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 7 of 61)
91. prevertvision:
Dynastic succession from Abraham to Christ???? You're joking, right?
Even IF you could prove succession from Abraham to Joseph, he wasn't the baby-daddy....
Linda at 11:26AM on Jun 9th 2008
92. Ryan Anderson: 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?
PV: The difference between Judaism-Christianity and mere mythology is one of historicity and materiality. Christianity would NOT exist had there not been historical eyewitnesses with corroborating testimony about seeing a dead man return back from the grave. Christianity would NOT exist if Christ and the apostles had not proven prescient about the future of their nation and the coming Catholic dynasty (and their predictive views can indeed be measured against the outcomes of history). 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
Ryan Anderson: Why do Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism exist if their "laws and precepts had not proven superior...
PV: Buddhism is a wisdom tradition, not a dynasty or a claim of divinity. And indeed it has much practical time-tested wisdom. Islam is basically Old Testament Judaism *as seen through the eyes of Muhammad and his disciples* (who were not linked to either Judaism or Christianity by historical succession). So, the "staying-power" of Islam is derived from the historical validity Old Testament Judaism.
Ryan Anderson: Most likely, Jesus the man existed, but it's not a certainty.
PV: Do you believe the world is flat, too?
preteristvision at 11:31AM on Jun 9th 2008
93. Try proving the mere existence of Abraham. Good luck. Moses for that matter...
Ryan Anderson at 11:30AM on Jun 9th 2008
94. Denish's argument that science cannot explain god, our purpose and attempts to "know things in themselves" can also be used against theoretical attempts to "know god". If it is impossible to reason what truly exists from a human perspective it is also improbable to know god, and all religious attempts to grasp an ideology of god ultimately fail, as does science.
If this was not the case then we wouldn't have so many religions that describe and name god so differently from each other. Though Christians, Jews and Islam claim their god is one it is obvious from what is written in their dogmatic books that even god's personality and will towards man is not the same. If god was truly known by man only one religion would exist.
Jews are certain their god is theirs and believe that since Israel exists again that they are his true chosen people and that the covenant is secure and in place. In the Old Testament the covenant is with the Israelites only, no where can this contract extend to others (blessings don't count) until the invention of Christianity, where new mixed blooded Jews steal the contract and extend it to include the gentiles. The Islamic claim their god is the true god as well. Since none of these religions can truly explain god with neither religion having have the facts of god, just an ideology of what god should be. That is why they are rely on faith, and hope that each is ultimately correct over the others.
And if the name Yahweh is found on another planet it would only mean that EA, Abraham's Sumerian god is the true god since the translation of Yahweh in Sumerian is" Iam who is called Ea" , as Yahweh introduces himself to Moses' as his ancestral god. This was found to be the case since the real name of YHWH was discovered to be Yahweh and not Jehovah. In a nutshell, it is understood that Yahweh is an amalgam, a fusion of various and sundry earlier gods and goddesses, having absorbed their functions, epithets and achievements.
Gotta go, be back later.....
goddess1prevail at 11:44AM on Jun 9th 2008
95. Mokele: I'm not the 'believing' type of person, as I've never had a belief that hasn't been betrayed. -But that's an issue of faith, not of knowing fact.
PV: If you are an atheist--and I don't know if you are--then you are still putting enormous faith in a wide range of unproven "assertions/beliefs."
Mokele: If I knew for a fact that the whole twisted Xian worldview was true, I would toil and panic everyday to spare myself from Hell. I would probably be driven to killing darkies and breaking the legs of queers just to spare my own salvation if I knew the universe was so disgusting and unjust.
PV: That's nothing more than ad hominem, and you know it. Christianity's law has always rejected the concept of "inferior races," and the religion continues to be justified in identifying certain behaviors as morally "right" or "wrong"---even though atheism protests objective truth and can produce no objective right or wrong acts.
preteristvision at 11:45AM on Jun 9th 2008
96. "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."
But "religion" can do NO BETTER, since the "answers" can never be confirmed. Those questions are still unanswered if you can't confirm them .
Limited answers are better than NO answers.
