Comment on the New Scientist ‘God’ issue, 17 March 2012 .
After reading the articles in New Scientists coverage of the recent ‘God’ issue, there arose the not unnatural feeling that in fleeing the dogmatism of Religion we may perhaps be running into the waiting arms of a manipulative and dogmatic Scientism. Within the editorial “To rule out god, first get to know him”, is stated; “Secularists would also do well to recognise the distinction between the “popular religion” that comes easily to people’s minds and the convoluted intellectual gymnastics that is theology. Attacking the latter is easy but will do little to undermine religion’s grip.” And further; “Religion is deeply etched in human nature and cannot be dismissed as a product of ignorance, indoctrination or stupidity. Until secularists recognise that, they are fighting a losing battle.”
Is it simply a matter of attempting to ‘undermine religion’s grip’, or ‘fighting’ a ‘battle’, as the article suggests? Or can the scientific method be applied without the expectation of a final result, so that each individual can judge for themselves whether they have understood what is true. Or are we replacing the authority of the titles and robes of the priests, monks and gurus of Churchianity with the authority of the titles and lab coats of the researchers and administrators of Scientism?
Appetites Of Atheists
Science could certainly do more to understand Religion as much as Religion could do more to understand Science. In the article “In Atheists We Distrust”, it is not only John Locke who feels that Atheists are untrustworthy. Thomas More made a similar comment through his text of “Utopia”, many years earlier, when he wrote; “for there is no doubt to be made that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy his appetites.”