for the God of the holy books. The most brilliant scientists and the best thought have moved beyond religion. It is for this reason that religion, which once inspired man’s most sublime creations, no longer produces art, literature or philosophy of any worth; why it is impossible to imagine a new religious high culture.
That’s the core of the argument in this article; the rest of Cohen’s article is mostly emotional screed. If he is wrong here, the remainder collapses. So how did he do?
First, one has to wonder which reliable theories of the origin of life have no need of God or the holy books. I intentionally left the “s” off the end of “origin;” for (unlike the origin of species) no reliable theories of the origin of life have ever been proposed. Science has vanquished nothing on that front, for science has offered nothing. I certainly welcome the best efforts science can bring to the question, for I would love to know more about the origin of the first life. But at this stage Cohen’s claim concerning is just wrong, and obviously so.
Second, how about “comprehensive explanations”? It’s a vague term (vague terms are very useful for making vague arguments). The inability of any knowledge tradition to provide “comprehensive explanations” is meaningless. Science should be able to explain what science can explain, and it’s no knock on science that it can’t do everything. It’s not supposed to do everything. Same with religious explanations.
But let’s follow the trail he proposes anyway. If what Cohen means by it is, “my holy book explains everything within its pages,” then it’s a straw man. No religion makes that claim. But Christianity does make a claim of providing a sub-stratum of explanation, a meta-explanation, for many, many things that science cannot touch. If offering comprehensive explanations is the test, then science also fails. Science cannot explain explanation itself (but Christianity can). It cannot explain why science itself works (Christianity can). Science has so far been unable to explain where we come from, or why there is something rather than nothing. Its answers to vital questions of human experience (consciousness, morality, free will, meaning, subjectivity, etc.) are (a) at least as much philosophical as scientific, and (b) if confined to purely naturalistic answers, terribly unsatisfying to both the mind and the heart. Christianity has real answers to those questions, too.
Third, the most brilliant scientists have “moved beyond religion” only if by “most brilliant scientists” one means “scientists who have moved beyond religion.” Surveys of scientists show that up to half of them believe in God, including stars such as Francis Collins, Owen Gingerich, Kenneth Miller, and many more.
Finally, Protestant Christianity has been admittedly weak in producing art over the past many decades. The same could never be said about its philosophy, however. On this Cohen is either uninformed or biased; or in other words, wrong.
So there are at least four “false facts” smugly situated at the heart Nick Cohen’s article. He is (as far as he presents himself here) the quintessential know-it-all. But I can’t just leave it at that. It’s not just that Cohen is a know-it-all; it’s that he has painted science as the know-it-all approach to (pardon me) life, the universe, and everything. I don’t view science that way: I don’t view science as knowing it all, and I don’t view genuine science as being so smugly stupid as to think that it does. Genuine science is more intelligent than that. If Nick Cohen and a smattering of others make that mistake, there’s no reason for the rest of us to follow them into it.
It is for this reason that religion, which once inspired man’s most sublime creations, no longer produces art, literature or philosophy of any worth; why it is impossible to imagine a new religious high culture.
Just to zero in on this part: Where is the ‘art and literature of any worth’ being created at this point, and just what standard is he using? We live in an age of reality TV, shock comedy and recycled ideas. It’s not “religious high culture” that has disappeared, but high culture, period.
What a schlocky article.
Crude:
Your point is well taken. But it doesn’t absolve Christians from responsibility for following culture into its current pit. We ought to be creating something better.
I agree, Tom. Honestly, you’re speaking to someone who has long thought that the lack of a real modern Christian culture has been one of the biggest problems we have to deal with. And worse, that many times specifically ‘Christian’ media tends to be insipid or horrid. (I used to have the radio on while driving during my university days, and I was amazed at how just about every modern ‘Christian’ song was able to cram the word ‘Jesus’ or ‘Lord’ or words to that effect into the lyrics. It was nauseating, as if they didn’t know how to touch on Christianity without the equivalent of a sledgehammer.)
I would love to see Christian themes brought up more in every context, without the sledgehammer aspect. In movies. In video games. In science fiction. We have great examples of this in Lord of the Rings, in CS Lewis’ sci-fi books, and more.
