I'm not sure where this is going, but yesterday, I read some arresting thoughts about two kinds of collision; one relating to particle physics, and the other to colliding opinions in the realm of metaphysics.
This rather surprising theory proposes that Super Colliders might be rendered inoperable by some force of retrospective self-preservation within the universe, because a devastatingly harmful particle might be created in one of them.
Importantly, the two physicists who have spawned this theory also propose a test for the point beyond which sheer "luck" becomes statistically something else in the context of one of these particle colliders.
I also read This article, In which Eric Reitan analyses "Collision", a documentary describing the verbal joustings of Hitchens V Wilson ("New Atheist" V "Conservative Evangelical").
I think Reitan's piece is required reading for anyone, like me, who is terminally pissed off by the aridity of polarised discussion. I must read some more of his stuff.
Debating to win is a skill and good mental discipline, and belongs in debating societies, where you may be called upon to defend some preposterous notion, and you do your best to drum up such arguments as you can, hoping your opponent will make a mistake. It can be good fun. I remember a debate from school days:
"This house would rather be a contented pig than a discontented philosopher".But a lot of people are going to run their lives on the basis of their religious convictions, so this latter "collision" should be beyond gamesmanship. Whereas the two physicists are proposing a testable theory in their area of collision, I accept Reitan's analysis that Hitchens and Wilson are not. Firstly, the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proved in the same way that Boyle's Law can be proved, and secondly, I agree with Reitan that the atheist and the evangelical are preaching to their own constituency. they are colliding but colluding. As long as their particular faithful get the approved message from their particular champion, they can shake hands and walk away afterwards like a couple of boxers, but with their prejudices intact.
Scientists at their best advance human knowledge by proposing testable hypothesese. Metaphysicists who defend an already established position, rather than exploring their assumptions or conceding the necessary weaknesses in unprovable positions, are merely massaging the prejudices of their own converts, and massaging their own egos in the process.
Debating to win can be addictive; debating to learn may be less vain glorious for the participants, but might have some merit beyond sound and fury.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, Reg. That's an awesome comparison and one that sets all my metaphysical gears a'goin' as they say. One of the things we learned in a college course about the claims of "creationism" vs. evolution was that all scientific hypotheses must be falsafiable. In other words it has to be able to be testable so that a solid reasonable answer could be stated once tested. I wrote a paper in which I argued that no religious claims could be tested and therefore all religious claims are non-falsafiable and therefore faulty claims. If they couldn't be tested then they can't be taken seriously. I won an A for my effort from my curmudgeonly professor, but I think that even that theory wouldn't carry wait with the true believer, perhaps whose own brain would not accept the claims of falsifiability.
ReplyDeleteAs for the collision metaphor, I find it fascinating that the "luck" factor comes into play just as much in science as it does in religion. Perhaps Wilson's own arguments are coming back from the future to bite him in his metaphysical ass? (smiling).
Great post!!! Thank you.
Thanks Annie. Some stimulating thoughts there as usual. It seems to me that the whole point of the scientific method is to establish an hypothesis as a fact to the general satisfaction of anyone who's interested. It's a general standard of proof which should be replicateable. If not, it's false as a general theory. All religious experience, on the other hand, is personal. If someone believes, for example, that the bible is the literal word of God, as you say, it can't be tested according to the scientific method. So I wouldn't say that religious claims are false, they are simply not amenable to scientific investigation. This annoys religious zealots so much that they have to denigrate science, which often makes them look ridiculous - like the victorians who suggested that the fossil record had been put there by God "to test Man's faith".
ReplyDeleteMaterialists respond by making things worse, asserting that scientific truth is the only truth. This can lead them arrogantly to claim that something which can't be verified cannot be true. This is to say that "nothing I don't know about can exist", which gets science a bad name, particularly in these days when people crave some kind of spiritual dimension in their lives, since consumerist materialism has and will fail them.
In short, too much hubris on both sides of this opinion collision. the scientist with the arrogant conception that his/her truth is the only truth. While those who would make their particular religion some universal solution for all humanity have to make all kinds of unsubstantiateable claims about interpretation equalling truth, when theywould be so much better declaring their personal faith, and exercising some of the humility which most religions prize so highly.
Thanks again for getting my "gears a-going".