Science and triumphalism; scientism as the new salvation army

I define scientism as the belief all phenomena (including human) can be explained in terms of materialism or matter in motion. (This is the project called reductionism.) Let's take a look at a quote by one of the most bold defenders of such a view.

Quotes and comments;

A. "Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge emerged from religion. As science discarded its chrysalis to become its present butterfly it took over the heath. There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious - among whom I include not only the prejudiced by the underinformed - hope there is a dark corner of the physical universe, or of the universe of experience, that science can never hope to illuminate. But science has never encontered a barrier, and the only grounds for supposing that reductionism will fail are pessimsim on the part of scientists and fear in the minds of the religous. " - Peter Atkins [1.]

- Aristotle said that success depend on asking the right questions; so let's see if we can ask the 'right' questions in regards to this statement by Atkins.

Q#1. Is there such a thing as science? Or does each person define the word in an arbitrary fashion?

2. Is science a system of beliefs? how can there be a system (any system) in a universe of chance? where would such a system come from? is it a human invention? is it a human projection imposed upon the data? how would one know? Since system depends on uniformity we might ask him how reductionism can account for the presumption of uniformity.

3. Science is founded on public and reproducible knowledge he says. Isn't it rather founded on the nature of man? isn't it rather founded upon the god given nature of man? Could there truly be science in a universe of matter in motion? could man possibly be a product of matter in motion? Man after all shares almost nothing (and nothing important or vital) with mere matter; so how did matter produce something so utterly alien from itself? Is such a thing possible? Don't things 'reproduce' after their kinds?

4. Does his use of the word 'emerged' have any meaning? If so what does it mean? Evolutionists are always making the claim that X emerged from Y; and that A emerged from non-A; but they don't give us believable accounts of how this happened, or even how it would be possible. (Over and over again we see the term emergence reified; and an empty abstraction is given actual existence and powers.)

5. Does the word 'religious' have any meaning as Watkins uses it? Isn't he merely defining it in a way that's favorable to his own views? Doesn't he in fact have 'religious' views of his own? Isn't the idea of 'emergence' a religious idea? It certainly seems mystical.

6. Is it true that the 'religious' hope there's a 'dark corner' science (materialism) will never illuminate? Is that the religious hope? Not that I know of. (Is there any reason to believe Atkins knows what he's talking about when he discusses religion or Christianity?) It's rather the claim of reformed Christianity that materialism can't account for anything, not even a dark corner. It's the claim of biblical theology that only Christianity can make sense of the universe.

7. Science has never encountered a barrier to its project of explaining all things in terms of matter in motion Atkins tells us. Is this true? or is Atkins being swept up on the wind of his own rhetoric here? It's the opinion of many that the materialist project has failed repeatedly... and spectacularly so. (e.g. the origin of matter, the origin of stars and galaxies, the origin of planets, the origins of life, the origins of complex life, the origins of man, the origins of morality, the origins of personality, the origin of man's stupendous abilities, the origin of abstract thought, the origin of language, the origin of science, and much more.) Watkins is merely blowing smoke. He's pretending to know what he can't possibly know. (I wonder if he can explain his bravado and bluffing in terms of a materialist reductionism.)

8. Atkins assures us that reductionism cannot fail; that the only reason people think it might not succeed are pessimism and fear. Is this the case? Is this even remotely the case. Everywhere you look you see the failure of reductionism. Can Atkins explain science on the basis of reductionism? Can he explain himself? Can he explain his hatred of Christianity on the basis of reductionism? (Reductionism is the mad dream that all phenomena will one day be explained in terms of physics; which would appear to boil down to the idea that all things can be explained (accounted for) in terms of numbers, in terms of mathematical equations.) Contra Atkins, there is no reason to believe such a project can succeed. (Is there anyone who wants it to? And why? Can they explain their desire on the basis of reductionism? Can they explain their philosophical desires on the basis of numbers?)

9. If Atkins is merely matter in motion, how does he know all this? Reductionism means that his 'god like' knowledge (of science, scientists, Christians, the future, etc.) is somehow all a matter of physics. Does anyone really believe that? Is it really possible to give an equation that will explain this (presumed) ability?

10. Atkins refers to the 'minds' of the religious. This seems a little strange as we keep hearing the claim of reductionists that men have no minds; only brains. Is this an admission on his part that this concept (no mind/only brain) doesn't make sense? Is the difficulty in conceptualizing human beings as mindless evidence for the fallaciousness of the concept? Does anyone really believe that mere matter is capable of doing quantum mechanics?

Summary;
- Well, we've asked some questions of professor Atkins (we could have asked a lot more) so we'll let him answer them at his convenience. Materialism (with its inherent project of reductionism) can't account for the human universe because it makes the simple mistake of conflating matter with reality. (One wonders how people can make a mistake this huge, but that goes to show the power of a good education I guess.) I called this a mistake, but it's more than that; people only get things this wrong when they have an anti-God agenda.

To deny the reality of mind, of personality, of intelligence, of information, and of God, isn't something that happens by accident. The worldview of materialism isn't a necessary deduction from the study of the universe, but a necessary implication of atheism.
We might ask Watkins how it is that some clumps of matter believe in God and some clumps of matter don't? If all was matter in motion it's hard to see how this could be the case.

Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. Quote taken from 'God's undertaker' - John Lennox/Preface/p.8
- The Atkins article is 'The limitless power of science' (Atkins has reified the term science here, not only making it into a person, but giving this person god-like powers.)