The Science God:

   Theism by Reason Alone

      by Dwight Wendell

Preface

Faith and Reason are not enemies. But neither can they be called friends. They are different aspects of the same thing. When Reason is applied to empirical reality, it becomes the discipline that we call “Science”. Science and its methods then support a theory of cultural evolution on which we can build a universal moral code. Then, this universal code of right and wrong, with a few other models from modern Science added, leads us to belief in a deity. A kind of faith.

In short, we can use the scientific method, apply it to evidence, and reason our way, via a small number of steps, to belief in God. That is the thesis of this book.  

We live in an era that we like to think is the most comprehensively logical era in the history of our species. We assume Science and the methods of Science are increasing in influence in our world with every day that passes. We celebrate that fact because we have seen too often in our history that most of the cruelties done by humans to other humans were rooted in false beliefs. When a false belief gets widely accepted in a society, soon some members of that society are deemed to be in violation of the one of the rules that is implicit in the false belief. Persecution of this minority quickly becomes normal, even required, in the eyes of the rest of the members of that society.

Thus, superstitions nearly always lead to cruelty. Whether or not a woman is a witch, for example, can’t be determined by throwing her in deep water to see whether she floats. There are no witches in the first place and never were. Belief in witches created this cruelty. Science frees us from this kind of nonsense.    

But at the same time, Science has all but destroyed the moral codes we used to use to guide us as we made choices, acted, and moved through our everyday lives. The old moral codes haven’t held up well under the scrutiny of Science.

Most people today are aware of this dilemma. We feel encouraged when we see the material progress Science has brought us, but then, almost immediately, we feel frightened by the moral emptiness of its worldview. 

Science has given us many wondrous devices and processes, but so far it has refused to tell us when, or even whether, we should use them.   

  

From the old codes of right and wrong, we keep getting directions that we can see are obsolete. (For example, executing murderers can easily be shown to be counterproductive.) But in the meantime, the new gurus of the West, scientists, when they are asked to define “right” and “wrong”, say Science can’t comment on morality or, worse yet, they flatly assert that all moral values are only fantasies, daydreams, entirely arbitrary, about as real as Santa Claus.¹

Science has given us the capacity to do harm on a planetary scale. Because of that, we need guidance; we need answers and not just piecemeal ones. We need a comprehensive moral system that can tell us, as we choose among the myriads of actions that we could do, which ones we should do.

So, a big part of what I will try to do in this book is to reason my way to a moral code that is grounded in observations of the empirical world, as all Science is. That is where the compromise between Science and a kind of Faith will lie.

Even if we proceed no further than the creation of that reality-grounded moral code, we will have accomplished something hugely important. We need a moral code that can be justified to all observers who have simply the physical senses to observe reality and the minds to reason about what they have observed.

Why do I feel that the finding of a new moral code is so urgent in our time?

Because we are caught up in so many moral dilemmas. For example, we can’t go on polluting our planet without, sooner or later, having to face consequences.

Environmentalists from Rachel Carson to David Suzuki have said we must stop the madness.^2,3 Only a reality-grounded moral code might lead us out of this peril. No other moral code in this age of Science is going to attract enough followers to make the crucial difference between inaction and effective action.

Science is the method for approaching truth that is trusted the most in these times. We have sacks full of gurus, mystics, holy texts, and personal epiphanies, but they are nearly always at odds with each other. They appear by their own words to be utterly unreliable. So the large and growing majority of the world’s people are looking to Science and scientists to create a moral code for us all to live by. Science has, so far, flatly refused to do so.   

          

   

                                   Kentaro IEMOTO (via Wikimedia Commons) 

                                                                            

The physicist’s nightmare is even more horrifying. Einstein said our gaining control of nuclear energy set us drifting toward “unparalleled catastrophe.”⁴

               

   

                   Hiroshima after atomic bombing  (credit: Wikipedia Commons)

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

This book is an attempt to solve the dilemma of our time, moral relativism, the 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. Do “right” and “wrong” even really exist?

Moral relativism is the position in Philosophy that says there is no basis in the factual, material world for any moral “values”. Relativists argue that no one has made a sound, evidence-based case for any moral code because no such case can be made. Moral codes are just expressions of tastes, programmed into us as children. "Right" and "wrong" are words that may make sense in a particular society at a particular time, but they are only tastes that most of the people in that society agree on for the time being. They change from era to era and place to place. In short, the only honest thing one can say about morality, according to moral relativists, is: "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."

On the other hand, moral realism says that there must be a material, scientific explanation for morality. All phenomena in reality can be explained in scientific ways. That is a basic tenet of the creed of Science. Moral realists set out to try to find that kind of explanation for what we call our “moral codes”. What are these explanations we give when we are asked why we do the things we do. 

In this book, I will work out a solution to our moral dilemma, a solution based not on holy texts or personal epiphanies, but on logical arguments supported by replicable evidence. However, I admit that readers will have to give their full attention to following the arguments I present here. This book aims to fill a tall order; the case for its thesis can’t be made in a line or two.

