Thursday, May 11, 2006 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

The Emptiness of Theology

by Richard Dawkins

from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 2.

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Posted: Thursday, May 11, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 50 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #69270 by hfaber on September 10, 2007 at 8:58 am

"What makes anyone think that theology is a subject at all?"

A brilliant abstract of religion. Go Richard go!

Other Comments by hfaber

2. Comment #69271 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

Some interesting points. I posted it on a Christian friend's blog. That should stir things up a bit.
The typical christian respose will be some thing like "but it gives us hope".
Stem cell research gives us all hope, and it is more likely to be realised

Other Comments by BillySands

3. Comment #69274 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 9:32 am

If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?

Priceless!

Other Comments by steve99

4. Comment #69275 by irate_atheist on September 10, 2007 at 9:35 am

I can only write in support of this.

Perhaps it is believers wilful ignorance in the face of centuries of scientific progress that really annoys me the most about them. Along with their desire to push their ignorance on children, the gullible and the credulous.

They substitute superstition for knowledge and delusion for rational thought.

That they are allowed to get away with it in the 21st Century, and are publicly rewarded and respected for doing so, is nothing short of scandalous.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

5. Comment #69279 by Philip1978 on September 10, 2007 at 9:41 am

Theology: the understanding of and providing reasoned discourse of religion, spirituality and God or the gods.

Stem cell therapy has the potential to radically change the treatment of human disease.

So essentially we are up against knowing more about an invisible IT that miraculously humans can never know because God is infinite etc or we have the means to cure diseases which have caused the human race untold damage...

Professor Dawkins is completely right

"The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything"

Good article, I hope your christian friends read it Billy!

Cheers, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

6. Comment #69280 by Fedler on September 10, 2007 at 9:45 am

What achievements? Really, I have yet to see a religious denomination with an Office of Scientific Progress, or something to that effect, where they actively seek positive confirmation for their beliefs. Metaphorically speaking, instead of knocking down the blocks of other kids on the playground, where are the block-builders of the religious denominations? Who, within the religious, are actively seeking to positively confirm their beliefs? No one that I've seen.

Other Comments by Fedler

7. Comment #69282 by pewkatchoo on September 10, 2007 at 9:49 am

Absolutely spot on A1 fucking brilliant!

A very good friend of mine's stepson is considering studying Theology at university in Germany. I think that I will send her this!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

8. Comment #69285 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 10:00 am

Guess that Shermer article didn't make a strong impression.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

9. Comment #69287 by Quine on September 10, 2007 at 10:16 am

platitudinously obvious

Wonderful phrase.

Other Comments by Quine

10. Comment #69289 by Bonzai on September 10, 2007 at 10:39 am

Theology = Institutionalized ignorance and enshrined complacency.

Not only does theology offer nothing in understanding our origin and world around us. It actually prevents such knowledge. I will go even further than Richard, theology is not just neutrally empty, it contributes negatively.

The one size fits all non answer "God made it so" is a most effective way to stop further questions. The attitude is that by giving a name to our ignorance we can all pretend that we have figured out the answer and safely go home and pray. Indeed what more can you ask once we accept that the universe, the human condition and everything are but the whims of some beings (or a being)of whom we know nothing and in principle cannot know except through "revelations" to the "prophets" (basically village idiots)? There is indeed nothing to do, no question to ask. We can only prostrate ourselves to worship the "unknowable" and accept our ignorance as a permanent condition.

Leaving aside historical persecutions and the erection of taboos against human inquiries, at the very least theology fosters intellectual laziness and a complacent mindset.This celebration of ignorance and complacency is displayed prominently on the horrendously bloated Alister-McGrath thread by the tedious and circular posts of the two God apologists.

Theology is a most effective way to kill any desire to know, it has nothing to teach except that we should tremble before the unknown.If theology has been the only game in town throughout history we would still think lightning bolts are the gods' weapon to punish the wicked.

"Science and religion need each other" is a theme expoused primarily by theologians.

