richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 55McGrath goes on to quote Stephen Jay Gould in similar vein:'To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionthtime (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simplycannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God'spossible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it;we simply can't comment on it as scientists.' Despite the confident,almost bullying, tone of Gould's assertion, what, actually, is thejustification for it? Why shouldn't we comment on God, asscientists? And why isn't Russell's teapot, or the Flying SpaghettiMonster, equally immune from scientific scepticism? As I shallargue in a moment, a universe with a creative superintendent wouldbe a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is thatnot a scientific matter?Gould carried the art of bending over backwards to positivelysupine lengths in one of his less admired books, Rocks of Ages.There he coined the acronym NOMA for the phrase 'nonoverlappingmagisterialThe net, or magisterium, of science covers the empiricalrealm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does itwork this way (theory). The magisterium of religionextends over questions of ultimate meaning and moralvalue. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do theyencompass all inquiry (consider, for example, themagisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite theold cliches, science gets the age of rocks, and religion therock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religionhow to go to heaven.This sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought.What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is anhonoured guest and science must respectfully slink away?Martin Rees, the distinguished Cambridge astronomer whom Ihave already mentioned, begins his book Our Cosmic Habitat byposing two candidate ultimate questions and giving a NOMAfriendlyanswer. 'The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists atall. What breathes life into the equations, and actualized them in areal cosmos? Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are
56 THE GOD DE L US1ONthe province of philosophers and theologians.' I would prefer to saythat if indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyondthe province of theologians as well (I doubt that philosopherswould thank Martin Rees for lumping theologians in with them). Iam tempted to go further and wonder in what possible sensetheologians can be said to have a province. I am still amused whenI recall the remark of a former Warden (head) of my Oxfordcollege. A young theologian had applied for a junior researchfellowship, and his doctoral thesis on Christian theology provokedthe Warden to say, 'I have grave doubts as to whether it's a subjectat all.'What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmologicalquestions that scientists cannot? In another book I recounted thewords of an Oxford astronomer who, when I asked him one ofthose same deep questions, said: 'Ah, now we move beyond therealm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our goodfriend the chaplain.' I was not quick-witted enough to utter theresponse that I later wrote: 'But why the chaplain? Why notthe gardener or the chef?' Why are scientists so cravenly respectfultowards the ambitions of theologians, over questions thattheologians are certainly no more qualified to answer thanscientists themselves?It is a tedious cliche (and, unlike many cliches, it isn't even true)that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theologyis equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a whyquestion? Not every English sentence beginning with the word'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Somequestions simply do not deserve an answer. What is the colour ofabstraction? What is the smell of hope? The fact that a question canbe phrased in a grammatically correct English sentence doesn'tmake it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention. Nor, evenif the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answerit imply that religion can.Perhaps there are some genuinely profound and meaningfulquestions that are forever beyond the reach of science. Maybequantum theory is already knocking on the door of the unfathomable.But if science cannot answer some ultimate question,what makes anybody think that religion can? I suspect that neither
- Page 10 and 11: PrefaceAs a child, my wife hated he
- Page 12 and 13: PREFACE 3If you feel trapped in the
- Page 14 and 15: PREFACE 5herding cats, because they
- Page 16 and 17: PREFACE 7Free Inquiry, especially,
- Page 18 and 19: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 20 and 21: A DEEPLY RELIGIOUS N O N - B E L I
- Page 22 and 23: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 24 and 25: A D E E PLY R E L I G I O U S N O N
- Page 26 and 27: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 28 and 29: A D E E P L Y RE L 1 G I O U S N O
- Page 30 and 31: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 32 and 33: A DEEPLY R E L I G I O U S N O N -
- Page 34 and 35: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 36 and 37: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 31The God of the
- Page 38 and 39: T H E G O D H Y P O T II E S I S 33
- Page 40 and 41: T II E G O D H Y P O T H E S 1 S 35
- Page 42 and 43: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 37M
- Page 44 and 45: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 39although it ha
- Page 46 and 47: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 41enterprise. Ri
- Page 48 and 49: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 43God; because,
- Page 50 and 51: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 45Anecdotes of s
- Page 52 and 53: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 47Carl Sagan was
- Page 54 and 55: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 49Huxley was not
- Page 56 and 57: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 51can
- Page 58 and 59: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 53in
- Page 62 and 63: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 57the Cambridge
- Page 64 and 65: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 59unequivocally
- Page 66 and 67: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 61non-interventi
- Page 68 and 69: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 63s
- Page 70 and 71: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 65Another typica
- Page 72 and 73: T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67NOMA -
- Page 74 and 75: T H E G O D II Y P O T H E S I S 69
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
56 THE GOD DE L US1ON
the province of philosophers and theologians.' I would prefer to say
that if indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond
the province of theologians as well (I doubt that philosophers
would thank Martin Rees for lumping theologians in with them). I
am tempted to go further and wonder in what possible sense
theologians can be said to have a province. I am still amused when
I recall the remark of a former Warden (head) of my Oxford
college. A young theologian had applied for a junior research
fellowship, and his doctoral thesis on Christian theology provoked
the Warden to say, 'I have grave doubts as to whether it's a subject
at all.'
What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological
questions that scientists cannot? In another book I recounted the
words of an Oxford astronomer who, when I asked him one of
those same deep questions, said: 'Ah, now we move beyond the
realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good
friend the chaplain.' I was not quick-witted enough to utter the
response that I later wrote: 'But why the chaplain? Why not
the gardener or the chef?' Why are scientists so cravenly respectful
towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that
theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than
scientists themselves?
It is a tedious cliche (and, unlike many cliches, it isn't even true)
that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theology
is equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a why
question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word
'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Some
questions simply do not deserve an answer. What is the colour of
abstraction? What is the smell of hope? The fact that a question can
be phrased in a grammatically correct English sentence doesn't
make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention. Nor, even
if the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answer
it imply that religion can.
Perhaps there are some genuinely profound and meaningful
questions that are forever beyond the reach of science. Maybe
quantum theory is already knocking on the door of the unfathomable.
But if science cannot answer some ultimate question,
what makes anybody think that religion can? I suspect that neither