Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Dawkins also says the following: “You scientists are very good at
answering 'How' questions. But you must admit you are powerless when
it comes to 'Why' questions. ...[B]ehind the question there is always an
unspoken but never justified implication that since science is unable to
answer 'Why' questions there must be some other discipline that
is
qual-
ified to answer them. This implication is, of course, quite illogical.”
94
The
question is on what basis does Dawkins make such a claim. Is this on
the basis of scientific methodology? If so, what is it? On what basis does
one determine that the differentiation of “why” and “how” questions is
illogical? Is this a prejudice resulting from a precommitment to a meta-
physical reductionism? It is one thing to reject religion—for whatever
reason; it is quite another to argue that the rejection of religion follows
directly from the acceptance of a scientific or Darwinian perspective.
Recall also that Dawkins argues that humans alone among all other
species have the capacity to rebel against our genes. The basis on which
one might do this is not clearly spelled out. Dawkins recognizes that
we do this—the practice of artificial contraception is one of the stock
examples of such behavior—but the justification for it is not completely
or satisfactorily explained. It seems that there is some ambiguity in
the nature of reality that escapes a totally scientifically materialist
explanation.
Wilson comes at the religion question from quite another perspective.
First, he was raised as a Southern Baptist and underwent a conversion
experience as a youth. But Wilson later underwent another conversion
experience, one to evolution and against his own religious upbringing.
This led him, according to Segerstråle, to want to “prove the (Christian)
theologians wrong. He wanted to make sure that there could not exist
a separate realm of meaning and ethics which would allow the theo-
logians to impose arbitrary moral codes that would lead to unnecessary
human suffering.”
95
Important here is the strong identification of reli-
gion and ethics, which is not necessarily the case, as well as the desire
to show that religion is not a privileged locus of knowledge for right and
wrong. Wilson seems quite close to Dawkins in adopting a position of
metaphysical reductionism.
On the other hand, Wilson, unlike Dawkins, is sympathetic to the
“Why” questions that humans ask, for he recognizes that humans have
deep emotional needs that must be satisfied. Wilson argues that “our
