Recently, the left leaning Salon Magazine ran an article written by Karl Giberson, a professor of physics and a theologian titled “What’s wrong with science as religion.” I found it refreshing in its honesty, I thought it exposed the truth so well articulated by Timothy Keller in The Reason For God that both religious and non religious people base their beliefs on faith. Having recently read Keller’s book my eyebrows always are raised when I read of militant atheists, evolutionists that condemn religion as dangerous and propose their platform as the safe, neutral one.

Giberson is not one of those, he recognizes both viewpoints as faith based. As a scientist he frequently states in his article his “awe” relating to the “beauty” of complex mathematical equations, of governing physical laws…

Sure, there are true believers who find these scientific ideas awesome in the most literal sense of that word. I am happy to place myself in this group. I can be moved to tears by the transcendent beauty of a math equation.

Giberson begins by illustrating an evangelist for evolution (the small e in evolution deliberate); PZ Meyers, a scientist full of vitriol and ultimate condemnation for anyone that disagrees with the notion that there is no God, that we evolved from antediluvian muck. Francis Shaeffer, the late eminent Christian theologian retorted to statements like this asking how, if we evolved from nothing and life ultimately has no meaning, how do scientists explain human personality with all it’s complexities and variety. But individuals such as Meyers wouldn’t be persuaded by any agument and after defending himself from being attacked by Myers, Giberson moves on.

Of interest to me; Gilberson’s illustrations of some of the leading scientist-atheists and their evangelical qualities. I don’t agree with his comparisons of Dawkins and Hitchens with the great 18th century preacher Johnathan Edwards though, in my opinion Edwards was one of the greatest minds that century produced and would have had the former company for lunch in any debate. Gilberson points to the borrowing of biblical language and metaphors to address the deep questions ranging from origins to life presently. One scientist that is quoted beats not around the bush, that we must “worship the evolutionary epic.” Tell me, what is epic about it? Epic is a term of meaning, deep impression and may I say reverence.Of interest to me; Gilberson’s illustrations of some of the leading scientist-atheists and their evangelical qualities. This is a hypocrisy worth noting - these individuals talking epic, worship and in another breath saying there is no eventual ultimate meaning. We know if this belief was taken to its logical conclusion one should take his life, if all is meaningless. Hemingway was true to this, after going on great adventures, pursuing many experiences he came to what he thought was the end, no more to experience and in one of the literary world’s great tragedies, put a shotgun to his head.

Gilberson states that the obvious is implied - science has the raw material for a new religion with a creation myth, ethical directives and a meaningful place for humankind within the grand scheme of things. I want to ask how science, a tool of man with the noble purpose to grope his way out of ignorance and to improve his living conditions further giving him insights into how life itself ticks, becomes a thing of worship itself. Science is a term describing a method of discovery, it is not worship. I agree with Giberson that discovering, seeing something profound through science can produce worship…I want to worship the creator for the astounding, wonder-producing creation we are in the midst of.

The interesting and funny point Gilberson brings up is what will it take to get people to worship at the altar of Science? To “get off their couches watching sports”? My read between the lines; force. Further, who’s to say the new disciples will all get along, not give rise to extremism? Recently in the paper was an article of a UC research lab that was the object of a firebomb that burned much of the lab. Animal rights activists are suspected because the lab used animals in their experimentation. And whence cometh ethics? What beaker, test-tube or scientific method will compel the fortunate to care for the less fortunate? Funny thing that is never mentioned by these scientific atheists is that science had made its greatest advances in western civilization starting with the protestant reformation in the 16th century. Meaning science has flourished because of the Judeo Christian philosophical structure which encouraged scientific inquiry. With the Christian beliefs in absolutes, in truth, a God who redeems even the vilest of evil, natural laws that don’t change, man can have the confidence to explore his world. Man can deduce from the known that the unknown will still make sense.