Geoff Arnold's Blog

A couple of days ago the Bishop of Oxford wrote an op-ed piece for the Observer asserting (but not arguing) that “Science does not challenge my faith – it strengthens it”. Most of the piece is devoted to attacking what he called “the current bout of media atheism”, and arguing that we should concentrate on the best of religion, not the worst. Fair enough. In today’s Comment is Free, James Randerson responds head-on. “Surely the best justification for having God in your life is that it gives you a set of moral rules to live by,” he says – and then goes on to point out that in practice there is a strong positive correlation between religious belief and violent, anti-social behaviour. Hmmm. He concludes:

On their own, these studies aren’t good enough to proves that religion is the source of all these social problems – although it is tempting to think that it might be. But it kicks the idea that faith makes for a better and more moral society firmly into touch. So if even the best arguments for religion are found wanting, we’re inevitably left asking what is God for? To those of us who reject faith, the idea that without God we are incapable of behaving morally is the most offensive and patronising myth peddled by religion.
Which of these is the better person, I would ask? The atheist who practices “Christian” values because he has decided of his own free will that kindness and consideration for others are the best way to live his life, or the believer, whose moral actions are carried out with half an eye on reward in Heaven or punishment in Hell?

But that’s not what prompted me to blog about this. I was reading the comments on Randerson’s piece, and a reader with the nom de plume andrewthomas100 posted a link to a wonderful lecture by Steven Weinberg that I hadn’t seen before. Money quote:

The question that seems to me to be worth answering, and perhaps not impossible to answer, is whether the universe shows signs of having been designed by a deity more or less like those of traditional monotheistic religions—not necessarily a figure from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but at least some sort of personality, some intelligence, who created the universe and has some special concern with life, in particular with human life. I expect that this is not the idea of a designer held by many here. You may tell me that you are thinking of something much more abstract, some cosmic spirit of order and harmony, as Einstein did. You are certainly free to think that way, but then I don’t know why you use words like ‘designer’ or ‘God,’ except perhaps as a form of protective coloration.

And then he systematically and patiently demolishes one piece of special pleading after another. His treatment of the various “anthropic” arguments is particularly thorough. Recommended.