Author Bruce Sheiman approaches the debate between theists and atheists about whether God exists from a unique point of view.
He is a professed atheist who defends the right of religious people to have their faith. He touts the psychological and physical health benefit one may derive from placing hope and faith in their Creator.
Sheiman coined a term to differentiate himself as an atheist (one who doesn’t believe in God personally) to Richard Dawkins and his fan club as antitheists, meaning people with a militant atheistic agenda.
Antitheists not only reject God for themselves but actively campaign to eradicate faith in others. It’s good to know the difference. In a section of his book titled Scientific Materialism and Relativism, Sheiman writes,
In the traditional evolutionary view, there is no difference between humans and animals, since both are driven by the same survival and gene replication imperatives. On the plus side, this may lead many people to respect all living creatures. On the negative side and in the extreme, this can lead to species relativism: the idea that humans are not the pinnacles of creation; we are no different from other creatures. (p41)
A little later Sheiman adds,
…[b]ut the second implication is very disturbing. If humans are animals and our lives are not divinely inspired, the edifice of Judeo-Christian morality about the sanctity of human life is discredited. God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to other animals. Therefore, not only are abortion and euthanasia permissible, but so might be infanticide. (pg 42)
I asked the Atlanta City Buzz Examiner essentially the same question in a comment responding to her article on “reproductive rights.” What a pleasant euphemism!
Sheiman says he admires the idea of treating animals more humanely, but not treating humans more like animals. On this point, he and I agree completely. That’s why I volunteer with the local Humane Society, and it makes me wonder about Mr. Rosch’s suggestion that evil doesn’t exist in the world.
Staks Rosch believes that people set fire to an cat, throw a dog from a moving car, or hit a beagle with the claw end of a hammer because of some genetic defect or an equally preposterous "social excuse" like low self esteem or peer pressure.
Evil exists in this world, Mr. Rosch, and I won’t waste any more of my time trying to convince you otherwise. You were absolutely correct in suggesting I do not “box out of my class,” as you eloquently put it.
There’s nothing for me to gain by dropping down to the featherweight division.
The Bible instructs mankind to act as good stewards of the Earth and the creatures under our dominion suppressing our own blood thirsty nature. My wife and I probably go a little too far, but I'd rather save a life than let a perfectly healthy animal die because no one currently wants it.
Sheiman concludes, “At some point in our history, we transitioned from human being to being humane. Making that transition was facilitated by religion, the concept of being created in the image of God. And even though I do believe we have progressed as a moral species, it is still too early to dismiss religion.” (pg 45)
Now that I’ve finished reading his book, I’ve sent a query to Mr. Sheiman to see if he’s interested in having a further discussion. I’m convinced he’s up to the challenge of engaging in serious dialog as opposed to dishing out churlish insults, if he only has the time.
Sheiman explores a variety of Eastern religions and compares Buddhism, Hinduism, and how what he terms “parallel traditions” interpret among others the concepts of soul, God, sin, heaven and evil.
He’s done his homework on theism.
He discusses in some detail the mental and physical health benefits of religious faith and how some atheists have abused history in an effort to discredit religion. Sheiman writes, “In the atheist’s mind, if a religious person does something bad, it’s the fault of religion; hence, religion is evil. If a religious person does something good, it was done for a religious reason and therefore does not count.” (pg 93)
It would appear that Sheiman tries to be more than fair. Even though he doesn’t believe in God, he is respectful of religious believers. He points out that you don’t have to be religious to be a decent person, offering himself as a reasonable example through his prose.
At the same time, he doesn’t deny that for the most part, belief in God gives a majority of people with faith a happier life and less fear of death.
Unlike those who twist Bible passages about slavery to suggest it offers tacit approval by God, Sheiman credits Christians with the abolition of slavery and religious seekers for the origin of science and technology.
He identifies scientism versus science accurately and defends the latter eloquently.
He is absolutely correct to write,
As biologist Jerry Coyne has said “Evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling was put directly into our brains by natural selection.” Evolutionary psychology certainly makes sense when used to explain human mate choice, for example, but seems implausible when used to explain complex cultural phenomena such as religion. Devout believers would say they are religious because they seek to connect with and serve God, not to reproduce their genes. (pg 161)
Sheiman also wrote, “When prominent atheists claim religion is a “delusion” that “poisons everything” and the “root of all evil”, it is easy to understand why religious people feel that science threatens their beliefs.”
So I liked his approach to mediate the divide between theistic admirers of science and free thinking atheists. But the real value of the book came when he tried to address several questions Mr. Rosch completely ignored, those regarding the enigma of a fine-tuned universe.
