The Atheist's Guide to Reality_ Enjoying Life Without Illusions - Alex Rosenberg [2]
WHY MIGHT SUCH a book be of interest to people who have already, for one or another of the many good scientific reasons, given up all religious belief?
One reason is that you and I are assailed annually, even weekly, with books, articles, and television programs seeking to sow doubts about the completeness and credibility of science. There are apologists who suggest that science’s findings are perfectly compatible with the higher superstitions, the morally and emotionally uplifting religions. Worse yet, some of the advocates of religion argue that science’s teachings do not touch on these matters of “ultimate concern.” Among the figures sowing these doubts about the reach of science are individuals with sturdy scientific credentials, like John Polkinghorne, Knight of the British Empire, member of the Royal Society, trained high-energy physicist, Cambridge professor, and Anglican vicar. And there are well-known theologians, like John Haught, Catholic defender of Darwin against intelligent design, making common cause with scientists as well known as everyone’s favorite biologist, the late Stephen Jay Gould. Francis Collins, one-time head of the Human Genome Project and now director of the National Institutes of Health, joined this choir, writing a book claiming that there is no incompatibility between religion and what empirical inquiry has revealed. I am sure that Collins is sincere. But the claim that religion and science don’t compete is good politics. It’s also confused, as we’ll see.
Atheists and our fellow travelers need some protection against this tide of impressively credentialed misunderstanding. In a way, this book may serve like one of those pamphlets that used to be available in Anglican Churches: “What to say when a Jehovah’s Witness [substitute Mormon missionary, Seventh Day Adventist, representative of the Reverend Moon, and so forth] comes to your door.” It aims to suggest how we scoffers should deal with reconcilers and mystery-mongers.
Most importantly, besides rebutting misrepresentations of science, we should be clear for ourselves about what our attachment to science, as the right description of the world, really commits us to. This book identifies science’s answers to the perennial questions we humans pose to ourselves about reality and our place within it. These are the questions that vicars, visionaries, gurus, and all too many philosophers have tried to answer, often with ulterior motives and never with the kind of evidence that is worthy of a question of worldly importance. The right answers are ones that even some scientists have not been comfortable with and have sought to avoid or water down.
It’s worth repeating that this book is written mainly for those of us who are already deniers, not just doubters and agnostics. Although we will address the foibles and fallacies (as well as the wishful thinking) of theists, we won’t treat theism as a serious alternative that stills needs to be refuted. This book’s intended readers have moved past that point. We know the truth.
Knowing the truth makes it hard not to sound patronizing of the benighted souls still under religion’s spell. So from time to time, some of the tone of much that follows may sound a little smug. I fear I have to plead guilty to this charge, with mitigation. So far as I can see, belief in God is on a par with belief in Santa Claus.
How did I come to that conclusion and to the others in this book? That question is ambiguous. It could be a request for some autobiography—for the particular path that brought me personally to trust science’s answers to the persistent questions. Or it could be a request for the facts and arguments that justify these answers. The answer to the second