I also begin with a warning. I will try very hard to make my case thoroughly logical, but I know it is also going to become personal. I don’t apologize for this. I will discuss matters that I believe are profoundly important for us all in all aspects of our lives, from international relations to daily social confluence. This book is going to start out being objective in tone, but later, it’s going to get personal. As it must. If I didn’t “care”, I would not write at all. As David Hume said, feelings drive thoughts and actions, not vice versa.⁵      

                 

   

                                                            

                                      The Scientific Method (Archon Magnus)

                                          (credit: Wikimedia Commons) 

One way to ease into the moral relativism vs. moral realism debate is to explain how I came to be obsessed with it.

When I was in Grade 9, I was fortunate enough to have a really fine teacher for Science. He liked his subject, liked kids, and liked bringing the two together, which is all a good teacher ever really has to do. He impressed the thinking technique called the scientific method deeply into my mind. You get an idea, or you imagine a model/theory of how some part of the world around you works – how event A connects to event B. You think of a practical, real-world way to test the idea. You set up the apparatus you need, then you do the test. All the while, you keep careful records of what you observe.

Next, you analyze the data to see whether patterns exist among them that tend to support your theory. You then develop further ideas for subtler theories, and you keep on researching and testing. Sometimes you find a way to use your insights into how the universe works to create technologies that enable humans to live with more health and happiness or, at least, a little less pain. Once in a while, you find a way to formulate one of the basic laws of the universe.

I could see that by using this method, sharing their findings, and continuing their research, scientists had expanded human knowledge, created so many helpful technologies, and cured diseases – all in a steady march of progress. They had brought most of my way of life to its current state, one that was far safer, more comfortable, and more interesting than that known to any of my ancestors. Even at fourteen, I was filled with a rush of emotion each time I realized not only what had been accomplished but what might be still to come. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, we are destined for the stars.

On the other hand, between the ages of six and eleven, I had spent many Sunday mornings attending Sunday School at St. Stephen’s United Church. I had felt similar profound emotions when I learned about the Being who had supposedly created this universe and who loved everything in it. My six-year-old heart ached when I thought about how human beings had lost their relationship with God. The evidence was easy to see for myself. I never believed in a bearded man in the sky or that our planet is only six thousand years old. But I could clearly see that humans are not very moral or even logical most of the time. I could see this truth in events all around me, from the schoolyard to the Cold War.

But I was uplifted when I heard about a man who had told humans how they could strike a new deal. If they could learn to truly love one another and show it by treating each other just decently, then they could regain their relationships with one another and, ultimately, their relationship with God. The key concept to grasp was that following Jesus’ way was what mattered, not whether he was some kind of “divine” being. Get to the practical. Love one another. Treat each other with respect. Then peace, progress, and prosperity will come. All of this was six-year-old naïve, I know. But as I look back now, it seems more profound than the beliefs of most adults because it was heartfelt and unabashed.

Even as a child, I did not believe in “miracles”, that is, events that lie beyond all scientific explanation. I still don’t. Nor do I believe in the divinity of Jesus. Or, to be exact, I believe he had a spark of something like what we call “divine” in him, but so do all living things. He had a lot more than most of us, but he differed from us in degree, not type. And miracles? They all turn out to have logical, scientific explanations in the end.

                  

I knew even as a child that the important thing to understand was what the new deal Jesus offered humanity represented. The principles being represented in the stories were what mattered, and they seemed to me absolutely spot on. His whole worldview, for me, said that if we apply reason and love to what we know of our own history, we can find a path to survival – i.e. to humanity’s handling the hazards of its own success. In other words, once a critical mass of humans shares a model of reality that shows them how to live so as to fit into the natural world – and as an integral part of that way of life, to respect their fellow humans – they will live on in greater numbers than the ones who promote ignorance and cruelty. Over generations, reason and love will prove fitter than cruelty and folly. The followers of the way of hate will decrease. The followers of the way of love will multiply. Until at last, haters become a small minority that is easily handled by mainstream society and is regarded only with curiosity.

My faith was not destroyed when I gained an understanding of the scientific method. Nor was my passion for Science destroyed by my moral beliefs. The two clashed at times, my faith wavered for a while, but I gradually worked out a set of ideas that combines the two into one coherent system, a thought system whose power to guide, nourish, and inspire is greater than any power residing in our old Science alone, or old Religion alone, has ever been or could ever be.

The question in this Age of Science is “How?” How can a thinking human being in modern times feel confident in both these ways of viewing the world and our place in it? These two ways are considered by most people to be incompatible. 

The answer is that they are so far from incompatible that the plural pronoun “they” doesn’t fit here. In reality, only a single idea system is being discussed. There is a way of understanding and reconciling all that we know, a way that integrates it all, from our observations of events around us, to the memories stored in our brains, to all the concepts we use as we strive to comprehend what we see and recall, and then design effective responses to all of it. In short, when correctly understood, Science is Religion.

