My po-faced post, “The Joke’s On You” (March 7th, 2012), has elecited several po-faced responses from those who presumed that I was somehow belittling science. I was, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. I was merely clarifying the limitations of the scientific method. Those wishing to see the whole debate, in which our own wonderful Sophia Mason has fought my corner with skill and conviction, should scroll down to the original post. I would, however, like to thank Sophia. She is a damsel in shining armour, much like Reason in C. S. Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress, who has come to the aid of this knight in distress!

As an appetiser for the full debate in the original post, here’s my latest response to my two accusers:

Tom R (and Kyle),

The definition of “why” to which I was referring is given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as “for what reason? for what purpose?” Scientists do not ask the reason that an electron orbits a nucleus, they discover that it orbits a nucleus and then make further deductions from that fact. The reason for its orbit is not one of the questions that scientists ask. Atheists will answer that there is no reason but atheism is a philosophical and ultimately a theological position: God or his absence being the first principle.

Similarly, and returning to our dictionary definition, scientists do not ask the purpose for an electron’s orbiting of a nucleus. A purpose requires a will to purpose it. Scientists do not concern themselves whether there is a will or a purpose behind the mechanics of the cosmos, they seek only to understand the workings of the mechanism. Again, atheists will argue that there is no purpose but such an argument is philosophical and theological in nature. The irony is that scientists can only become atheists by ceasing to be scientists, i.e. by reading philosophical and theological meanings into the scientific data.

I agree that a sense of humour is worth developing and am somewhat amused that someone should accuse me of lacking such. Isn’t it interesting, for instance, that only human beings have a sense of humour? Animals don’t possess this gift. I wonder why? But that’s another (philosophical and theological) question.