The next time you pick up a science textbook, Scientific American or similar resource, read it carefully, and I think you will notice something. It goes like this:
The basis of naturalism, and thus modern science since the mid-to-late 1800s, is time + chance = everything. Design in the universe is only an illusion. The universe came from nowhere and is going nowhere. You get the picture. Yet pick up any scientific article, and I would wager good money that it contains some of the following words, or words similar in meaning to them: selection, advantage, purpose, adaptation. What do these words have in common? They all have teleological connotations. In other words, they all make reference to an agent bringing about a state of affairs for a certain reason. For example, here is an excerpt from an article on sleep I just read this morning.
During sleep, animals cannot hunt for food or produce more offspring and may be more vulnerable to predators. So to have endured all these millennia, snoozing is likely to offer some adaptive advantage that outweighs its risks. But what? Stickgold suggests that the different stages of sleep—with their distinctive patterns of brain activity—were selected for (sic) because they help the brain to perform different kinds of memory tasks.
(See entire article here.)
Notice that the different stages of sleep were "selected" for a reason: to aid the brain in memory. By whom were they selected? Certainly not by the animals themselves; after all, they would have been asleep at the time! By Nature? Nature is just another word for the universe. How can the universe, which is an inanimate object, select anything for any purpose? By definition, selection for a specific purpose must involve a personal agent. (I think we are talking about more than the selective abilities of animals at this point.) Or, to put it bluntly, how can time + chance = selection for a purpose?
I know that the typical response to this would be that such talk is not literal. Time and chance work on (again, another word that infers an agent by definition) the environment, and whatever survives propagates, thus "selecting" certain traits over others. If this is the case, then we are faced with another problem. Science, which focuses on exactness, is using inexact and ultimately incorrect terminology. It is nearly impossible, however, to speak in such a way that excludes any reference (implied or stated) to a personal agent when speaking of nature. Using teleological terminology and twisting the meaning behind the scenes only serves to obscure the fact that humankind is not able to live in or even describe a completely naturalistic world.
Perhaps language reflects reality after all.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Belief.
In my mind, there is no question that John Mayer is a good musician. With his latest endeavor, Continuum, he has exercised more creative freedom than in his previous releases by moving to a less-pop-more-blues style of music (good for him!). Steve Jordan and Pino Palladino round out Mayer's trio of talented musicians. And, as he should, Mayer willingly and humbly admits that he is much less talented than the great SRV. But, hey, he's got some good songs.
I have an axiom, however, by which I live: "Do not let any musician influence your worldview." Yet again, Mr. Mayer validates this rule with his song Belief. Here is a sampling of the lyrics:
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Mayer is not a fan of belief, so it seems. Throughout the song, he states the various negative consequences of people acting upon their beliefs. Soldiers die; 100,000 children are buried (I am not sure whom he is referencing with this statistic); war will continue ad infinitum. But do these bad effects really render all belief as unproductive, or even evil, as Mayer suggests?
First, Mayer does not distinguish between unfounded belief and justified belief. What if what I believe is true and justifiable? According to the song, I should not even then act upon my convictions (at least not in the public sphere). Yes, a person with unfounded, incorrect beliefs likely will cause harm by acting upon them (think 9/11). Mother Teresa, though, spent years helping the people of India by acting upon her (in my opinion) justifiable beliefs. Martin Luther King is another example of a person who changed this world for the better specifically by acting upon his beliefs. I would submit, in fact, that all great men and women are great because they act on their convictions in the public sphere. True, the same holds for the most evil of men and women, but as C.S. Lewis argued, the greatest sinners would make for the greatest saints. In other words, the acting out of one's beliefs is not necessarily good or bad; that depends on the beliefs and the people who hold them.
Second, Mayer condemns acting on convictions, yet he wants the listener to act upon his belief of not acting upon beliefs, which is self-contradictory. This is a very good example of where postmodernism breaks down. There are no moral absolutes or metanarratives within postmodernism, yet it comes chock full of "ought" statements. There can be no ultimate basis within postmodernism to tell someone he or she ought to do anything. (For more in depth treatment of this topic, consult Lewis in The Abolition of Man.) To what standard does Mayer appeal, and how can he justify his request, which denies the very idea it seeks to affirm?
Perhaps Mayer should have covered Pride and Joy instead.
I have an axiom, however, by which I live: "Do not let any musician influence your worldview." Yet again, Mr. Mayer validates this rule with his song Belief. Here is a sampling of the lyrics:
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Mayer is not a fan of belief, so it seems. Throughout the song, he states the various negative consequences of people acting upon their beliefs. Soldiers die; 100,000 children are buried (I am not sure whom he is referencing with this statistic); war will continue ad infinitum. But do these bad effects really render all belief as unproductive, or even evil, as Mayer suggests?
