The Second of two letters to the Muse (Student Newspaper www.themuse.ca)

I know too much Science to believe in God.

There was a challenge in my letter to the Muse (September 30th 2010). I said “It is not that Christianity has been debated and found wanting, but that it is derided,  dismissed and ridiculed without debate, and that in an institution that purports to be interested in truth”. Mr. David Speed's response to my letter (October 14th) illustrates my point in living colour (or I should say real 3D).  In particular, while carefully avoiding the core issue, he used profanity and contempt to try to belittle me.  Well I suppose  you have to resort to that sort of thing, if you don't want to deal with truth.

 “What is truth?” I hear someone ask. Well I can tell you this much,  this question, Mr. Speed's tactics,  the constant ridicule and belittling of religious points of view in sitcoms,  as well as the type of drivel I hear as in the title of this letter, these things are little more than propaganda that, avoiding debate at all costs,  reflect  without critique,  the current  spirit of Western man (the ladies are of course excluded :).   There are reasons we are in the mess we are in. But that's a whole new issue.  To come to the “truth” that lies behind the quotation in my title,  it is easy enough to refute. “No, actually, you do not know enough Science to make a statement like that”.  Let me unpack this, if I am allowed!

The point is that just like the question “what is love?”, the question of the existence of God falls outside of the scope of what Science can answer. Scientific knowledge proceeds by performing repeatable experiments that verify or not,  the hypothesis we set up. What repeatable experiment can you perform to prove God's non- existence? Most of the so called conclusions of Science which are said to deny His   existence, are matters of interpretation of the data which flow out of the (often hidden) presuppositions that are imposed upon the said data.

By the way Scientific knowledge is just one of several ways we know what we know. Most of us are convinced of the truth that love exists, even that we are loved (when we are),  but it defies Scientific proof. Let's see. Null hypothesis:  The wife loves me. Experiment: Enter newly cleaned kitchen with muddy boots. If the wife really loves me she will tolerate my behaviour. Experimental data: 99 times out of 100 the wife got mad, sometimes really mad. Conclusion: Reject the null hypothesis!

This propaganda that  I am talking about has duped many. There is of course a certain strength in numbers.  But don't forget the story about the Emperor who had no cloths. I realize that you may think that I am duped too.  If you do,  we will only come to know who is right as we engage in debate that mutually listens and respects one another's point of view.  Will you do that?  Well why should you? After all most of the time ridicule and derision wins the day, and it has the advantage that you don't have to think about the issues, at least not deeply!