Moonbase

The argument I’ve heard from some atheists runs thus: the goal of science is to offer explanations for (in the sense of providing a viable model for) physical phenomena. In the past, such models were often religiously derived, but the scientific models have been consistently more successful. Therefore, religion is no longer necessary.

However, such a conclusion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion is. Religion stems from the pervasive human sense that:

1. There is a supernatural.
2. We are alienated or separated from it in some way.

Consequently, it represents an attempt to reconnect with the supernatural, an understanding reflected in the word’s etymology (re+ligare; to re-connect). While both of these impressions are often provoked by encounters with nature (witness the prevalence of early nature religions), explanations of physical phenomena are at best a secondary concern.

Even if one goes so far as to believe that religion is a harmful accident of our natural development, the fact that religion has been an aspect of the human experience for so long and so universally suggests that the strength of the religious impulse should be treated with a healthy respect. To offer science as a replacement for religion is to invite the involvement of powerful and deeply ingrained sentiments which can only result in sloppy thinking about science.