—Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

 

 

The Grand Design  Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.

 

—Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.  

Carl Sagan

 

—Physical facts fix all the facts.  

Alex Rosenberg

 

One making the claim that a certain ideology, discipline, theology, practice or philosophy is the only way to understanding reality—and that all other fields of thought are subordinated to its methods of inquiry and findings—invites the criticism that such a conclusion is one that can’t or won’t address contradictory reasoning or evidence, or something that is ultimately unprovable. After all, the critic points out, there could be more than one such way to the truth of reality, another way of knowing the nature of reality, assuming in the first place there is even such a thing or, if so,  it is discoverable and knowable at all. These are the primary criticisms of scientism and its proponents because it makes just that claim, and in criticisms that have come from diverse sources the words “scientism” and “scientistic” are, more often than not, used in a pejorative sense. Its detractors range from theologians to postmodern relativists,  academics in the humanities, from politicians on the left and right, and even to philosophers of science.

Rik Peels, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam makes the distinction between “restricted” and “unrestricted” scientism, wherein the restricted version limits its inquiry to “a specific realm, or particular topic,” but the unrestricted variety makes the broadest assertions about metaphysical truths and the nature of reality and its accessibility only through the discipline of science.

Philosopher Alex Rosenberg has perhaps presented the definitive explanation of the “unrestricted” version of scientism in his recent book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions (W.W. Norton and Co., New York. 2012), and offers as thorough of an A-Z outline of the modern naturalist’s view of the human condition as could be expected in a book of less than 400 pages. The book, he says, is not meant to de-convert the religious, but as a supplement to those already of the naturalist, scientifically-leaning mindset. Atheists, agnostics, sceptics, and freethinkers will find some novel ideas supplementing their worldview, paralleling theories familiar to them from works of evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould; cosmologists Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, and neuro/cognitive scientists Sam Harris and and Steven Pinker—and classical Newtonian physics. This is the stuff that debunks theism and eviscerates supernaturalism. The simpler explanation is usually the best, and if we are gaining new understanding without the need for interpreting an other-worldly cause on top of it all, the better off we all are, partly because, as Rosenberg quips, “”Reality is rough. But it could have been worse. We could have been faced with reality in all its roughness plus a god who made it that way.”

Rosenberg weaves standard fare elementary particle  physics from its building blocks of matter and fields—fermions and bosons—from which all of the physical world can be reduced, and builds the case that all there is in the universe, from the barren rocks in deep space to the warm, breathing, replicating biological life forms found on our little rock Earth,are these two elementary particles working in harmony to the tune of the hard score of a set deterministic laws. No purpose, no design: all beginning from a quite random, improbable beginning; but all too possible and documentable to have required the introduction of an interminably inexplicable supernatural creator. Before the emergence of life on earth 3 billion years ago , amino acids, essential to protein formation, and the other chemical building blocks of life were likely created from existing chemical elements and compounds known to exist in earth’s atmosphere, and, in combination with an electrical charge as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, falsified the earlier belief that such compounds could be created only from previous lifeforms. Once the emergence of the simplest prokaryotes appeared, the race of replicating life in all its diversity was on. Charles Darwin showed how accumulated random mutations, combined with a natural selection (Rosenberg uses this term interchangeably with “environmental filtration”) made possible the kaleidoscopic array of species over the eons.

So far, so good, right? All-natural causes of origins and subsequent development of the universe. Purpose and design are both unnecessary and improbable in the equation—the explanatory power of chance and randomness is again the winner over superimposing an infinitely complex intelligence at the root of it all. In a deterministic universe, where physical facts fix all the facts, the human brain is the most complex of physical structure of all, but still subject to the processes that preceded it, with no free will, no soul, no “self” independent of the living brain with its 100 billion neurons wired together by 100 trillion synaptic connections.The biggest hindrance to “accepting science’s answers to life’s persistent questions is the human love affair with stories and storytelling.” Because of the way we like our information packaged, perhaps hardwired into our genes, we are “suckers for a good story,” Rosenberg says, “events  in the form of a plot with characters driven by motives,” and “if information doesn’t come in story form, we have trouble understanding it, remembering it, and believing it.” And the problem with that? All physical laws of the universe, save one, are time-reversible, i.e., they work either way, and could create a reverse chronological sequence of results. A typical story starts at a beginning, with a middle and a tidy end resulting in a satisfying exposition from the everyday  to the complicated descriptions of “what happened,” from your trip to the grocery this morning to God’s creation of the Earth in 6 days. And the temptation to embellish stories on the fly is one that most fail to resist. “Narrative” is a word extremely overused these days, and heard usually in a sceptical sense if not totally pejoratively. Though it’s just a coincidence, it expresses scientism’s critique of stories as a source of truth: they are unreliable at best, or just dead wrong, devoid of any corresponding physical facts, past or present. And history? Merely a form of entertainment.

