A brilliant op-ed by a brilliant scientist appeared in the Los
Angeles Times of 1 April. It suggests that we shouldn't be worried if
the universe doesn't have a purpose. It is headed "A universe without
purpose" and is written by Lawrence M. Krauss who heads the Origins
Project at Arizona State University. He implies that all good people
(that is, sensible people, lay-people as well as scientists) should
be comfortable with the fact.
His key sentence is: "For many, to live in a universe that may have
no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable." Then, in the next
paragraph, he leads off with: "But science has taught us to think the
unthinkable." Well . . . for one thing, the sentence is
self-contradictory. We cannot think about what we cannot think about.
For another, the main thing -- the only thing -- that science teaches
us is that whatever we may happen to believe now may, in fact, turn
out to be wrong.
In fact, belief in a particular scientific theory is no different in
kind from a particular religious belief. The only difference is
time-scale. A particular religious belief may last for generations or
centuries or even millennia before it is "disproved". It changes when
the surrounding culture has become sufficiently dissonant so that,
usually, a chief spokesman (together with a close-knit group
surrounding him) announces a replacement belief or a modification
that sits more comfortably with the new culture. His flock usually
adopt the new belief pretty instantly or, sometimes, a maverick
youngster decides he wants to keep with the old "purity" and starts a
new schism.
On the other hand, as soon as a scientific spokesman announces a new
belief, then other scientists will immediately try to devise a new
culture (a controlled experiment) which will seek to disprove it. If
the experiment is successful then the new belief is abandoned, or
modified or it's substituted by an even newer belief. The point is
that the belief is usually challenged well within the lifetime of the
innovator. Science is a history of disproofs rather than a grand revelation.
But, essentially, there's no difference between scientific belief and
religious belief. They are both seeking some sort of coherent
explanation of the universe and life -- almost exclusively human life
in the case of religious belief. I rather think that Richard Dawkins'
life-long, over-aggressive arguments with religious believers has
done science, and evolutionary biology in particular, a lot of damage.
As for me, I remain very uncomfortable that the universe may not have
a purpose, whether self-generated or initiated by something else.
Until science can come up with a testable theory that would
adequately explain why I (at least!) experience what we call
consciousness and free-will and set them both well within the modern
culture of science -- quantum physics -- then I'm quite happy with
the belief that the universe might be designed beforehand or is being
designed now by one method or another. So far, quantum physics tells
us that the electrons in my brain that are producing personal
experiences of consciousness and free-will are also having
simultaneous effects on electrons somewhere elsewhere in the
universe, even at its furthest ends -- if ends there be. Might it
also be the case that electrons elsewhere in the universe are
affecting those in my head? Where's my consciousness?
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
