Between Collins and Dawkins

I recently finished reading Francis Collins’ “Language of God” (2006). Having read Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” (2006), albeit belatedly, I am now able to contextualize TIME Magazine God vs. Science debate conducted almost two years ago now.

For me, Collins’ writing is more accessible and kinder (more politically-correct) than Dawkins’, although Dawkins’ emotional and carefully worded rant (which I’m sure most but the very open religionists would find highly offensive) at times is quite amusing to read.

Collins simplifies several major ‘players’ in the big debate of God vs. Science as such:

1. Atheism and agnosticism (when science trumps faith) – where Dawkins is obviously one of the main proponents.
2. Creationism (when faith trumps science)
3. Intelligent Design (when science needs divine help)

and proposes the fourth position: BioLogos (science and faith in harmony) – where he is one of the main proponents.

While Collins’ attempt to seek balance between and to certain extent justify his (and help others justify their) position as a scientist and a believer may hold its virtue in bridging the opposing players, in my view, he is probably more successful in convincing believers about science than he is in persuading scientists (and atheists and agnostics) to become believers. This is mainly because he does not really bring in a new argument to the table, but simply reinforces C.S. Lewis’ logics (and quotes his words throughout the book), specifically his questioning in “Mere Christianity” of where does human morality comes from (if not from God).

Dawkins’ response to “why are we good” question is:

“First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback. ... third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, ... the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising” (Dawkins, 2006: 219-220).

I have my own reason why morality should not be defined as closely aligned with religion, as it would almost ‘allow’ those without religions to be immoral.

And as offensive as Dawkins can be for religionists, his closing response to the TIME Magazine debate is worthy of contemplation:

“My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis [Collins]. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed” (my italics).

Moral & Religion

The debate on God has apparently warmed up again. From Goenawan Muhammad to Steven D. Levitt, the question of belief and disbelief has triggered a lot of interests, mine included.

My interest in the topic was triggered none other by 9/11. A specific book that I purchased then was Mark Juergensmeyer’s “Terror in the Mind of God” (2000), for the reason that, in Juergensmeyer’s words:

This book is about religious terrorism. It is about public acts of violence … for which religion has provided the motivation, the justification, the organization, and the world view. … I do want to understand them and their world views well enough to know how they and their supporters can morally justify what they have done.

Mark Juergensmeyer, “Terror in the Mind of God”, 2000: 7, my emphasis.

With the rise of religious fundamentalism, terrorism, debate on Evolution vs. Creationism/ Intelligent Design, and closer to home is religious indoctrination in educational institution(s), I got Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” (2006) and Franz Magnis-Suseno’s “Menalar Tuhan” (2006). These books were one way or another also triggered by similar vein of inquiry as Juergenmeyer’s.

My own stand in this debate is: How much does religion really matter? Or do moral and humanism that matter more? This diagram explains my take:

One can have zero to maximum amount of religious belief, but we’ll get fundamentalists when one’s belief in relation to the wider context of moral/ humanism is in the low range (the grey area in diagram).

On Religious Educational Institutes (2 of 2)

In this previous post, I shared my worries on religious institution camouflaged as educational institution. In this one, I would like to share some quick run through the responses to the surveys we gave. What we found were even more disturbing.

Some of the survey questions were modified to fit the participants as teachers in training. These included a question that asked what the participants think as the most important matter they should be teaching to their future students. In one of the three groups, 20 of 43 participants mentioned religious-related responses that were rather specific to [beep]’s point of view.

Other questions were more specific to creativity, such as what favorite books have they read in relation to creativity. From the same group, 21 of 43 participants mentioned the same book title – which I had never heard of. After googling, the author turned out to be a leader in a very specific [beep] group.

Now, if they were my students, as a lecturer I would be very amazed and probably thought happily that I had succeeded in educating them. But I know if I was to ask my own students to respond to the same question, I am pretty sure that they would mention different titles. Such an overwhelming response could only mean that either these students learn by rote memorization, if not drilling, or they were given only that one reference book and were not exposed to others.

Going back to the question what the participants think as the most important matter they should be teaching to their future students, of the 23 participants who did not mention any religious-related responses, 12 actually mentioned the book title whose author was the leader in a very specific [beep] group.

Education? Try indoctrination.

And to think that these students will one day become teachers of math, science, biology, accounting, social sciences, health, etc. in elementary and secondary schools all over Indonesia. What would become of them? What will become of the world if students are drilled so narrow-mindedly and learned about boxed-in worldviews? Perhaps, Amartya Sen’s worries, as highlighted in this post, was made over a very possible future.

On Religious Educational Institutes (1 of 2)

Along with two colleagues, I was recently invited to train students on introduction to creative thinking. As part of the continuation of our study last year, we handed out pre- and post- surveys to find out the role of motivation and culture in teaching creative thinking.

While waiting for the students to fill in their post-surveys, I looked around the room, which walls were filled with pinned up posters created by students. Intrigued about their contents, I paid a closer attention, and realized that these posters contained worldview from the point of view of a certain religion – which from this point on I will refer to as [beep].

What was interesting was that most of them contain very similar information on how disciplines of knowledge were related directly to quotations from verses taken from the [beep]’s holy book. Later I found out from one of my colleagues that in her classroom, this [beep] worldview was juxtaposed with Western worldview – which again, most of them contained very similar information.

With my curiosity aroused, during the break in between training sessions, I chatted with some participants to find out a little bit about their study program. These participants, in training to become teachers in elementary and secondary schools, are recruited from all over Indonesia. Apparently, most of them are on full scholarship and some pay twenty five percent of the tuition fee. They all live in housing that belongs to the university.

I was told that once they graduate, they would be sent back to where they came from, to teach in schools that belong to the same foundation which run educational institutions from pre-school all the way to graduate school. They were bound by a five-year contract, and had to contribute twenty percent of their future salary back to the foundation. (Note that meanwhile, they must work for ten hours while studying.)

I asked them about the posters, to find out if everyone was ok with the idea. Apparently, they all came from the same [beep] background. So no problem there (although a student said that sometimes she felt that she’s in training to become a [beep] teacher, teaching religions as suppose to biology), with the exception that in the name of the university, there is no indication whatsoever of its link to a [beep]’s belief.

Do these students know what they got themselves into when they signed the contracts at such a tender age when one graduates from high school? I don’t know. But the institution clearly set itself on a very strategic and religious role.

If, while reading this post thus far, you do not get what I’m worried about, try change the [beep] with a religion other than your own. Trust me, it can happen anywhere, anytime, in any religions other than your own.

Now I don’t have problems with religious institutions per se, including religious educational institutions. I myself went through [beep] elementary and secondary schools which were founded and run by [beep] leaders. But my parents sent me there because they believe in the value and quality of the education, more than on their religious convictions (none of my parents held the same beliefs with the schools I went to).

So the fact that this institution did not attach a [beep] in front or as part of its name, like most religious educational institutions in Indonesia, is frankly misleading. Or perhaps is it done on purpose?