(or The Scientific Atheism Fallacy)
A scientist has to be an atheist; that seems to be the pervading wisdom put forth by a smug intelligentsia. Yahoos, snake handlers, and Bible freaks are “true believers,” but sober men and women of science can't possibly believe in such fairy tales. Snicker, snicker, wink, wink. If you're smart, then obviously you get that God is a convenient psychological crutch and religion nothing more than a social mechanism designed to reign in our baser tendencies— tendencies that, if uncontrolled by the dos and don'ts of religion would lead to societal anarchy.
This idea that atheism is the ideology of choice for the more educated and enlightened and can be the only mind-set of the rational and scientifically minded (since, you know, there's no scientific proof of God) is championed in best sellers such as Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great (2007) and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006). So-called smart people—you know, academics, scientists, intellectuals, and wannabe intellectuals— declare themselves atheists with a capital A and tow the company line: since God, or cosmic sentience, can't be affirmatively proven (or even observed) via scientific methodology, then those empirically unobservable things can't exist. Thus, anything beyond our observable material reality is considered right up there with Big Foot and the chupacabra.
But here's the thing. If any scientists proudly and self-assuredly declare themselves atheists (Richard Dawkins and friends, you know who you are!), then they're not only being intellectually dishonest, but they're also going counter to the guiding principles of the thing that they profess to love so much: science.
How's that?
In science, we can't affirmatively know something until we've empirically proven it. Absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo “I know that I don't know.” (Socrates is said to have been dubbed by the Oracle at Delphi the smartest man in all of Greece because he alone was smart enough to realize that “I know that I know nothing.”) Thus, without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism—of “I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another.” Really, how can Dawkins claim, as a scientist, that he's an atheist when he hasn't proven that God does not exist?
The atheist will counter by crying, “Well, OK, but there isn't any affirmative proof of God.” Fine, even if we grant that assertion (which some will dispute), then the proper scientific stance should still be one of uncertain agnosticism—not definitive atheism. Indeed, one might argue that skeptical agnosticism is the orientation consistent with science, pending any affirmative proof of God's existence one way or the other.
Now, some might echo the old axiom that, well, you can't prove a negative. But if we were to believe that, then that's all the more reason why a person of science should not claim to be an atheist since the nonexistence of God is empirically impossible to prove. Many have disputed this old “you can't prove a negative” axiom by pointing out that some scientific experiments do indeed prove a negative; Francesco Redi's famous seventeenth-century experiment proving that maggots do not spontaneously generate from meat is an example of proving a negative). Yet where is the experiment to show that God does not exist or the proof that the universe has no purpose? Absent these, it would seem that for a scientist to embrace atheism is not only intellectually dishonest, but also logically inconsistent.
One might also reasonably say that theistically inclined scientists are also guilty of intellectual dishonesty; after all, they too believe in something that hasn't been scientifically proven, which, as we've said, is a big scientific no-no.
But there is a logically consistent proof for the existence of God. It's not commonly taught in most public schools, but Saint Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, developed his “five proofs for the existence of God” hundreds of years before an apple dropped on Isaac Newton's head. In essence, Aquinas argues that something (i.e., us, the universe) can't arise from nothingness, that something (namely God) had to be the cause of all things and of all movement. (This notion borrows heavily from Aristotle's “Unmoved Mover” conception of what we might call God.)
Aquinas's second key idea has to do with the universe's tendency towards order, which seems to contradict the chaos of the laws of entropy; in other words, the order that comes from disorder leads to a conclusion that the universe has some sort of purposeful unfolding (what some might call divine intervention or perhaps even a form of universal DNA encoded into the existential fabric to guide, over the course of some 15 billion years, the evolutionary development of an inanimate, subatomic, pre–Big Bang speck from inanimate star dust into the sentient and reasoned being that's reading this page).
To give a better explication of Aquinas's five proofs of the existence of God, I provide the following brief summary, from S. M. Miranda's website. at “St. Thomas Aquinas Forum” (www.saintaquinas.com; the bold is my addition).
Aquinas' first proof is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less than the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself. A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God.
