Thursday, February 18, 2016

We Are Better Than You


One of the most common tropes you hear from religious people is some variation of the theme "we are better than you".  The "we" may refer to religious people in general, or it may refer to any subdivision in the taxonomy of religious beliefs and cultures.  The "you" refers to anyone who is not identified as being part of the select group.  Claims of this sort are therefore an expression of some kind of tribalism.  These days, with the declining rates of religious belief, and the corresponding rise of alarm and anxiety among believers, there is deepening concern that the "others" represent an existential threat to their religious culture.

In response to this perceived threat, they tend to revert to the behavioral patterns of their ancestors of long ago who lived in tribal groups with strong social bonding, and fought for their survival against rival groups.  They enhance the social bonding within their own group by differentiating themselves from the "others", often through the use of stereotypes and various dehumanizing devices.  In this way, it becomes morally acceptable to engage them in battle, to inflict harm or punishment, or to treat them dismissively or with disrespect.

There are various kinds of claims made by today's religious people that attempt to differentiate themselves by asserting their own superiority.  You hear things like "we are moral and you lack morality" or "we are rational and you are irrational" or "we are charitable and you are not".  Of course, none of these claims are based in fact.  They are merely assertions made by the group that defines itself as religious, that their affiliation with this group makes them better than the others who are perceived as their enemies, so they can pat each other on the back and and rejoice in their shared superiority.

Now Victor Reppert has pointed out yet another of these claims: that science has its foundations in the rise of monotheistic culture.  This view has been stated much more eloquently by Nancy Pearcey, who also includes the mandatory jab at the atheist community, accusing them of unjustly trying to claim the credit for the rise of science, which truly belongs, in her view, to Christians.

The central point of Pearcey's thesis is that it was a single supreme being, as creator of the world, who imposed a regularity on nature that forms the basis from which scientific investigation can proceed, and it was this observation that led Christians of the late middle ages to want to explore and understand God's creation in a rigorous manner, which was the foundation of modern science.  Pearcey rejects Greek, Chinese, and other ancient cultures as establishing the foundations of science because they stopped short of developing modern scientific practice.  She insists that historians are now in agreement that science was founded on Christian thinking.  One could easily conclude, on this basis, that modern science would not exist at all, if it weren't for Christian thinking.

But there are also views of the history of science that are based more on fact than on Christian apologetics.  It is true that modern scientific method arose in Christian Europe, beginning in the late middle ages, and flourishing in the age of enlightenment.  It is equally true that it was built on the foundations established by other non-Christian cultures, including the Egyptians and the Greeks.  And historians recognize their contributions to the establishment of science in modern times.  As pointed out in this article, it was the regularity of nature that led to some of the earliest scientific developments in non-monotheistic cultures around the world.  The monotheistic God had nothing to do with it.  And perhaps it's no coincidence that the flourishing of scientific and logical thinking in ancient Greece was accompanied by a rise in atheistic thinking

Furthermore, if it is true that monotheism leads to scientific thinking, then one would expect that the ancient Hebrews would have outshone their neighbors, the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks, in scientific development.  As it turns out, they were much too busy waging tribal warfare for the glory of Yahweh, while their polytheistic neighbors were developing the foundations of science.  The Hebrews preferred their view of an angry God who wreaked havoc at will, and performed all kinds of miraculous feats that certainly were not in keeping with the regularity of nature.

And what about Christian culture?  I have previously pointed out that the Christian church has suppressed scientific development throughout history, up to and including the present day.  To be sure, the pioneers of modern science were Christians, but it stands to reason that in a society where everyone was Christian, it would be Christians who were the first to defy and break away from church dogma.  The age of enlightenment seems to be more a product of the rise of secular universities and international commerce than of any religious doctrine.  Without the rise of Christianity in Europe, perhaps the development of modern scientific method would have happened a thousand years sooner, in a continuation of the Greco-Roman traditions of science and technology.

But leave it to Christian apologists to claim all the credit for science on behalf of their tribe.  They have to make the case that they're better than us.  I certainly don't want to overstate the contribution of atheistic thinking to the development of science.  But I do think it's worth pointing out that in the European age of enlightenment, as was the case in ancient Greece, the rise of secularism and non-theistic thinking accompanied the rise of scientific thinking.  One could reasonably conclude at least that scientific thinking leads to atheistic thinking.  All those Christians who want to take credit for science should be cognizant that they are taking credit for atheism as well.


17 comments:

  1. "To be sure, the pioneers of modern science were Christians, but it stands to reason that in a society where everyone was Christian, it would be Christians who were the first to defy and break away from church dogma."

    This sounds as if Christianity was a choice. It would be more accurate and epistemologically correct to write:

    'To be sure, the pioneers of modern science were Christians, but it stands to reason that in a society where everyone could only be Christian, it would be Christians who were the first to defy and break away from church dogma.'

