Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.
But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.
Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.
Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.
I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.
Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.
Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.
In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.
This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 61)
61. RA
Well then I apologize for my tone.
But pandering to the Israeli lobby is as much a fact of life as pandering to the religious right and you should keep in mind that Obama has a lot of work to do to overcome those persistent pesky and untrue rumors about him being the “Mohammedan Candidate” even as we stare in the face of the prospect of having a real life Manchurian Candidate on our hands.
And by Manchurian Candidate I don’t mean that McCainiac will do the bidding of some Asian communist superpower, I mean that his experiences at the Hanoi Hilton may have damaged his psyche to the point that there is the very real possibility that this damage may manifest itself to our detriment while he is holding what is unanimously viewed as the most stressful job in the world.
rabidmccain at 9:56AM on Jun 9th 2008
62. DD,
You are correct about science all the way, but "the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations" is a last-stitch line to try to toss the victory to general religion, and it's an immensely vacuous statement. No one wins victory in being able to answer the questions of the universe. How can a person make so much money by appealing to stupidity?
Mokele Mbembe at 9:58AM on Jun 9th 2008
63. Atheists can't be convinced of God's existence since they offer no criteria by which they could be convinced. D'Souza's article exposes this perfectly well, and in a humorous fashion. It's worthless to engage people who are so close-minded.
The only reason to debate atheists is to speak to agnostics, who are fair-minded, open to reasonable presentation of evidence, and willing to think about the criteria that would constitute evidence of God's existence.
preteristvision at 10:01AM on Jun 9th 2008
64. Ryan Anderson
Good morning Ryan. All politicians pander to the Israel Lobby. If you are interested why I suggest you read "The Israel Lobby and U S Foreign Policy by John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt.
Jerry Brown at 10:02AM on Jun 9th 2008
65. A letter in which Albert Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish" has sold at auction for more than $400,000
John at 10:04AM on Jun 9th 2008
66. If Jesus loves Rev 3:16, I seriously question his taste.
rabidmccain,
I can channel-surf over to Osteen and not get offended, so he gets a free pass so far.
CaptainCack,
I think being dead and unconscious will ruin the experience of surprise.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:06AM on Jun 9th 2008
67. A Swedish Penis Enlarger has sold at auction for more than $500,000 on eBay to a man named John.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:08AM on Jun 9th 2008
68. PV: "Atheists can't be convinced of God's existence since they offer no criteria by which they could be convinced"
...and believers can't be convinced of God's non-existence since they offer no criteria by which they could be not convinced.
See?
Hurray for agnosticism!
Ryan Anderson at 10:09AM on Jun 9th 2008
69. Jerry; how are you? I actually have that book at home. I have quite a pile of unread books (The Power of Myth for example...).
I know it's a fact of life for politics in the US. It just seems so damaging to us and the world.
Ryan Anderson at 10:11AM on Jun 9th 2008
70. Will Hayes: There is NO REASON why human beings are here...there's NOTHING in the way of a greater purpose. That's the Answer. We know the Answers.
PV: And you call D'Souza a "fool." You're hilarious. Not only has science NOT proved such, but it's fascinating and revealing to see what are the logical conclusions of atheism. If atheism is true, humans have no purpose, no reason for being, and no inalienable human rights. I would expect that these "conclusions" of atheism are reason enough for most people to reject the thesis entirely.
preteristvision at 10:13AM on Jun 9th 2008
71. I could tell preteristvision that he's picking on an easy target in William Hays, but doing so would only make he a hypocrite.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:15AM on Jun 9th 2008
72. Mokele; and PV had just said there was no reason to engage atheists...
Ryan Anderson at 10:17AM on Jun 9th 2008
73. PV et al: can we please talk about the israel lobby, why Somber ROCKS, macro-evolution, abiogenesis or anything else instead of moral relativism.
Note; just because defending something makes me squeamish, doesn't mean it's not the "truth".
Ryan Anderson at 10:24AM on Jun 9th 2008
74. Ryan Anderson: believers can't be convinced of God's non-existence since they offer no criteria by which they could be not convinced.
PV: That's not true, Ryan.
Christianity would not exist if there had not been eyewitnesses to a dead man's return from the grave (all of whom went to painful deaths defending what they saw). Christianity would not exist if Christ and the apostles had not proved absolutely prescient about the future of their nation and the coming Catholic dynasty. Christianity would not exist at all if there had not been an unbroken dynastic succession from Abraham (circa 2,000 BCE) down to Pope Benedict XVI. Christianity would not have existed if its laws and precepts had not proven superior in inspiring the minds and consciences of human beings since the time of Moses down to today. These are material, unique events and things which dominated history and without which there would be no Christianity!
So, you are absolutely wrong.
preteristvision at 10:26AM on Jun 9th 2008
75. PV: there are a lot of other possible explanations for why christianity exists today. Please take Lewis' "Liar, lunatic or lord" tack either.
The story of prometheus wouldn't exist if a Titan hadn't stolen fire from the gods and then been crucified to a rock and had birds eat his liver for all eternity?
Why do Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism exist if their "laws and precepts had not proven superior in inspiring the minds and consciences of human beings since the time of [insert founder here] down to today"?
Most likely, Jesus the man existed, but it's not a certainty.
Ryan Anderson at 10:36AM on Jun 9th 2008