"Why We Should Choose Science over Beliefs"... Really?

I subscribe to Scientific American; I enjoy keeping up on the latest scientific advances. At the same time, I can't help but notice an anti-religious bias among its contributors. The title of my post comes from the "Featured This Week" article in the 9/25/2013 The Weekly Review. To be fair, the author doesn't deal with religion but with his own beliefs, which he describes as libertarian. He describes how facts changed his views on climate change and gun control. As far as climate change, I too changed my position as new facts became available. I also agree with him, in general, that refusing to alter one's beliefs when clear, established facts contradict them is not a good policy. I have changed a number of my core beliefs about the Bible and what it teaches as I studied over the years. Fortunately, nothing I have learned has hurt my faith; if anything, my faith is stronger from having coldly analyzed a number of issues and changed my beliefs. The reason is that the facts support my core belief in the God of the Bible.

I didn't start this post because of what the author said in his article. He pulled the age-old bait and switch, implying that he was going to discuss a very fraught subject and then wimping out. IMHO, the article itself didn't rate "Featured This Week" status; it didn't say anything except the obvious: we should be open to changing our minds.

The title, however, really gets my attention. The implication is that Science trumps Religion, and that anyone who has religious beliefs is willfully ignoring the cold, hard facts. If that were true, I would renounce my faith immediately. But, I want to look at the flip side. What happens when people base their world-view only on "Science", with no other beliefs allowed?

The first thing that has to go is that humans have some special value. According to science, we are nothing more than animals that are exceptionally clever. We have no souls and no special place in the world. Survival of the fittest should drive our beliefs; our primary goal should be to produce offspring and to ensure that our offspring grow up to do the same.

If this is true, then

• There is no fundamental equality among humans and between the sexes; measurable attributes such as strength, intelligence, and health make some superior to others
• The weak should not be protected; society should actively eliminate the weak to conserve resources and improve the gene pool
• War should not be avoided; war is the natural expression of competition for resources

Sparta successfully employed this system of beliefs for centuries. They discarded imperfect newborns and thinned the ranks of their children through potentially fatal training. The Nazis in Germany, actively (and gruesomely) exercised these beliefs. The Germans failed only because Hitler repeatedly made irrational decisions.

I have to agree that, based on this reasoning and the outcomes for those who practiced it, if I wanted to live like an animal, this would be the way to do it. Scientifically, the idea of "Crimes Against Humanity" is completely empty.

However, I find the Spartans barbaric and the Nazis detestable. I can't explain these responses scientifically, but I'm not about to change them. Furthermore, I want to be more than an animal. Deep down inside, I believe that my being extends beyond my physical body. But what about the facts?

Looking back at the history of science, scientists were woefully ignorant about a number of fundamental concepts just 60 years ago. Yes, scientific understanding has exploded since then, but that simply implies that scientists have a lot more to learn. What scientists "know" is still rapidly changing, and there is, no doubt, a great deal that they don't know. In addition, scientists keep uncovering fundamental limits. Einstein's "you can't travel faster than the speed of light" is the best known, but new ones have emerged that are more fundamental. In fact, these limits are so basic that they serve as evidence (not proof) for intelligent design. Bottom line, science knows a lot, but scientists are often unwilling to acknowledge the limitations of what they know, especially when it comes to morality. Looking at some of experiments done in the name of Science in the United States particularly during the 1940's and 50's provides factual warnings against our conscience.

Should we choose Science over our beliefs? Absolutely not. The fact is, some who have taken this route have done horrible things. I am not bashing science or its methods, but blindly using it to make decisions about right and wrong has proven to be a really bad idea.