12 TRUE STORIES, WELL TOLD.
CNF: In “Proofs,” you write, “We
have made very separate categories
of science and learning on one hand
and reverence for the Creator on the
other.” Was there ever a time when
these categories were easily seen to
be closely related? What are the main
ways in which this separation came
about, do you think, and how has it
come to be so powerful?ROBINSON: First of all, for the
purposes of responding to all these
questions, I must object to what
I take to be an overly general use
of the word “science.” I see a vast,
qualitative difference between
sciences whose terms and methods
can overturn the assumptions of
the inquirers, and “science” that
simply insists on the truth value of
its assumptions. The accelerating
expansion of the universe, the greatprevalence of apparently non-atomic
dark matter, the role of the lysome in
regulating the life of an organism—
the list of such surprises is endless,
and might be called the history of
scientific progress. When a method
is not finally captive to prevailingconsensus, it is science in the positive
sense. It is real exploration.
This other business, which is called
neuroscience—again, a word prob-
ably applied too generally—proceeds
on the basis of dubious thought
experiments and vast generalizations
based on tiny, wildly atypical sample
populations. It relies on notions about
genetics that are discredited, and eco-
nomic concepts (cost/benefit analysis,
notably) that are never examined. And
it depends on an indefensibly simple
anthropology. All this is in the service
of its assumptions, which are endlessly
reiterated and asserted as if proved.
Since the nineteenth century, every
type of “brain science” from phrenol-
ogy on has proceeded from and/or
arrived at the same conclusions—no
soul, no self, no God. Is there any
science properly so-called that would
find these to be legitimate conclusionson the basis of anything known,
learned, or observed? Is the apparent
existence of dark energy relevant
to these questions? The apparent
existence of gravity waves? No, and
what could be? These concepts are
beautiful in their own right, not proofor disproof of the ultimate, meta-
physical character of Being. That said,
they are arguably less irrelevant than
any conclusions cost/benefit analysis
could yield. It is bizarre that when
science is in such a brilliant period its
public face is this parasitical “science”
that flaunts a prestige earned by work
of a very different order, and that
takes religion as an adversary because
for many generations that’s what its
ancestors have done.
Much important early work was
done by devout men—Descartes,
Locke, Newton, and very many oth-
ers. Their thinking has been treated as
if it banished the sacred from experi-
ence, but in fact it invested it much
more deeply in mind, perception, and
knowledge. Calvin said the brilliance
of the human being, felt in dreams,
imagination, and learning, and
demonstrated in science, was proof
of the existence of God and of the
divine in human nature. This kind of
celebration was characteristic of his
period, the European Renaissance.
Early science was fascinated with the
wonderful capacities of the mind and
the wonderful order it discovered in
nature. Both of these were seen as
God’s providence. It seems that often
in history only the polemic against a
thought or movement is remembered.
This kind of religious experience was
treated by its adversaries as atheism.
And this image of science became fixed.CNF: In “Humanism” you write,
“The notion that the universe is
constructed ... so that reality must
finally answer in every case to the
questions we bring to it [i.e., throughENCOUNTER Continued
12 TRUE STORIES, WELL TOLD.
Early science was fascinated with
the wonderful capacities of the
mind and the wonderful order it
discovered in nature. Both of these
were seen as God’s providence.