I recently stumbled across an interesting debate between renowned theologian William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss, a physicist at Arizona State University and popular author. The central question for the debate was, has science buried God? The link on the word "debate" above will take you to the full video if you would like to take the time to listen to the debate in full. However it's a 2 hour video so I will provide a link to the specific segment(s) I want to address in-text below.
Lawrence Krauss, though very intelligent and certainly an authority on matters of physics and cosmology, is not the best debater on philosophic subjects, and it seems to me that he must have some gaps in his knowledge of history. If not, I don't see how he could have let slide some of the assertions made by William Lane Craig. Craig is intelligent, well read, and articulate. He is among the best Christian apologists. I thoroughly disagree with him on most every point, but he's one of the few theists to whom I can listen without concluding he is just plain silly (for the other end of the spectrum, see Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron). Krauss did well in the debate overall, despite what YouTube user shockofgod, who posted the debate, might think. Shockofgod declares Craig to have won the debate in his title for the video. There are 3 issues on which I believe Krauss drops the ball and wastes a perfectly good opportunity to counter weak arguments/challenges. In this post, I will only address the first of these issues.
The moderator asks Krauss to choose between the subject of the role Christianity had in the Enlightenment and the rise of democracy, or the role of Christian convictions for certain abolitionists in the early 19th century (eg. William Wilberforce). I had planned to address the issue of slavery in this post, but, as it turned out, adding that issue nearly doubled the length. Neither of the debaters addressed that challenge, but I have much to say on that topic, so I'm going to set that issue aside for now.
Krauss begins his response by acknowledging that there have been scientific developments and contributions that came from Christians; Newton, Galileo, etc. He argues that the whole of the culture, the seat of power, education, and financial resources during the Enlightenment was religion. "It was the only game in town," he argued. Therefore, there was an unavoidable relationship between the two cultural institutions.
Craig counters suggesting that Krauss has missed the point of the argument. Without God, he asserts, there is no conceptual foundation for science. Essentially, one cannot begin the endeavor of scientific inquiry without God. This is why, he argues that science did not arise in the Orient or in Africa.
Dr. Krauss pauses for moment in an apparent attempt to collect his thoughts, but he was only able to come back with a argument that polls of scientists today show that the vast majority are not believers. While that statistic may be true, and it may suggest that a majority of scientists don't see any necessary connection between God beliefs and science, it doesn't make it true. I was pulling my hair out at this point in the video. In fairness to Lawrence Krauss, he had to put together a response on the spot in front of a large audience. I have had a couple of weeks to put together my ideas. However I still think he ought to have been able to come up with something stronger than he did on this subject.
The points I would have tried to draw out on these subjects:
...had I been invited to debate William Land Craig.. haha.
1. Science, as a method of inquiry, did NOT arise from Christian teachings or theology, nor did its principles originate from Christian men. It began in ancient Greece with philosophers who questioned basic assumptions about how we come to know things about the world. These men described and categorized types of logic and established the basic rules and principles of inductive reasoning on which scientific inquiry is founded. We are also indebted to the Greeks for democracy. Again, western civilization inherited these concepts from the ancient Greeks, not medieval or Enlightenment Christians. Science didn't arise in Africa or Asia because the Greek thinkers who spawned these insightful and useful concepts happened to be residents of Europe. If their writings had survived and had passed into the hands of people in other parts of the globe, science and democracy could easily have arisen in cultures that were predominantly Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic.
The principles of science were developed long before Christ, and while Christianity was thriving in the Dark Ages, science and democracy languished. We know this period as the Dark Ages because it was dominated by superstition and religious tyranny. There is no passage in the Bible nor concept among Christian tenets from which scientific principles or the principles of human rights or democracy can be derived. Social, scientific, and technological advancements were revived once secular reason began to take hold again. If Dr. Craig wants to assign credit to a deity for the development of the philosophy of science or democracy, a stronger case can be made for the candidacy of the pagan gods of the Greeks than Yahweh.
2. Both historically and today Christians have exerted efforts that have hindered the progress of science when they believe the findings of science to be at odds with their presuppositions about the world derived from the Bible. For example, Galileo was imprisoned because he dared challenge the Ptolemaic
model of the universe. Theologians of his day believed that the Earth was fixed in space and sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around us. They held this belief as doctrinal truth because they insisted on literal interpretations of several passages of scripture. Galileo dared to suggest that the sun was at the center of the galaxy, and that the surface of the moon was not a perfectly smooth sphere: heresy. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Galileo and the church, I highly recommend the book The Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo.
