God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion Read Free Page B

However, if we truly possess an inner sense telling us about an unobservable reality thatmatters to us and influences our lives, then we should be able to observe the effects of that reality by scientific means.
    If someone's inner sense were to warn of an impending earthquake unpredicted by science, which then occurred on schedule, we would have evidence for this extrasensory source of knowledge. Claims of “divine prophecies” have been made throughout history, but not one has been conclusively confirmed. In just one of countless examples of the same nature, the claimed prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem was fulfilled after the fact by the Gospel writers inventing implausible, inconsistent, and historically disprovable scenarios by which Jesus could have been born there. 2
    So far we see no evidence that the feelings people experience when they perceive themselves to be in touch with the supernatural correspond to anything outside their heads, and we have no reason to rely on those feelings when they occur. However, if such evidence or reason should show up, then scientists will have to consider it whether they like it or not.
    We cannot sweep under the rug the many serious problems brought about by the scientific revolution and the exponential burst in humanity's ability to exploit Earth's resources made possible by the accompanying technology. There would be no problems with overpopulation, pollution, global warming, or the threat of nuclear holocaust if science had not made them possible. The growing distrust of science found now in America can be understood by observing the disgraceful examples of scientists employed by oil, food, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies who have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of millions by allowing products to be marketed that these scientists knew full well were unsafe.
    But does anyone want to return to the prescientific age when human life was nasty, brutish, and short? Even fire was once a new technology. Unsafe products are more than overshadowed by miracle drugs, foods, and technologies that have made all our lives immeasurably better than those of humans in the not-too-distant past. At least in developed countries, women now rarely die in childbirth and most children grow to adulthood. This was not the case even just a few generations ago. Unlike our ancestors, we lead long, fulfilling lives largely free of pain and drudgery. The aged are so numerous that they are becoming a social problem. All this is the result of scientific developments.
    We can solve the problems brought about by the misuse of science only by better use of science and more rational behavior on the part of scientists, politicians, corporations, and citizens in all walks of life. And religion, as it is currently practiced, with its continued focus on closed thinking and ancient mythology, is not doing much to support the goal of a better, safer world. In fact, as we will see, religion is hindering our attempts to attain that goal.
    Many theistic-leaning historians and sociologists claim that religion contributed importantly to the development of science and so the two can live in relative harmony. They argue that treating the historical relationship between science and religion as a “war” is an oversimplification and inaccurate representation of the actual facts, at least up to the Enlightenment. Not until the seventeenth century was a distinction made between science (or “natural philosophy”) and religion; many great scientists of the past merged the two in their thinking. While this may have been true in the past, it is not true now. Science and religion today mix like oil and water. Even scientists who are religious keep religion out of their work.
    No doubt the great theologians of the past had few problems with science, seeing it as another way to learn more about the majesty of the Creator. Similarly, liberal theologians today fully accept the discoveries of science.