Does science have all the questions?

Books on the so called conflict between religion and science seem quite popular recently. I want to make a few comments on a recent entry by Peter Atkins.; On Being: A Scientist's Exploration of the Great Questions of Existence.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Peter Atkins pieces together all that science has discovered on these big questions, and finds the evidence unquestionable.
"Every real question, like, where did the universe come from, where is it going, and how is it getting there - there is nothing of that nature that science cannot illuminate," he says. [1.]

- Every 'real' question? Who is Atkins to dictate what is a 'real' or unreal question? The idea that the only real questions are ones about physical reality is more than a little strange! (Even for an academic.)

2. 'As scientists discover increasing amounts about life, the universe and everything, are we approaching a point where we can rely on science alone to answer all of life's big questions?' [1.]

- Before we can decide whether science has all the answers, we would have to know whether or not it has asked all the questions. Since we can't know that, I don't see how 'science' can have all the answers.

Can science answer all questions? Before we can answer we have to know what this 'science' is. I doubt that there is any such thing. If by science he means a description of the physical world, I would deny that observational, empirical science can answer all questions. The main function of science is to describe the universe we live in. It's a fabrication (fantasy if you will) to say we can deduce moral ideals, etc. from this. (e.g. Sam Harris) As the favorite philosopher of most atheists (David Hume) put it; you can't go from what is, to what should be. [3.]

2. 'Driven by an undimmable optimism, he says, scientists are probing everywhere, leaving no stone unturned. What they find are facts, facts and more facts, with consequences that we cannot ignore.'

- Driven by optimism? or by government grants ?
What scientists find are facts he says. He needs to read a little philosophy (or a little more as the case may be). All so called facts are limited by our partial knowledge of the universe, by our philosophical bias, by who we are as creatures... by what level we think reality exists at, and by much more. All these factors 'conspire' to make 'facts' impossible.

There are no facts... what we have are ideas, opinions, theories, and speculations. (A weaker version of this statement is that there are very few facts; if by fact we mean an absolute knowledge of reality.)

3. Science, he says, has all the evidence it needs that the universe is "entirely without purpose": you are born an intelligent animal with no soul or spirit and there is nothing left alive after the body has died.'

- I find people like Atkins dreary and boring. He apparently believes in a laundered version of logical positivism... and that his ego is as wide, vast and deep as the universe.
There is no such thing as science; this is a reification. People we call scientists engage in various activities, but there is no independent entity called science. Furthermore, a thing has no needs. Atkins may have, but 'science' does not.

To know the 'universe' was entirely without purpose he'd have to know everything about everything in the universe. This claim is comical at best.

To say there is no soul or spirit we have to know what is meant by these things, and how they're defined. Atkins seems to believe his definitionss of things are the only ones, and that they're somehow absolute. (He just defines things out of existence and then claims they don't exist. This is a schoolboy's game.)

We can't know what happens after we die. Only if the universe were merely as clever as Atkins, would his opinions be conclusive. He seems to have forgotten his Shakespeare. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." [2.]
ie. he can't know what might exist outside his limited consciousness.

4. "If science comes up with facts that are, let's call it, true… even though they are unsettling, they have to be accepted," he says.

- Have to be accepted? If we are mere animals why do we have to accept anything. Human history would seem to be one of not accepting things. If we are mere matter in motion what sense does it make to say we 'have' to do anything? If all is matter in motion, there is no freedom, and to talk of moral commands is nonsensical.

If all is matter in motion nothing is true or false... it just is. (Atkins doesn't even take his own worldview seriously... so why should anyone else.)

5. "I think that science exposes the wonder of the world as it is. You don't need fantasies to build that sense of wonder. Science is true glory, whereas religion is fabricated glory."

- Science is true glory? With due respect... that's just gibberish. If all is matter in motion there is no glory. Glory is a theistic word, and refers to God and his 'wondrous' creation.

There is no mythological hero called science. Do scientists uncover wondrous things?
Indubitably. They uncover the glories of God's creation.

Atkins refers to 'religion' as a fantasy. In my opinion, the word religion is obsolete. It needs to be replaced with the more objective term worldview. (I'd wager that parts of everyone's worldview are false.)

6. "I'm quite happy for people to take false comfort, but you've got to realize it's false comfort," he says.

- This is more gibberish. There's no comfort in X, if you know it's false. It's too bad he can't be honest. He's obviously not happy that people take 'false comfort' at all.


Notes;
1. Does science have all the answers? By Tom Colls [Transcript of BBC radio program]
- my remarks in this post are based on the interview with Atkins.
2. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601
3. The Is-ought problem;
'In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. - Wikipedia
4. Atkins apparently believes in a laundered version of logical positivism... and that his ego is as wide, vast and deep as the universe.
5. ''Mary Midgley, whose book The Myths We Live By is being re-published as a Routledge Classic this month, thinks Professor Atkins's views demonstrate the "imperialistic" attitude science has developed.' [from transcipt]
6. 'The religious notions of soul and spirit, of life everlasting and the final judgement, are nothing more, he says, than a "fantasy".