Science needs religion like we need the plague. Thank Zeus that at least in the West scientists no longer need the endorsement of theologians in pursuing knowledge (unfortunately in the Muslim world it is still obligatory for well meaning people to cite the Quran to prove that the "true teaching" of Islam encourages science as if the ranting of a 7th century ignoramus should matter one way or the other, it is taken for granted that science needs the permission of theology) On the other hand, theology, having been discredited so throughly,--at least to the thinking person,-- has a lot of incentives to hang on to the coat tail of science to make itself look more respectable.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #69296 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 11:22 am

Guess that Shermer article didn't make a strong impression.

It would have been interesting indeed if it had influenced this article, as it was published some time ago.

Other Comments by steve99

12. Comment #149013 by Roy_H on March 25, 2008 at 12:03 am

Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake.

But scientists are still baffled how to it was actually done (Turin shroud).

Other Comments by Roy_H

13. Comment #149025 by epeeist on March 25, 2008 at 1:39 am

Let's be slightly careful here. At Easter I can normally get to a performance of one of the world's most sublime pieces of music the "St. Matthew Passion". I certainly wouldn't want to see music, art and literature dismissed as "empty", even that stemming from religion.

A question - let us suppose theology did disappear from universities, there would still be a need for some of the things it discusses. Could these be completely dispersed into social anthropology, history, sociology and psychology?

Other Comments by epeeist

14. Comment #149028 by phil rimmer on March 25, 2008 at 1:54 am

Could these be completely dispersed into social anthropology, history, sociology and psychology?

Include philosophy, literature and politics and the answer is yes.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

15. Comment #149040 by Ygern on March 25, 2008 at 3:04 am

A Religious Believer puts me in mind of a feral animal that has a thorn in its paw. No matter how much you try to help to remove the thorn, the animal will snarl and growl at you, mistrusting your intentions, and unable to rise above the pain that it is in.

Humans ought to fare better, being able to reason better than animals, but I rarely find this to be the case when it comes to the God-Issue. Sometimes I just have to shrug and let them go back to licking their paws.

Other Comments by Ygern

16. Comment #180983 by stillseeking on May 16, 2008 at 8:39 am

Now if science could come up with a cure for arrogance, we'd all be swimming.

Other Comments by stillseeking

17. Comment #180993 by Caudimordax on May 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

I know this thread is comparitively old, but

Fedler - maybe they're not "doing" science, but they certainly are trying to appear to be going through the motions - see article about "young earth geologists"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25wwln-geologists-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=young earth geologists&st=cse&oref=slogin

Great article - sorry I missed it when it appeared

Other Comments by Caudimordax

18. Comment #181000 by Tezcatlipoca on May 16, 2008 at 9:05 am

I don't think there's really any question how the shroud was done. Tempura paint.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

19. Comment #204330 by Ed-words on July 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Theology - fantasy in search of a rationale

Other Comments by Ed-words

20. Comment #204331 by JHJEFFERY on July 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Epeist

I have (often) heard that argument: where would art and music be without religion. Better off, I would say. Art and especially music do not come from religion but from humans. It just so happened that during the emergence of reproducible music, the Catholic Church was in complete control of everything, including the subsidies neede by the artists. In other words, the artists were required, both by peer pressure and economic reality, to creat in the name of the master--the church.

If you want absolute proof that religion does not have a positive influence on music, listen to some modern Christian music--if you can.

Caio.

Other Comments by JHJEFFERY

21. Comment #204353 by Rational_G on July 4, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Great stuff.

Other Comments by Rational_G

22. Comment #223872 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I agree with most of this. However:

What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Creative writing is a subject. It is a subject that has cured no disease, nor created no rocket ships (real ones at least). But no sane person would argue to have creative writing courses dropped from universities.

So what makes me think theology is a subject? The same thing that makes me think creative writing is a subject.

It is not a subject that answers questions, nor should anyone consider it as such. But that does not mean that the study of beliefs should not exist.

In fact, theology, in trying to create arguments for god, can prod science along.

Theology speculates on issues for which they have no data or evidence. Scientists can draw from that new areas of research. Questions precede answers, and for all its faults theology has always been good at posing some interesting big questions.

Other Comments by J Mac

23. Comment #223875 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm

But, if you already have a department that studies mythology, why would a theology department add anything?

Other Comments by Quine

24. Comment #223876 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm

That's an argument to not ADD theology to a school.

But the fact that I can combine other fields of study does not devalue them.