My favorite chapter of his book is Chapter 11, titled The Existential Implications of Science: Does Life Have a Purpose?
He tackles issues like scientific reductionism, quoting my telephone friend Dr. Michael Ruse who said, “There is no reason to think that biology calls for special life forces over and above the usual processes of physics and chemistry. Nor is there any reason to think that biology is little more than complicated physics and chemistry.” (pg 200)
In the section where Sheiman asks, Can we create something from nothing? he introduces a formula called CARL. The equation reads,
Human Life = laws of physics X CARL X 3.5 billion years. (CARL = Chance + Accident + Randomness + Luck)
Sheiman addresses my very question that Mr. Rosch ignored when he writes, "the only way humanity is special, according to science, is in terms of probability.” He offers the following equations:
Phase One: Random Creation of Multiverses = Our physical universe
Phase Two: Blind Laws of Physics + Chance = Simple Life (abiogenesis)
Phase Three: Simple Life + Genetic Randomness = Complex Life
Phase Four: Complex Life + More Accidents = Mind. (pg 204)
What scientists are essentially saying is not only are we the laws of physics plus accidents, but that even the laws of physics as we know them are a result of blind chance. To explain, let me introduce you to the anthropic principle, which has been proposed by some scientists as a way to explain how it is that our universe seems perfectly calibrated to accommodate life. We live in the universe where the the numerous constants of physics are astonishingly and exquisitely fine tuned to allow biological complexity to develop--what some have called the “Goldilocks universe.” The English physicist Roger Penrose estimated that the odds against our cosmos arising by chance with its exact constant values is about one in 10 to the 300th power, a figure far greater than the number of atomic particles believed to exist in the universe therefore, the anthropic principle prose is a problem for mainstream science. It would seem to imply some kind of design for life. (pg 204)
I’ve tried to communicate what Mr. Sheiman has eloquently summed up in one paragraph. Perhaps my communication skills do still require considerable improvement. He continued,
Evolution already presupposes something miraculous—life. To realize phase Two in the above sequence (Blind Laws of Physics + Chance = Simple Life), the physicist Paul Davies suggests that the probability of producing a small virus from Earth's primordial soup after of billion years is one in 10 to the 2 millionth power, which is greater than the chances of flipping heads on according 6 million times in a row.
Phase One is infinitely more improbable than Phase Two. It’s not improving the odds, because the improbabilities multiply together to give you the true odds of life as we know it. I won’t quibble with Sheiman for adding instead of multiplying. He writes,
Therefore the entire structure of reality is built on CARL. And when we add up the probabilities at each of the four stages of cosmic evolution, even providing from many billions of years, the likelihood that a sentient Bruce Sheiman could have arisen to of written to write this sentence is not one in 1 trillion or 1 in a dectilion (1 followed by 33 zeroes) and or even one in the Google (1 followed by 100 zeroes) but one in near infinity. (Page 205)
Stressing his impartiality, Sheiman adds, “I must again assert that I only believe in natural science and I do not believe in God. But even for a secular materialist like me, this stringently reductionist conception of cosmic evolution leaves me stone cold. It is as implausible as a God-given miracle.” (pg 206)
I would argue that it’s much more implausible given millions of accounts of supernatural experiences, but why quibble when Mr. Sheiman is hammering home so many of my points for me?
He even makes my argument for entropy, writing “The propensity for matter and energy to self-organize in novel and unpredictable ways is a conspicuous feature of nature; it goes against the laws of thermodynamics (entropy) and cannot be explained by the known laws of physics. But according to conventional science, it’s all explained by a highly improbable confluence of accidents. And if you take “accidents” out of the life-creation equation, we would be left with nothing.” (pg 207)
Sheiman argues," I am dissatisfied with the scientific explanation for our universe. Science does not offer an intellectually or emotionally satisfying explanation for:
1. The enormously improbable configuration of the universe capable of supporting life.
2. The emergence of life, even the first single celled organism.
3. The development of complex life and human consciousness. (pg 219)
Sheiman attempts to construct a third way: an intelligent universe and design without a designer, offering a definition of a purposeful life without a Creator.
Sheiman concludes," throughout this book I have argued for a third way a compromise path between two polar opposites. The universe displays intelligence, but there is no higher intelligence. The universe displays creativity, but there is no Creator God. The universe displays designed, but there is no great designer. I the universe displays purpose in organized complexity, but there is no supreme being behind it."
There we disagree. If he ever responds, we could have an interesting and respectful conversation, I’m sure.
I highly recommend his book if you are interested in some thought provoking reading.
Comments