The first thing to notice about this odd passage is “Whether or not there is enough surviving evidence to decide....”. Why “whether”. Its an absolute fact that there is no physical evidence available. None. No medical records, not even skeletal fragments. No physical remains of the woman or son or possible father in question are available nor is their possibly surviving lineage known. It's unlikely in the extreme that those will ever be identified. Why try to obscure the fact that there is none of the evidence necessary to examine the question with science when it is indisputable that there isn't? So, Dawkins proposes examining the question scientifically without any physical evidence. He proposes determining the paternity of a child without anything to go on, whatsoever.*
Perhaps somewhat more understandable, since it’s Dawkins, he says that you can deal with the assertion of something that is claimed to have happened miraculously, outside the usual order of things and exactly once in the entire history of the world in the remote past, with science. With the claims made by those who believe in the Virgin Birth, even argument by analogy can’t address it. When an event is claimed to be unique, there is no possibility of making a comparison with another or even every other event proposed to be similar. Any scientific comparison with any other event would be irrelevant to the claims of a miracle unless you had physical evidence of it**
The total lack of evidence and the claim of uniqueness renders it clearly and most certainly NOT a question science can deal with. And this from the Oxford University Professor of The Public Understanding of Science. Certainly among the first things to understand about science are when there isn't enough evidence to practice it and when there is. That is something that hasn't stopped Dawkins in the past, however.
Much as it must frustrate those who would like to deal with some religious questions with science, much cannot be. They might not like that fact but that is just too bad. When the physical evidence necessary to study those is lost to history or non-existent, that is simply impossible. Pretending that you can proceed without the evidence it is dishonest and, beyond doubt, unscientific. You can believe or not believe the claims but using the prestige of the name science to back up your assertions can be done honestly only under specific conditions. It also carries a serious responsibility.
No one has to believe in the Virgin Birth, this short piece isn't about that. This is about how one of the most famous and arrogant personalities of science can get away with saying something so stunningly absurd. With his status in contemporary culture, it’s just amazing that a person holding a position like Dawkins’ conveniently ignores something so basic to science.
If biologists are content with having Dawkins being the face of their science, they are exchanging short term glamour for long term problems. It is growing clearer that in the political climate in democracies that science can’t support the dead weight of extraneous ideologies unnecessary for it. I will make a prediction that you can check out later, if Dawkins truly becomes the face of evolution it will continue to face fierce opposition by many of those he insults gratuitously. Its research funding will not be secure. In the face of his arrogant condescension, a large percentage of the public will not understand the science or want to.
* While it might be fun to point out, going into the need to give God a paternity test only heightens the apparent absurdity of Dawkins claim that this is “a strictly scientific question. Science not only can't deal with these kinds of things, it makes a mockery of science to try it. It is also worth noting that making up science with no supporting evidence is one of the chief criticisms of Richard Dawkins' official work in science. He's been doing that for going on four decades.
** Your only hope to determine the accuracy of a claim of a miracle is to look at whatever evidence of the specific event is available and see if the claimed result happened. Modern claims of, for example, miraculous cures of physical diseases could, very possibly, be investigated by science but only by examination of the physical evidence. Without that, science can’t be used to investigate the claim.
June 23, 2007
Update:2013
This issue is one I've gone around with on a number of other blogs, at one point the atheists would bring up my having written this post, it became rather infamous among them. One of the more interesting of those was at the mathematician Jason Rosenhouse's blog, well, interesting in that Rosenhouse went totally silent when I asked him how you could use mathematics to debunk the Virgin Birth as it was believed in by those who believed it. I believe I asked him a number of times to tell his fellow atheists how that could be done or to admit it couldn't be done. Unless he did so when I wasn't around, he never supported the contention that you could do that.
Kevin, maybe I’m just taking Richard Dawkins briliant advice, now that he and Coyne are even going after their fellow atheists like E. Scott.
[Note that the web address I gave here has apparently been changed to the one linked to above.]
I’m wondering, for the true faithful-faithless, Jason Rosenhouse, tell us how to apply probability mathematics to the odds of there being an only begotten Son of God the Father miraculously conceived and born of a Virgin. Now that the assertion by your fans has been made, I want to know what the math would look like. Remember, it’s a miraculous birth that happened once in the history of the world.
and in a later comment:
Jason Rosenhouse, I really think as a mathematician you owe it to your readers to clear this point up. Can the Virgin Birth, as it is laid out in traditional Christian belief be the subject of mathematical probability. Would you be willing to put your name on an attempt to do so. Either you should say how it could be done or you owe it to your readers to say it’s not possible.
You wouldn't want them to linger in logical error would you? Or isn't that the goal of the new atheists? To dispel error?
More generally, are you proud of the non-science converts to the new atheism as they express themselves on the blogs? Is their understanding of science and logic the one which is the goal of the new atheists? I will be posting this on my blog. It’s not a challenge yet but it could be.
Rereading that comment thread, this is a more concise statement of the problem, bringing up an issue that hadn't occurred to me when I wrote the post above.
The only thing this discussion is proving is that the new atheism is anti-scientific and illogical.
If want to debunk the belief that “ Jesus was the only begotten Son of God The Father, Born of the Virgin Mary” you have to deal with what is believed, which includes that it was a miraculous event that happened once in the entire history of, at least, the world.
I've gone into why science couldn't do refute that, specific, belief without having any physical evidence.
Now you want to talk about other stories of virgin births in history to try to wriggle out of the unscientific claim that you can debunk the traditional Christian belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
OK. What part of the Virgin Birth of Jesus could be debunked scientifically. There is one part that could be debunked but I don’t think the new atheists would care for how that could be done.
You would have to find one or more verifiable, natural, virgin human births to refute the claim that A virgin birth happened once in history. Which would mean that the one Christians believe in was not the only virgin birth.
But that still leaves the birth of Jesus untouched because there is no way to prove that Jesus was not “the only begotten Son of God the Father” conceived miraculously by a virgin. His birth could still be the only one that fulfills all of the points in the traditional description. Science could only refute part of it by finding another miraculous, unnatural, virgin birth, which science can’t do.Well, there could be a way to test a modern claim like that, but not without a court order and a lot of tabloid style research.
You can’t scientifically refute a belief by changing the proposition you attempt to debunk or you’re not debunking the proposition. That’s a fundamental requirement of logic and science depends on logic. You have to discuss the proposition as it is claimed. And, unless you can show how it could be done without altering the proposed miracle in this case, I’m afraid, you’re not going to be able to touch that with science, not without violating the requirements of science.
The only possible way to do it with science would be to have actual, physical specimens from Jesus and his mother and, perhaps, the real human father or a very close relative of his.
It’s scandalous that the new atheists on a ScienceBlog aren't bothered by such an obvious and clear cut call by their own for the violation of the requirements of science and logic. It’s scandalous that scientists wouldn't point out that they want to.
These are called “ScienceBlogs” for some reason, aren't they?
No comments:
Post a Comment