Copyright ©2012 Fred Parkinson. All Rights Reserved.
You’ve got to hand it to him: Professor Dawkins has managed to turn a minor league scientific discipline (zoology) into a massive money maker that has made him rich beyond any academic’s financial aspirations.
And how has Professor Dawkins done this?
By resurrecting the dry bones of a suspect theory of the origins of life on earth and shaking them in the faces of religious fundamentalists to generate financially lucrative controversy.
There is No Science of Interpretation
The fundamental error that Professor Richard Dawkins makes and which underpins all of his “professional” works is the assumption that there is a separate and distinct “science of interpretation” – of which he naturally claims supreme, if not sole, mastery.
Professor Dawkins asserts that since all scientists interpret data in a purely scientific way to arrive at wholly reliable conclusions (the only reliable conclusions he would insist); theirs alone is the kingdom of heaven and everything in it.
Believers in any God he asserts, on the other hand, insofar as they interpret “differently” (i.e. without donning a white coat and goggles beforehand or affiliating themselves to the Oxbridge scientific community) are doomed to reach inherently and massively flawed conclusions about everything.
Professor Dawkins would have us believe that scientists interpret their data according to some independent, objective and infallible code that prevents any possibility of error or misdirection in subsequent inferred thought.
The truth is, however, that there is no such thing as a science of interpretation.
What is science?
Dictionary.com defines science as:
Noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing [my emphasis] the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.[my emphasis]
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
If science then is:
- merely an arrangement of systemized facts and truths;
- organized to present a view;
- that everyone else is then expected to accept as truth
…then to go on to assert that this methodology is in any way different from that employed by religious leaders of any faith is to attempt to draw a distinction without showing any real difference.
The Roman Catholic faith, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on are all faiths founded upon “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of” their respective God’s laws.
If systemization is the main plank of science then insofar as it is also the main plank of religion any attempt to drive a wedge between the two is at best strained and at worst borderline Nazism, with all the book burning implications thereof.
The flaw of any body of knowledge lies in the chosen interpretation of its adherents; not in the body of knowledge itself.
Judeo-Christian doctrines can draw upon themes of violence and war just as easily as they can draw upon themes of peace and love; and Islam can dazzle the world with its beauty and sense of community just as easily as it can be invoked by terrorists.
Scientists are in fact every bit as capable as the religious community of twisting knowledge to peculiar and even dangerous ends by employing the imperfect lens of interpretation.
When a scientist embarks on an experiment of any sort the methodology employed is usually to record the same under four main headings:
1. Apparatus
2. Method
3. Results
4. Conclusion
Procedures 1-3 are capable of being recorded entirely objectively.
So, for example a scientist may take a match and a sheet of paper (apparatus), strike the match and set it to the paper (method).
When the paper catches fire, the state of the paper and match is then recordable (Results).
We then encounter the final fence for the scientist – the conclusion.
Every single scientist is left to interpret the results of any and all experiments in the only way possible, namely a non-scientific and entirely subjective way.
And every single scientist does interpret the results of any and all experiments in the only way possible, namely a non-scientific and entirely subjective way.
In other words, the interpretation of data by scientists is neither independent nor objective and it is certainly not infallible.
To go back to our paper lighting scientist: the conclusion drawn will depend entirely on the subjective purpose of the experiment.
For example: to test the reliability of a brand of matches; to test the resilience of a brand of flame-proof paper; or to test the degree of heat emitted by the match or the burning paper.
At this point Professor Dawkins would probably assert that since science has determined that paper will catch fire when a match is applied to it that the conclusion is simply proof of that science (perhaps even that the experiment is redundant as the expected outcome is in his view obvious from a scientific perspective).
My answer to this would be to refer Professor Dawkins to his attack on what he asserted was the ignorance of a group of young schoolgirls schooled in the Islamic faith (details of which can be viewed variously on You Tube).
The Qur’an speaks of Allah(by means of a natural barrier) separating in the sea salt water from that of freshwater.