Many Christians today shrug this episode of history off saying 'the church leaders at that time were not interpreting the Bible properly'. Meanwhile, many of these same Christians fight against the science of evolution. The opposition to evolution that is expressed by certain Christians is simply another case in which religious beliefs have taken precedence over the evidence and prevailing opinion of the scientific community. There is not a single scientific institution (that isn't bound to doctrinal assumptions) that has given any credence to creationist claims (learn more here and here). 100% of the independent science foundations and institutions are in agreement that the theory of evolution is a well documented theory with overwhelming evidence, but religion fights on. In addition to the theory of evolution, push back on climate change theory has grown among politically conservative Christians despite overwhelming agreement from the scientific community and mounds of published peer reviewed studies confirming the predictions made by the theory. Religion doesn't necessarily lead to nonscientific thinking, but it certainly has not aided in the scientific endeavor. Scientific inquiry has led to better lives for mankind, from the technology I'm using to communicate this message, to safer and more productive agriculture, to medicine that, in the span of 100 years, has increased the average life expectancy decades. There is no reason to believe it could produce the same results without religion. There is some reason to believe science might be capable of more without religion.
3. The idea that the enterprise of science requires God (or a god) is nonsense. Craig's assertion that God provides a conceptual foundation for science has no basis. Dr. Craig does not expand on how he believes God provides the conceptual foundation in this debate, but I have heard him make similar arguments related to morality. If my assumption is correct, he is arguing that, while we may be able to identify and describe apparent regularities in nature (what we think of as "natural laws"), we don't know why nature abides by these laws. He posits God as the explanation. Equally valid is the suggestion that magic pixies are responsible for maintaining the apparent regularities that govern natural phenomenon. Neither explanation can be verified, and neither explanation increases our knowledge or understanding of how the world works. We aren't enabled to pursue some new avenue of scientific inquiry by assuming God is at the controls any more than we would if we assume pixies are holding the fabric of the natural world together. This assertion is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
The phenomenon of lightning used to be shrouded in mystery. We didn't know what caused the lightning, so we assigned the cause to gods like Zeus and Thor. Through the proper application of scientific inquiry, we have a much better and more useful explanation of lightning. We are able to make certain predictions about when lightning will likely occur, and we been able to develop strategies for protecting ourselves and our property from this destructive natural force. Crediting the gods was merely a way to compensate for our lack of knowledge and understanding. We won't likely ever know why nature abides by the rules we study in science, but not knowing why, does not justify giving a god or pixies or whatever other supernatural force or supernatural being the credit. We don't know why we have natural laws, end of story. Now let's continue the process of identifying and describing them so we can use that knowledge to improve our quality of life.
Summary
I hope you enjoyed this topic, or if not, that it gave you some ideas to ponder. My next post will examine another section of the same debate related to morality.
Thanks for your interest and support,
Gavagai
Lawrence Krauss, though very intelligent and certainly an authority on matters of physics and cosmology, is not the best debater on philosophic subjects, and it seems to me that he must have some gaps in his knowledge of history. If not, I don't see how he could have let slide some of the assertions made by William Lane Craig. Craig is intelligent, well read, and articulate. He is among the best Christian apologists. I thoroughly disagree with him on most every point, but he's one of the few theists to whom I can listen without concluding he is just plain silly (for the other end of the spectrum, see Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron). Krauss did well in the debate overall, despite what YouTube user shockofgod, who posted the debate, might think. Shockofgod declares Craig to have won the debate in his title for the video. There are 3 issues on which I believe Krauss drops the ball and wastes a perfectly good opportunity to counter weak arguments/challenges. In this post, I will only address the first of these issues.
Christianity, the Enlightenment/Science, Rise of Democracy (1:37:50 to 1:40...)
Summary of the video segment:The moderator asks Krauss to choose between the subject of the role Christianity had in the Enlightenment and the rise of democracy, or the role of Christian convictions for certain abolitionists in the early 19th century (eg. William Wilberforce). I had planned to address the issue of slavery in this post, but, as it turned out, adding that issue nearly doubled the length. Neither of the debaters addressed that challenge, but I have much to say on that topic, so I'm going to set that issue aside for now.
Krauss begins his response by acknowledging that there have been scientific developments and contributions that came from Christians; Newton, Galileo, etc. He argues that the whole of the culture, the seat of power, education, and financial resources during the Enlightenment was religion. "It was the only game in town," he argued. Therefore, there was an unavoidable relationship between the two cultural institutions.
Craig counters suggesting that Krauss has missed the point of the argument. Without God, he asserts, there is no conceptual foundation for science. Essentially, one cannot begin the endeavor of scientific inquiry without God. This is why, he argues that science did not arise in the Orient or in Africa.
Dr. Krauss pauses for moment in an apparent attempt to collect his thoughts, but he was only able to come back with a argument that polls of scientists today show that the vast majority are not believers. While that statistic may be true, and it may suggest that a majority of scientists don't see any necessary connection between God beliefs and science, it doesn't make it true. I was pulling my hair out at this point in the video. In fairness to Lawrence Krauss, he had to put together a response on the spot in front of a large audience. I have had a couple of weeks to put together my ideas. However I still think he ought to have been able to come up with something stronger than he did on this subject.
