The Science Delusion

According to British biologist Richard Dawkins religion, or more specifically belief in a God is not scientifically supportable. His postulate, that the modern monotheist conception of God as a phenomenon should be evaluated on the merits of the evidence for God's existence. Treated like any other scientific theory, and then laughingly he goes on to do this, and he determines the likelihood of God's existence is low, though he says it cannot be determined absolutely that there is no God. In one sentence he reveals quite truthfully that Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God but then proceeds to do so. At that point he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a preacher, of his own flawed religion.

More importantly, lets make the distinction that Dawkins is simply ridiculing those who, in his estimation believe in the literal translation of the new testament. His is an attack on fundamentalists, not a thesis on the existence of God. His book 'The God Delusion" is as much science based as creationism, and is simply an attack on fundamentalists as a group by a person who disagrees with them and their beliefs.

However because he is suppose to be a scientist, and has littered his book with scientific jargon and false premise, that his railings against fundamentalists are taken in that context. Nothing could be farther from the truth and this misunderstanding I will address. Nothing about Dawkins book is science or scientific period.

What Dawkins does is fall into a trap of scientist as egotist, and completely ignores the 'scientific basis' for man's mysticism, we are not Spock. What he ignores completely is the scientific basis for human mystical belief. The two hundred and fifty thousand year history of mankind's mysticism, and the role these characteristics play in mankind's development and nature. It would be a valid treatise to illuminate the foundations of religion, of mass hysteria and mankind's penchant for doggedly adhering to irrational beliefs, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
A failing perhaps, Dawkins, like all humans are susceptible to, but that is not what Dawkins is doing.

The modern monotheistic God, in fact all gods, demons, witches, ghosts, goblins, spirits, stems from this mystical nature of humans. What is faith and religious belief, but an expression of this mysticism an extrapolation of thought and understanding of the universe attributed to a 'supernatural force'. Instead of studying the vast amounts of data that seek to reveal this phenomenon he instead rails against this modern monotheistic concept of God, like a spoiled child who can not get his way.


The truth is, this very characteristic of humanity has allowed him to create science, a hypothesis after all is a leap of faith, a belief in something unfounded and unproved. It is man's mystical nature that has made our science possible and so powerful a tool for our specie. Man's ability to 'imagine' something unseen is at the foundation of our creation of science.

When you show a human a picture of say the bow of a ship, they can in his or her mind imagine what the rest of the ship looks like, we do this innately without training or coercion. It is a phenomenon of our intellect, our intelligence, that stems from the very basic building blocks of what we call intelligence, and that is the ability to match patterns. All living things have this ability, in mankind is it acutely developed and paired with an ability to form memories and draw on those memories to form and understand even larger patterns, but all living things must match patterns to survive. It is a fundamental attribute of life, that stems from the chemical basis for life, molecules form patterns that 'match up' to form other molecules.



There is a lot of hatred in those flailing tomes of Dawkins anti-religious rhetoric, maybe he was abused by a priest of shunned by a nun but somewhere, somehow he has developed a hatred for the religious and it comes out in his 'philosophy'. He ceases at this point to be a scientist and observer of phenomenon and instead becomes as ignorant and dogmatic and the religiously faithful people he is trying to criticize.

Let me state here unequivocally and emphatically that there is NO CONFLICT between Science and religious belief, or between Science and the belief in God. And that trying to create such a conflict is inherently ignorant and counterproductive. It is just as ignorant and counter productive when fundamentalist Christians try and foist religious doctrine in the guise of creationism on our children as science, as when Dawkins sets himself up as a scientific savior trying to convert the ignorant religious masses.


By it's very nature science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, nor can God negate science. Science is what humans call our method of discovery. In fact, it's called the scientific method. And at it's very heart are the principles of tolerance and uncertainty. To forget that as Dawkins does is to negate and debase science, by elevating it to an omnipotent and omniscient deity.

Science is method of discovery, a way for humans to discover things about our universe and ourselves.

The scientific method, simply put it a set of procedures, that starts with hypothesis, an idea of how something works, this is followed by collecting facts through experimentation. The next process is to share those results and have other 'scientists' try and repeat those experiments. By collecting data through experimentation and having more and more scientists be able to repeat our observations we lend more and more credence to our hypothesis. that's it, that's all it is, a way of discovering something that is already there in nature.

Contrary to popular belief humans and our science does not create anything, all creation is already done, complete, all we do with science is discover what is already there. Only an egoist wannabe creator like Dawkins would presume to deny the existence of a creator of all things, or further presume to know or understand the nature of the creator of all things. True scientists are not afraid to tell you they don't know something, only egoists like Dawkins must flaunt their presumed superiority in the face of those who, in their minds, don't know as much. Academic elitism is not a pretty thing and in the end just as sad, pathetic and vacuous as religious elitism.

From paper clips to the cure for cancer, the answers and technologies are already there, we can just discover them, like blowing sand away from a tomb buried in the desert, we don't create anything we simply discover it, through science, our name to describe our methods of discovery.

Lets take gravity for instance, or I should say the theory of gravity. Let's start with an observation that an object, say an apple, when dropped from my hand always falls towards the earth. The apple has weight or mass, thats a fact, a piece of data. The apple as I observe it falls towards the earth when I drop it from my hand, another piece of observational data, collected during the experiment of dropping the apple from my hand.

Thus we collect more and more data and facts through measurement and experimentation, that adds to our understanding and modifies and builds upon our theory. Science is mankinds way to discover and understand the universe and himself.

But all measurement and data is inherently subject to tolerance and uncertainty, it is flawed.
True scientists are not frightened or dissuaded by this fact, nor are they dogmatic and egotistical enough to ignore or deny it.

True scientists respect tolerance and uncertainty as a fundamental part of what they study. True scientists revel in the truth, we bathe and bask in it, we let it roll over us, and twirl it in our fingers, lap it up like a kitten eating milk.

Dawkins gives all true scientists a 'bad name' by employing the very dogmatic and ignorant tactics of those he is trying to attack. True science does not attack, it illuminates, nor does it judge, but instead provides understanding.

Let's not confuse Richard Dawkins views with the views of science. Science has no view, no point to make, no enemies to vanguish, no axe to grind, Dawkins does.


MTMIND
Michael Trachtenberg