Can science answer the remaining mysteries of the universe?

In this entry, I will address the fourth question which Michael Brown asks I his article 7 honest questions for atheists. Previous entries in this series can be found here:

1. Why are you an atheist? 

2. Can an atheist have purpose? 

3. Are you sure there’s no god?

Keep in mind, Brown states that he does not ask the questions he poses here

to win a debate. Or to be antagonistic. Or to buttress my own beliefs by exposing alleged weaknesses in your position. On the contrary, I ask these questions so I can better understand your mindset as an atheist.

He states that he asks these questions “in that spirit of genuinely wanting to understand the atheist mindset better.” Taking what Brown states at face value, I applaud him for inviting atheists to speak for themselves, for what we typically see from Christians is referencing the Old and New Testaments and other unsympathetic sources to get their understanding of “the atheist mindset.”

Of course, what may be overlooked in all this is that “atheism” does not denote a “mindset” that is common to all self-professing atheists. Atheism only indicates what one does not believe; it does not by itself signal a set of positive convictions. Just as there are religious views across a very broad spectrum, there is a wide assortment of views which may be found among various individual atheists.

Brown’s fourth question relates to science, a discipline absent from the Christian bible. (I have not found any passages in the Christian bible discussing the proper rules for collecting evidence, generating hypotheses, testing theories, review by peers, etc.; moreover, none of the miraculous stories found in the bible are presented with any awareness on the part of their authors that such events defy the findings made possible by science.)

Brown asks:

4. Do you believe that science can provide answers for many of the remaining mysteries of the universe, including how the universe began (including where matter came from and where the Big Bang derived its energy); the origin of life; and DNA coding? 

Again, these questions are not intended to “stump you” or prove that science can’t answer everything. Instead, I’m genuinely wondering if you feel comfortable saying, “We may not be able to answer all these questions now, but over time, we’ll get the answers – and we won’t need a God to fill in the gaps.”

Off the bat, I think it’s important to call out the fact that simply identifying as an atheist in no way obligates an individual to any assessment of the power of science or what discoveries may be made by scientists in the future. Brown’s question echoes the assumption that atheism as such is as credal in nature as a religion. We can say:

“You’re a Christian? This must mean that you believe God created the universe.”

But we cannot say:

“You’re an atheist? This must mean that you believe the universe popped into existence just by chance.”

It may be that some atheists hold this view, but atheism as such does not entail such a belief as one inherent plank among a whole set. Properly understood as the absence of god-belief, atheism has no such inherent planks to begin with. 

We must also clarify what science is. On my view, science is best defined as the systematic application of reason to some specialized area of study. This is sufficiently open-ended to apply to any legitimate area of inquiry, and its focus on reason assures an objective basis and framework to such study. Science begins where reason begins: with the evidence of the senses. It is our senses which put us in contact with the only data sources that can inform scientific investigation. The practitioner of science gathers the content of his study by looking outward at the facts discovered in reality as opposed to looking inward to the inventions of the imagination. We did not learn about the atomic composition of water, the seismic forces of tectonic plates, the melting temperature of iron or the intricacies of cellular activity by praying, fasting, wearing ashes and sackcloth, circumcising our children or singing in Sunday choirs. On the contrary, we need to employ reason systematically to discover and understand such things.

I do not know what scientists will discover in the future, and by declaring my atheism I in no way imply that I therefore believe that scientists will discover everything that is currently unknown in the universe. Scientists are fallible human beings just like the rest of us, and some facts we will likely never discover because we may not have access to the inputs needed to inform such discoveries. Consequently, I do not expect science to answer questions such as:

Did D.B. Cooper survive his jump from NWA Flight 305? 

Who looted Hemiunu’s mastaba? 

What happened to the inhabitants of Roanoke Colony? 

What is the meaning of the Voynich Manuscript?

That some facts will likely remain impervious to scientific discovery, however, does not in any way detract from the power and utility of science as a discipline which continually adds to the structure of human knowledge. The catalyst of scientific discovery is curiosity, and so long as men have curiosity, future discoveries are ensured. And the discoveries made possible by science are indeed astounding!

On the other hand, however, a philosophy which essentially tells its adherents that an extracosmic being is ultimately behind the causation of everything will only blunt a man’s curiosity, for in the end he will have to accept that all inquiry comes to the dead end of supernaturalism. This view postures itself as one nourished by input from an omniscient source (“revelation”) when in fact it only guarantees the perpetuity of ignorance on the very topics which it pretends to address. The more consistent believers will dismiss scientific pursuits as vain puffery while religious piety is treated as a license to feign knowledge on things that are in fact not real.

We all begin life in utter ignorance of reality, and it is only by looking out at the world around us that we make any discoveries to begin with. The prospect that some questions will likely remain unanswered should not cause any kind of psychic discomfort. While filling the gaps of our knowledge with “God did it” may soothe mystical anxieties, it answers nothing and does not qualify as actual knowledge of reality.

Generally speaking, some of the “mysteries of the universe” that Brown mentions do not seem very mysterious to me, and I don’t think we need specialized knowledge to give high-level answers here.

Consider:

Where did the universe come from? That’s easy: it came from existence. 

Where did matter come from? From existence. 

Where did the Big Bang derive its energy? Again, that’s easy: From existence. 

Where did life originate? Life originated in existence. 

Where did DNA coding come from? It came from existence.

See? Unless one thinks that the universe, matter and life came from non-existence, one would have to agree that these answers are unassailable.

Do the Christian bible’s answers to these questions prevail against mine?

Now that these questions have been addressed (let those who dispute my answers attempt to argue that it all came from non-existence), one might expect the believer to reply with yet another question:

“Okay, well where did existence come from?”

So how does the believer answer this question? How does he answer it without committing the fallacy of the stolen concept? Can he point to some passage in the Christian bible which speaks directly to this question? What data sources does he have to corroborate what he interprets the Christian bible to be saying on these matters?

My view is that if existence exists, then it exists independent of consciousness and therefore cannot be the product of conscious activity. If we start with existence, then the supposed metaphysical “problems” which theism is supposed to address simply do not emerge to begin with.

by Dawson Bethrick