Theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind writes in his book on string theory that science doesn’t quite get at the question of why there is something rather than nothing. It’s a good, fair, and totally valid point. This is because science answers the “how” questions as opposed to the “why” questions. We will never discover, via science, if everything was created by some divine Creator in charge of ensuring that certain things would play out in certain ways. I mean, how can one objectively deny that?
So what role, if any, should science have in helping come to grips with what life-view to adopt? For one it can help us become aware of our roots, our future on Earth, as well as our place in the universe. Some may take this and think: “Oh, look I’m this meaningless piece of stardust in a huge galaxy and my planet will cease to be some day. Clearly I’m not special, clearly there’s no point in life, and clearly God, at least the one of the major religions, does not exist.” Fair point, it seems. But if anything, it’s at root an emotional argument for atheism. The theistic equivalent would run as follows: “What were the chances that we would ever come to exist in a huge galaxy with the probabilities against us? It seems as if this was planned, as if there’s something special, particularly with humans since they can reason about this. Isn’t it just scary to think that a universe of non-living matter evolved into a self-conscious universe?” At heart, it’s emotional. None of these two stances is grounded by irrefutable propositions and the like. Therefore, we shall consider them invalid “reasons” to believe X or Y. Rather, both involve having faith, or banking on the idea that something is one way as opposed to another. Furthermore, both may be interpreted as the results of wishful thinking by their contraries.
