Christopher Hitchens could inflict substantial rhetorical pain upon his opponents in debate and in print. Much like Steve Martin's character (a sadistic dentist) in the 1986 film adaptation of "Little Shop of Horrors," he was exceedingly good at dispensing discomfort. I like to flatter myself in thinking that had Hitchens lived long enough to consider the title of my book, "Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist," he would have regarded me (briefly) as an aspiring opponent. Like any author, I have various fantasies regarding the reception of my book, involving polished performances at high-profile lectures and debates. My fantasy regarding Hitchens, however, is rather different in that he makes me look completely foolish. And like Bill Murray's character (a masochistic patient) in "Little Shop," I relish every second of being roughed up by Christopher Hitchens.
It saddens me deeply that I will never have this honor. Worse, I will never again read something new from him about politics, literature or philosophy. Of course he would have had only scorn for the "religious" adjective some scientists -- including me -- use to describe ourselves. Yet there is one aspect of Hitchens' legacy that I think parallels a literary juxtaposition such as "religious paleontologist," something that he demonstrated more effectively than probably any other writer of the last 50 years: understanding the perplexing issues of our time does not benefit from a one-dimensional spectrum of opinions between left and right.
He despised the politics of Henry Kissinger about as much as he did religion, and wrote eloquently and forcefully against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Yet he was not at all a pacifist, and famously supported the Bush-Blair intervention in Iraq. On other issues his attitudes were similarly nuanced: he recognized the status of a human fetus as "alive," yet did not demand curtailing a woman's rights over her own body. Like any reasonable person, he viewed charity toward the impoverished as a good thing, but harshly critiqued Mother Theresa for her lamentable glorification of poverty itself. Christopher Hitchens judged politics using his principles of liberty and reason, and thereby articulated a more consistent philosophy across many complex issues than anyone of recent memory -- far more consistent than a superficial rendering of left vs. right would allow.
Which brings me to the phrase "religious paleontologist." You might interpret this as an oxymoron, perhaps like "astrological surgeon." However, I chose this particular combination in an effort to rescue the adjective "religious" (which I am) from synonymy with "superstitious" (which I am not). The laws of nature and the cosmos make it rational (but not scientific) to view God as the agency behind them, and the trappings of human cults and fundamentalism neither negate nor flow inexorably from this belief. In other words, there is a line between superstition and religion, one which Hitchens didn't emphasize, but which is of considerable importance in making science accessible to the public. The best scientists are those who realize just how narrowly "science" must be applied to understand something about our cosmos. Asking a manageable question given our human limitations of perception and time is essential to scientific success. Something overly grand, like "what is the answer to the universe," yields a nonsensical answer: "42."
As Douglas Adams pointed out, the real challenge is coming up with a good question or two. Like Christopher Hitchens, Adams was a brilliant (and deceased) atheist author who regarded religious scientists with, at best, some concern. Regardless, this does not change the fact that grand questions about our existence can still legitimately be asked, even if in so doing we cannot expect the same level of empirical precision we receive from scientific answers. For example, how has life diversified after it began? Evolution via descent with modification. Are the Earth's continents mobile? Plate tectonics. To answer the question "why do we exist?" with "to emulate God's love" is to be entirely unscientific. Yet I think this answer is rational, as do philosophers and theologians ranging from Aquinas to Polkinghorne. "Science" is a specific, human endeavor, not a limitless enterprise for answering everything, and we would do well to give it a well-defined home within the larger sphere of rationality.
Even if Hitchens would never have used the term "religion" in the positive sense in which I see it, he set an example by which the nuances behind such concepts can be evaluated on their own merits, rather than defaulting to awful tribal dichotomies such as conservative vs. liberal. One such "religious" nuance (which by the way has a very clear scriptural basis), is epitomized by a favorite poet of his, John Donne. He amazingly summed up in 1623 how I felt in 2011 about losing a man I've never met:
"Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee."
Robert J. Asher is a paleontologist specializing in mammals and the author of Evolution and Belief (Cambridge University Press, April 2012). Raised in upstate New York, he is a former Curator of Mammals at the Berlin Natural History Museum and Frick Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History. Currently, he is the Curator of Vertebrates in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. Over the past two decades, his research in paleobiology has taken him to Argentina, Britain, Canada, Kenya, Madagascar, Mongolia, South Africa, Spain, the United States, and Venezuela. His regularly publishes scientific articles in leading journals including PNAS, Science, and Nature.
But it was the manner of his death which really had a great impact in my life. It came at a time when I was contemplating a lot of weighty subjects in my own life, such death, religion and the purpose of life. As a man that denounced religion and forcefully argued that there was nothing awaiting us after death, it was fascinating to watch him contemplate his own end - and never once waiver in his convictions or back peddle or compromise.
What a tremendously difficult thing to do - to face the void head on. But he did it. And that really "moved the furniture around in my mind", as he would say.