Professor Dawkins (displaying his own unique brand of scientific objectivity towards all things Islamic) spoke out vehemently on the validity of religious schools insofar as they were clearly imparting erroneous religious views as infallible science.
Professor Dawkins corroborated his hateful tirade by describing how science has proven that a glass of freshwater and a glass of saltwater would mix and not separate.
Clearly, Professor Dawkins credentials as an eminent zoologist eluded him entirely as both David Attenborough and the Arctic Halocline clearly exhibit both the phenomenon described in the Qur’an.
Moreover, the admirable assimilation and retention by the young Muslim girls of scientific knowledge acquired during science lessons taught in an Islamic religious school environment was clearly superior to that of the much honored Professor Dawkins.
And (going back to our scientist) what if the paper being tested was made or discovered to be immune to flame or the match made or discovered to be incapable of transferring heat?
The rulebook would then be of no help and the scientist would be left to conceive a new subjective interpretation of the results.
Fighting Religion with Religious Fervor
Professor Dawkins is keen to point out that Darwin (whom Dawkins worships with all the fanaticism of the religious fundamentalists he purports to decry) is every day having his evolutionary theories proven by subsequent developments and breakthroughs in scientific study.
But before we venture further let us first examine this outline position carefully:
- a written work;
- prepared by a man with few scientific credentials other than enthusiasm (it is interesting to postulate whether Darwin’s views would have carried the same clout today given the snooty attitude of the scientific community to amateur academics however significant their contribution);
- pushing interpretations of observed facts without any real material qualitative or quantitative apparatus;
- is received as truth;
- is received as truth not only in relation to its own limited field but as a prevailing truth that answers ever question that life, the universe and everything throws up;
- and is hailed as wisdom because emerging science bears some of its findings out.
How does this approach to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution differ materially from say, the Islamic position regarding their most holy text, the Qur’an (Koran):
- a written work;
- taken down by a man with no known scientific credentials other than enthusiasm;
- pushing interpretations of the handiwork of Allah in matters as diverse as mankind’s genetic composition; bacterial risks associated with pork and shellfish; and in natural phenomena such as the Halocline separation of salt and fresh water in the sea;
- is received as truth;
- is received as truth not only in relation to its own limited field but as a prevailing truth that answers ever question that life, the universe and everything throws up; and
- is hailed as wisdom because emerging science bears some of its findings out.
Or, dare we say it, from the approach of Christians to the Bible:
- a written work;
- taken down by a man with no known scientific credentials other than enthusiasm;
- pushing interpretations of the nature of God’s handiwork in matters as diverse as cloning; zoology; economics; care of the elderly, infirm and less fortunate; psychology; and politics;
- is received as truth;
- is received as truth not only in relation to its own limited field but as a prevailing truth that answers ever question that life, the universe and everything throws up; and
- is hailed as wisdom because emerging science bears some of its findings out.
What Science is that Professor Dawkins?
Professor Dawkins key flaw is that he does not approach any topic that he sets his eyes upon with any scientific objectivity; rather he skips steps 1 to 3 (Apparatus/Method/Results) and goes straight to Conclusion.
In his case that conclusion is that all belief in God is delusional and without foundation or corroboration and that therefore no further exploration thereof is necessary.
The Late great Lord Denning (in the then House of Lords) was often criticized in delivering his judgments for starting with the right conclusion as he saw it and then finding the law (re-interpreting it if necessary) to corroborate his findings.
However, compared to Professor Dawkins Denning’s approach is at least partially scientific in the sense that there is at least a review of the available data!
Professor Dawkins on the other hand does not even look at the evidence of a God – he just assumes without meaningful investigation that there isn’t any; but ask yourself, could the concept of a supreme being really have lasted 10,000 years with no supporting evidence of its worth or validity?
There is no science in Professor Dawkins’ rants on belief in a God; at best we are being treated to intellectual snobbery and at worst we are witnessing a sinister desire to propel the world into a new dark age where science and utility supersedes love and morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment