Roberts versus God: No Contest.

Review of a talk on science and atheism by Professor Richard Roberts.

Nobel Prize winners are not exactly two a penny here, but we do have quite a few of them. We have had four Peace Prize winners and Seamus Heaney. But we have no Prize-winning scientists. So the lecture given at the Medical Biological Centre, Belfast, on 25 April, by Richard Roberts, who won the Prize for molecular biology in 1993, did have that distinction for a start.

Even more distinctive, however, was the subject of his talk: “A Bright Journey from Science to Atheism” which clearly promised some of the atheistic critique of religion that Richard Dawkins has popularised. Roberts delivered on that promise.

His main argument was that religion is an archaic way of thinking which is now past its sell-by date. He contrasted the origins and development of religion and science. Early humans probably created the forms and rituals of religion out of fear, because the world was full of threats and its processes were inexplicable. In the face of floods, storms, disease, lightning, etc, religion offered the comfort of group solidarity. Over time, traditions were laid down and religious leaders emerged. Religion became a form of social power, demanding conformity and obedience. Gradually the institutions that we see today, evolved.

Science follows a different trajectory. Its origin lies in the desire to explain natural phenomena. Early humans discovered that they could exploit the regularities of nature. They became farmers and tracked the cycle of the seasons. Their implements and weapons were based on elements of mechanics. In time practitioners came to see that there were procedures to be followed and the scientific method was established. It is thanks to the collaborative efforts of thousands of scientists down the centuries that we have all the benefits of their discoveries that we enjoy today.

According to Roberts, the clash between religion and science, which we see today in the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists, for example, was bound to happen. Religion demands faith. It demands obedience and forbids questions. Science, by contrast, welcomes questions and rebels against imposed answers. It takes no-one’s word as gospel and instead requires evidence and repeatable results. The glory of science is all around us: electrical appliances, medicine, air travel, computers, etc

Religion has laid claim to morality and so people fear that without religion society will collapse into anarchy. Roberts denied that. He argued that morality is about humans sharing their social space and has nothing to do with the supernatural. Some of the most immoral practices, eg. female circumcision, the caste system, slavery and segregated schools, have found religious justification. True morality is based on what we know about human nature and the world that we inhabit. It gives us the concept of human rights and thus condemns the immoral practices mentioned.

Roberts presented his arguments with great conviction. Perhaps the audience were cowed somewhat, but there was little debate afterwards. A fellow atheist described the Flood as a savage myth and he agreed. A Christian pointed out that science, like religion, confers social power. He replied that science is collaborative and few scientists have become political leaders. When he was asked about the importance of religion as the basis for moral communities, he said that its role had been exaggerated. All social groups are important, be they trade unions, Humanist groups, snooker clubs or whatever: people work together. No debate ignited and the meeting ended in polite applause.

I went for a drink afterwards with a liberal Christian and both of us felt that the talk had been interesting, but not inspiring. Neither of us laid much store by speculations on early humans and the murky origins of either religion or science. Such speculation tends to have its conclusions already drawn. My Christian friend said he had not been challenged in his faith. As a Humanist, I felt the talk had not got beyond first principles. It was familiar Dawkins territory. I wanted more.

Perhaps the problem is that Roberts, Dawkins et al never get beyond atheism and its basis in science. People need more than the negative message of atheism. Humanism does offer more, but the positive message is not being heard.

The Humanist tradition in the Arts has a long history. It was a great liberation for our culture to realise that drama, literature and art did not need religious meaning because human life itself provided sufficient subject matter. Paintings of everyday life, for example, starting with Breughel, were found to be as satisfying and as moving as Bible scenes. We need to celebrate the Humanist tradition in the Arts more.

And we also need a clearer sense of where we are going. Roberts said that a snooker club is as good as a church. I doubt it. I do not believe any tales of the supernatural, but I concede that the church does address the big issues of life and death and tries to give moral guidance. A snooker club lacks that seriousness of purpose and Roberts was mistaken when he made the comparison.

It is a long journey from religion to science. But it is an even longer journey from religion to a thoroughly Humanist society and we need better maps than the one that Richard Roberts had to offer.

Les Reid

www.humanists.net/belfast