But yes, he wasn't perfect and i utterly disagreed with his stance on Iraq. But what a loss to us all that such a voice has gone.
~ I won't concur with your supposition, but if I did...which god?
Two things in particular: that point about the fine line between religion and superstition and the necessary restriction of science to questions admitting an answer based on scientific methods.
Hitchens had interesting and nuanced views about a lot of things, but for some reason he didn't quite get these two crucial points. Maybe his fellow new atheists can profit from reading about them in your article or your book.
Religion and religious authority itself has always, at all times, warned about the fine line between faith and superstition, especially when it comes to prayer and its possible 'magical' connotations. More than that: it is quite possible to make the case that science itself arose from that very difference WITHIN religion and religious practice and tradition.
And then of course there is the dilemma that science must be (exaggerating a bit, like Hitchens would undoubtedly allow himself to do) either hubristic or irrelevant. Because while staying within the limits in which it is known to work, it cannot even raise the questions that people need to ask in their lives. This point is somewhat trivial, because science by itself certainly doesn't solve all practical problems. But the point is that scientism doesn't even realize this simple refutation - most of the time.
And why the heck would anybody care about science unless it would be a way of "emulating God's love"?
Some of the most ground-breaking work is in neuroscience and related sciences that research a package of human capabilities that contribute to what we call human consciousness and altered states of consciousness. Groups are also researching human brain-mind visions and auditory phenomenon when under altered states. Other scientists are studying basic human behavioral biology for primates including moral development. Our understanding of biological evolution has profoundly impacted our understanding of ourselves. Yes, science impacts because it impacts knowledge and "ideas".
Science changes humanity not just be feeding us, clothing and housing, communication and transportation, but also for me as a woman, it provides freedom and equality. The freedom and power over time of reproduction is profound. In the generations of my mother and grand-mother and myself, it has changed us. We are free in ways that no other generations before us have been. I take science very seriously. Although one approach, it's the most powerful set of methods of inquiry because it relies on reason,sceptics,and intuitive insights.
George Lemarte was an Astro-physicist and as well a Priest, he was the first person to propose an expanding universe, confirmed by hubble.
Now do you think he used astro-physics to come to this? or religion?
What it comes down to is the answers to 2 questions.
What has Science given humanity? --
What has Religion given humanity? --
So in that quest for knowledge about the entirety of our reality, what has religion revealed to humanity, and what has Science revealed?
Again when we look at the trend which of these two things has revealed more in that quest, and what have those revelations brought to humanity?
They speak as if there are these large groups of people who are living there lives devoid of science, or using some knowledge not derived from science, as if the track record of science discovery is something you could argue against, while using science discovery to make your argument.
"Science" is a specific, human endeavor, not a limitless enterprise for answering everything"
True, but what is HAS answered is how many things that once were explained by super-natural religious related origins, Science has discovered natural origins.
Now, how many Religious questions have even been answered, one, and two, how many of what were religious super-natural explains have been proven true.
One cannot ignore the track record of history, Science over time has overwhelmingly reduced religious explanations to natural Scientific ones, when has the reverse ever happened.
The point is, religious answers are fine for YOU, but not answers for humanity. The discovery that the mold on peoples bread could be used for medicine, thats an answer for humanity.
Science answers questions for all of us, Religion answers questions for YOU.
Do not criticize a hammer for not being a saw.
I'm not specifically talking about Christianity, but religion in general.
I'm reading a great biography on Cleopatra, religious leaders claimed Roses prevented intoxication (simply by being present), so any party you threw, it was important to have roses at the party, that the Nile river increased fertility, some other really interesting beliefs.
"Science has discovered natural origins"? What other kind of "origins" does science look for?"
Meaning Science discovered that the supernatural explanations for many things, were in truth natural in origin, not super-natural as claimed by religion(in general)
And it's still going on, and I don't attribute *you* to this group, but there are Christian fundamentalist explanations to the dinosaurs stating humans and dinosaurs all existed together.
I'm just saying there's a historical trend here, and it that trend doesn't seem to be reversing.
Religion is a consequence. Our brain-mind is active even without our direction. The brain-mind creates images and auditory sounds when dreaming at night, daydreaming or under altered consciousness when we are have sensory deprivation, drumming, special meditative techniques, hallucinatory drugs, and near-death experience. Our minds naturally create images that are constructs in waking times for utility. When we are under non-utility situations, our minds make images. Shamans understood that with their traditions and vision quests.
The discovery that nuclear fusion could be used to level a city, that's an answer for humanity.
Why is that a rational answer if it has not scientific support? I am not even of the view that it would be impossible to give such an answer, but if it is rational, then some defense of it should be possible.
Instead the discussion if of the supposed nuance of Hitchens, who always seemed one of the least nuanced writers about. The fact that he took a hammer to varied subjects does not make him nuanced.