I could claim that archeology and political science already cover everything in history. So should we get rid of history?

Other Comments by J Mac

25. Comment #223878 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 3:23 pm

J Mac, do you think the FSM should be included in the current theology class coverage?

Other Comments by Quine

26. Comment #223880 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Theology classes are not particular to any god. But if they'd like to use the FSM as an aspect of their thinking, why not?

The whole concept of the FSM is essentially an exercise in theology. We have this deity, noodles and all, who created the world and heaven with beer volcanoes. Is that a coherent system? That is a theological question.

Other Comments by J Mac

27. Comment #223883 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Theology is a subset of philosophy.

Other Comments by J Mac

28. Comment #223884 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Theology as an academic area is far different from any of the crap they teach in churches.

Although some "evangelical colleges" might label an aspect of their brainwashing as theology it most certainly is not.

Other Comments by J Mac

29. Comment #223886 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:45 pm

In fact, in depth studies of theology causes many "believers" to give up their faith. If not in its entirety at least to a bit of a deist "metaphorical" stance.

Theology forces individuals to think critically about their own beliefs and the consequences or implications of them. And as RD pointed out in the Four Horsemen (as well as in other discussions) the educated theologians don't believe most of the crap that is taught in the local churches. They don't buy into transubstantiation or the virgin birth.

The problem with theists is their ignorance of their own beliefs. Most of them never think them through to their logical conclusion. Theology is the means of doing just that.

One cannot carry the idea that god (in any meaningful sense) is real once they have logically deduced all the implications of that statement.

Other Comments by J Mac

30. Comment #223891 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Precisely.

Other Comments by J Mac

31. Comment #223893 by Goldy on August 3, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Not only does theology offer nothing in understanding our origin and world around us. It actually prevents such knowledge. I will go even further than Richard, theology is not just neutrally empty, it contributes negatively.

I may be wrong, but I believe some posters here have done a theology degree...and they were't the religious posters either. Maybe, just maybe, theology is useful in reminding people why they are atheist :-D

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #223894 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 4:05 pm

So, J Mac, is it your position that any argument against the content of the study does not necessarily apply to the validity of the study?

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #223898 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm

So, J Mac, is it your position that any argument against the content of the study does not necessarily apply to the validity of the study?

Not at all. But from the question it sounds as though you have an argument against the content of the study. I'm curious what that could be.

Note that arguments against the existence of god are not against the content of theology; they ARE the content of theology.

Other Comments by J Mac

34. Comment #223899 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:20 pm

It was not my education in science that caused me to reject my faith, but rather my education in theology.

A legitimate education in theology is in fact the most effective way to convert a believer to an atheist.

Arguments AGAINST god certainly are fair game, and in fact are not rare, in professional theology.

Other Comments by J Mac

35. Comment #223903 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm

J Mac, I agree with almost all of what you have posted. I know other theologists who came to Atheism through their study.

My position is that the department is called "theology" for historical reasons, but should be called something like "religious studies." Yes, it came from philosophy, but theology, as such, assumes its own conclusion at the start (that is what separates it from philosophy), which is a classic failure of logic before it even gets going.

Other Comments by Quine

36. Comment #223906 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm

assumes its own conclusion at the start

I will agree that, unfortunately, this is true at most modern "bible colleges" or "evangelical colleges." But it certainly is not true at legitimate mainline seminaries. (Or at least it wasn't in the recent past).

Assuming such a thing from the start IS a failure of logic that would not be allowed in theology any more than any other field.

Certainly there are forms of theological reasoning that take a certain form of god as an assumed premise, but that does not mean it is assumed true. In other words one can reason: IF god exists, and IF he conforms to the Christian view, what would be the implications. And much (but not all) theology is in that realm. But there is still much in the realm of establishing or refuting those premises.

Certainly there are many theologians who DO believe god is real. And certainly they'd like to be able to have it assumed in their argument. But they don't.

Theology has no more failures of logic than any other form of meta-physics.

Other fields of study work on unproven premises as well. Evolution is often foolishly faulted by creationists as not explaining the "origin of life." To which the only reasonable response is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the diversification of life, or the origin of species.