Tom at 11:52AM on Jun 9th 2008
97. Christianity would NOT exist had there not been historical eyewitnesses with corroborating testimony about seeing a dead man return back from the grave.
And Judaism would not exist if the covenant was not intact with the Israelites as promised in the Old Testament. This covenant can be found with the existence of Israel in is century.
And Islam would not exist if Allah hadn't dictated the Koran to Muhammad, Ishmael's descendants along with the return of the Imam.
See Preter, every religion has its historical facts to fall back on along with their god that supports them. And each religion is waiting for another act from god which hasn't occured in many years.
goddess1prevail at 11:51AM on Jun 9th 2008
98. And Islam is the fastest growin religion in the world,
Isn't that some thought fot you.....
be back later
goddess1prevail at 11:52AM on Jun 9th 2008
99. PV: "... Christianity in particular relies on evidences from history and logic."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Yeah, Christianity relies on history and logic... right. Is that why even Republican judges won't allow Creationism - er, I mean "Intelligent Design" - in public schools? Is that why the church had to murder millions of people to keep their religion alive through the ages? Is that why the church scared scientists into keeping their discoveries under wraps with threats of torture, death, or excummunication?
Puh-lease. Christianity is the biggest superiority complex.
K at 12:00PM on Jun 9th 2008
100. Somber,
Unfortunately, the same arguements you make about religion can be made about science. We KNOW that what was thought to be "science" was wrong last year, 50 years ago, 100 years ago and 1000 years ago. Adjustments are constantly being made as the human mind is able to comprehend it. "Science" was still wrong...no matter how much "arrogance" told us that it was right. History ultimately will determine what we know to be true about science.
Therefore you ask me to believe only what our limited mind can comprehend. Why should I when I KNOW that it has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. Sounds more like car salesmenship than science (I know that the car has some good uses, but you try and sell me on the gadgets). What the closed mind chooses to see is "limited" whether it's backed by SCIENCE or religion. Scientist are just "extremists" limited by only what they can comprehend at a given time. Extremists are extremists whether they be cloqued in jihadism or science. Why is that bad? Because it doesn't free the mind... it limits it.
Ken Hall at 12:10PM on Jun 9th 2008
101. PV: If you are an atheist--and I don't know if you are--then you are still putting enormous faith in a wide range of unproven "assertions/beliefs."
The atheists are using less faith in a wide range of unproven "assertions/beliefs" than you are. I have been noticing your rants for some time , and it is hard to believe someone can be as ignorant as you are. Your whole belief is based upon the sand pile, the myth of the fall of man. Mankind has evolved to the point where our ethics and morals have far exceeded the mythical God of the bible that you have apparently bought into.
Jerry Brown at 12:01PM on Jun 9th 2008
102. By the way, Jesse, the whole thing with Huxley was more that, as soon as science opens a door, a thousand more appear. That's why science is never complete, nor satisfied.
Linda at 12:05PM on Jun 9th 2008
103. "Scientist are just "extremists""
Ken, are you just trying to sound controversial?
Mokele Mbembe at 12:19PM on Jun 9th 2008
104. "Hell is for heroes"---interesting thought
I will give some insight into my own thoughts. I dont believe in heaven or hell. I refuse to live in fear of eternal punishment if I do not "believe" If god punishes people for not being a servant, then so be it. I am a free man and will not bow down before anyone or anything, even if it is the creator himself/herself.
"God" as we think "him" to be is a little too convenient for me. I like to think of an energy that connects all things, it is neither benevolent nor belligerant. It just is. It is the life force behind everything, neither ruling us nor ignoring us. It is us and it is everything in between and all around. It has no form as a human or a deity. It cannot talk with words, cannot appear in dreams, doesnt try to make miracles and has no concept of us as a seperate entity.
I dont call it agnosticism or atheism. Its closer to ancient taoism than anything else. There is nothing to worship, no church to attend, no books to read. All it is is just living.
it is all I need, but most people probably wont agree with me.
Man its hot outside.
CaptainCack at 12:24PM on Jun 9th 2008
105. Does anyone know any good primers on quantum arithmetic? I'm going to need an understanding by the time quantum processors are able to perform Shor's algorithm.
Mokele Mbembe at 12:25PM on Jun 9th 2008