Response to Lawrence Krauss' WSJ Article "God and Science Don't Mix"

A couple of weeks ago, Lawrence Krauss penned an article in the Wall Street Journal titled God and Science Don't Mix. Though I highly admire and respect what Mr. Krauss has to say on the subject of physics, I find his understanding (and training) in religion and philosophy sadly lacking. That the WSJ would allow someone to speak to the relationship of science and religion who holds so little regard to and understanding of the latter is puzzling. At a minimum, I think providing a response or alternative view on this particular subject was in order, lest the WSJ be judged as explicitly advocating Krauss's viewpoint. Or perhaps the WSJ should also stick to what it is best at, financial reporting, and leave this topic for others who will treat it with the respect it deserves.

Following are eight observations that I would like to offer from my reading of Krauss's article:

1) Krauss begins with an assumption that (any) religion is false, and he thus places it in the same category as astrology and witchcraft. First, has he demonstrated that all religions are false, and second, what does he have to say to those of a religious stripe that don't believe in either astrology or witchcraft? Would religion simply be their myth of choice?

2) Krauss asserts that the "religious right" (whatever that definition entails) believes science to be an atheist enemy that must be vanquished. Sorry, but I know many religious folks and I have never once heard anyone say that science within itself is atheistic. A more accurate statement would be that many religious folks believe atheists use science as an enemy against the religious (with Krauss a case in point).

3) Regarding Krauss's assertion that various school boards view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy" is, again, not entirely accurate. First, as I stated before, presuming these school board members are religious, I believe he is patently wrong to assert that they believe science is the enemy. Second, their lack of belief in evolution as an explanation for everything holds no logically concomitant view that they also believe science is an enemy. That would be a ridiculous conflation, but Krauss proffers this mistaken view with reckless abandon.

4) Haldane was just plain wrong to state that science by its necessity is an atheistic discipline. That statement is a reflection on him, not on those doing science who may happen not to be atheists. This is a philosophical statement itself, and not a scientific one, so it is the height of dogma to make such a sweeping statement about what science "necessarily" is, particularly with the difficulty over the years of even defining the scientific method.

5) Krauss cites the "remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world" as being a reason that scientists would "understandably" react as Haldane did. I fail to understand his point, as again, not all scientists react the same as Haldane. Further, let's say that I can explain how my BMW 550i "works." That certainly does not explain "why" it works the way it does, and it would be quite audacious of me to claim that its maker, BMW, is no longer "necessary" because I figured out how the car works. For everything I might think I "know" about the car, there may be one hundred other things I don't. And it would be foolhardy for me to further claim that it has no designer just because I have a bit of understanding of "how it works."

6) The virgin birth cannot be explained by biology precisely because it is a miracle. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a miracle. That's not to argue that the virgin birth actually occurred (which I happen to believe did), but it is ridiculous to ask someone to explain a miracle by biology when the whole point is that a miracle would necessarily transcend biology. Hasn't Krauss taken a course in basic logic?

7) Science is consistent with an atheistic view if one just happens to be an atheist. If one is not an atheist and, instead, is a theist, then one would believe that science is consistent with theism (as virtually all theists do). So again, this is a philosophical statement without empirical evidence, and not even a logical one at that.

8) Now what does the crisis in Iran have to do with religion in general, unless all religious people believe the same thing? Moreover, can we say that Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot suggest that a world based on religion is superior than one based on atheism? The body count of the 20th century would argue in the affirmative.