    It can not be overstated that The Enlightenment begins with the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The rise of the new science progressively undermines not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that had served to constrain and guide philosophical inquiry. The dramatic success of the new science in explaining the natural world, in accounting for a wide variety of phenomena by appeal to a relatively small number of elegant mathematical formulae, promotes philosophy (in the broad sense of the time, which includes natural science) from a handmaiden of theology, constrained by its purposes and methods, to an independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles." [Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]

    The age of enlightenment was a watershed in the growth of the human intellect when the explanatory power of science, as a truly universal explanatory mechanism, simply blanketed theism, exposing it as the perverse, idiosyncratic and highly tendentious alternate explanatory tool we see in front of us today. And the irony of Christian theism as an explanatory tool, as Christian would have us believe is 'kosher', is that it can't even do a proper job of explaining why a billion believers who are just as fervent as they are, prefer Hinduism and a further billion-and-a-half believers 'know' Islam to be THE correct explanation, apart from, "they pray to the wrong God".

    The internet, one of the truly seminal products of science and human ingenuity, is where religions come to die. As noted in Salon a little while ago: "Tyson is an incarnation of the biggest threat that organized religion has ever faced: the internet.

    Josh McDowell, Camp Crusade leader, agrees the internet is an existential threat to Christianity. Religion can no longer control the dissemination of information among its unsuspecting captive audience, the children, as it once was able. And bad religious ideas and beliefs can no longer be promulgated with impunity.

    It's good to see the light of reason and good sense shine on the shadow world of religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have always believed that knowledge is the bane of religion, and of course, the internet brings information to people around the world that used to be isolated from knowledge.

      Delete



    2. PapalintonFebruary 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM

      "To be sure, the pioneers of modern science were Christians, but it stands to reason that in a society where everyone was Christian, it would be Christians who were the first to defy and break away from church dogma."


      >>>>that's wrong. The major figures like Newton and Boyle were devout. they were not just Christians because everyone was. anyone who studies their lives knows this. it's been a major discovery in history
      of science.


      "
      The age of enlightenment was a watershed in the growth of the human intellect "

      so were the Middle ages. you are just repeating the old tired story of modernism that historians now laugh at. The atheist metanarrative. The atheist romantic saga of self aggrandizement.

      Delete
    3. Joe, that was not my comment at February 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM. It was a quote from Skep drawn from his OP, second last paragraph.

      You say: "The major figures like Newton and Boyle were devout. they were not just Christians because everyone was."

      Sure they were. They were christians just like any other. But in a world replete with wall-to-wall christians one indistinguishable from the other the only way one could claw themselves to the the top of the heap above the ordinary masses was to publicly display and strut the grossest level of piety and the one-upmanship sanctimony of the devout.

      Your claim this is a major discovery in the history of science tells us absolutely nothing about and contributes nothing towards the sciences and everything about what Christians imagine is important. And you wonder why there is a deep and growing disconnect between purported christian truth claims and what represents reality to people in contemporary society.

      "So were the Middle Ages."

      Hardly. Not a patch on the pivotal mindshift of the intellect that literally and figuratively blossomed in the age of the Enlightenment. There is no stepping down from the train as humanity travels into the post-Christian era.

      It is very hard to appreciate the enormity of the change when one is so rusted on to primitive superstitious supernaturalism as an explanatory tool about us, the world, the universe. But I understand people do eventually get used to it and begin to understand why the change from an old primitive and insufficient explanatory mechanism to a new and much more epistemologically-grounded and robust explanatory paradigm is inexorable. That's the nature of intellectual growth and development.

      Delete
    4. Joe, that was not my comment at February 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM. It was a quote from Skep drawn from his OP, second last paragraph.

      ok

      You say: "The major figures like Newton and Boyle were devout. they were not just Christians because everyone was."

      Sure they were. They were christians just like any other.

      No that is wrong and it's been a major issue in the history of science over the last 50 years There was a time when the academy fed the notion you are going by,. No more. research since the 60s di8sproves it.




      But in a world replete with wall-to-wall christians one indistinguishable from the other the only way one could claw themselves to the the top of the heap above the ordinary masses was to publicly display and strut the grossest level of piety and the one-upmanship sanctimony of the devout.

      that is an ideological assumption based u[on your likesand dislikes. fortuantley histoirans are more into actual proof. those who have read the diaries and private papers of those men know they were totally convinced of God's reality above and beyond the normal sense of just accepting what was popular. In fact Newton was secretly an Arian, while he was wrong it proves he wasn't just going along what was popular.


      Your claim this is a major discovery in the history of science tells us absolutely nothing about and contributes nothing towards the sciences and everything about what Christians imagine is important.

      This is the work of historians major historians not Christian apologists. See Margate Jacobs The Newtonians


      And you wonder why there is a deep and growing disconnect between purported christian truth claims and what represents reality to people in contemporary society.

      This was my Ph.D., topic. I bet you can't name a single historian who worked on it. Face the fact that you are repeating bull shit from atheist echo chamber and you don't know the facts.



      Delete
    5. "So were the Middle Ages."

