The Science God:

                                    Theism By Reason Alone

 

 

 

 

 

 

             by Dwight Wendell

Preface

          Faith and Reason are not enemies. They can’t really even be called friends. They are different aspects of the same thing. Science is simply the form that Religion has taken in the modern world and Science has both Faith and Reason embedded in it. That is the message of this book. But I know that I am going to have to make my case well if I am to get my readers to see that what I am asserting is so.

          We live in an age that we like to think of as an age of reason par excellence. We assume Science and the methods of Science are increasing in influence in our world with every day that passes, and we celebrate that fact because we have seen over and over that the majority of the cruel and stupid abuses of the past can be traced directly to the unscientific superstitions of the societies in which they occurred.

          But at the same time, the moral codes that we need simply to move through our daily lives, from the personal level to the global, have suffered serious damage in the last four centuries, largely because these moral codes haven’t held up under the scrutiny of this same Science. The majority of citizens know this as well. We are bolstered and encouraged by the material progress Science has brought us, but we are also frightened by the amorality of its worldview. 

           From the old codes of right and wrong, we keep getting directions that we can see are obsolete. Executing murderers, for example, is totally counter-productive. In the meantime, however, the new gurus of Western society, namely the scientists, when they are questioned directly on what right and wrong are, say that Science cannot comment on morality or, worse yet, they flatly assert that all moral values are no more than fantasy concoctions, about as empirically real as Santa Claus. (1.)  

          Science has given us the capacity to do harm on a planetary scale. Therefore, we need guidance; we need answers and not just piecemeal ones. We need a general moral system that can tell us which of our actions are at least tending toward right and which are not. We can’t go on doing things like building nuclear weapons and polluting our planet and not, sooner or later, have to face consequences. Environmentalists from Rachel Carson to David Suzuki have said we have to stop the madness (2., 3.).

 

     

          The nuclear physicists’ nightmare is even more horrifying, so much so that Einstein himself said that the unleashing of the power of the atom had set us drifting toward “unparalleled catastrophe” (4.).

          We have a reasonable chance of surviving on into the future if and only if we can work out a new moral code that we can all agree to live by. Every other path into the future is shadowed by a high probability of disaster. That is the dark side of the power that Science has given us.     

This book is an attempt to solve the dilemma of our time, the moral dilemma that has left us not so much struggling to live up to our ideals as wondering what those ideals are, and whether such things as ideals are even relevant in our world today. In this book, I will work out a solution to that dilemma, a solution based not on “holy texts” or personal epiphanies, but on reason backed by replicable evidence. However, I admit that readers are going to have to give their full attention to following the arguments that I present here. My arguments aim to fill a very tall order; they can’t be explained in a line or two.

I will try very hard to make my overall case a rigorously logical one, but I know that it is also very much a personal one. Saying so is an admission for which I don’t apologize. I am going to discuss matters that I believe are profoundly important for us all. My case is both logical and anecdotal, and my tone has to be both rational and personal. As Hume said, feelings drive thoughts and actions, not vice-versa.(5.)