Category Archives: Science and Faith

Can Science Give Us Meaning and Morality?

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.

Do We Just Need Science to Find Truth? A Reflection on Jerry Coyne’s “Faith Versus Fact”

I love science. One of my earliest childhood memories is of my dad getting out basketballs and tennis balls to mimic planetary orbits with me. In high school, my Physics teacher brought science to life; Mr. Bergeon received regular awards and became one of the most respected teachers in my state. [1] People like my dad and Mr. Bergeon fueled my appreciation for science and inspired me to study Engineering in college.

I am certain that science can help us understand and engage the world better. But does science have the explanatory power to tell us what is ultimately true or provide meaning to our existence? Even the most ardent atheist scientists appear to think not . . .

Putting Science and Faith at Odds

One such scientist is Jerry Coyne, author of Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible. The premise of the book is pretty straightforward: science deals with facts and religion can only operate on superstitions. Religion is a hindrance to humanity and we would all be better off without it. Throughout the book, Coyne offers relevant insights that Christians and people of other faiths ought to take into consideration. But I want to focus on an essential takeaway from Faith Versus Fact. Science, as understood by Coyne and those in his camp, “can’t handle the truth.” Coyne all but admits this from the outset:

“In this book I will avoid the murky waters of epistemology by simply using the words “truth” and “fact” interchangeably. These notions blend into the concept of “knowledge,” defined as “the apprehension of fact or truth with the mind . . . Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional” (29-30).

Truth-Dodging

Epistemology is one of those big academic words which basically means the study of how we know what we know—in other words, how we rightly say that something is knowledge. Coyne’s quote above may sound sensible on its surface, but it places severe limits on what we can ultimately know, and it prescribes very restrictive means for how we might get there.

First, notice that by evading discussion of epistemology, he is altogether sidestepping the main issue. None of us simply wants to be told what is true; we want to how we can know truth. Furthermore, we want to know we’re working off the same definition of truth. That’s what the whole discipline of epistemology is about. Coyne essentially says, “I don’t want to debate the ways humans might identify truth or gain knowledge; just take my word for it—science is the only option.”

Second, to equate truth with scientific facts will not do. Science is valuable but far from flawless. Why should we assume data and explanations surfaced by fallible scientific communities are the only valid sources of truth? [2] That won’t satisfy most of the planet, which is one reason humanity continues to pursue multiple paths of discovering truth. Coyne’s chief rebuttal is that the other paths, like philosophy and religion, don’t satisfy him. [3]

Coyne’s Science Can’t Handle the Truth

Next, notice that truth is impossible to ascertain under Coyne’s paradigm. Even if scientists could never do wrong, truth would still be “provisional”; it can never be known with confidence. Whatever apparent “facts” we might have are merely the best we can do for now. That sounds humble and attractive on the surface, but Coyne fails to explore the gravity of his position—it means we can never really be confident that we know anything. Truth is always up for grabs. But that’s not the way humanity has defined truth throughout history. Truth is what corresponds to reality, regardless of whether our minds have comprehended it. Our understanding of facts may be provisional, but truth itself does not change. According to Coyne, “scientific truth” can change, so we’re never left with anything that sticks.

Here’s why Coyne’s subtle evasion of the epistemology/truth discussion is so significant: the search for universal, unchanging truth is the whole venture. It’s what we care about, what most of the world desperately wants to discover. In the end, Coyne says science can’t provide unchanging truth, but we are all fools for seeking additional means to get to it. That’s not a scientific attitude. Not only does it discourage open-minded discovery, it borders on cruelty toward a human race that longs for answers.

Science, Origins, and Our Deepest Questions

Beyond its limitations concerning truth, the science promoted by Coyne also lacks the power to explain the ultimate origins of reality. I was surprised by his admission to this and I wonder if he realized its implications for the entire proposal of Faith Versus Fact:

“There are also difficult problems that science hasn’t yet explained—the origin of life and the biological basis of consciousness are two . . . given their difficulty, some may never be solved” (153).

The problems that Coyne says science may never solve are the very issues other disciplines like theology and philosophy directly explore. Once again, we’re left bewildered—why would those who believe science may never answer these questions jettison other potential means of addressing them? That’s not a scientific posture, it’s not logical, and it’s certainly not compassionate.

The next article, will take up another area that presents problems for scientists of Coyne’s persuasion: Can Science Give Us Meaning and Morality?

_____________________________________

[1] I believe Mike Bergeon is now retired but he maintains a high ranking on Rate My Teachers: https://www.ratemyteachers.com/michigan/teachers/52

[2] Coyne rightly argues that religious and philosophical groups often disparage science as wholly untrustworthy and subject to bias. However, the fact remains that the scientific enterprise is and always will be a fallible human pursuit. No matter what scientists’ intentions, it is subject to errors, collective bias, groupthink, and sometimes fraud that may or may not be detected. Also, students of history will recognize Coyne’s assessment of religion in Faith Versus Fact as sorely misinformed—Christians have generally supported and propelled courageous, ethical scientific discovery throughout history. Certainly, there are cases to the contrary.

[3] Coyne offers other reasons for his conclusions, most notably that religious means to truth acquisition have never produced widespread agreement about which belief system is right. But lack of consensus does not prove that consensus will never arrive, nor that any given religious explanation might not already be true.