In a discussion on here some time ago the inimitable EdwinRad shared the article “Time Magazine: Why Science Does Not Disprove God” in order to make some sort of a point. Time magazine found it worthy of publication, and it is written by a lecturer in mathematics and the history of science, so expectations are high. However…
The article starts out with a blatant straw man: “A number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God.” – Really!? Of course no actual examples of such “articles and books” are presented, since they don’t exist.
In the very next sentences we get the bait-and-switch: “We know so much about how the universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator.” – Yes, indeed. And this is nothing like claiming “science has now disproved the existence of God”. The author clearly shows his dishonesty and cowardice here, by not daring to engage with the actual claim.
Then a bunch of tedious sections follow praising the achievements of science, while constantly circling back to the straw man question of “but does this mean science has disproved God?”. No, of course it doesn’t and nobody ever claimed it does. It does however mean that science has found natural explanations for almost everything religion for centuries confidently claimed to be God’s ineffable work.
After that we get the obligatory God-of-the-gaps stuff: Science cannot explain the Big Bang or abiogenesis yet, therefore God! Science has not solved the hard problem of consciousness to my satisfaction yet, therefore God! Please…
To deal a final blow to meanie pie atheist scientists, the fine-tuning argument is presented as if that has not been debunked over and over by now. The author describes fine tuning as a “troubling mystery for scientific atheists”. Really? Actually, to scientists this is just another interesting research area, to be tackled by applying the scientific method, not by lazily declaring that God Did It.
The final sentences are the most dishonest and revealing of the whole article:
“Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.”
Yeah right. Science and religion are not two sides of the same coin at all. Only one of the two is successful at “understanding the world, our place in it, […] the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos”. Hint: that is not religion. And only one of the two has for centuries “attempted to usurp the role of the other”. Hint: that was not science.
The author just reveals his deep fear of religion sliding into irrelevance here, and more or less begs science to back off, so that there are some gaps left for him to hide his God in. Well, good luck with that strategy.
Questions (no, these are not leading questions at all :-D):
- Why do you think this dishonest crappy article is the best an actual university lecturer can do to defend his irrational religious beliefs?
- Is the underlying fear of the author that religion is sliding into irrelevance due to the advancements of science justified, or are there other factors at play here?