The origin of life was a separate question. Only recently have we had workable ideas of abiogenesis, none of which yet have significant evidence. None of this stop evolutionists from studying evolution.

In theology there are groups that can study the implications of the existence of god apart from those that study whether or not god exist. Both are certainly important topics in theology.

Other Comments by J Mac

37. Comment #223907 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

While I already disagreed with the "assumes the conclusion" statement on the assumption part, the conclusion part is also wrong.

There is no conclusion to assume.

You may argue that a certain (inadequate) theologian has assumed god existed then concluded that god exists (sadly this is common in the most vocal theists.)

But to say the whole field of study has a conclusion is just nonsense. The field of study is a means of constructing arguments for or against different ideas. Each argument has a conclusion, the field does not.

Other Comments by J Mac

38. Comment #223908 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 5:00 pm

"God does not exist" could be, and has been, the conclusion of some theological arguments.

Would you think that they assumed that conclusion before starting?

Other Comments by J Mac

39. Comment #223912 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm

You also commented on changing the name to "religious studies"... well we can change the name if you like, but thats just semantics. I suspect it is not just the name you wish to change but the content, and so that is the assertion to which I will respond.

Religious studies generally refers to something along the lines of comparative religions. It is a means of studying what some people believe. It teaches ABOUT the customs and traditions, and maybe just maybe ABOUT the arguments for and against any given deity. It is rare however that a religious studies class would have students CONSTRUCT arguments for and against various deities.

The "art" of constructing such arguments IS the field of theology.

Any philosopher worth their salt should also know that forcing oneself to construct a reasonable argument for something they don't believe, or against something they do believe, is a very valuable exercise. Both as a means to challenge ones own perceptions, and as a means of sharpening one's logical teeth.

Other Comments by J Mac

40. Comment #223913 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm

That last point is why I get such a good laugh at the creationist side of the evolution debates. Quite simply they are idiots in every sense. Of course most people here would disagree with their conclusion, but I mean they are idiots because they can't even make a half decent case.

It's like training with the worlds greatest chess players for years on end in preparation for one match. But when you get there its in an elementary school yard and your opponents are all playing tic-tac-toe.

Other Comments by J Mac

41. Comment #223932 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm

J Mac, first, I will grant that what goes on under the name of theology at 'Bible Colleges' need not be considered. Now, that theology assumes the conclusion, was certainly the case in the time of Anselm of Canterbury, and that standard was preserved, universally, for many centuries. I am sure that the influence of philosophers starting at The Enlightenment has changed this in many institutions. You may have personal experience of this, so I would look to you for it, but when do you think this changed for the majority?

Theology has no more failures of logic than any other form of meta-physics.

Which is why meta-physics is limited to speculation (and some say is a dead subject).

Other fields of study work on unproven premises as well. Evolution is often foolishly faulted by creationists as not explaining the "origin of life." To which the only reasonable response is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the diversification of life, or the origin of species.

The origin of life was a separate question. Only recently have we had workable ideas of abiogenesis, none of which yet have significant evidence. None of this stop evolutionists from studying evolution.

You do understand the difference between an "unproven premise" and an "unfalsifiable premise," don't you?

In theology there are groups that can study the implications of the existence of god apart from those that study whether or not god exist. Both are certainly important topics in theology.

Speculation about unfalsifiable premises is important when writing a novel so the reader is not pushed out of the envelope of believability.^[ref]

Each argument has a conclusion, the field does not.

If only ... Yes, it is true that someone in a theology department can stand up and make a proper argument of ontology which does not start from the conclusion, but that argument is the actual foundation business (ontology in general) of the philosophy department.

"God does not exist" could be, and has been, the conclusion of some theological arguments.

Would you think that they assumed that conclusion before starting?

The "Department for the Study of Something that Doesn't Exist"? I think I would rather go down the hall to the "Department of Being Hit Over the Head Lessons."

Religious studies generally refers to something along the lines of comparative religions. It is a means of studying what some people believe. It teaches ABOUT the customs and traditions, and maybe just maybe ABOUT the arguments for and against any given deity.

Yes, that is what I would like.

The "art" of constructing such arguments IS the field of theology.

It is refreshing to hear someone admit it, for a change, instead of the usual claim of actually knowing something about the supernatural.