First, Mayer does not distinguish between unfounded belief and justified belief. What if what I believe is true and justifiable? According to the song, I should not even then act upon my convictions (at least not in the public sphere). Yes, a person with unfounded, incorrect beliefs likely will cause harm by acting upon them (think 9/11). Mother Teresa, though, spent years helping the people of India by acting upon her (in my opinion) justifiable beliefs. Martin Luther King is another example of a person who changed this world for the better specifically by acting upon his beliefs. I would submit, in fact, that all great men and women are great because they act on their convictions in the public sphere. True, the same holds for the most evil of men and women, but as C.S. Lewis argued, the greatest sinners would make for the greatest saints. In other words, the acting out of one's beliefs is not necessarily good or bad; that depends on the beliefs and the people who hold them.
Second, Mayer condemns acting on convictions, yet he wants the listener to act upon his belief of not acting upon beliefs, which is self-contradictory. This is a very good example of where postmodernism breaks down. There are no moral absolutes or metanarratives within postmodernism, yet it comes chock full of "ought" statements. There can be no ultimate basis within postmodernism to tell someone he or she ought to do anything. (For more in depth treatment of this topic, consult Lewis in The Abolition of Man.) To what standard does Mayer appeal, and how can he justify his request, which denies the very idea it seeks to affirm?
Perhaps Mayer should have covered Pride and Joy instead.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Books, Science and Philosophy
My wife and I moved across town last weekend, and it gave me the opportunity to retrieve several big boxes of books from storage, that I may prominently display them in my new home! A friend of mine was helping me shelve them and (poor guy) he had to endure me telling him all about every book I unpacked. I realized that I have myriad books to read and re-read. Life is good.
Speaking of books, I recently read Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd. Lloyd is a professor at MIT, and he has built one of the few quantum computers in existence. He does an excellent job of explaining much about quantum theory at a lay person's level (except for a few sections involving lots of math). He attempts to draw certain philosophical conclusions from quantum theory, however, that are not tenable. The one I will mention here is his proposition that quantum physics allowed the universe to come into existence out of nothing, for no reason. This, he says, is similar to counting from zero to one. A long time ago, a qubit (shorthand for "quantum bit": a bit of information that can be 0, 1 or 0 and 1 at the same time) registering 0 flipped to 1, and that is how the universe began. He seems to confuse zero with nonexistence, though. A qubit in the zero position still exists, even though it registers "zero" information. How did the qubit come into existence in the first place? His counting analogy only begs the question. He does not decisively answer how the universe began, given his naturalistic worldview.
This brief, non-exhaustive commentary raises a point. I have noticed a trend that many scientists are superb at science, but pathetic at philosophy. Given that science (and every other discipline) has basic presuppositions and philosophical commitments, the lack of good philosopher-scientists concerns me. For example, regardless of one's religious commitments, Darwinian evolution has major philosophical problems that need to be addressed publicly, yet very few scientists seem to realize or admit this.
When will philosophy become important again? Or, maybe we should ask, when will good philosophy become important again?
Speaking of books, I recently read Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd. Lloyd is a professor at MIT, and he has built one of the few quantum computers in existence. He does an excellent job of explaining much about quantum theory at a lay person's level (except for a few sections involving lots of math). He attempts to draw certain philosophical conclusions from quantum theory, however, that are not tenable. The one I will mention here is his proposition that quantum physics allowed the universe to come into existence out of nothing, for no reason. This, he says, is similar to counting from zero to one. A long time ago, a qubit (shorthand for "quantum bit": a bit of information that can be 0, 1 or 0 and 1 at the same time) registering 0 flipped to 1, and that is how the universe began. He seems to confuse zero with nonexistence, though. A qubit in the zero position still exists, even though it registers "zero" information. How did the qubit come into existence in the first place? His counting analogy only begs the question. He does not decisively answer how the universe began, given his naturalistic worldview.
This brief, non-exhaustive commentary raises a point. I have noticed a trend that many scientists are superb at science, but pathetic at philosophy. Given that science (and every other discipline) has basic presuppositions and philosophical commitments, the lack of good philosopher-scientists concerns me. For example, regardless of one's religious commitments, Darwinian evolution has major philosophical problems that need to be addressed publicly, yet very few scientists seem to realize or admit this.
When will philosophy become important again? Or, maybe we should ask, when will good philosophy become important again?
New blog
This is a new experience for me. I have never "blogged" before, but I am hoping that it will be a good catalyst for personal growth by 1. giving me a spot to refine some of my thoughts in writing, and 2. interacting with others regarding those thoughts. We will see...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