      Hardly. Not a patch on the pivotal mindshift of the intellect that literally and figuratively blossomed in the age of the Enlightenment. There is no stepping down from the train as humanity travels into the post-Christian era.

      hat is pretentious. you are just repeating slogans from 50 years ago and you don't even know where they came from. That's the romantic self aggrandizing bull shit view of the enlightenment that was designed to justify French anti clericalism.

      The Major trend in historiography since the 60s has been to see the middle ages as less dark and he enlightenment as more ideological. I was surprised about it too when I first went to grad school


      It is very hard to appreciate the enormity of the change when one is so rusted on to primitive superstitious supernaturalism as an explanatory tool about us, the world, the universe. But I understand people do eventually get used to it and begin to understand why the change from an old primitive and insufficient explanatory mechanism to a new and much more epistemologically-grounded and robust explanatory paradigm is inexorable. That's the nature of intellectual growth and development.

      go work on your Ph.D. for ten then I'll listen to you tell me how amazing the stuff I studied for dissertation really was.

      Delete
    6. I think the issue is more complex than many people make it out to be. Newton was religious, it's true. But to say that he was devout is to ignore the fact that he was going very much against the grain of church dogma.

      Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic. - Wikipedia

      His natural philosophy was adopted by the political movement of the English Restoration.

      The Restoration churchmen shared certain basic convictions which were the tenets of their natural religion: rational argumentation and not faith is the final arbiter of Christian belief and dogma; scientific knowledge and natural philosophy are the most reliable means of explaining creation; and political and ecclesiastical moderation are the only realistic means by which the reformation will be accomplished. - Margaret Jacob

      Delete
    7. Going against Church dogma doesn't make one non religious. he was clearly and famously devote. no question read the book, the Newtonians, this was my Ph.D dissertation topic. this is nota radical view it's common knowledge in the field.


      "Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic. - Wikipedia

      >>>Orthodox does not mean devout. you can be devout without being orthodox.

      "His natural philosophy was adopted by the political movement of the English Restoration."

      right

      "


      "The Restoration churchmen shared certain basic convictions which were the tenets of their natural religion: rational argumentation and not faith is the final arbiter of Christian belief and dogma; scientific knowledge and natural philosophy are the most reliable means of explaining creation; and political and ecclesiastical moderation are the only realistic means by which the reformation will be accomplished. - Margaret Jacob"

      >>>>that's the author of the book I just told you to read. Liberal is not the antithesis of devout.

      Delete
    8. >that's the author of the book I just told you to read. Liberal is not the antithesis of devout.

      Not only is it the author - it's from that same book. But you miss my point. I never said he wasn't religious. He defied the tradition established by the church and religious orthodoxy. You can call that devout if you want to. But it wasn't religion that was responsible for the creation of science. It was people who defied their religion and its teachings.

      Delete



  2. im-skepticalFebruary 19, 2016 at 6:46 PM

    I have always believed that knowledge is the bane of religion, and of course, the internet brings information to people around the world that used to be isolated from knowledge.


    >>>Hey IS. Thanks for Dropping by Cadre blog. I hope you come back. I want skeptics to be of the dialogue over there., Much more interesting. I would rather avoid evolution because it's so charged. I've never seen a discussion on evolution that doesn't break down into a logomachy usually about who knows more scientific facts.

    About your statement that religious people think we are better. I don't think that's true of most but there are those who seem to think that, and also think they are better than other believers too. Self righteousness is always a problem to be guarded against.

    I do hope you will come back to Cadre blog. Thursday I'm going to do a thing on Seam Corroll's paper about are most cosmologists atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. About your statement that religious people think we are better. I don't think that's true of most but there are those who seem to think that, and also think they are better than other believers too. Self righteousness is always a problem to be guarded against.

    It's something we all need to guard against. I don't exempt myself. But it is undeniably true that group identity leads to tribalism.

    Hey IS. Thanks for Dropping by Cadre blog. I hope you come back. I want skeptics to be of the dialogue over there., Much more interesting. I would rather avoid evolution because it's so charged. I've never seen a discussion on evolution that doesn't break down into a logomachy usually about who knows more scientific facts.

    The issue is not who knows more scientific facts. It is who is willing to look at the available evidence. They have their own body of literature. I pointed to some information that could open their eyes, if they are willing to consider it. The evidence so far is that they aren't (see latest comments). That's fine. I don't need to continue arguing with people who demand evidence and then ignore it when it is offered. I'll write a post of my own on this hopefully later today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think stan has a better understanding of science conceptually than most creationists I've seen. I do think in the final analysis he has a conceptual problem in that he thinks it's a great argument to say science can't prove evolution empirically. I say he quoted Popper so he should know science is not proving facts it's disproving hoptheses.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ooops typo, hypotheses., anyway I don't think that[s a good argument because we don't exactly have empirical evidence of God creating the universe either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. that stan guy I looked at his blog he's a right wing lunatic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been looking at his blog too. I think there's plenty of material there for my net post in a few days.

      Delete
    2. btw I have fired up my old political blog Need more shovels. I could use comments. I'm a yellow dog democrat.

      Delete