This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2014, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Last week, Gregory Clark, professor of bioengineering, wrote a fierce homage to his deceased friend, Victor Stenger, a "renowned physicist and best-selling atheist author." After a spirited critique of the superior traits of inductive science, and the inferior traits of deductive religion, Clark concludes with Stenger's defining hypothesis: not that God is dead, but that "God never existed at all." This, followed by the loyal tag: "Fortunately for us, Victor Stenger did [exist]."
I agree, with Professor Clark's tag. As a cautious, contemplative Christian, I appreciate what science has done to help lift religion out of the dark ages of blind belief. I appreciate the influence of science on the evolution of religion from dead superstition to living faith — from taking the Bible literally to taking it seriously, in all its historical, poetic and metaphorical majesty.
What I don't understand is the aggressive, even angry inference by Professor Clark, et al., that because science can give us many reliable answers, it is the exclusive source of all answers. As if, now that science has come along and rescued humanity from bonds of paganism, the left side of the brain has no further use for the right side; as if positively charged protons are now sufficient without negatively charged electrons; as if yin no longer needs yang for the world to be in balance.
Seriously, what light does science shed on the fundamentally human realms of love, joy, patience, hope, charity, wonder ... and their opposites? Science has amazing insights, but equally surprising blind spots. Take gravity, for instance. We know by everyday experience that gravity exists, but science can't tell us how gravity works. We can't generate or transmit it; and can't shield, store or amplify it. We don't even know if gravity cares about time because it is there before light even arrives. Light: particle or wave? Science still can't say. Life: we only know that an organism is alive if it engages in ... well, the activity of living. If it isn't living, it's dead – same weight, chemicals and size, but dead instead of alive. Science can't tell us where the life went, or when, how or why.
It would be wonderful to hear Professor Clark opine on these issues and to explain if science's ability to measure, count and quantify adds up to value, justice or morality. He could discuss whether science gives us any insights into how we should treat the poor, the lame, and the widow and orphan; and whether empathy, sympathy and forgiveness (or their opposites) have any quantitative characteristics – real as they are. Perhaps he can explain the essence of the gleam in a lover's eye, or the poignancy of a child's tear.
And then at a candlelight service on Christmas Eve, I would like Professor Clark to read John 1:1-5 to my church and reflect on how The Word, er … the Big Bang, resulted in ... well, us – we sentient, fallible, mortal creatures who dare conceive of a beginning and of the infinite, both beyond the reach of our five senses. Somewhere in the service, I hope Professor Clark would acknowledge science's cold fusion quacks, eugenic extremists, nuclear terrors, and juvenile legacy of earth, wind, water and fire. At the end, we would gather around Professor Clark and assure him that we are also grateful for the life of his friend, Victor Stenger. Upon parting, our benediction will be that as Clark proceeds with his scientific life that the Force be with him. Peace, Professor Clark.
Russell C. Fericks is an attorney in private practice and an ordained elder of the Wasatch Presbyterian Church.