Atheism 21 - It's Only Science

If you've been keeping up with these posts since the beginning, you know that I've used a logical approach in trying to answer some fundamental theological questions (there are more advanced questions to which logic cannot apply, but more on that later).  I also pointed out that, while theology can be approached logically, it cannot be approached scientifically as it is not a repeatable observation.  I've even made the comment that the whole science v. religion debate doesn't actually exist except in the minds of a small group of theologians who don't understand science, an even smaller group of scientists who don't understand theology, and a huge group of laypersons who don't understand either one.

Yet, I continue to be plagued by petitions from people stating that it is simple-minded to continue to believe in God in this Scientific Age; that we can now assuredly say that Science is God.  In the words of that renowned philosopher Lee Corso, "not so fast, my friend!"

A 2009 poll conducted by Pew Research among members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed that 33% of responding research scientists stated that they believe in God, and an additional 18% said they believe in "a higher power" with 41% regarding themselves nonthiests and 8% of respondents abstaining from the question.  In case your math skills are a little rusty, that's 51% of scientists claiming a belief in something beyond science.

This really shouldn't be too big a surprise.  Many of the most famous names in science claimed to be thiests, some of them exceptionally devout.  Leonardo DaVinci,  Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Nicolas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Gregor Mendel, Benjamin Franklin, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, William Harvey, William Thomas Kelvin and Pierre and Marie Curie, to name a few.

I whipped out this list a while back and my interlocutor said something about all of these men and women  being pre-Darwinian.  Ok, how about this - Werner Heisenberg, Robert A. Millikan, Max Planck, John Eccles, James Clerk Maxwell, Guglielmo Marconi, Erwin Schrodinger, Ernst Haeckel, Arthur Compton, Albert Einstein and Wernher von Braun.  And, just to throw in a few living scientists, let's add Francis Collins, Christian Anfinsen, Werner Archer, D.H.R. Barton, Ulrich Becker and Kenneth Miller.

Oh, and speaking of Charles Darwin; yeah, him, too!

Here we are talking about - in the first list at least - the folk who invented the scientific method.  The giant shoulders upon which all scientists today stand.  Men and women for whom algebra was insufficient, so they gave us calculus, trigonometry, logarithms and statistical probability.  Some of the greatest minds in history.  And this list is far from exhaustive.  In fact, I've met a number of research scientists, mathematicians and engineers over the four decades that I've spent living with a microbiologist, and as I sit here typing, I can't think of a single one who doesn't believe in God!

 So, did all of these geniuses, all of these people who otherwise command our deepest respect and gratitude, all share this one blind spot in their rationality?  Were they geniuses in every regard but one?

It's possible.  But it's also possible that the person who simply refuses to believe in God for "scientific reasons" is just being an arrogant cuss who's using science as an excuse for his own pride.

In science we also like to use Occam's Razor when observable facts are in short supply.  It is most often translated thus - "the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually right." (William of Occam, for whom the axiom is named, was a Catholic monk, by the way)

Which would you say is the simpler explanation here - scientific nincompoops or ignorant laypersons?  Hmm...

Finally there's this:  there are some people - some very good friends of mine, in fact - who claim to be atheists and can present some rational and respectable arguments for their position.  Perhaps you consider yourself among this group.  I respect and admire you for it and I, for one, have no qualms whatsoever in simply "agreeing to disagree" on the matter.  If, however, you include "scientific reasons" among your rationalizations, then I am compelled to point out the dubious nature of your position.

Pax