50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (39 page)

30, 000 Years of Art: The Story of Human Creativity across Time and Space.
London: Phaidon Press, 2007.

Burn, Barbara, ed., Masterpieces of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1993.

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike-and yet it is the most precious
thing we have.

-Albert Einstein

sk a biologist how life began on Earth and you are likely to
hear something about organic molecules hooking up some
four billion years ago and charging down the road to life as we know
it. The scientist might even bring up panspermia or exogenesis, the
idea that the first life may have come to Earth from space, perhaps by
hitching a ride on a meteor. Sooner or later, however, the scientist is
sure to admit that nobody really knows how life began on our planet.
At this time the evidence is just not there. Unfortunately, it happened
so long ago that conclusive evidence for how it happened may never
be discovered. Although there is now a good overall picture of how
life evolved on our planet, scientists have failed so far to figure out the
great mystery of life's origin.

What about the entire universe? How did it start? Science offers a
fascinating partial answer with the big bang theory but many unanswered questions remain. As with the origin of life on Earth, it is possible that science will never be able to fully explain how the universe started. Maybe it was just too long ago and the crucial evidence for a
complete picture will never be found.

What about life in space? Is there life on other planets? Do other
civilizations exist in our galaxy or in other galaxies? Again, scientists
have some interesting ideas and opinions on the subject but, for now,
they just don't know.

What happens to us when we die? If you ask a typical biologist,
she likely will give you some bland talk about thoughts ceasing to
exist and atoms dispersing. Ultimately, however, she probably will
admit that nobody really knows for sure if anything else happens.

Why can't science answer so many big questions? Religions certainly are not shy about offering their answers confidently and
directly. Does this mean that religion is better than science? Some
believers say it does. They point to science's failure to explain important mysteries and call it one more reason to be confident that their
religion is true because their god answers every question thoroughly
and definitively.

There are significant problems with this popular idea. First of all,
it does not logically follow that a god must exist just because scientists
haven't figured everything out. However, many believers do see science's weakness as their gods' strength, so let's look at why science
seems to be so far behind in the eyes of many believers. The reason
there are so many gaping holes in science's attempt to explain everything in the universe while religions enjoy an apparent mastery of the
topic is because science and religion operate in very different ways.
Scientists are confident enough in themselves and their profession to
admit ignorance. Proper science does not claim to know anything with
certainty unless there is plenty of evidence behind it, and, even then,
all conclusions are fair game for revision forever. No discovery, no
theory, no fact in science is beyond correction. It is remarkable that
most scientists get along as well as they do considering that a quick
way to advance one's career is to tear apart a colleague's work.
Nothing in science is off-limits if it is shown to be wrong. This willingness to admit errors and to accept blanks in our knowledge is what makes science so productive. It's why science is by far the most reliable method we have for figuring things out about our world and our
universe. Gaps in our scientific knowledge are not shortcomings or
failures. They are shining examples of why science is better than religion. Science can't answer everything because science doesn't cheat
by providing answers without evidence.

Religions have a very different way of doing business. Most of
them operate on faith, which means declaring things to be true without
evidence to support the claim. Most religions also demand extreme
loyalty to authority figures and to ancient writings. Calls for evidence
and open debate are usually discouraged, if not outright forbidden. By
operating like this, it is relatively easy for religions to get away with
making extraordinary claims they can't prove.

It's safe to assume that many of today's scientific facts are wrong.
Scientists know that errors have been made and that corrections will
need to be made when somebody gets it right. They accept this as standard procedure. This culture of checking and changing constantly
nudges us toward greater understanding of the universe and everything in it. It obviously works because it keeps producing more
answers and better answers. If an unknown scientist who works at a
tiny university on one side of the world can prove that the revered
theory of a famous scientist on the other side of the world is wrong,
then that theory gets tossed out. It doesn't matter who graduated from
the most prestigious school or who has more awards. In science, evidence triumphs. Clearly this is the best way.

Since the publication of his book The God Delusion, Richard
Dawkins may have become the world's most prominent out-of-thecloset atheist. Many believers don't like him because they think he is
too aggressive, too dismissive of religion, and maybe a little too smart
for his own good. Having read many of his books and interviews, I
feel I have at least some sense of who he is and how he thinks. Despite
the fact that he is an evolutionary biologist and well-known for his
nonbelief in gods, I am confident that if he were presented with overwhelming evidence for the existence of gods and a ten-thousand-year old Earth on which life does not evolve, he would accept it and admit
that he was wrong about his atheism and his life's work. Dawkins has
shown himself to be a good scientist, and good scientists care first and
foremost about getting it right. I don't think he disbelieves in gods
simply because he wants to. I think he, like most atheists, probably
cannot believe in a god because he has never heard a convincing
reason for why he should.

