I saw this question while rummaging for funding opportunities on the Templeton Foundation website. They have a Big Questions Essay Series which I encourage everyone to read through. I just finished reading and pondering every essay addressing the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" and I thoroughly enjoyed each essay.
My interest was specifically piqued by the two essays entitled "Yes" and "Yes, if by...." by Professor Stenger and Professor Pinker, respectively. These were the only two definitive "yes" answer essays in the group, and I found them quite interesting.
What interests me about the two essays is that they make me ask the two questions that should always precede the original question, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" First, what do you mean by science? Secondly, what do you mean by God? Now, like Professor Pinker, let us assume science is the holistic pursuit of knowledge through logic and reasoning, including social sciences like philosophy and history, not just the natural sciences. The harder question is the one about God.
Stenger and Pinker highlight that for thousands of years, definitions of God have been offered up to fill in the gaps in our understanding or to explain away difficulties. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw this understanding of God as a "deus ex machina," literally "God out of the machine." The term comes from ancient Greek plays in which a character was lowered onto the stage via a crane (or lifted up by a trap door) to signify a supernatural being. It became a criticized technique when writers would lazily use it to kill off a character, create an insurmountable obstacle, or resolve a conflict. The supernatural being was not a natural part of the plot or logic of the story, but a contrivance inserted into the story to tie up the loose ends "nicely." In this way, deus ex machina serves as a way to resolve problems.
Take a few of our contemporary difficulties. I don't understand how this world came to be so intricately designed, so I simply say God did it. I don't understand emotions or where our "soul" comes from; therefore, God is the person who creates that or sparks it. I don't understand where our morality comes from; so I invoke God. I don't understand consciousness and how it appears to continue after death; therefore, God.
The problem arises, of course, when science or any similar pursuit finds a natural way or theory to explain, today, that which we previously did not understand. What then happens to that God we invoked? If you define God on the basis of design, what happens if increasing evidence is found in support of an evolutionary theory? What happens to the morality-defining God in the mind of a person who reasons a way for morality to naturally develop in humanity over time? What happens to the God who sparks the soul in the view of a person who finds solace in the concurrent neurological activity in the brain?
To be fair, we can throw away such dualistic thinking and realize that there exist unique perspectives and nuanced views that bring two ends of the spectrum in integrated unity. For instance, there is the view called theistic evolution held by the BioLogos Foundation that affirms both evolution and a concept of God. Another example is Barbara Bradley Hagerty, a journalist and author, who sees no necessary incongruence between neurological activity and corresponding spiritual experiences. Still there are concepts of God that hinge on what is or was not understood. God explains the gaps in our understanding, even explaining away our emotional discomforts.
For some of us, life has no meaning unless there is someone or something watching us. Others of us fear the meaningless that comes through death. In these cases, we invoke God often as a comfort -- as someone that protects us when others cannot or provides a supernatural explanation when we have no others. In Insurrection, Peter Rollins notes that Pascal calls this form of deus ex machina, the "God of Philosophy." Whether for emotional comfort or to provide an explanation of the unknown, Bonhoeffer critiques each such understanding of God as a psychological crutch.
But what if there were other concepts of God? It seems possible that Dr. Stenger and Dr. Pinker have only shown that, for some people, science seems to make belief in certain concepts of God obsolete. Instead of negative definitions of God that fill the void, if we had positive concepts of God that do not lean on the need for comfort, or fill voids like unexplained phenomena, could science make those concepts of God obsolete? What would those concepts look like? Instead of a faith that only has something to offer to those who don't understand a phenomenon, those who are fearful, the comfortless, those near death, or the depressed, what if we had a concept of God independent of gaps and voids? What if we there were concepts of God that had something to offer or add to the fulfilled? What if we had concepts of God based on creativity? On a positive definition of incomprehensible peace? On imaginative joy? On creative, problem-solving love?
Since it is possible to maintain a certain concept of God while one's belief changes, perhaps it is possible to maintain belief in God while one's concept changes. This is definitely what we see in writers like C. S. Lewis and Brian McLaren who admit to a continual process of trading up images of God as they move from fractured concepts of God to "less" fractured concepts of God. Either way they both understand that their new concept of God is still wounded and fractured.
