What has atheism ever done for science?
An interesting question is posed over at The Deeps of Time
(a Catholic science blog): is atheism a science-stopper?
While evolutionists have been busily trying to explain our propensity for Religion, they have neglected science itself. From an evolutionary standpoint, why have we done science at all –- and why are we still doing it?
The ease with which we accept banal non-answers to this question is breathtaking. The most popular non-answers usually involve some vague appeal to “innate animal curiosity”. But this hardly distinguishes science from, say, gossip or sheer nosiness –- let alone religion. It also doesn’t explain why we persist in doing science even when trails grow cold or, worse, dangerous. Most evolutionary explanations account for a trait’s persistence in one of two ways: it either increases our chances for survival or it is the by-product of something that increases our chances for survival. But does science fit either description?
…
Clearly we have hit upon a paradox. Hardcore Darwinists are right that their version of biological evolution requires no belief in the kind of deity endorsed by the Abrahamic religions. However, it is unlikely that human societies would have devoted the time, effort and material resources needed to make that point in all its empirical detail, had they not also believed in the capacity of science to transcend species boundaries and acquire a comprehensive grasp of nature. Yet from a strict Darwinian standpoint, such a belief is unsustainable and perhaps ultimately lethal.
More generally, atheism has not figured as a force in the history of science not because it has been suppressed but because whenever it has been expressed, it has not encouraged the pursuit of science.
At its core, there is something very oddly Christian about the scientific method and its belief that the universe is rationally ordered such that a line of directed inquiry will be, in due season, rewarded in some fashion, either with a confirmation or a refutation of an initial hypothesis. In plainer terms, science is predicated in the belief that we shall find if we seek, that we shall see opened that upon which we knock.
Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that science has flourished in places where Christianity once flourished, and has stagnated in places that either never saw the Christian message become widespread, or that strove to remove it from the picture.
Why did we evolve the various academic pursuits generically termed “science”? What benefit does it serve? Arguably, scientific studies have resulted in the development of medical procedures, cures for diseases, and a better understanding of e.g. hygeine — all of which do confer some survival benefit on the human species. But primitive “science” gave us the spear, and then the bow. More modern science gave us gunpowder and TNT. Modern science gave us the nuclear bomb, and may one day give us something like a negative energy density strangelet — all of which, it could be argued, have a detrimental effect on the survival of the human species.
I started blogging back in 2004 -- in May, if the Wayback Machine is to be believed. Not that I remember the exact day. To be honest, I didn't take it that seriously then; it was a fun distraction, but nothing more.
That all changed, I think, once the Danish cartoons were published, and the assault on the right to freedom of expression became very visible. With the recent issues in Canada concerning the "human rights" commissions, the gravity of the matter has only increased, and my interest in blogging has increased right along with it.
I used to blog at a domain called Time Immortal, but it seemed to be the right time for a change -- there's been a lot of that in my life of late. Hence this blog: a fresh start, and proof positive that I won't shut up even if I get shut down once in a while.
