In Part 1 of this two-part series, I contested the notion that the scientific community provides the only valid path to finding truth. Proponents of this view, such as Jerry Coyne, overlook the very definition of truth when they use the word. Furthermore, by making truth an ever-moving target, they concede that science is unable to address the very things that people care to understand most—like the nature of reality and the origins of our existence.
Beyond truth and origins lie very practical, existential concerns that we all must face. The search to understand human morality and life’s meaning consumes our thoughts, presses our emotions, and even occupies our dreams. Science can do little to help us on these fronts if we take Coyne’s contentions in Faith Versus Fact seriously. That’s not to say Coyne or other atheist scientists are living immoral lifestyles, or that they don’t believe they have grounds to address issues of morality and meaning. The problem is that their own arguments deny even the possibility of binding moral norms or any ultimate meaning to our lives . . .
Morality—An Accident of History
One of the most striking developments in modern empirical science is a return to determinism (often called scientific materialism). Determinism basically says that every human thought, every movement, every human feeling and desire, is a mere accident of time and space. Coyne holds this view and admits it is pervasive:
“The notion of pure “free will,” the idea that in any situation we can choose to behave in different ways, is vanishing. Most scientists and philosophers are now physical “determinists” who see our genetic makeup and environmental history as the only factors that, acting through the laws of physics, determine which decisions we make” (Coyne, Faith Versus Fact, 15).
Coyne seems to understand the implications—morality becomes an accident of history in the determinist paradigm. He continues: “Evolutionary psychology, by studying the evolutionary roots of human behavior, gradually erodes the uniqueness of many human traits, like morality, once imputed to God” (15).
Morality Without Morality
This determinism reaches its necessary conclusion at the end of Faith Versus Fact when Coyne addresses human moral issues. He writes, “The findings of science are morally neutral; it is how they are used that is sometimes a problem” (219). We would expect him to say that science can’t prescribe morality, but as a whole this is a self-defeating, self-contradictory statement if ever there was one. If science is our only means to discover truth, and science is morally neutral, then there can be no “problem” with how we use the findings of science. If science gives us no morality, no morality can guide how we do science (or anything else, for that matter).
These are remarkable assertions for someone who has written a book filled with reflections on the value of science-inspired secular ethics. We would expect Coyne to remain aloof, or at least judicious, concerning heated social issues. Instead, he promotes modern secular forms of moral behavior over 100 times throughout the book. In the final chapter, he exposes his preference for access to abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and unrestricted adult sexual relations, which would presumably include prostitution (251). So much for moral neutrality. And so much for an explanation concerning why these moral positions would be superior to others, other than the fact that they didn’t originate with a religious group.
All of this greatly concerns people who reject scientific naturalism as the sole arbiter of truth. We wonder why we must buy into their admittedly groundless moral vision for the world. More importantly, we see great danger if they succeed in their efforts to jettison other voices that wish to contribute to the conversation of moral norms in society.
Meaning Without Meaning
There is one more area that atheistic science can’t speak to: meaning. How can scientific determinism possibly steer clear of the belief and sense that life is purposeless (nihilism). Of course, not every determinist or atheist looks at the world with doom, gloom, and hopelessness. But they live in perpetual contradiction with their stated beliefs. If determinism is true, meaningless existence is the only logical product. And many people, understandably, will never rest under such circumstances. Christian philosopher Gregory Boyd is one such example. I love the way he describes his former experience as an atheist:
“[In finding my way back into the Christian faith] I will only note that I was initially motivated by the sheer intensity of my existential anguish. If nihilism is true, I began to wonder, how come it feels so exquisitely painful and so unnatural to accept it?” (Gregory Boyd, in Four Views on the Historical Adam, 258)
Though I frequently disagree with many of Boyd’s views, I’m inspired by his brutal honesty here. He faced the rational implications of life without God. What might have been the consequences upon his life if he had been prevented from doing so? Instead of languishing in his anguish, he broke free to experience a life of logical and existential meaning.
Facing the Practical Consequences
There are many Gregory Boyds in this world. Is it not cruel to squelch their search for meaning? Even if a Christian like Boyd cannot “prove” that Jesus rose from the dead and offers eternal life to humanity, why should the hope and purpose he derives from his faith be subdued? In the end, the determinists provide no satisfying answers to these questions, particularly since their own system provides no such hope. [1]
As far as I can tell, Coyne does not wish to psychologically enforce atheism upon people and society—but you don’t have to look far to find those who do. Many prominent determinists seek to prevent religious voices from influencing public dialog. Widespread social consequences from such action are unavoidable.
But the personal consequences—the impact upon individual lives—is what most concerns me. I’ve officiated the funerals of people close to me, and close to my family. I’ve seen thousands of faces void of hope and compared them with the faces of those who do have hope. I’m burdened for them, and I find it subtly cruel that some would stifle the hope of those who do have it.
Ideas Have Consequences
My intention in this article has not been to prove that Christianity is superior to other belief systems or atheism, though I believe that to be true. I’m convinced that atheism, particularly in the form of scientific determinism, is being artfully propagated in Western society as a compelling solution for humanity’s search for truth and meaning. It’s not.
Finally, I wish to close by saying that I have watched videos of Coyne and I genuinely appreciate his fun, friendly personality. He has a likeable demeanor, and I can easily imagine sitting in my living room enjoying long conversations with him. But as the saying goes, “Ideas have consequences.” Regardless of how he and other determinists have managed to live with a sense of meaning, the implications of their views must be brought to light.
____________________________
[1] I realize Coyne argues in Faith Versus Fact that religious belief should be discouraged because it is historically and presently “harmful” to society. That issue is beyond the scope of this article, but I vehemently disagree and intend to address it in a future article. The point here is that scientific materialism/determinism can offer absolutely no viable alternative or guidance in the human quest for meaning.