Apparently Shmuley Boteach and Richard Dawkins had a debate on religion. I wish I had known because I would have loved to attend or watch a video stream. However, I'm really surprised by Boteach's approach, because he is usually so smart. Instead of highlighting all the good things about religion, he pins his thesis on the claim that evolution is not, or might not be, true. From Scientific Fundamentalists:
But religion is more than a useful myth. For me, my faith is true. I believe that God created the world. And yes, I said, I understood that modern science replaced creation with evolution. But the theory still had much explaining to do and many holes to fill....There are massive inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, which is why it remains just that - a theory.
...And then Boteach lists some of the standard religious apologetic objections to evolution. There are a number of things wrong with what he wrote. Two are strikingly, fundamentally wrong, however:
1) As usual for creationists, he misunderstands the meaning of "theory." The word as used in "theory of evolution" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess." It is used in the same scientific sense as "theory of gravitation" or "theory of relativity" or "demand theory" in economics. That means it's an explanatory system that incorporates certain observations to make predictive claims about future phenomena and behavior. A good theory fits the data better than competing theories and will make more accurate predictions than competing theories. One could just as easily refer to the law of evolution and disprove Boteach using his own arguments. A claim has to be based on much more than word games.
2) Much more importantly, Boteach is using actual logic and facts and adducing evidence to make his point. But if logic and evidence are his criteria, he must be willing to accept the answer whatever it may be. In other words, he must be willing to say in advance that if facts prove evolution to be true, he will abandon religion. He can't have it both ways.
I have noticed a number of other painfully absurd things written by Boteach. Let's see:
- He writes that science "has enjoyed hegemony for so long that it has become its own orthodoxy and dare never be questioned..." What? Boteach is not referring to a particular scientific discipline or theory but "science" as a whole. So he and other religious fundamentalists are bravely daring to to question science? So all of science (by which I presume he means the scientific method, empricism, skepticism, and the actual scientific discoveries made since the rise the scienctific method in the 17th century) is just another theory and can be dismissed by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about? What creationists (or fundamentalists or whatever you want to call them) fail to realize is that the very nature of science is questioning, to challenge its own assumptions. If he is proposing that the theory of relativity is inadequate for explaining the observed data or is theoretically incompatible with an observed fact, and would like to propose an alternate theory that exlpains the data better and has better predictive validity, then let him say so. Einstein in fact did that with relativity, showing that Newton's laws of motion were only a special case of natural laws which were more accurately explained by relativity. More to the point, if he is proposing another theory for the existence of man, and life on earth, let him do it and subject it to the same process of inquiry that he is happy to do to evolution. And to be willing to accept the facts whereever they go. Somehow I think Bronze Age myth will fail at that task, and Boteach will not accept the results when they do so.
In short, if Boteach is willing to question science, based on the evidence, he must be willing to question the creationist claim and indeed the divinity of the Torah.
-Boteach brings this insightful piece of analysis:
Surely, as part of a modern egalitarian society that rejects the divine right of kings, Dawkins ought to be inveighing as much against the British royal family as he does against vicars, rabbis, and priests! Unless, of course, he has decided that, even though the idea of royalty is a fictitious man-made construct, it was OK to keep it around given that it is a thousand-year-old British tradition and has positive social value.
What is Boteach talking about? Assuming that Boteach recognizes Dawkins does not believe in the divine right of kings and that a powerless monarchy serves a useful social role, it is Boteach himself who states "religion is more than a useful myth." He is saying the only possible reason for Dawkins to not inveigh against monarchy is to support its utilitarian value - then says religion has more than utilitarian value. This makes no sense. So why criticize Dawkins for not criticizing monarchy?
- Then comes this gem. A conversation partner of Boteach's said to him:
"I find it curious that someone as smart as you does not believe in unaided evolution."I thanked her for her backhanded compliment and told her, "Imagine if I said to you, 'I find it curious that someone as smart as you doesn't believe in God. You would probably think that I was a close-minded, condescending, ideologue."
Well, there is quite a difference between the two, isn't there? Evolution is constantly subject to inquiry and has been repeatedly demonstrated empirically. Even if it wasn't proven it is capable of being proven or disproven. That is why it's suprising to find a smart person who doesn't believe it. God and the creationist account that Boteach advocates either 1) cannot meet the standards of proof if subject to inquiry, and in fact can be pretty damn close to disproved or 2) are stated in such a way that they are unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.
- Boteach also says this: "For me, my faith is true." I'll let you figure out what's wrong with this at home.