                       

                

             Human facing raw nature Wanderer Above The Sea Of Fog

   (credit: Caspar David Friedrich [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

This book is mainly about a set of ideas that connects Science to Morality, and thus integrates and unifies all that we know. It only moves on to conclude with a kind of theism after the work on moral realism has been done. The former follows by a few easy steps once the latter has been accomplished. 

In this book, I will build a case in everyday language which shows that Science and Morality are nothing like incompatible. The currently fashionable view that they are incompatible is simply wrong. My aim is to give readers struggling with this dilemma – the dilemma of our time – a way to resolve it.

I also believe that all decisions to stop thinking about this dilemma are deluded and unsustainable. Few of the jingoists, atheist or theist, and even fewer of the discouraged ones in the middle, ever truly stop thinking about the dilemma. Instead, they live in anxiety and return to asking themselves “What are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?” over and over again. I want to provide them with a way to solve it, not so much permanently as repeatedly. Every time doubts trouble them in their everyday lives, they will be able to successfully answer those doubts.

Thus, in this book, I aim first to do what Philosophers call "derive ought from is”: I aim to show there is a logical base for a moral code (the "ought" part) discernible in the facts of the physical world (the "is" part). In short, a moral code is visible in the processes of the real world, and we can figure that code out simply by looking at the evidence – in Science, in History, and in our daily lives. This claim will then serve as the core of my case for theism.

Once we see that reality does contain a moral code, we are gradually drawn on to the conclusion that a “sort of God” does exist. I’m content with the term “sort of God.” The more unique and personal the view of God that each reader arrives at by time he or she has finished reading this book, the happier I’ll be. That concept – God – has to be personal, or in the end, it is nothing at all.

For now, to appease my atheist readers, I will simply say that the “God part” of my case will be held back until the second last chapter of this book. And the theistic claim is not what leads to my conclusion about moral codes. In fact, the relationship between the two is the other way around: the insight into how “right” and “wrong” are built into the material world is the key insight that allows us to go on to the theistic conclusion. My seeing how “right” and “wrong” are built into reality is what enables me to believe God, too, is real.  

   

   

                                          Human science handling nature

                                     Boat-building Near Flatford Mill 1815

           (credit: John Constable [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

                                                                                                  

   

                   Liberty Leading The People  (Moral ideals engaging human reality)

                                  (credit: Eugène Delacroix, via Wikimedia Commons) 

I have been mulling over this problem of what makes “right” right for more than fifty years, from the time I was a child, through a long career teaching in the British Columbia public school system, eight years of formal post-secondary study, three degrees (two undergraduate, one graduate), time in agriculture, six rock bands, and business, time spent raising three kids, and a lot of life. I feel, however, that all these experiences neither add to, nor detract from, my case. They aren’t relevant. The case must stand on its own.

It is also worth noting that the ideas, historical records, texts, and perspectives I discuss in this book are mostly those of a man who was born into, and moulded by, Western culture. I know that plenty of other effective ways of handling the world – in other words, other ways of life – are available today. I will also say from the outset that I know in every era in history, cultures rise to be dominant over their neighbors only for a few generations. Then the dominant one gets passed by a competitor. In a generation, China may be our world’s dominant culture. Indian, African, and native American cultures have also had periods of ascendancy in the past and may again.

But this book is aiming to take us past militant chauvinism, the time-worn way of advancing one culture to dominance over its neighbors, most often by war. If we can get large numbers of the people of the world to see how history works, and how civilizations rise and fall, we can get past the violent way of cultural evolution. Humanity can become one culture. Our whole species working, if not harmoniously, at least under a rule of law by which disputes may be resolved through negotiation and compromise, not revolution, war, pain, and death.  

I am a son of the West. I tend to think and speak using the ideas and terms that I learned in my country and its schools. However, I believe the conclusions I draw in this book are universal; they can be extracted by logic from the records and the daily life events of any nation.

This book is an attempt to solve the dilemma of our time. I think I’ve untangled that dilemma. My hope is that those who stay with this book will find a just reward at the end: a thought system that enables them to organize all the moral precepts, scientific models, and memories of their own personal experiences into a single, coherent worldview.

So once again – to be crystal clear – I will say what motivated me to write this book: someone has to solve this dilemma or we’re going to destroy ourselves. We’ll learn to live together in global community, or we’ll die, in small bands or as individuals, in agony . Those are our choices.

I have to try.

                

   

                          Humans caring for each other: The Boating Party  

        (credit: Mary Cassatt [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)                

Notes

1. Emrys Westacott, “Moral Relativism,” International Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2012.http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH3b.

2. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Mariner Books, 2002).

3. David Suzuki, The Sacred Balance (Greystone Books, 1997).

4. Albert Einstein, from a telegram to prominent Americans, May 24, 1946.

5. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, 2.3.3.4 (1739; Project Gutenberg).https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm.