Module 5 Discussion & Replies

STUDENT REPLIES

**reply to 2 people for all 3 questions (a, b, c)

A)

NOAH:

Question A: How plausible is Richard Dawkins' view that science discredits religion? Does Dembski offer a coherent response?

To put it very simply I don't think Dawkins says anything in the text that is incorrect. However, I think it's important to point out what I see as an issue of wording. In this class, we seem to keep using the terms "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably, and I take some ire with this. Granted, Dawkins is doing the same thing, presenting all of his evidence against specifically Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists. That caveat aside, Dawkins isn't presenting any ideas I can disagree with. Yes, Christianity does attempt to provide explanations for scientific phenomena, and yes, Christianity often fails to perform its supposed function of answering questions of truth, meaning, and morality. In a very literal sense, however, I would not say that this means science discredits religion, just that science discredits modern Christianity. One of these things is a much less impressive feat than the other.

The response from Dembski is not coherent. Dembksi attempts to prove that Christianity can provide answers to scientific questions, and that embracing religious ideas would expand the scope of science, yet the answers and ideas he supports are explicitly unscientific. This is not an opinion, regardless of which side of the debate you land on. Intelligent design is not a falsifiable concept, it is not relevant to scientific discussion. In that context it should be fairly clear that Dembski's arguments are nonsense. Frankly, the poor level of intellectual discourse present in his writing was clear the moment he went out of his way to refer to a harmless movie as "propaganda" as a way of setting the stage for his arguments.

LUCY:

I believe that Dawkin's argument is plausible because we certainly have reason to favor scientific explanations over religious ones, therefore we can only trust answers from science, which discredits religion since it is a unreliable source of information in comparison. The clash between religion and science is obvious, and the two cannot coexist without significant sacrifice; one cannot believe in both without compromising either some of their religious beliefs in favor of science or rejecting science in favor of faith. I think it's obvious that Dawkins believes the more damaging compromise is rejection of science as this overrides critical judgment.

On the other hand, Dembski does not respond to Dawkins argument, but entirely misconstrues science based on his personal views, when he fails to see that science requires people to suspend their preconceptions. He seems to not understand evolution and simplifies the process to the point where he can refute it, where he doesn’t even make much of an argument. His ‘design filter’ is also intrinsically flawed since he believes that everything with complexity and specificity must be intelligently designed, but never once actually addresses the religious implications of intelligent design. He never once clarifies how the designer fits into this equation, and what the nature of the designer, e.g God, is, especially since there are so many imperfections throughout nature despite being designed. The examples he uses to preface this argument, which is predominantly filler that he takes way too to explain, are to give himself some sort of credibility, but end up making him look uneducated because he uses unrelated examples to create a criterion that is not suited to judge evolutionary sciences. It is purely pseudoscience, and he is so convinced of his own argument that he fails to even attempt to prove that it checks out.

B)

NOAH:

Question B: What is the problem of religious exclusivism, according to Paul Griffiths? Why does he think that it is necessary to acknowledge the value of religious exclusivism?

The problem with religious exclusivism, as I think Griffiths sees it, is that it results in stagnation. When every religion believes they have the whole truth and that all others should be disregarded, it becomes basically impossible for legitimate religious discourse to take place. Griffiths generally seems to be arguing for some sort of balance to be struck between exclusivism and pluralism, as he sees the need for religious ideas to grow and thrive, but he seems unwilling to commit to it. I don't think he can fully acknowledge or support pluralism as it would somehow cheapen the Christian religious experience.

LUCY:

Issue that arises due to heavily integrated different religious communities is exclusivity, where the members of the religion are discriminatory towards those outside of their faith, especially those that are considered of opposing beliefs to their own. Griffiths acknowledges this as being unproductive, especially since each group is convinced their religion is the only correct portrayal. Acknowledgment of the exclusivity of religion dismantles what he considers to be the pluralist paradigm that has the intention of distorting the uniqueness and value to Christianity, and prevents the formation of effective inter-religious dialogues. Griffith encourages this communication between exclusivist religions, one that still values the uniqueness of each religious group, which he sees impossible if all religions are instead reduced to one generic ideology.

C)

NOAH:

Question C: Does MacIntyre's view that we must have a knowledge of the just independently of our knowledge of God entail that we are making God a finite being? Why or why not?

I think overall I can agree with this perspective. If God gives commands which are unjust, then clearly we humans would have understanding of some greater morality than God, and therefore God would be limited in his knowledge and his morality. I think this is more likely than assuming that God has domain over perfect morality, as I would rather believe that the horrible actions he has committed are unjust rather than believe that true perfect morality would permit such things.

LUCY:

Yes, if we have morals separate from God, then God cannot be all encompassing. If such human knowledge exists that acts independently, or rather, regardless of God, this discredits God if our own judgements go against what we interpret as his intentions, but even that is up to question. In a world where a perfect God would commit what we view as unjust actions, we cannot trust God’s commands since they are either immoral by our standard, which invalidates God as an infinite morally perfect being, or we are unable to decipher his true intentions. If we cannot distinguish God’s commands from unjust actions, then we view God as being purposefully deceitful because why else would God create a human moral compass if it cannot distinguish God’s good intentions from injustice? Any limitation in God’s nature would make him reducible, and since his morality is not all-encompassing, he is not only finite, but also not God (nonexistent).