Contrary to the expectation that advances in science would make religion irrelevant, it is still alive and well, and the number of religious people is growing. Richard Dawkins, a leading atheist, tries to explain religious beliefs with science, but his arguments are metaphysical. Science is a tool for exploring facts and cannot answer questions of value and meaning. When science remains neutral and focuses on its essential role, it can be reconciled with religion.
Science and religion have been in constant conflict until modern times. In the past, Galileo faced the Inquisition for supporting Copernicus’ geocentric theory of the Earth revolving around the sun instead of the heliocentric theory of the universe revolving around the Earth. This was not just a clash of theories, but a clash of paradigms of human belief and perception. At the time, religion was the sole authority for explaining the world and our place in it, and geocentrism challenged that authority. Galileo’s case is emblematic of the inevitable conflict between science and religion that would ensue.
However, as time progressed and society changed rapidly, science gradually began to break away from the influence of religion. In fact, in modern times, science has become a threat to religion’s position, and this has extended to philosophical issues as well. Scientific universalists, who claimed that science could explain everything, expected that it would also reveal the nature and ultimate purpose of human existence. The new atheists who emerged in this era expected that religion was merely the opiate of the ignorant, and that science would soon replace it entirely. But despite the accumulation of scientific discoveries, religion is still alive and well, and the world’s religious population is growing. Why, contrary to their expectations, has science not completely pushed religion aside? Are there fundamental limitations to their arguments?
Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous of the new wave of atheists who have emerged in this age of scientific universalism. In his books The Selfish Gene, The God Who Made Us, and other works, Dawkins sharply criticizes religion. In particular, he argues that Darwinism is a universal theory of humanity that goes beyond biology, and that religion can be explained through Darwinism. But can religion, which is composed of metaphysical beliefs, be explained by the scientific method without metaphysics? Dawkins attempts to solve this problem by cleverly adding a metaphysical interpretation to science. In his book, he argues that genes are inside us and control the world by remote control, and his claim that protecting them is the ultimate cause of human existence is more of a philosophical argument. Many of the concepts Dawkins attempts to explain with science are actually his personal interpretations, not facts that have been scientifically verified.
Dawkins extends this logic further with his concept of meme theory. He argues that just as organisms evolve through genes, religious beliefs evolve through the existence of memes. According to meme theory, just as genes transmit biological information through self-replication, memes transmit individual thoughts and beliefs from brain to brain through imitation. Dawkins uses meme theory to explain the spread and development of religious beliefs and tries to pass it off as scientific fact, but it’s nothing more than Dawkins’ metaphysical interpretation that hasn’t been tested by the scientific method. He suggests that memes are tangible entities that parasitize the brain, and he makes no scientific claims about how they are actually transmitted.
In fact, this kind of argument is far from the objectivity that science strives for. Science is an endeavor to explain the world based on rigorously observed and verified facts, but Dawkins attempts to include beliefs within the framework of science by adding his own philosophical interpretations to scientific facts. This is a fallacy not unlike how religion has tried to suppress scientific discovery in the past. Times have changed, and now atheists are using the tools of science to emphasize their anti-religious beliefs. Just as Galileo was subjected to the Inquisition, we now see scientific universalists attempting to stifle dissent by labeling science as a new “religion. When science is used as a tool to affirm certain beliefs rather than as a tool for the search for truth, its very essence is compromised.
When used correctly, science remains neutral toward religious or anti-religious beliefs. The role of science is to explore questions of fact, and it cannot answer questions about the ultimate value or meaning of human existence. For example, science can explain the fact that humans die, but it cannot answer questions about the value and meaning of death. If we use science for what it is, and not as a tool of religion or anti-religion, science will lead us to questions of meaning and value that science cannot address. Science is a tool for the search for truth, and it should go there, and its role should stop there.
