On the importance of belief and understanding

(previously posted in my video games blog, and removed here)

I'm not sure exactly how to react to those who were so upset by my anti-Dawkins blog. I had expected a solid flood of logic and scientific reasoning, but instead have found illogic and unscientific thought.

Science is a wonderful gift. The ability to deduce from repetition about the underlying nature of things via the scientific method is really wonderful. Without it we would not have aeroplanes, power stations, television or - shock! - video games. It is because we can do things repetitively that we understand nature to be regular and organised. And through our application of our understandings of the regular and organised nature of creation, so we can propose devices, from the steam engine to the mobile phone.

Every Science has its theoretical underpinnings. For Physics it is an ongoing feast of uncertainty, reminiscent of its old Scots university title: Natural Philosophy. Just today on BBC Radio 4 I heard a Physicist speak with enthusiasm about the possibility of demolishing some of their old theories and replacing them with new ones. I find Physics is like Rugby; once I understood it, but someone has changed the rules so often in the past few years that I don't get it any more from my first principles.

Physicists relish their uncertainty and the way their subject challenges our understandings of, frankly, everything: space, time, matter, energy, etc. The may be, as a PhD student at St Andrews once admitted, often only measuring the side-effects of their own experiments rather than something fundamentally true, but they feast on the feeling of not knowing where their subject is going.

My younger son is a Chemist. *sigh*. He finds his subject d-u-l-l. You see, there is nothing really new worth saying in Chemistry, and it is still mindset locked, he tells me, by the periodic table of the elements (devised by an apparently half-mad sex-fiend in a private lab in the middle of nowhere in deepest darkest Russia surrounded by female assistants .. hem hem!)

I am a Computer Scientist, and find the field endlessly fascinating. Its the applications of the technology and the use of Moore's Law to keep upping the ante while dropping the bucks per bang that makes this a wonderful field to be. Even if it has become rather stale in acadaemia in its attempts to achieve accepted status with the other sciences.

In my doctoral studies - into knowledge in CS education - I did a lot of Social Sciences. Mmmmmm. Dodgy stuff, by normal measures of Science. Kinda lost in a plethora of theories, politics, etc. But, doggedly plodding on in the hope of making some kind of sense to the amazingness that is human society. Mainly failing, but not for want of effort, and to be commended.

And that leaves my original field: Biology. What happened to it? In the 1970's it was a field of classification: kingdoms, genera, specie, etc. Now it has become an anti-religious rant of angry men writing pseudo- theological treatese that seem at times to have more akin with publications from The Jehovah's Witnesses or the late Senator McCarthy than with Science.

I've been pondering: why is this? I reckon the main reason is Biology's unfortunate accident as being the one Science which came head-to-head with religion in our times. It was a nasty battle, and is one which continues. Biology had Religion on the floor with some stunning evolutionary punches back in the late C19. But, it never gave Religion the death blow it required to end the battle. And this has left Biology in an uncomfortable position which some feel it necessary to defend.

But, this defence becomes ridiculous (literally) when Biology starts to make Theological statements of purpose, belief, meaning, life, the universe and everything. It is only Biology. We need Physics, Chemistry, Sociology, Psychology, Geography, Mathematics and even Computing Science too in order to make sense of our world. It is not necessary for Biology to try and explain everything; that's what we are all here for too - to help create understanding out of the utter and singular complexity that is life, the universe and everything.

Which brings me back to those who react with so little Science and Logic to the anti-Darwinian perspective. It is a perspective to an unprovable and transitory theory. It is in the nature of Science for theories to be challenged and where necessary to fall. I have never been there when an old theory fell, but I suspect it was something like we are seeing with the evolutionary Biologists: more heat than light, more abuse than reasoning, more threat than argument, more anger than calmness.

Of course, this is not something terrible which only afflicts Biologists. The great experts are Religionists. Intelligent Design is, IMHO, the ultimate straw man, for, if evolutionary Biology is inadequate as a final understanding of the nature of that great unknown: life; so why construct a theory designed explicitly to disprove something that will fall down of its own accord in due time, as all theories eventually fall. Put in Logical terms: don't attack what you perceive to be untrue using a lie packaged as a truth. Intelligent Design is more flawed than evolutionary theory, and so is not the Kuhnesque new paradigm which will ultimately replace the inherent dodginess which is evolutionary theory.

If evolutionary theory is eventually allowed out of its protected circle for open debate and discussion - as was allowed in the 1970's but is no longer permitted in some corners of acadaemia - and it then falls as being inadequate as an explanand, what replaces it? Unfortunately, history will tell us that subjects sometimes go into terminal decline when their meaning / belief systems / theories fail. And Biology is not alone in this crisis. In the wider academic world there are the Management Sciences (torn between being inherently capitalist but taught in statist environments) and Environmental Sciences (lost between the Scientifically unprovable but politically powerful paradigm of global climate change, and the neo-pagan religionists).

Subjects go through crises of confidence, some fail, some transform. Where did Philosophy go to when it became divorced from the Sciences? It is no longer a useful applicable subject and is now reduced to the fringes of the academe, despite once being 'the queen of the sciences'. Theology went through a similar crisis of confidence, not least brought on by the powerful and successful Darwinian attacks, and the end of Christendom in Europe brought about by a century of Anglo-Franco-German warfare. Theology had no easy answer to the 'where is God?' in the post-murderous wars of almost every year of last century.

