RELIGION

An argument for the final triumph of scientific reason over religious faith for the sake of world peace. 

Johnson (Had Enough of God Yet?, 2017, etc.) sees the world as imperiled by a clash of conflicting religions, locked in a contest for world domination, threatening nuclear war. These competing religions are incapable of diplomatically settling their claims to govern humanity—the author doubtfully reflects on the fruitfulness of interfaith dialogue—because each is fundamentally irrational. Science, however, as the ultimate paragon of human reason and solely based on rigorous empirical observation, may be the route forward. The only hope for global harmony, therefore, rests in the substitution of scientific rationality for religion. Johnson furnishes accounts of the origins of religion, the idea of God, and consciousness that, despite his celebration of rational rigor, seem remarkably speculative: Historically, religion was born from a combination of fear and superstition, and the idea of God is an “artifactof consciousness” conjured by man. And our sense of selfhood is an evolutionary quirk of our neurophysiology, a hazy “hologram” of personal identity. Consciousness as well is tidily explained in terms of the physical operations of the brain. Johnson devotes separate chapters to the Mormon Church and Islam. He argues that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, the latter a superior alternative to the former. Johnson has a doctorate in chemistry and writes lucidly about the core principles that animate scientific experimentation. Also, he’s surely right that a deep and searching reflection on the tension between science and faith has never been more needful. However, he supplies shopworn arguments that are more polemical than thoughtful and reduces complex philosophical debates to matters of childlike common sense. For example, he solves the rich historical debate about the possibility of an afterlife with a declaration: “Imagine that a more scientific or rational death narrative came about from simple observation—at the time of death, the person stopped breathing. That’s it—end of sentence, end of life!”

A familiar, depthless characterization of an ageless argument.