Any philosopher worth their salt should also know that forcing oneself to construct a reasonable argument for something they don't believe, or against something they do believe, is a very valuable exercise. Both as a means to challenge ones own perceptions, and as a means of sharpening one's logical teeth.

Agreed! That is why any philosopher worth his/her salt is in the philosophy department.

Of course your last point (tic-tac-toe) is right on the mark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian." - Denis Diderot

Other Comments by Quine

42. Comment #223940 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Now, that theology assumes the conclusion, was certainly the case in the time of Anselm of Canterbury, and that standard was preserved, universally, for many centuries.

You do have a good point there. However I was hoping to make a distinction between the field in general, and any individual member of the field. Theologians have conclusions (and you are free to reject all of them) theology does not.

meta-physics is limited to speculation (and some say is a dead subject).

I am surprised to hear that. However, given that statement I'd say your critiques of theology could be fair. Often atheists have a fit about theology just because they see it as "all about religious stuff," which I think is a sad misconception.

If you place theology in the same boat as meta-physics you are welcome to let them both sink. I just worry about those who would say subjects such as meta-physics is worthwhile and theology is not.

Yes of course, and that was a bad choice of words on my part. The premise of gods existence certainly can be given support or refutation through logical argument. This is what I was referring to.

Yes, it is true that someone in a theology department can stand up and make a proper argument of ontology which does not start from the conclusion, but that argument is the actual foundation business (ontology in general) of the philosophy department.

Is the fact that they have some of the same business grounds for eliminating one of them? If so how would you choose which is to go? (Obviously no one here has a great love for theology, but I'm speaking generally; two fields can have similar subject matter and coexist.)

In many ways I agree with this sentiment. I am a biologist after all not a theologian. However there is no harm in exploring ideas thoroughly if for no other reason than to become better at demonstrating their falsehood. It is easy for an atheist to think that atheism should be the default until there is evidence of a god. I certainly agree from a logical standpoint. However, historically theism HAS BEEN the default position. It is in our nature (generally) to conjure up deities. It is a human universal that such claims are made. It is worth exploring the truth value, or lack-there-of of such claims.

In a way it is like aesthetics. One painting may not actually BE more beautiful than the other, but it is intriguing to study why people may rule in favor of one or the other.

Agreed! That is why any philosopher worth his/her salt is in the philosophy department.

Ha. Perhaps this is the changing times and you are correct. But if you get the opportunity I'd encourage you to go hang out at a mainline seminary sometime and strike up a conversation with the professors. I think you may be quite surprised. Not that I think any of your views would change, but they would be challenged - you would in fact be playing chess, rather than tic-tac-toe.

Other Comments by J Mac

43. Comment #223941 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I've got to agree (with epeeist and phil rimmer) that the subject matter of theology can be entirely subsumed under other academic fields. My own U. doesn't have a theology or religious studies degree. Or at least hadn't for a long time---I believe they are lobbying successfully to get one instituted.

Then we have the question whether it should. I'll follow Quine on this one. We know the subject matter of theology seems mostly to be (i) history (of religions, religious ideas), (ii) textual interpretation, (iii) metaphysics, with a smattering of anthropology, psychology, this and that. We also know the subject matter's main theme, supernatural stuff, is imaginary if not outright incoherent. On that ground alone, it deserves to get dissolved into "neighboring" disciplines, probably largely into history and philosophy. [edit]"History" construed as common to many disciplines in the humanities, as well as history of science.[/edit]

Side note: as a sometime metaphysician, I can assure Quine that his namesake probably did more to rescue metaphysics from positivism than anyone, and the subject is---for better or worse---still quite healthy.

Other Comments by fizhburn

44. Comment #223944 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm

My own views actually are that theology is of little use. And I could agree it should go. I have been playing a bit of devils advocate here. However there is one significant and important aspect of theology which is often overlooked.

I've heard rumors of these "camp quest" camps and one of their activities having something to do with constructing arguments about an invisible pink unicorn. Clearly a non-subject if there ever was one. But also quite worthwhile in that the construction of the arguments themselves is what is valued.

This is something that philosophy classes certainly COULD do, but unfortunately I don't know that they DO.

