To believe, or not to believe, that is the question.

I’ve been having a number of interesting debates with a friend of mine about the nature of religion, science and whether there is a God or not (I am an atheist; he is a man of faith). The result of these discussions has not convinced either of us that the other person is right, but, speaking for myself, they have been very illuminating about the thoughts of someone who believes in the ethereal. The discussions have also been very illuminating on the conceptions, and misconceptions, of the nature and role of science. Not only have I had to think hard about why I think the way I do, but I have also had to sharpen my ability to convey, what I think, are self-evident truths about science’s nature and purpose.

I have recently read ‘God is not Great’ by Christopher Hitchens and am in the process of reading ’40 Days and 40 Nights’, which is book describing the events of the Dover, Pennsylvania trial concerning whether intelligent design, or ‘ID’ should have been allowed to be taught in High School science class. Hitchens’ book is a fascinating read and a well-written treatise against religion. I doubt that it would change the mind of anyone of faith due to its basic hostility towards all things religious, but Hitchens makes a brilliant case against the claims of religion as a basis of ethics and morality. I also think he makes the best case of all the recent atheist books (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) that religion is truly a man-made concept.

’40 Days and 40 Nights’ illuminates the divide of those who rely on science as an ongoing explanation of the world and those of faith who are tied to a static tale of the creation of the world. Some passages describing the view of some on the Dover school board are truly frightening in the sense of how the individuals reveal their hatred of science, modernity, and a seeking of truth and knowledge. Equally frightening are their mistaken assumptions and beliefs about the historical origins of the United States, which are used as arguments for bringing faith into the classroom.

It would seem, judging from the arguments presented by those who were in favor of introducing ’ID’ and from my discussions, that there is a general feeling of a static nature to science and the, not entirely mistaken, belief that some who follow science grant it a religious type of fervor. While there are many who do so, I would argue that they are also missing the nature of science which is that it evolves and that a theory is a collection of facts that have been tested and are observable, experimentally speaking. Most importantly, however, a theory is only as good as the information that supports it. That is, if new information comes along that does not fit the theory and a better theory can be created the old theory is thrown in the dustbin. There is the fundamental difference between science and religion. If there was a theory that could explain our development as a species better than evolution, scientists would abandon evolution quickly. Such is the nature of science.

I end this with a link to an excellent commencement address recently delivered that illustrates the problem of ignorance and the mistaken views of science and of truth.