I read with interest the article entitled “The Church of the Non-Believing” by Gary Wolf. I was immediately struck by two thoughts: the first is that there is no direct relationship between atheism and science. Atheism is a philosophy, yet ironically for those featured in the article who proselytize this belief, it is something more akin to a religious faith. The second is that there is a general misunderstanding of what science is and what a scientist does. True scientists are iconoclasts, akin to agnostics. They first question the established facts and paradigms that have been devised to explain the natural world, they create alternative explanations, and then they conduct experiments to prove or disprove their hypotheses. This is a limitless endeavor since all scientific “truths” are provisional and subject to further inquiry, further experimentation, and further revision. A scientific fact is vetted and validated if a phenomenon is observable, measurable, and repeatable to the inquiring scientist and anyone who wishes to repeat the experiment. Science is therefore designed to answer “how” questions: how the earth revolves around the sun and how viruses replicate. Yet, within this epistemology there is no place for asking “why” questions: why is the universe expanding and why do we live in an imperfect world filled with viruses? Science is limited by its own design.
That is why philosophy and religion are still necessary. For example: “I doubt; therefore I am (I think)” is an interesting statement one could expound upon philosophically, but how would you experimentally validate it as a hypothesis? Science does not repudiate the idea that there is a creator since the extra-corporeal is not subject to experimental validation. The concept of a Creator and the concept that there is no rational explanation for the existence of the universe both exist within the domains of religion and philosophy. Atheists who align themselves with scientists by being strict empiricists forfeit their ability to examine “why” questions which are central to our conscious being; and thus, they contradict themselves by disavowing their true identity as philosophers. So, I propose that there should be a separation of philosophy and science just as there must always be a separation of religion and politics. Atheists are philosophers not scientists and science is not a philosophy or a religion but a method of empiric inquiry based on questioning, imagination and experimentation. Those who confuse this issue are not bright but dim.
Scott WilsonWinston-Salem, North Carolina
