Yep, here we go again I’m having trouble reconciling our modern outlooks on science with our current philosophy. The problem is that the two worldviews are in direct opposition. Both cannot be true, yet we try to act as if they were. Here’s what I am talking about:
Science tells us that the world is naturalistic, that everything that exists can be explained through mechanistic processes. This is the assumption that forms the basis for the scientific method, and is the overriding principle of modern science. Any theory, postulate or observation that casts doubt on that principle is subject to a quick and complete dismissal, regardless of its merits. In short, science denies the divine.
On the other hand, in our daily lives, we embrace the divine and I’m not just talking about church on Sunday. Our fundamental principles, our core beliefs are rooted in a belief in and a respect for the divine.
We hold these truths to be self evident:(italics mine)
- that all men are created equal,
- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
- that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
These weren’t just words the Founding Father used because they sounded good; they represented the core principles upon which they founded our nation, and we still revere those principles today, despite the sarcasm and cynicism of modern times. We do believe that men are endowed with unalienable rights, although it is no longer fashionable to attribute those rights to some divine origin.
But if they aren’t divine, then where do they originate? Why do men have a right to life and liberty? Is there some naturalistic process that we can look to, that we can base these rights on, or are they nothing but noble nonsense dreamed up by overly romantic primitives?
In order for those words to be true, we have to make a couple of assumptions. First, we have to assume that life has some intrinsic value. Second, we have to assume that human life is more valuable than other lives. Of course, neither of these assumptions is compatible with a naturalistic point of view.
In the latter case, if the scientific viewpoint is correct then there is absolutely nothing that qualitatively distinguishes man from the other animals. We evolved guided by the same process responsible for the rabbit and the wolf. We may be more intelligent, but that intelligence is derived from a naturalistic process, and is therefore subject to the same rules and limitations as all other attributes of nature.
Put another way, we can ask ourselves this question:
Does a rabbit have the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?
Rights in a naturalistic world are not intrinsic but are firmly rooted in the exercise of power. Your rights exist only as far as you can enforce them, and conflicts between competing rights are resolved by the application of force, i.e. violence. This is the only possible conclusion if you start from a naturalistic worldview, but it is one rejected by most scientists. Their usual excuse is that science is not meant to answer questions like this, but that is a cop out. If all is naturalistic, then science should be able to answer every question.
Next, we consider whether life itself has any intrinsic value, regardless of form. Viewed from a naturalistic framework, life is not precious, but cheap. Everywhere we look, we find life; in deserts, frozen tundra, at the bottom of the sea, in the most inhospitable landscapes, we find some form of life. There is evidence that suggests that bacterial life existed on Mars. Life is ubiquitous. It is also savage.
Living things kill other living things, whether by crowding them out of their habitat, or slaughtering them for food, or killing them to claim a mate. For any number of reasons, and in the case of man, just for the fun of it, life kills other life. How then can it be said to be precious, to have any intrinsic value? The answer obviously is that it can’t. If this is a naturalistic world, then we are animals, nothing more, and our behavior is governed by the same rules which apply in the jungle.
In denying divinity, science denies the very qualities that set us apart from the rest of the animals. Most scientists, as pointed out earlier, avoid this contradiction; they put on blinders like a modern day Scarlett O-Hara. “I’m not going to think about that today. I’ll think about it tomorrow.” They understand that their professional beliefs break down as they approach the real world. The few that do follow the logic through to completion either reject the conclusion, or adopt an almost sociopathic detachment from the human race. I’ve met one such fellow; he is a biologist, and he firmly believes that we are nothing but animals, and that the law of the jungle is the only law there is. Mercy, compassion, altruism are all false concepts to him, existing only as traps for weaker minded individuals. Repulsive as that may seem, that is the only logical conclusion of a naturalistic worldview.
So, how do we reconcile these two pictures of the world? Do we live in the jungle, or is there something higher than “dog eat dog” competition? Is there some quality in man that elevates him above the other animals? Is life itself precious? Are their unalienable rights?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are saying that the world is divine, not naturalistic, in which case you may wish to review your views on science.
Sweet dreams. It’s my bed time.
Posted by Rich at June 20, 2002 7:05 AM