Salk Atheism (1)
It's almost amusing to hear the story
reported by Jerry Adler about the (some) thirty bags of chemicals that
ended up at the Salk Institute in LaJolla, California to wrestle with
the question of faith's benefits (Newsweek, November 10th).
You must understand this: these scientists insist that
nothing exists but "matter" that is worked on by a combination of chance
and physical necessity. That's the totality of reality. What
comes from that mix cannot be anything other than physical/chemical
"reactions". Things are what they are—they don't "mean" anything, they
don't have "value" other than what we label them with—they simply exist,
whether they are constellations or a human brain, whether they're
feelings or stagnant pools, whether they're "truths" or "superstitions".
That's what the bags of bio-chemicals at Salk were saying.
But then they talked as if a proposal was "true" or "false"; how can anything be true or false when any
proposal is a chemical reaction? Might as well call the smell of urine
"true" or "false". It is what it is. A mental proposal or a feeling or
the smell of napalm in the morning or the beauty of a little
baby—they're all manifestations of chance operating on chemicals (and
other forms of "matter")—they are all "reactions" to physical/chemical
forces.
Steven Weinberg said that thought and emotions are
biochemical reactions rather than a gift of God. [Of course, I've never
known a believer who denied that biochemistry, brains and stuff were involved in thought and feelings. It isn't one or the other. Oh well.] But if the believer's thoughts and feelings are biochemical reactions so are Weinberg's and Dawkins'.
Weinberg looked forward to the day when the world would
be saved from the tyranny of religion and yet thought humanity might
miss "the crazy old aunt" (religion) that nurtures lies and tyrannises
humans. My chemical reaction to these self-confessed bags of
bio-chemicals named Dawkins and Weinberg would be different perhaps if
they didn't pride themselves so much on their chemical reactions.
They're clear-sighted and proud of it and castigate other bags of
chemicals because they don't have the same chemical reactions they have.
But I need to remember that they are only bags of bio-chemicals that by
chance are hostile to faith—they haven't chosen this attitude, so to
speak of "blame" or "guilt" would make no sense. Still, if I "blamed"
them I shouldn't be criticised for I too am a bag of bio-chemicals that
by chance blames the Dawkins bag. But, then again, if you criticised me
for criticising him I couldn't blame you because you are…Oh forget it!
Even saying things like "he has" chemical reactions is
nonsense if Dawkins and Weinberg are right. He doesn't "have" chemical
reactions—he is chemical reactions. To say he "has"
them would suggest that "he" and the reactions are distinct. There is no
"he" that is somehow independent of the reactions. If Dawkins is right
he doesn't have thoughts and bitter feelings against belief—he is these things. (David Hume is still an embarrassment to his atheistic colleagues even after all these years.)
Poor Sam Harris. He laments that even his non-believing
readers are criticising his chemical reactions (his writings). Somehow
or other he thinks that's wrong—why should they climb all over him for
expressing his chemical reactions? But what's he whining about?
According to him their criticism is nothing more or less than chemistry!
Sam tells his critics that they make no choices, they only react.
He tells them they're nothing but a collection of bio-chemical
reactions and then he whinges at the nature of their chemical reactions
to his chemical reactions. He might as well be whining over the fact
that rotten fish smells bad. He'll take the praise and think he has
earned it because somehow his thoughts are not merely chemical reactions but whines about his chemically reacting critics.
Sam and people like him are the ones who are going to rescue us from the nonsense and tyranny of biblical faith. Yeah right!