The second proof follows closely with the first and expounds the principle of causality. St. Thomas explains that in the world of sense there is an order of cause and effect. There is a cause for all things such as the existence of a clock. And nothing can cause itself into existence. A clock cannot will itself into existence, it must be created and caused into existence by something else. A clockmaker creates a clock and causes its existence, and yet the material of the clock and the clockmaker did not cause themselves to exist. Something else must have caused their existence. All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God.
Aquinas next explains that things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be “possible to be and possible not to be.” Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. However, as was already explained in his second proof, there must have been a first cause that was not of transitory nature that could have generated the beginning of nature.
In his fourth point Aquinas notes that there is a certain gradation in all things. For instance we can group things that are hot according to varying degrees of the amount of heat perceptible in that object. In classifying objects there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. Thus universal qualities in man such as justice and goodness must attribute their varying qualities to God; the source of maximum and perfect justice and goodness.
Finally, Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe. We cannot say that chance creates order in the universe. If you drop a cup on the floor it shatters into bits and has become disordered. But if you were to drop bits of the cup, they would not assemble together into a cup. This is an example of the inherent disorder prevalent in the universe when things are left to chance. The existence of order and natural laws presupposes a divine intelligence who authored the universe into being.
Now, Aquinas's proof relies on reason and logic; for those seeking C.S.I.-style evidence of God, sorry. Nor do we have the George Burns version of God from the movie Oh, God! testifying in a courtroom or revealing himself to a befuddled John Denver.
Instead, all we have is a thirteenth-century proof from a long-dead theologian. That and wondrous and miraculous creation itself—flowers, and babies, and rainbows, and luminous stars and galaxies, and, perhaps most amazing of all, this amazing thing called the human mind with its seemingly infinite ability to create and to imagine. Yes, this incredible mind of ours that bestows—or receives—sentience that then allows us to look up at the brilliance of the night sky and wonder.
Even though everything that I've just mentioned might not convince everyone that there's more to the universe than meets the eye, I have still yet to see the compelling proof or the scientific evidence that God or cosmic purpose does not exist. So for all of you atheists out there, be really smart: Admit that you don't know for sure what the hell is going on. Be like our man Socrates and admit that you know that you don't know. After all, for all you really know, you might just be a butterfly dreaming that you're an atheist!
With all of this talk of God, atheism, and science, we come back around to philosophy, the thing that Bertrand Russell had described as “the no-man's land between religion and science.” Where does philosophy fit in to all of this discussion about God, science, and what it means to be human?
This contemplative exercise involves trying to stop all our left-hemisphere-mind verbal chatter and the inner self-talk that we call thinking.
For this exercise, you will take a fifteen-to twenty-minute walk somewhere in nature. However, this is a very special type of walk; you will be asked to not verbally think during this walk. When verbal chatter arises in your consciousness, gently push it away. For this walk, you will be asked to immerse yourself into your surroundings, to become keenly aware of all the subtleties and details of the nature that you will be walking through.
Thus, as you very slowly walk along, be observant and aware of the colors and texture of the tree, the feel of the ground under each step, the sensation of the fresh air as you inhale it through your nostrils, the vivid color kaleidoscope of natural colors along your path. As thoughts and words arise, continue to gently push them away.
At the end of the fifteen or twenty minutes, find a tree, rock, plant, or shrub to stand in front of. As you stand in front of this fellow living creature, become keenly aware of all its textural nuances and details. Begin to experience this tree (if you've chosen a tree) to be a fellow living object. Feel your life force—what the Japanese call your Ki—going down through your legs and into the ground; this life force is anchoring you into Gaia, Mother Earth, just as the tree's roots are anchoring it into the ground. Take several moments to merely be with the tree. Do you feel your Ki touching the tree's roots? If not, take several more moments to visualize your Ki-roots and the tree's actual roots connecting with each other through the living earth beneath your feet.
When you're done, sit for several more moments and become aware of how you feel. Now look around you; do you experience things any differently? Feel free to write down any of these initial thoughts and feelings, as writing these down will help you to process this experience.