Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.
But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.
Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.
Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.
I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.
Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.
Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.
In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.
This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.
Reader Comments ( Page 61 of 61)
901. Ahem... meant tbr-baby. Hey, maybe I'm your mom's old 'milkman'!
not-pboyfloyd at 11:26PM on Jun 15th 2008
902. "864. Isn't it funny how a self-loathing black woman like JS agrees with a self-loathing homosexual like Michael agree with each other"?
Tim,
I am not sure how you deduce that I am "self-loathing", but I assure you that I am very comfortable with myself! I am a devout Catholic-Christian who loves my Lord Jesus Christ! I am made in the image of GOD. I never personally attack, but I will defend my beliefs. My world view is determined by my faith. If that offends you, so bet it.
janesophie1 at 11:15AM on Jun 16th 2008
903. Mike says, (1) "'Objective' means that a property lies in the observed object; and 'subjective' means the property lies in the observing subject."
Fine, Newton and Einsteing both described gravity, one using a force-field model and the other a spacetime warp model. At relatively slow speeds, i.e./e.g. two solid bodies interacting with each other at speeds of tiny fractions of lightspeed), Einstein's model and Newton's model overlap.
(2) "Einstein said gravity was a warp in space-time and not a force. And space-time was the field of Ricci tensors, which only exists when matter exists."
The 'warp' is a concept of Einstein's model,(how can empty spacetime be warped?) equivalent to Newton's force-field concept(how could a 'sucking' force propagate though space, 'what' is 'sucking'?)
Nevertheless, both models describe the exact same phenomena very well at the relative speeds that you or I will ever actually encounter and both models describe higher energy states to the smaller body when far from the larger body and lower energy states to the smaller body when close to or on the surface of the larger body.
(3) "It does not surprise me at all that you don't care what scientists say about science."
Einstein's model 'interests' me as much as the next guy but Newton's model describes the world adequately for me.
Space and time are real. Spacetime is real. They are parts of the the physical, measurable reality that we live in.
(4) "not-pboyfloyd
A physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that is describable by physics and involved with some form of matter, energy, or spacetime."
Mike
That does not actually show up on the web site you cited as authoritative."
Oh, really Mike-baby...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&defl=en&q=define:physical+phenomenon&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Now, Mike-baby, even if you still insist that the definition of physical phenomena does not 'include' space or time or as in Einstein's model, spacetime.. you have to explain 'what' is warping if spacetime is not a physical phenomena.
Surely a metaphysical concept cannot be warped by physical bodies.
Plus, observation is mentioned as part of any definiton of physical phenomena.. observation of objects(or bodies) in space and through time, is just a 'given' isn't it?
I think that you implying that I was meaning physical phenomenon like physical property must have been your idea of a joke?
Every physical object is physically observed by our physical, electromagnetic, streaming consciousnesses objectively(1^) measuring the space it takes up, the space in occupies relative to other objects, the timeframe that it is in etc, etc.
Space and time, or spacetime are physical phenomena.
Observable as the space between your ears for example and the time it takes for this 'message' to reach what's in that space from point 'a', the monitor to point 'b' your retina to point 'c', the ever swirling darkness that you call your stream of consciousness and so on.
not-pboyfloyd at 11:55PM on Jun 16th 2008
904. not-pboy
The 'warp' is a concept of Einstein's model, (how can empty spacetime be warped?)
Mike
Exactly. That was why Einstein was so critical of deSitter's solution to the general field equations. DeSitter postulated an empty space-time and that was in Einstein's model absurd. Space and time are simply states of the Ricci tensors. DeSitter space made a hash of Einstein's contention that space-time was determined by the very presence of matter, and contradicted his contention that matter's path was determined by space-time curvature.
not-pb
Now, Mike-baby, even if you still insist that the definition of physical phenomena does not 'include' space or time or as in Einstein's model, spacetime.. you have to explain 'what' is warping if spacetime is not a physical phenomena.
Mike
Einstein did use the term "physical space," but by it he meant the ether. Space-time does not exist =except when matter exists=. It is the existence of matter that creates the field of tensors, and it is the field of Ricci tensors that exhibit the distortions of the presence of mass.
To assert that space and time have existence independent of matter is to assert that a property can exist independently of the thing that has the property. You may as well say that there can be white without a white thing.
Time is the measure of change in matter. No matter, no change, no time. No matter, no extension, no space.
not-pb
Einstein's model 'interests' me as much as the next guy but Newton's model describes the world adequately for me.
Mike
Evidently, it does not interest you enough to find out what it is.
But you are absolutely right: for most people in their daily lives it doesn't matter. Neither, for that matter does Copernicanism - the Aristotelian model serves adequately. (Come to that, NASA uses Ptolemaic astronomy for its local operations. It's easier to make Earth the center of your coordinate system when you're dealing with satellites or even moon trips.) People can live their entire lives ignorant of Darwin, or of Maxwell. Scientists and technicians may find these things useful, but not most people.
Mike at 9:06PM on Jun 21st 2008
905. Mike said:
"Dang! Just when I thought there was someone who could debate with logic and reason, you have to go and revert to type."
not-pboyfloyd
Y'see the rest of that comment was fine. You have to go and spoil it with this arrogant, pompous crap.
Mike answers:
The above was directed at Pete, who managed for several consecutive posts to avoid name-calling and vituperation. My hopes were then dashed and I expressed my disappointment.
+ + +
Mike said: "????? And Renzo is....?"
not-pboyfloyd
.. a pompous ass ... trying to pass off logical fallacies ... exalting himself, proclaiming his superior intellect... saying that someone with an opposing POV is somehow 'inferior' is a disgusting 'ad homenim', attack, isn't it?
Mike says:
Sure, and the readers can recognize an ad hominem when they see one. (An 'ad homenim,' I don't recognize.)
not-pboyfloyd
The existence of God or the gods does NOT depend on who can out-bullshit whom.
Mike answers:
I suppose not, but I have said nothing about that.
Mike at 9:06PM on Jun 21st 2008
906. Mike says, "Naturally, it is still computationally convenient to use the "gravity force field" story to talk about motion; but that does not make gravity a material thing."
not-pboyfloyd quoting the authoritative Wikipedia:
" In physics, the graviton is a ***hypothetical*** elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. ***If it exists,*** the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Stop those crazy physicists.. Behold! It came to pass that Mike has declared Gravitons to be non-existent.
Mike answers:
I never said that. "Graviton" may be a perfectly good story to tell about our experience of gravity. That "forces" must be mediated by "particles" is part of the current paradigm. It is probably true enough.
not-pboyfloyd
I'm sure that physicists everywhere are taking note of your brilliance Mike, have you written your peer reviewed paper yet? I smell Nobel prize here!
Mike
Sorry to disappoint. My only peer-reviewed paper was in the field of mathematics way back before I left the groves of academe.
Mike at 9:06PM on Jun 21st 2008
907. not-pboy
Sure Stalin was an A-hole... Nazi Germany would have overran the U.S.S.R. if Stalin was a wussy, isn't THAT a fact?
Mike
????????
(Actually, it is not a fact, as it did not happen. As for Stalin's mental breakdown in the aftermath of Barbarosa, his refusal to believe intelligence reports of an imminent German attack, his order to Soviet artillery not to return fire because he thought the invasion was some terrible mistake, I recommend John Lukacs' book, Hitler and Stalin.)
Mike at 1:20PM on Jun 22nd 2008