From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

How about science-based ethics?

By Paul Viggiano

Faith-based science is the hot new derogatory maxim. From the sacred halls of secular bioethics, the encyclicals blazon: "We must annihilate the influence of the theist, and pure science must reign as the uncontested canon of decency and morality." With papyrus firmly clenched in their mandibles, the monkeys fly.

Inscribed on the parchment are the names of scientists whose works were quelled by the myopic clergy: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton. Faith, it is asserted, is the absence of evidence. Faith has no place in science.

Hmmm. Just how would someone go about scientifically proving that faith has no place in science? Is the assertion subject to the scientific method? Can it be tested, measured, observed and repeated? Wait a minute! Is the scientific method subject to the scientific method? How does one go about proving that the scientific method is scientific? A conundrum indeed! It would appear that the scientific method is based upon faith in its own methodology.

If faith has no place in science, they might as well go public, make a bag of money and close shop, because faith has its ugly fingers all over science. The scientist must have faith in his observations, the accuracy of his instruments, the reliability of the conclusions of his predecessors, the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past -- something he can never prove), and his own ability to think clearly, which has already been proved questionable.

Theists (people who believe in God) are not opposed to good science. They recognize the worth and the validity of the process. But they see its limitations. Einstein said that science teaches us no truth; it merely helps us organize the things we observe.

Those who are opposed to faith-based science are now seeking to seize the language to advance, not their science, but their ethics. Faith-based science is not the problem; the problem is science-based ethics.

Such politically charged issues as stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia and cloning are not heated due to disagreements regarding what one sees looking through the microscope. The pot is boiling, not due to science but ethics. Two equally competent OBGYNs might have radically opposing views regarding pregnancy terminations and stem cell usage.

Just how does science-based ethics work?

Does the DNA code contain some type of secular scripture? Will the science-based ethicist eventually discover the 10 genetic commandments? What if the 10 genetic commandments are the same as the Ten Commandments? How long before that gets published in scientific journal?

It's all so silly. Any thoughtful person realizes that the starting point of his world view is always based on faith. And faith is not a blind leap into a pool of irrational thoughts and concepts; it is a necessary beginning. And guess what? Even the atheists know this.

In a brilliantly written article in Wired magazine by Gary Wolf, atheists are given their day in court. "No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science" splashes across the cover. The latest diatribes against religion -- The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett -- receive the free promo. But Dennett, perhaps the most renowned of all, drops the baton.

This atheist-materialist, who demands good evidence for any conclusion, when asked the tough ethical questions by Wolf, responds with answers suitable for clerical ordination. Wolf writes, "Dennett knows that reason alone will fail. ... He doesn't want people to lose confidence in what he calls their 'default settings.' ... No rational creature, he says, would be able to do without unexamined sacred things."

I'm ready to take the weekend off and give Dennett my pulpit. Perhaps he can give a sermon on faith-based atheism. But Dennett wasn't finished. "It's not that science can discover when the body is ensouled," claims Dennett. "That's nonsense. We are not going to tolerate infanticide." Why not? Someone might ask Dennett. It would, no doubt, be offensive to his faith.