So, why did Theology recover and bounce back. Partly it was due to the influx of knowledge on religions entering the UK. For to be ignorant of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. is to be ignorant of the people of Britain. Also, partly to a new-found confidence in their religion by many Christians.

Where did this confidence spring from? After all, Christianity in the UK continues in a slow decline. But it shows no signs of disappearing, indeed is thriving in many places and individual churches. Of course, John, you'd say that wouldn't you, you're a Christian. Yes, but I am Scientist and so doubly unable to easily lie, for truth, not lies, are fundamental to knowing as well as believing.

As a Scientist, with a thirst for knowledge, I love exploring the more bizarre edges of life. The kinds of things that are not reported in journals as they go beyond the accepted world as we would perceive it. The kind of things that are best ignored by Atheists as these facts are not congruent with the pure rationalist view of life, the universe and everything.

I have a friend who has powers to heal. He is a senior academic at a university in Dundee. He goes out with his group in St Andrews and holds healing meetings. And people are healed. Not the kinda John Cleese-esque 'I got better' line when he turned back from being turned into a newt by a witch. He prayed with a Muslim friend with a dislocated shoulder; the shoulder clicked and moved five times, painlessly, and the shoulder was OK. He prayed for a woman with heart problems; an invisible hand (seen only by the movement of the woman's chest) manipulated the heart. He prayed for a long-term wheelchair bound woman; she jumped up and ran around shouting. These were in July. This man has his PhD, designed one of our most important government database systems, is an expert in his field, and can be seen doing this stuff for those who want to attend - or want to be healed.

The easiest thing for the Atheist to say is: rubbish; it never happened. This isn't the logical answer. The logical answer is to investigate further and find out what happened. Maybe there is another explanation than the one from Religion, but saying poo-poo like General Hogmanay Melchett doesn't butter any scones.

For the curious there is also the astounding appearances of the Virgin Mary - hang on in there, I'm not going to mention images on Christ in a chipatti in Bangalore ! - over a church a few years ago in Egypt. It was broadcast on television, there is video imagery of it on youtube, tens of thousands of people saw it. Her message was apparently that Christians and Muslims should live together peacefully. And they do in Egypt, despite the continued growth of the Christian church in that country. Again, rather than say something derogatory like an Ozzie sledging an English cricketer, the Scientific thing to do is to investigate fully and to attempt to understand and explain.

Perhaps the strangest one which I have no clear explanation for is the appearances of the Virgin Mary in Fatima in Portugal. The appearances were so regular that the world's press turned up. Atheist reporters, as well as the tens of thousands of believers and the curious present, noted some astounding events: her appearance, petals falling from the sky, perfume in the air, the sun dancing, etc. Again, I am not saying these are any proof for Religion (for that is not the nature of religious belief or faith). I just find these intriguing and almost irrefutable, unless everyone involved is an utter liar or it was all an unprecedented sequence of mass sensory delusions. Like Dawkins explanations of life, the universe and everything, I find these inadequate explanations for the reportage of honest people.

You see, there are areas of competence in each academic subject field. In some ways these are like individual lenses upon the one great reality. In many places they overlap and complement each other. In many cases they contradict each other. In most cases they are an amalgam of internal contradications (for example 'evolution' is not one single theory nor does it accord with other known Scientific theories or observations.)

You can't expect Computer Science to comment upon kids who kill after playing violent video games. When I comment on these I have changed my hat and become an Ethicist (but only because I have specific knowledge and training in this area.) You can't expect Physicists to comment on the role of nuclear power station in sustainability (that's for politicians and fringe groups). You can't expect Biologists to comment meaningfully on the future of a UK society of mixed races and religions (that's for politicians and theologians.)

So, I see a continued useful and sustained role for Theology. Because there is no sign that the role and place of Religion in our personal, national and international positions will decrease. Indeed, as our Christianity continues to become of the Evangelical kind (recent demographics say that the UK is becoming a primarily Baptist Christian country), and as British Muslims seek an expression beyond Pakistani militantism, so we need those who understand the place and role of Religion in the lives of believers. After all, I am one; I may well be an academic, but I am a Christian first and foremost.

But, Biology worries me. Is it being hijacked by the Atheist crew as a stick to beat Religion with? If so, I see no real harm being done to Religion. Instead there is increasing, if as yet anecdotal, evidence that Dawkins and his cronies are creating a cringe in other academics (not just in his field) and even in other atheists.

Religion is a wall that has been around since the beginning of mankind. The majority of the world's population are religious. In many advanced and advancing countries Religion continues to increase: China, South America, Korea, Russia, America. If you beat a stick against a wall, it is rarely the wall that falls apart first. And the real loser in this game could only be Biology.

No, if atheists wish to attack religion - why? - then they should stop using proxies and tackle the issues and merits of the cases head-on. But, then again, I wouldn't, even as a convinced and converted Christian, want to even attempt to take on any of the world's major religions or their religionists as, frankly, it is a battle that cannot be won.