The points I would have tried to draw out on these subjects:
...had I been invited to debate William Land Craig.. haha.
1. Science, as a method of inquiry, did NOT arise from Christian teachings or theology, nor did its principles originate from Christian men. It began in ancient Greece with philosophers who questioned basic assumptions about how we come to know things about the world. These men described and categorized types of logic and established the basic rules and principles of inductive reasoning on which scientific inquiry is founded. We are also indebted to the Greeks for democracy. Again, western civilization inherited these concepts from the ancient Greeks, not medieval or Enlightenment Christians. Science didn't arise in Africa or Asia because the Greek thinkers who spawned these insightful and useful concepts happened to be residents of Europe. If their writings had survived and had passed into the hands of people in other parts of the globe, science and democracy could easily have arisen in cultures that were predominantly Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic.
The principles of science were developed long before Christ, and while Christianity was thriving in the Dark Ages, science and democracy languished. We know this period as the Dark Ages because it was dominated by superstition and religious tyranny. There is no passage in the Bible nor concept among Christian tenets from which scientific principles or the principles of human rights or democracy can be derived. Social, scientific, and technological advancements were revived once secular reason began to take hold again. If Dr. Craig wants to assign credit to a deity for the development of the philosophy of science or democracy, a stronger case can be made for the candidacy of the pagan gods of the Greeks than Yahweh.2. Both historically and today Christians have exerted efforts that have hindered the progress of science when they believe the findings of science to be at odds with their presuppositions about the world derived from the Bible. For example, Galileo was imprisoned because he dared challenge the Ptolemaic
 |
| Ptolemy's model |
Many Christians today shrug this episode of history off saying 'the church leaders at that time were not interpreting the Bible properly'. Meanwhile, many of these same Christians fight against the science of evolution. The opposition to evolution that is expressed by certain Christians is simply another case in which religious beliefs have taken precedence over the evidence and prevailing opinion of the scientific community. There is not a single scientific institution (that isn't bound to doctrinal assumptions) that has given any credence to creationist claims (learn more here and here). 100% of the independent science foundations and institutions are in agreement that the theory of evolution is a well documented theory with overwhelming evidence, but religion fights on. In addition to the theory of evolution, push back on climate change theory has grown among politically conservative Christians despite overwhelming agreement from the scientific community and mounds of published peer reviewed studies confirming the predictions made by the theory. Religion doesn't necessarily lead to nonscientific thinking, but it certainly has not aided in the scientific endeavor. Scientific inquiry has led to better lives for mankind, from the technology I'm using to communicate this message, to safer and more productive agriculture, to medicine that, in the span of 100 years, has increased the average life expectancy decades. There is no reason to believe it could produce the same results without religion. There is some reason to believe science might be capable of more without religion.
3. The idea that the enterprise of science requires God (or a god) is nonsense. Craig's assertion that God provides a conceptual foundation for science has no basis. Dr. Craig does not expand on how he believes God provides the conceptual foundation in this debate, but I have heard him make similar arguments related to morality. If my assumption is correct, he is arguing that, while we may be able to identify and describe apparent regularities in nature (what we think of as "natural laws"), we don't know why nature abides by these laws. He posits God as the explanation. Equally valid is the suggestion that magic pixies are responsible for maintaining the apparent regularities that govern natural phenomenon. Neither explanation can be verified, and neither explanation increases our knowledge or understanding of how the world works. We aren't enabled to pursue some new avenue of scientific inquiry by assuming God is at the controls any more than we would if we assume pixies are holding the fabric of the natural world together. This assertion is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
The phenomenon of lightning used to be shrouded in mystery. We didn't know what caused the lightning, so we assigned the cause to gods like Zeus and Thor. Through the proper application of scientific inquiry, we have a much better and more useful explanation of lightning. We are able to make certain predictions about when lightning will likely occur, and we been able to develop strategies for protecting ourselves and our property from this destructive natural force. Crediting the gods was merely a way to compensate for our lack of knowledge and understanding. We won't likely ever know why nature abides by the rules we study in science, but not knowing why, does not justify giving a god or pixies or whatever other supernatural force or supernatural being the credit. We don't know why we have natural laws, end of story. Now let's continue the process of identifying and describing them so we can use that knowledge to improve our quality of life.
Summary
- Science was not the product of Christianity.
- It was not improved by Christian teachings or theology.
- The historical coexistence of science and Christianity was coincidental and not causal.
- The relationship between the two institutions was and still is often a tenuous, uncomfortable, and combative.
- Science has no need of Christian theology and there is no reason to suppose that the apparent laws in nature are dependent on a god.
- Science produces tangibly useful things that benefit everyone, and religion does not.
- Science has buried God.
I hope you enjoyed this topic, or if not, that it gave you some ideas to ponder. My next post will examine another section of the same debate related to morality.
Thanks for your interest and support,
Gavagai
Comments
Post a Comment