Letters to the Editor
-
Shoddy Thinking
To address a few points made in this article:
"In the absence of God, there's no hope"
"But why can't you have hope if you don't believe in God?"
"You can have hope, but the question is, can you justify the hope? We need a world view that is capable of justifying the confidence that we place in our minds, in goodness, in beauty. I argue that the atheistic world view is not capable of justifying that confidence. Some sort of theological framework can justify our trust in meaning"
This is nonsense. Why should human moral behavior depend on "some sort of theological framework"? We can base morality on the simple fact that humans are social animals who depend on each other and are better off if they treat each other well. Buddhist compassion does not require a "God" to tell us to act well. The idea of atheists living their lives in despair is comical. Religionists always make the basic mistake of yoking morality to the supernatural and never offer a justification for it.
"It's a kind of dogma that science is the only reliable guide to truth, but that itself is a faith statement - [science] is a creed"
This is also nonsense. Science is not a belief system, but a method of investigation by testing and accumulating evidence. Science never takes anything "on faith". It demands evidence for every claim, every step of the way. Religionists simply do not understand that science is not just another religion.
"Theology is faith seeking understanding. We have every right to ask what God is doing by making this universe in such a slow way"
This is an example of a "fallacy of false cause". Haught first assumes the existence of God, then follows the implications that have been discovered by science. But there is no justification for assuming the existence of God in the first place.
"Why does the universe transcend itself from purely material to living and then to conscious phenomena?"
Science clearly shows that consciousness develops as a by-product of complex brains. There is no need at all to assume that their is some "universal consciousness" outside of complex brains. Where does Haught present the evidence for such cosmic consciousness?
"Religion is simply a sense of mystery"
No, it isn't. It is the belief in a supernatural creator without any evidence to support that belief. It is an attempt to resolve the mystery.
"Science is simply not equipped to deal with the dimensions of purposefulness, love, compassion, forgivness"
Agreed. But then, it does not try to. Religion, in attempting to explain both the natural world and human morality, bites off a lot more than it can chew. No wonder we choke on it.
To sum up, Haught is wrong because:
1.Belief in God is not necessary to have a moral framework for living.
2. Science is a method, not a faith.
3. His arguments simply assume the existence of God.
4. There is no basis for locating consciousness anywhere other than in complex brains
5. Religion is not having a sense of mystery, but the attempt to impose an explanation on that mystery.
6. Religion cannot be reconciled with science because religion makes truth claims about the universe that scientific evidence has refuted.