At the same time, I think the article author is entirely off-base with why we don’t see such. It has little to do with science. We need a return to high culture, period. Christians should be doing their share, but if I were him I’d be noting the lack of high culture in general. But I suspect the man hardly cares, if he’s even aware of the dearth.
Good point in your final paragraph, Crude.
One gets the sense that Cohen thinks that the growth of a scientific mindset will produce growth in the arts. So let’s try this out for size, paraphrased from his article:
Just doesn’t work, does it? I’m thinking how “scientific” (not) some of the best plays have been: Les Misérables, Cats, Rent, Annie, Phantom. There was a more-or-less “scientific” (mathematical, really) movement in music in the 20th century (dodecaphony), most of whose products most listeners considered to be dry and sterile.
Science is good for an awful lot of things, but I don’t see any evidence to think high art is one of them; whereas there is abundant evidence (contemporary or not) that Christianity can be.
By the way, on re-reading Cohen’s article I saw another “false fact” I missed earlier:
That may be true of some people in some religions, but it couldn’t have been hard for him to look and discover people who insist on a defense of our truths.
That may be true of some people in some religions, but it couldn’t have been hard for him to look and discover people who insist on a defense of our truths.
What makes you think he didn’t? Maybe he’s just dishonest. Or he’s decided that what matters for his aims isn’t the truth, but a good narrative.
It reminds me of the time I spoke with an atheist, who told me that the claim that God existed outside of time was a modern reaction to evolution to make God unfalsifiable. Pointing out that the idea of God as existing outside of time went back to Augustine and earlier seemed to matter nothing to him. He passed over the example in silence, and repeated his earlier claim.
I walked away with the impression that the truth didn’t matter to him. What mattered was a nice story that framed things the way he wanted it all framed. Clouding up his story with inconvenient facts wouldn’t get the right effect.
After reading through this article, I was reminded that the main conflict is not between science and religion, but between a philosophical world view, naturalism (or materialism) and religion. However, for naturalism to be true it must provide comprehensive explanation for everything that exists because natural processes must be able to explain everything. Furthermore the universe must be a causally closed system.
There are three major unsolved problems in science: (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the origin of life, (3) the origin of mind and consciousness. In the past when I have suggested, or even implied, to non-theists that a an eternally existing transcendent intelligence (God) could be the explanation for all three of these things I get accused of making a God-of-the-gaps argument. But, in saying that God could be the explanation here I am not a priori ruling out a natural explanation. For example, theologically it’s possible that God created the universe as a complete system, like a completely automated cosmic factory that runs on it‘s own, so life and consciousness emerge in such a system “naturally.” Science, therefore, is free to explore those kind of questions. It certainly doesn’t require my permission to do so. On the other hand, it is the person who is committed a priori to metaphysical naturalism who must fill in the gaps with a some kind of natural explanation.
By definition a priori assumptions are faith based not evidence based. So ironically it requires less faith on my part to believe in some kind of theism than it does to believe in any kind of naturalism.
However, for naturalism to be true it must provide comprehensive explanation for everything that exists because natural processes must be able to explain everything.
Actually, according to one philosopher, that’s actually something naturalism is incapable of doing, perhaps by definition.
Crude, you wrote,
Was his name Matzke by any chance? I’m thinking of experiences here on this blog. Or Harris? He certainly kept changing the subject when W.L. Craig brought up the free will problem…
Who are these great Protestant philosophers? That’s a serious question.
Who are these great Protestant philosophers?
William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga would be a reasonable start.
What I find interesting is that the kind of things that Cohen stumbles over are the same things we see all the time from the secular side. This stuff just doesn’t pass muster in any way. Do these guys really have so little self respect that they don’t care they are writing nonesense? Or do they have enough friends on “their side” that they take their bows within that audience and just ignore everyone else. Hard to understand.
Thanks for the references. I will look into them. I’ve been on a quest to find some type of serious intellectual writing from people in a Protestant tradition, but have come up less than impressed with what I’ve found to date. (Though certainly old school Protestants were serious thinkers).