Sometimes its hard to not to despair for the lack of intellectual sophistication in our culture. Rather than making progress, it seems that we too often slide back into acceptance of scholarly fads that had previously been discarded for being inane. Consider, for example, the return of of scientism —the view that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.
Scientism gained traction early in the twentieth century, but seemed to have faded when its precursor—logical positivism—proved to be positively illogical. The eugenics movement also helped to discredit the “scientific interpretations of life”, such as Social Darwinism, when they proved to be not only untenable but downright demonic.
But in academia, no dumb ideas ever fully disappears, so it probably shouldn’t be surprising to see scientism being defended in Mano Singham in the Chronicle of Higher Education :
In a 2008 publication titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the NAS stated: “Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. . . . Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. . . . Many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings.”Those of us who disagree—sometimes called “new atheists”—point out that historically, the scope of science has always expanded, steadily replacing supernatural explanations with scientific ones. Science will continue this inexorable march, making it highly likely that the accommodationists’ strategy will fail. After all, there is no evidence that consciousness and mind arise from anything other than the workings of the physical brain, and so those phenomena are well within the scope of scientific investigation. What’s more, because the powerful appeal of religion comes precisely from its claims that the deity intervenes in the physical world, in response to prayers and such, religious claims, too, fall well within the domain of science. The only deity that science can say nothing about is a deity who does nothing at all.
Contrary to Mr. Singham’s claims, there is no “war between science and religion”—only skirmishers who do not understand either religion or science. Singham’s historical ignorance would be easy to dismiss as an individual failing if it hadn’t already been shown to be one of the defining character traits of his fellow New Atheists. The men of the Enlightenment would despair if they could see the people who claim to carry on their traditions (note for the New Atheists who are unaware: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment thought atheism was for idiots.)
It would be tempting to merely say—as I did last week—that the views of these New Atheists are intellectually disreputable and move on to more serious matters. Sadly, pointing out that historical fact is the beginning, rather than the end, of the necessary task of dismantling what the late sociologist Peter Berger would have called the plausibility structures of atheism.
Plausibility structures, according to Berger who coined the term in Sacred Canopy, are the sociocultural contexts of systems of meaning, action, or beliefs which are basic to and tend to remain unquestioned by individuals in a given society.
Everything that we believe is filtered through our plausibility structures—belief-forming apparatus that acts as a gatekeeper, letting in evidence that is matched against what we already consider to be possible. For example, if I were to find a box of cookies in my kitchen cabinet I would assume that my wife had bought them at the store and placed them there herself. If someone were to argue that tree-dwelling elves baked the cookies, packaged them for their corporate employer, and stashed them in my pantry, I would have a difficult time believing their claim; the existence of unionized tree-dwelling elves is simply not a part of my plausibility structure.
Plausibility structures can prevent us from forming beliefs that are inconsistent with experience and evidence. But they can also have a negative impact, preventing us from forming true beliefs about reality. This appears to be the case within a broad segment of the so-called New Atheists, particularly those within the scientific community. By accepting a plausibility structure that is limited to purely naturalistic explanations, many in the scientific community have imposed self-limiting and irrational criteria for explaining reality. The same is true for the small segment of atheists who truly believe that it is implausible that God exists.
Oddly enough, while atheism is a minority view and has been so throughout the history of the world, it is assumed that pluralism requires that we adopt it as the default plausibility structure for almost all areas of human culture. Everything from science and education to politics and public policy is assumed to begin with the assumption that either God does not exist or that his existence is irrelevant. This idea that soft atheism is the neutral ground from which all sectarian matters must be addressed is patently absurd. Not only does this claim fail to recognize that atheism is not religiously neutral, it fails to acknowledge that atheism is quite implausible.
It is this implausibility that needs to be continuously pointed out and brought into the open. Theological arguments aid in this effort by pointing out that belief in the existence of God is more probable, more plausible, more reasonable, and more rational than its denial. While we should be respectful of individuals who adhere to skepticism or atheism, when these beliefs are brought to the public square their mystical and improbable assumptions should receive the utmost scrutiny. Allowing such nonsense to be used for the ordering of public life can only lead to disastrous consequences.
