Sherlock Holmes : Theist? (What a Lovely Thing a Rose Is)

I’ve finally been able to watch a bit of the BBC’s acclaimed series “Sherlock” and from what I’ve seen it seems to be as brilliant as the critics say. There is one thing that I find puzzling though. From what I have seen it is apparent that the writers of the show have presumed that if one transported the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes into the 21st century he would, without question, be an atheist. 

And I wonder why they presume this. Is it because of the character’s perceived emotionally bankrupt personality? If that is so then it is an insult to atheists. Is it because of Sherlock’s mastery of logic and precise scientific method? If that is true then it is an insult to theists ( who happen to make up some of the brightest minds in the world today).

It certainly cannot be an idea arrived upon by reading the original books. I’ve read nearly all of them and it is clear that the original Sherlock Holmes was a theist. Perhaps it may be argued that he was only a theist in the original works because of the time and place in which Conan Doyle wrote these ground-breaking books. However I highly doubt that as well as Conan Doyle uses that very mastery of logic in his protagonist to venerate the Creator. The best example of this may be found in The Naval Treaty in which Dr. Watson narrates:


"...the authorities are excellent on amassing facts, though they do not always use them to advantage. What a lovely thing a rose is!"  

He walked past the couch to the open window, and held up the drooping stalk of a moss rose, looking down at the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new phase of his character to me, for I have never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.

"There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion," said he, leaning with his back against the shutters.  "It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in flowers . 

All other things, our own powers our desires, our food, are really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life , not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers." 

from The Naval Treaty by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Scientism - When Science Becomes Religious

Many theist and atheist scientists and philosphers are beginning to define the almost "religious" viewpoints and behaviour of some extreme atheistic scientists -  and they have coined the term "Scientism".  (See Thomas Nagel, Massimo Pigliucci, Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig)

From Wikipedia (highlights mine) :

Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively,^[1][2][3] to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.^[4] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."^[5] The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism^[6][7] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,^[8] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,^[9] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam^[10] and Tzvetan Todorov^[11] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.^[12]

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:^[13][14][15]

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.^[16] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,^[17] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"^[15] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"^[10] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."^[18][19]

The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.^[20][21][22]

Emotional Suicide

Christians and other “people of faith” have often been accused of committing “intellectual suicide” .

And maybe for certain people in certain times this may have been true. However,  the overwhelming majority of Christians have not committed this “intellecticide” . Not just because we have become more intellectually engaged in recent decades but because it’s simply not necessary to turn off the mind. We believe in a God who created the mind, the intellect, reason and logic.

Christianity is, in fact, a very reasonable world view ( and once experienced , I believe it becomes confirmed) . Yes, at some point it takes faith. But all world views do. Some like to pretend they don’t , but we , as the human race in sum, simply do not have the answers to all of life’s questions – be it the origins of life or the endings of life – it is all hypothesis, theory, speculation. 

So all humans, and I do propose ALL, have faith in something.   It may be faith that something IS or faith that it IS NOT – but it is faith.

So my question then is – as a society in our quest for truth -  have we committed emotional suicide? Or are we maybe just “cutting” as it were at our emotions?

If so, how long can we ignore the symptoms of a sick heart?

To be sure, emotions and feelings alone are not a very reliable resource – but I wholeheartedly believe they are an absolute necessity in the quest for truth. Imagine – using logic and emotion! We could get somewhere.


I suppose we could replace the word "emotion" with  "experience" and still be talking along the same lines.  Because after all, a world view must be actually liveable in the real day-to-day world.

I sometimes look at it this way – I can study a famous person from many aspects, I can analyze their words and actions or lack thereof, I can read the tabloids or their exhaustive biography but I cannot truly KNOW that person until I have developed a personal relationship with them.

Until I have let down the guard on my heart and let a relationship happen – for good or bad.  Until we have talked, shared experiences, been in deep troubles together I don't really know that person. 

 I mean even “The Big Bang Theory’s” Sheldon loves his Mee-Maw and desperately wants his consciousness to be uploaded into an independent orbiting satellite to last for eternity.

This paradox takes its form when I hear of one man who exclaimed “There is no God, I hate God.”

We can believe there is no God, but we cannot hate Him at the same time – for that betrays our underlying belief in Him.

I think that if we get down to it -  our own hurts, our pride and rebellion colours our views far more than we’d like to admit.

I guess all that I am really trying to say  is that in this age of Intellectualism ( which is not necessarily bad of course) we may have swung the pendulum too far and forgot that the heart, whether we like it or not, makes many decisions for us. 

Let the heart and mind search for truth in harmony. Let us not be afraid of faith… because we must all deal with it.

Let’s just place our faith well!