And about that one law of physics that is not reversible, the one that doesn’t “run” with equal ease forward or backward? The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds true for almost all cases, though an extremely minute possibility exists that it may not. The law states that, in a closed system, entropy (or disorder, or the loss of ability to do work) increases. “The most probable distribution of matter and energy in the universe is the completely even distribution of everything,” says Rosenberg, and that is the apparent fate of the universe. Stars burn out, heat, energy, and mass dissipate into a homogenized mixture of neutered fermions and bosons, bound for the  the inevitable “heat death” of the universe.

Is this the cheerless reality that science leads us to—our universe as a random and spontaneous, an undesigned and purposeless set of particles of matter and energy, destined to eventually turn out the lights on itself and any possibility of permanence, with the prognosis of the inevitable extinction of present and future lifeforms? Is humanity left directionless on a  vast ocean of moral choices, with no North Star for bearing, and no sacred scripts for guidance? That is the foundation of nihilism, of course, but Rosenberg sees a glimmer of hope and reason to live, at least for the time being. His “nice nihilism” proposes that even without a sacrosanct verification of what is a good or evil ethic, or checklist for acceptable behavior, we have inherited through natural selection in Darwin’s law—a “core morality”—that can be seen to have developed early in the stages of the evolution of humanity. It centers on two premises and their multitude of documentable derivations:

—”All cultures...endorse most of the same core moral principles as binding on everyone.

—”The core moral principles have significant consequences for humans’ biological fitness—for our survival and reproduction.”

The evolutionary origins of “principles,” and “survival” as rudimentary forms of morality taking form in altruism and cooperation has no shortage of support in the past several years, and expressed quite effectively by Richard Dawkins as an extrapolation from his “selfish gene” theory. But in the end, neither science or scientism can give a good argument for the “supreme or intrinsic value of science...scientific explanation of what we value cannot justify those values or serve as a basis to enforce them on others….[and] since science is the only possible source of justification, if it doesn’t work to justify values, nothing does.”

……..to be continued.  More from Rosenberg’s book, “Secular Humanist: Who Needs It?”  and trying to put it all in perspective.

However, sweetness gave way to more acerbic matters when the case was made by Kurtz that atheists are “bad” if they don’t support humanism out right. Clearly, there was a mentality of “us vs. them” being sown by the adherents for both points of view that continued throughout the weekend. Kurtz related an “untapped sentiment in society” back in 1980 that precipitated his pursuit and creation of CFI; there is something more that “mere atheism simply cannot address.” An example of the division at the national level was Flynn’s explanation of his push for promoting National Blasphemy Day, a move that Kurtz adamantly opposed, but nonetheless couldn’t prevent. A few resolute atheists challenged Kurtz that they are no less moral or good than a person who self identifies as a secularist.

In fact, one woman felt that Kurtz was not taking the “cultural wars” as seriously as he should that some of us must wage in parts of the country (where it is not as conciliatory for non-believers). His most memorable statement to me was his describing why he feels so strongly: “It is not enough to destroy, we must provide alternatives.” I happen to agree with this even as I feel we must not shrink from confrontations when they are necessary. The New York Times probably hit upon the best explanation of this divisiveness: “The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?’”

The next major panel was “Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?” which was by far the most lively in forcing the issue of how differently each perspective views the conflicts of science and religion in society. Science writer Chris Mooney (and the son of former NOSHA board member, Sally Mooney) admitted that his viewpoint falls more in line with accommodating the potential allies of non-believers, moderate or liberal Christians, and he bases his choice on the latest research into the attitudes of belief. Christians “are rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values.” Like Kurtz, who believes that “the core of humanism is ethics and values” that are relevant to our lives, Mooney argued that “atheists should be mindful of this perception.”

Since believers resist science and the teaching of evolution in public schools because they fear that it will lead to a rejection of morals, this is a huge piece of evidence that cannot be totally dismissed out of hand. He suggests that atheists “should reassure Christians that their faith is compatible with modern science.” As conciliatory as Mooney was (considering that he has been taken to task this past year by the second speaker), noted biologist and well-known combative blogger, P.Z. Myers, wasn’t pulling any punches and is a “confrontationalist” with a capital “C.”

I found it especially refreshing to hear someone suggest that anger is a valid emotion when dealing with the way religion attempts to thwart scientific and social progress in our modern society and one that he feels shouldn’t be denigrated by our more passive supporters. Myers understands why “the new atheists are fed up with fighting the symptoms and want to take on the disease—religion.” Truth is the new atheist’s real value, he said.