Most religious claims are fake Rolexes, sold as genuine, but unreliable, broken junk inside. Hitchens knew full well you can't repair poorly made counterfeit goods, all you can do is destroy them.
He used elegant argued concepts that confused the people who tried to debate with him. He was brilliant and highly skilled with ideas and presenting them. The problem is you confuse your religion with a wristwatch when it is a crutch. That was his point. In this case it is an "imagined" crutch that you aren't even aware that it is imagined. It is like watching Monty Python's silly walkes and wondering "why do they walk that way" and slow themselves down by a lifetime.
You MUST define your god first. If he is indeed omnipotent and omniscient then your contention that the anmswer is "rational" simply can not logically stand.
But, if you say you are religious (say, Christian) then Hitchens will take apart the tenets to demonstrate that there is little moral or beneficial content to it. Besides, why should the said divine entity be less interested in the fact that millions of children die from lack of access to clean water, than he should be in the outcome of football games, or your life and career?
"We exist because we do not NOT exist." That's probably the best explanation I've read.
I often question the "Why?" but to seek an answer is problematic to say the least. Is "Why do we exist?" a valid question or nonsensical? Is it of the form(?), "What is the weight of blue?", "Is the sky happy?", "Are numbers hot or cold?"?
The problem with these three examples is the presumption of properties which are absent. Therefore, any inference, deduction or definition derived from the bases is invalid and nonsensical.
So whither "Why do we exist?", or to re-phrase in a better form, "Is there a reason for our existence?"
For example: When they get up in the morning do they ask themselves: I wonder how many beats my heart is doing right now; Is my pancrease making enough insulin for the day; I wonder what my bile ducts are producing; Is my blood pressure where it is supposed to be at; I wonder if my potassium levels are passing the semi-permeable membrane okay; Dang, I wonder if the atoms in my body were affected by some sort of electromagnetism last night?
Or, do they just look in the mirror and say, "yeah, looks like the ol' evolutionary offspring of some accidental primordial sludge is doing okay!"
What planet are you on? Even assuming atheists are tormented daily by such thoughts, if necessary, science (medicine) can indeed tell us our blood pressure, sugar level, heart rhythm, etc. What is your source for diagnosis and prognosis, voodoo or prayer to supernatural entities?
We atheists have confidence that predictions derived from the scientific model will persist unless or until an extraneous factor or event intervenes.
So what method or reasoning do you use or suggest? Are you a Popperian?
I'm sure you thought that was clever when you wrote it but it's fatuous nonsense. And you go on to write even more ramblings which you doubtless thought were funny but were just infantile.
But tell us, in the context of finding out the truth about the natural world, what other forms of reasoning are there apart from science?
Atheists use science as their justification for being "rational" individuals when most of them, especially in this group, understand science on the most elementary of levels. And, they become religious in their discipleship to people such as Hitchens. However, I wouldn't think to the extent that they would become martyrs for the "cause" because cowardice doesn't make that requirement upon their rational enlightenment.
However, I, personally, think that the atheists, those who are brow beating Dr. Asher over this article, should apologize to him instead of showing such reverence to Hitchens. After all, Hitchens is dead, dead, dead...and, that's it. So, no brownie points are going to be garnished in the great atheist "not-so-here after" for defending Hitchens. Atheists need to sing to the choir and respect those who are living. God knows that they aren't going to get a second chance!
When you wake in the morning and wish to shower, do you go to kitchen on the off-chance the shower has inexplicably shifted its position overnight? Perhaps you do. But why would you do this?
Because by your twisted logic you assume that induction is questionable, therefore you take the irrational position. But by taking the irrational position here you are depending on induction (the scientific method) albeit applied incorrectly; that is, to take a shower you must go to the kitchen because you assume the shower is in the kitchen, not in the bathroom.
And if it is in the kitchen, will you go to the kitchen for a shower tomorrow? Or does your method dictate that it might have shifted once more? If you are consistent in your thought you would. Paradoxically, the problem here is by rejecting induction, you are simply replacing it with induction.
"For example, how has life diversified after it began? Evolution via descent with modification. Are the Earth's continents mobile? Plate tectonics. To answer the question "why do we exist?" with "to emulate God's love" is to be entirely unscientific.
You use the examples evolution and plate tectonics as solutions to the first two examples you give (both hard sciences), then you note philosophers and theologians...not scientists to answer the last.
Both the mechanics of evolution and plate tectonics were once incorrectly theorized by philosophers and theologians until hard sciences finally correctly answered them. Even today, some of the true believers STILL believe that evolution is a fraud as it places cracks in the armor of creationism.
Perhaps they also think that plate tectonics is a fallacy and that their god is simply moving things around because he/she is bored. Who knows?
Nonetheless, the question of "why do we exist?" will most likely never be answered. It is a question we will just keep asking, and philosophers and theologians will continue to chase after the answer.
Michael Behe comes to mind here...
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.