I keep thinking of debate classes, they may touch on this, as often students are assigned to argue for the side they are personally against, ie the conservative christian would be assigned to argue in favor of abortion, the liberal would have to argue against it.

If we loose the ability to construct the best possible argument for an opposing view we will never have the best possible argument for our own view.

Other Comments by J Mac

45. Comment #223948 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Essentially it is the logical argument for the sake of honing argument that is valuable.

Often much of what is debated or argued has so much overwhelming empirical evidence that no argument is needed (ie evolution in the current day.)

But when you approach issues that don't have evidence no one wants to touch them.

One example of course is abiogenesis. There are a number of vague IDEAS currently circulating, but as of yet there is no evidence. Most scientists are content to just wait it out until there is evidence. That is absolutely fine.

But are philosophers hashing it over? Are philosophers evaluating the implications of any of the alternate ideas of abiogenesis? If they start developing the ideas now we will have a head start on future exploration when the evidence comes in.

Other Comments by J Mac

46. Comment #223953 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm

J Mac,

It's been a couple of hundred years since a philosopher has offered an argument for deism that's seen as a serious problem (as in, one to be taken as a major research paradigm).

I suppose the impossibility of a physical explanation for abiogenesis would be an indication that new work is needed. But research in this area seems to be promising, and the physical sciences have a good track record with empirical problems, so there isn't a whole lot of point in speculating about it in particular. More generally, it would be a special problem in the theory of causation (How did something bridge the relevant gap? Would it have to be aliens, or is the concept of "supernatural force" coherent?).

Other Comments by fizhburn

47. Comment #223958 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 8:01 pm

No, I am not saying anyone should try to answer without empirical evidence the questions of abiogenesis. But someone should be considering the implications of each possibility.

Its like a chess game, good players are always looking many moves ahead. I can think "If he moves his queen there where will that leave me, what can I do. Then if he moves his queen here, and I move my rook, what likely responses will he have, and how can I respond to them." All that thought process can and should be going on long before the opponent moves ANYWHERE.

There is no reason to wait for the evidence to start making CONDITIONAL ideas: IF we find evidence that self replicating RNA molecules were the predecessor of DNA where do we go with that, what does that mean.

Other Comments by J Mac

48. Comment #223959 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Abiogenesis may, in retrospect, be a poor example.

Life on other planets may be better. There is no empirical evidence. So it is utterly pointless to make any claims of truth. But we can start thinking of possibilities.

Alternative biology/biochemistry is a very small field addressing this. If there is life somewhere else, there is no reason to assume it will be anything like us. There is no reason to assume it would be carbon based. So why not explore ideas of what could be possible and not possible logically?

Other Comments by J Mac

49. Comment #223980 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Comment #223941 by fizhburn:

Side note: as a sometime metaphysician, I can assure Quine that his namesake probably did more to rescue metaphysics from positivism than anyone, and the subject is---for better or worse---still quite healthy

Just remember that limitations in positivism do not automatically translate to anything good for metaphysics. That would be a false dichotomy. Even if you know that truths exist that are not reachable by empirical evidence, metaphysics cannot be relied upon to tell you what those truths really are (i.e. the answer to the question, not just that there is the question). Quantum science has shown us that we have to be very careful about what realms our 'normal' logic can reliably cover. What if there is a metaphysical "double slit experiment" in which we think our metaphysical reasoning tells us some (untestable) truth. How would we know if we had, or had not, stepped into another of those 'different' logic realms?

Other Comments by Quine

50. Comment #223997 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Quine,

I share a certain skepticism toward metaphysics as generally practised nowadays. But.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean that "metaphysics cannot be relied upon to tell you what those truths really are". On the one hand, there is the question of producing truths, which pace your parenthetical can be done without those truths being fully explicable. On the other hand, there is explaining truths, which is giving some equivalent, and probably longer, formulation of the same ideas. In the latter regard, we can't guarantee beforehand that we won't hit any conceptual walls. We can of course appeal to the Kripkenstein idea that what can't be formulated doesn't exist. I'm comfortable with that. But the possibility of error doesn't undermine the field of inquiry. Do you see some systematic criticism of metaphysics as decisive?

Other Comments by fizhburn

Reload Comments | Back to Top