It is clear that science may make belief in a certain concept of God obsolete. But it is a hard task to make belief in every concept of God obsolete. And though each article in the Big Question Essays Series gave a unique perspective which I very much enjoyed reading, more than the import and impact of any one article, I think the collective of essays as a whole does a better job of answering the question than any one essay. In essence, judging by the range of answers from this group of atheist scholars, clergy, and science researchers and professors, it seems belief in God still continues on.
Chris Mooney: Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation
A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God ...
Even before very much science had been developed, one could ask the simple question, "Where did this God ever come from?" No one ever needed very much science to realize that the lack of any answer to this question renders the concept of God devoid of any explanatory value.
much of what people understand as religion is simply the best science avail when the religious books were written in the bronze age. the science is now obsolete and should be replaced.
religious knowledge through the study of creation is a noble tradition. darwin and newton are buried at westminster abby. it would be nice if all religious leaders updated their science.
Given the choice I"m going to Valhalla.
What if believers ceased habitually stuffing god into the gaps?
Yes. That is, Greek philosophy rendered religion absurd over 2,000 years ago for those on the cutting edge and in the know. Then Christianity threw up huge scary deadly roadblocks to clear thought. After about 1,200 years of that nonsense, from around AD 400 to 1600, science once again began to shine a light on that Emperor we call Christianity, revealing that he has no clothes, and for 400 years the laughter which comes with clear thought has been rising and spreading.
So, yes, if you're interested in making sense, then science is the way to go, and religion is headed 180 degrees the other way.
If you have some other agenda, if you wish to serve the Emperor and pretend that he is wearing clothes -- or if you're hallucinating, and you actually see some fine clothes on the guy -- well then, the Templeton Foundation, among others, may well welcome you with open arms and big fat grants. But I'll still be over here, pointing and laughing.
It amounts to nothing more than moving the goal-posts, which is merely rationalizing. Science explains all natural phenomena. And all questions science cannot yet answer simply remains open questions. Positing a god answers nothing.
The correct question is:
"What in the world requires the belief in invisible, malicious, self-involved deities with greedy, power hungry, self-ordained human messengers?"
Having said that, I am also amazed by consciousness. The fact that I am aware of this, that I am an individual able to contemplate, cogitate and communicate these ideas. Just the idea of language itself blows my tiny mind if I think about it long enough. But where does consciousness come from? Where is it situated? Why is mine different from anyone else's if our brains are essentially the same construction?
I do not believe that life is 2-dimensional, linear. I do not believe I am a mere construction of atoms, electrons and synapses. I am more than that. I am not only made of material; I have spiritual elements as well.
I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care if you think my worldview naive or illogical. If you don't think there is a spiritual aspect to the universe, fine, that's your point of view, live it, enjoy it, just don't try and convert me to it and I won't try and convert you to mine. I won't look down my nose at you and you won't look down your nose at me and we can go on to worry about more important matters.
For example, someone from a loving family may see the concept of God as "Father" to be comforting. Those who come from an abusive family may see the same concept as frightening. The two might read the same words about the love of God, but understand them differently.
Children growing up mature in their understandings of the world around them. As they grow, they are increasingly able to do things and make decisions for themselves. The role of the Parent changes.
Our perceptions of God change similarly with our ability to understand the world around us and make decisions for ourselves. While it may be hard to define what a "mature" understanding of God is, people's perceptions of themselves and of God do change over time. Circumstances can change these perceptions as well. It is easy to talk about trusting God when one has a lot of money in the bank. It is less easy when one is going hungry.
Science by itself will not make belief in God obsolete. Most people "need" a Parent figure. But learning and doing science can help us grow up and experience competence. As that happens, beliefs will change.
Perhaps everyone is an apostate these days because the one true religion for the one true God was lost because the only practitioners were vanquished by Conquistadors. Perhaps the one true religion for the one true God hasn't even been practiced yet.
Personally, I can't think of any. But I can think of many gods that are now obsolete. And science is a large part of why they are obsolete. If you can't answer yes to this question, I think the thing to do is to reject belief that god exists for any and all conceptions. Theism simply is a failure.
The other question you have to ask is: Is there anything Stenger and others could ever say to get you to finally reject belief in god?
It seems like the answer is no for you, Victor, as Stenger and others said some very very good things and you still haven't rejected theism.
Please define the term "god" for me.