Eugenie Scott, also a panelist and the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, was a disappointment for me simply because she seemed like she had so little to offer on this topic when her professional position should obviously demand otherwise. Clearly, she didn’t want to take a side and by that, I assumed, she is a deliberate “accommodationist.” That was a bit of surprise and left me concerned that she is in charge of the very organization that is so often fighting for science education in our schools. How can someone with such a decidedly unmotivated stance defend science against more aggressive and louder opponents? As likeable as she is, she didn’t care to express her opinion either for or against anything Mooney and Myers proposed. And isn’t that why she was invited to this conference? Strange.

Victor Stenger, celebrated professor of particle physics and distinguished author whose latest book, The New Atheism, brought him as a speaker to NOSHA in October 2009, provided more support for people voicing their atheism instead of “sucking up” to Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus “and any others who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in—what a human being can do with her own body.”

He feels encouraged that younger generations are less likely to be accommodationists because they are moving away from organized religion and that the United States is on its way to joining the developed world in rejecting religion’s control over our progress. He supports the idea that in order to see change in our society, it takes both approaches ultimately. “If you look at the history of every great social movement, you will see both components. There are people who work within the system to make changes. They often succeed, but usually at a snail’s pace—too slow to satisfy the millions who are impatient to have their inherent rights recognized by the power structure.” This outlook must be how confrontationists get their wings.

Friday evening culminated in a gala banquet where Richard Dawkins, author of numerous books—perhaps most well known is The God Delusion which has sold over two million copies in English and has been published in more than 30 other languages, was presented with the Robert Craggs Prize and over $45,000 to his foundation. Dawkins, who was present for the day’s sessions, spoke briefly and pointedly to the need for non-believers to be insistent that we reject efforts to coddle religion and made it clear that he didn’t share the same opinions as his esteemed dinner companions, Kurtz and Mooney, who flanked him at the head table. He was respectful, but it was clear to me he was “bitch slapping” everyone who fell more in line with the acommodationists’ arguments from earlier that day.

On the Saturday panel for “What can philosophy, ethics, aesthetics and the sciences contribute to our pursuit of the good life in this life?” author Jennifer Michael Hecht offered an interesting observation that there are two kinds of atheists: “…those who attack the silly stuff and those who attack the subtle beliefs” of Christians and others. This may be the source for the concern over how stridently we promote non-belief. Ron Lindsay, who is the president and CEO of CFI, spoke about the perception of humanist ethics and that the method by which we approach deciding many issues has a lot to do with content. People want to make decisions where moral certainty is not always possible, such as the right-to-die for the terminally ill. He gave a nice presentation about the Oregon law and what it means for current efforts. Rev. Barry Lynn with Americans United, delivered a rip-roaring speech on a panel about the separation of church and state and made me truly sad for anyone who had to follow his presentation.

The highlight of Saturday evening (maybe the entire weekend) was the debate between Sam Harris, author of New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Robert Wright, who has been named one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine and is also a New York Times bestselling author of The Evolution of God. They were to speak on the subject of where “secular humanists stand today and tomorrow on questions of religion and belief,” but instead Wright baited Harris about his obvious disdain and public derision of Islam and we never made it back to the topic at hand. It didn’t help that Harris’ entourage of body guards put the throngs of attendees through a security detail (because he’s received death threats from both Christians and Muslims), which only hyped the paranoia of the evening!

Wright started off by stating that what bothered him most about the “new atheism” is the claim of being new. He’s also concerned that the new atheists think that religion is a major problem, and that the tendency to over emphasize religion means that “we take our eye off the ball.” I was never sure what the ball actually was to which he was referring.

What provoked Harris was Wright’s comment that new atheists are adding to the anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States. Once Islam was on the table, they never quite gave any time to the original topic, which was very disappointing. I made a note of one fascinating question he posed to Wright: “What would it be like if Dawkins came out as a Muslim?” It is easy to assume that Dawkins declaring he is any religion would cause a colossal stir simply because it would invalidate everything he stands for. So, Harris is concerned that we’ll wake up in a world “where the only people we can trust are our own religious people.” So for him, that is why what people believe matters; beliefs are the “engines of our behaviors” and that is why he is steadfast that Islam as a religion should be scrutinized.

There wasn’t enough time to even scratch the surface of the neuroscience surrounding morality, nor am I completely convinced that Harris does that well at presenting this in person yet. Even though I did and do enjoy listening to him in general. He is one of the “rock stars” for non-believers, after all. (He does have a new book out titled The Moral Landscape where he explores neuroscience in much greater detail). Nevertheless, he makes the compelling and evolutionarily sound proposal that “morality is a product of neuroscience” and that our pursuit of happiness, and that which is good for society, depends on brain chemistry. I do agree with that personally. I just wish he could have talked more about our people and what brain science can tell us about how we can make progress as a movement. That was the “send off” I had hoped for with this conference and, unfortunately, we have many rather large egos to stroke while we search for the answers.