Does_science_make_belief_in_God_obsolete.pdf

(1044 KB) Pobierz
23440338 UNPDF
Does science
make belief in God
obsolete?
Yes, if by…
Steven Pinker
2
No, and yes.
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
4
Absolutely not!
William D. Phillips
7
Not necessarily.
Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
9
Of course not.
Mary Midgley
11
No.
Robert Sapolsky
13
No, but it should.
Christopher Hitchens
15
No.
Keith Ward
17
Yes.
Victor J. Stenger
19
No, not at all.
Jerome Groopman
21
It depends.
Michael Shermer
23
Of course not.
Kenneth Miller
25
No, but only if…
Stuart Kaufman
27
23440338.004.png 23440338.005.png 23440338.006.png
Does science
make belief in God
obsolete?
hirteen views on the question
Online at www.templeton.org/belief
 
INTRODUCTION
on what scientists and philosophers call the Big Questions. We support work
at the world’s top universities in such ields as theoretical physics, cosmology,
evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and social science relating to love, forgiveness,
creativity, purpose, and the nature and origin of religious belief. We encourage informed,
open-minded dialogue between scientists and theologians as they apply themselves to
the most profound issues in their particular disciplines. And, in a more practical vein, we
seek to stimulate new thinking about wealth creation in the developing world, character
education in schools and universities, and programs for cultivating the talents of the gifted.
his booklet neatly embodies our approach to the Big Questions: the contributors are
scholars and thinkers of the irst rank, they address a perennial and much-disputed subject,
and they bring to bear—in civil, elegant prose—a range of diferent perspectives. By
assembling this “conversation” and inviting the public to join in, we intend to promote a
dialogue that transcends familiar rhetoric and stock answers. We aim to turn discourse
on the Big Questions in a more thoughtful, considered direction. It is our hope that this
booklet will be a lasting resource for students, teachers, parents, scientists, clergy, and
anyone else engaged with the great issues of human nature and purpose.
he essays collected here were coordinated and edited by Michael Shermer, who also
contributed a piece of his own. he John Templeton Foundation gratefully acknowledges
Dr. Shermer’s skillful assistance and wise counsel.
Two previous “conversations” on Big Questions at the core of the Foundation’s mandate
may also be of interest to readers. hey can be found online at the following addresses:
Does the universe have a purpose?
www.templeton.org/questions/purpose
Will money solve Africa’s development problems?
www.templeton.org/questions/africa
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION
1
T he John Templeton Foundation serves as a philanthropic catalyst for research
23440338.001.png
 
STEVEN PINkER
Steven Pinker
Yes, if by…
“science” we mean the entire enterprise of secular reason and knowledge (includ-
ing history and philosophy), not just people with test tubes and white lab coats.
Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the
deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis
of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?
Steven Pinker is the
Johnstone Family
Professor in the
department of psychology
at Harvard University.
He is the author of seven
books, including he
Language Instinct,
How the Mind Works,
he Blank Slate, and
most recently, he Stuf
of hought: Language
as a Window into
Human Nature .
Yet over the millennia, there has been an inexorable trend: the deeper we probe
these questions, and the more we learn about the world in which we live, the less
reason there is to believe in God.
Start with the origin of the world. Today no honest and informed person can
maintain that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago and assumed
its current form in six days (to say nothing of absurdities like day and night
existing before the sun was created). Nor is there a more abstract role for God to
play as the ultimate irst cause. his trick simply replaces the puzzle of “Where did
the universe come from?” with the equivalent puzzle “Where did God come from?”
What about the fantastic diversity of life and its ubiquitous signs of design? At
one time it was understandable to appeal to a divine designer to explain it all. No
longer. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace showed how the complexity of
life could arise from the physical process of natural selection among replicators,
and then Watson and Crick showed how replication itself could be understood in physical terms.
Notwithstanding creationist propaganda, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, including our
DNA, the fossil record, the distribution of life on earth, and our own anatomy and physiology (such as
the goose bumps that try to luf up long-vanished fur).
For many people the human soul feels like a divine spark within us. But neuroscience has shown that
our intelligence and emotions consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections in
our brain. True, scholars disagree on how to explain the existence of inner experience—some say it’s a
pseudo-problem, others believe it’s just an open scientiic problem, while still others think that it
shows a limitation of human cognition (like our inability to visualize four-dimensional space-time).
But even here, relabeling the problem with the word “soul” adds nothing to our understanding.
People used to think that biology could not explain why we have a conscience. But the human moral
sense can be studied like any other mental faculty, such as thirst, color vision, or fear of heights.
Evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience are showing how our moral intuitions work, why
they evolved, and how they are implemented within the brain.
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION
2
23440338.002.png
 
STEVEN PINkER
his leaves morality itself—the benchmarks that allow us to criticize and improve our moral intuitions.
It is true that science in the narrow sense cannot show what is right or wrong. But neither can appeals
to God. It’s not just that the traditional Judeo-Christian God endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and
the death penalty for trivial insults. It’s that morality cannot be grounded in divine decree, not even in
principle. Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral? If he had no reason but divine
whim, why should we take his commandments seriously? If he did have reasons, then why not appeal
to those reasons directly?
hose reasons are not to be found in empirical science, but they are to be found in the nature of
rationality as it is exercised by any intelligent social species. he essence of morality is the interchange-
ability of perspectives: the fact that as soon as I appeal to you to treat me in a certain way (to help me
when I am in need, or not to hurt me for no reason), I have to be willing to apply the same standards
to how I treat you, if I want you to take me seriously. hat is the only policy that is logically consistent
and leaves both of us better of. And God plays no role in it.
For all these reasons, it’s no coincidence that Western democracies have experienced three sweeping
trends during the past few centuries: barbaric practices (such as slavery, sadistic criminal punishment,
and the mistreatment of children) have decreased signiicantly; scientiic and scholarly understanding
has increased exponentially; and belief in God has waned. Science, in the broadest sense, is making
belief in God obsolete, and we are the better for it.
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION
3
23440338.003.png
 

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin