Mystic Gripes at "Prospect" of Proof

I saw an interesting editorial in the Houston Chronicle today that echoes part of my reaction to the recent award of the Templeton Prize to Charles Townes, but from, shall we say, the other side. In "Faith doesn't need science," self-described "lapsed Catholic" Margaret Wertheim attacks the premise behind awarding the Templeton prize for an interesting reason: The very same reason I said religion needs science.

Here's what I said.

[The] epistemological approach [of science] is the diametric opposite of that of religion. Faith is the acceptance of a belief unsupported by evidence or logic. Many claims made by religion, especially when it has the upper hand in a culture and starts trying to explain ordinary facts, can easily be made mincemeat of by science. And worse, if the light of reason can cast these claims into doubt, all the others become suspect as well. And when people start questioning religious tenets, the power of the church to run things diminishes. This is why the church, when it was the most powerful cultural force, tried its damnedest to, shall we say, "spar" science out of existence.

And that is why the Templeton Award exists today, and why such a big fuss is made whenever some opportunistic "scientist" pretends to have found evidence for some religious claim. Religion is weak as a cultural force today and needs the credibility that "useful 'geniuses'" like Townes can lend it. Don't underestimate the value of someone like him pretending that the limitations of science can be made up for only by faith, as if philosophy doesn't exist. Otherwise, why would religionists -- who always want donations -- be passing out the big bucks?

Wertheim at least appears to disagree with me, and makes the argument that science focuses too much on God the creator rather than God the redeemer. (Yes, I capitalize God although I am an atheist. Unlike multiculturalists, I realize the following: Words don't oppress people. People oppress people. And besides, if God represents the best that is morally possible, why not? The first person singular pronoun has the same honor, after all.)

From the 13th through 17th centuries, the Pythagorean notion of an underlying cosmic harmony gradually gave rise to the idea that the Judeo-Christian God had created the world according to a divine mathematical plan — the "laws of nature." To discover and understand these laws was to decipher God's plan, and therefore an essentially religious act.

As Isaac Newton's great predecessor, Johannes Kepler, wrote: "For a long time, I wanted to become a theologian. ... Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy." Newton himself saw his scientific work as one long argument for a beneficent Creator. The elision of God and physics today follows directly from this tradition, but there is a critical difference between the scientific theologizing of Kepler and Newton and that of physicists like Hawking and Townes.

The Christian God has two aspects: God the Creator and God the Redeemer. The former acts at the beginning of time, the latter reigns at the end. For most of Christian history, intellectual reflection was focused on God the Redeemer, for the core of Christian theology and faith has always been the end-time promise of resurrection and atonement. Christ died and rose to heaven as the guarantee that eventually all true believers would follow him into the everlasting bliss of paradise.

And what is wrong with this, from her point of view? If we prove the existence of one "aspect" of God, doesn't the rest follow? Why doesn't she seem happy at the prospect?

"Progress" in religion must be judged not by our knowledge of particles and forces but by action toward a more just, equitable and humane society.

By equating God with the "structure and function" of the material world, Christians play a losing game. As the Jesuit philosopher Michael Buckley has pointed out, rational inference can never substitute for personal experience of the divine — which is, and must remain, the grounding of faith.

Ah! But Wertheim does agree with me. Let's concede that the "music of the spheres" could somehow prove that God -- hers in particular -- exists. She'll still thumb her nose at the scientist who does and claim that he's just a nerd in lab coat, and that his proof is irrelevant. This is interesting coming from someone who ought to be excited by such a proof.

Why the lack of enthusiasm? She gives her answer in the sentences forming the alpha and the omega of the above quote: because (alpha) she wants us to follow the altruistic morality of religion and that (omega) no one whose mind is on a steady diet of facts and logic will just roll over and sacrifice himself as she wishes, and her imaginary friend requires.

In dismissing the fundamental question of whether her God exists by shifting our focus from that question to what she wants us to do, Wertheim implicitly acknowledges what I said. The light of reason is a big threat to those who wish to cripple our minds by faith so that they can live as parasites off the fruits of our efforts. Mystics know that their fantasies are impotent unless they can get those with some shred of rationality to capitulate. The con man who is about to be found out leads a joyless existence indeed.

-- CAV