The unfortunate creation-evolution conflict is a good example of
how science can work for anyone. Many believers have been misled
to think that evolution is some kind of evil plot by the scientific community to draw believers away from the gods. But this conspiracy is
very unlikely when just one scientist-even a fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Jewish scientist-could possibly produce a research
paper that conclusively shows that evolution does not occur and
destroy a widely respected theory. This scientist would clinch a Nobel
Prize, make headlines around the world, get a million-dollar book
deal, and become a hero to billions of believers. Why hasn't this happened? All it would take is one scientist to blow the whistle on the lie
of evolution.

It reveals a lot about creationism and intelligent design when their
leading advocates choose to fight battles in the news media and in
schoolboard meetings rather than inside laboratories and on the pages
of science journals. Science changes when it is wrong. It has done so
countless times and will do so many more times to come. If just one
believer could produce verifiable evidence for the existence of a god,
there is no doubt that science would accept it. Scientists are not likely
to run away from a real god. They would charge straight at it to learn
more. A new branch of science called "godology" probably would be
created and the process of learning more about the newly discovered
deity would begin. That god simply would be added to the long list of
human discoveries. But science will not pretend to answer questions
before the evidence is on the table.

Some believers criticize science for leaving them cold and empty.
Compared to religion science is unsatisfying, they say. But people who condemn science in this way fail to understand that it was never
designed to serve as some kind of heart-warming life philosophy. Science helps to reveal life, the world, and the universe for what they
are-good, bad, beautiful, and ugly. Science is a not a feel-good religion. It is not a system that is designed to cater to everyone's emotional needs.

Who knows, over the next several thousand years or so, maybe
science will be able to answer every question, but that day is a long
way off or it may never come. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong
with scientists shrugging their shoulders and saying, "beats me" when
confronted with questions they cannot answer. They should be
applauded for their honesty, not condemned for it. Admitting ignorance is not a confession of weakness. There is no shame in it and it
certainly is no reason for people to abandon science for religion. The
fact that scientists freely admit their ignorance should reassure us. And
religious leaders who rarely if ever admit their ignorance should raise
concern.

Science is not a belief system. As inspirational and exciting as it
can be, science cannot consistently provide warm and fuzzy feelings.
Beyond the joy that comes from understanding, perhaps it was never
meant to make us happy. It is not a security blanket or a reassuring
parental figure. Many times science takes us down dark paths of
knowledge and gives us answers we would rather not hear: A massive
asteroid will threaten to strike our planet one day; supervolcanoes will
erupt sooner or later; the Sun will die, and so forth. Science brings us
scary knowledge such as these as often as it brightens our days with
positive discoveries. The scientific method brought us the polio vaccine and the hydrogen bomb. For better or worse, science is the best
way to try and understand the universe and ourselves. That's it. No one
with good sense ever claimed that science was a consistent source of
soul food for the weary and peace of mind for the anxious.

When believers complain that science leaves them hungry because
it hasn't yet answered many big questions such as where we come from
or where we are going, they are only expressing a natural and reason able frustration. I, too, want to know exactly how the universe began,
how life started on Earth, and what, if anything, happens when we die.
No one is more curious than I am about such things. But it is best to be
mature enough to accept that we may never know everything. One does
not have to let go of reason and respect for science in order to cope with
mystery. It's okay to be ignorant of some things. It's also honest.

Believers who feel that their belief system is superior to science in
answering questions might ask themselves if they really think their
religion plays fair. After all, religions make the biggest claims with the
least evidence. This is the generation that will witness the return of
Jesus. Wow, that's amazing! But wait, where's the evidence for that? I
can go to heaven when I die? Great, I want in on that! But wait, where
is the proof? Your god made the world? How do you know?

Another point for believers to keep in mind is that religions don't
really answer anything anyway. Few believers think about this but it's
true. Religions don't explain how life started on earth. Religions only
claim to know who started life on Earth. Religions do not answer how
the universe began. They only claim to know who started the universe.
Religions do not explain how our consciousness survives in the form
of a soul after we die. They just claim that there is an afterlife. These
are not answers. Imagine if cosmologists said, "The big bang definitely started the universe," and didn't bother with presenting any evidence or a detailed theory. Wouldn't that be a pretty shallow explanation? Would anyone take them seriously?

Rather than turn away from science in search of more reassuring
and confident answers to our origins and ultimate fate, I urge believers
to make conditional peace with ignorance. You don't have to like it but
you can accept not knowing. Ignorance gets a bad rap. So what if we
don't have all the answers? Admitting ignorance shows that we are
honest and unwilling to go to absurd lengths in order to create the illusion of knowing everything. Ignorance of the big questions is not as
bad as you may have been led to believe. Scientists face it every day
and use it for inspiration to keep seeking answers. So should we all.

Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New York:
Basic Books, 1995.

Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for
Wonder. Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Kurtz, Paul, ed., Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2003. An excellent book that should interest both
nonbelievers and believers.