Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Varieties of Scientific Experience

Last Book Read : The Varieties of Scientific Experience - Carl Sagan



Back in 1999, I was absolute stunned when I heard about the Great American Think-off. The essay competition for that year was: Which is more dangerous, Science or Religion? Of course, I was enraged that the winner declared science more dangerous, but I was even more appalled that any organization that considers itself intellectual would possibly be able to reach that conclusion. The reason given - that science is blindly accepted by people without question- is the very antithesis of science, and obviously the writer didn't understand the concepts of verifiability and coherence. I think a prerequisite should have been a reading of Carl Sagan.

Sagan's 1985 lectures on natural theology examine just how much evidence there is for the existence of God. He asks why a divine creator did not leave a message in holy texts - an equation of some sort, that when eventually understood would provide evidence of that creator. Our investigation so far has come up empty, and if we simply haven't advanced enough to read the sign, then in the absence of all other evidence, we shouldn't concern ourselves with such matters until we do find it. As for verifiable evidence, there appears to be none, even though people do seem to have religious experiences. Just because there has been millions of UFO experiences, there has not been one trace of compelling evidence, and we would be reckless to assume their existence at this point.

Sagan's use of the Drake equation puts the possible number of civilizations in the galaxy between 1 (us) and one million. Now, there is an immense distance between 0 and 1, and a similar enormity between 1 and many (2 or more). Given the lack of evidence for a second civilization, like the search for God, it seems premature to me to think that there are other civilizations. If we were to discover one, then the likelihood of finding numbers 3, 4, etc would go up dramatically. If we look at the high end of the Drake equation, then the next nearest civilization would be a few hundred light-years away. And, if they happen to be in the vicinity of Polaris, then they will soon be treated to the music of the Beatles, and we can expect a response, possibly an aesthetic critique, in about 860 years. Although, I am on the side of those who think that we should not be broadcasting our existence to the rest of the galaxy. We are ill equipped to handle negotiating with other civilizations and until we have a better understanding of our place in the universe, hiding may be the safest course of action. The prevailing notion is that other civilizations will be far more advanced than us, and therefore will have a more mature moral nature, but I think this is also premature to consider. In fact, I think its possible we haven't encountered transmissions from others because we may be the oldest one. Even though life developed rather quickly once Earth formed, 500 million years, it may be the case that the chemical compositions hadn't reached a critical mass until there was 10 Billion years of stellar evolution to produce the complexity necessary for life.

In terms of the anthropic principle, it seems as though we are in a special time. We have finally reached an adolescence, on our journey to cosmic self-realization, as we begin to understand the universe and our place in it. It may be that this window of time is more important than Sagan realized. A recent article in Scientific America proposes that as time progresses, the universe will expand so much that everything outside of our local Galactic group will be to far away for light emission to reach us. An event horizon will form around us and all information from outside will be inaccessible. The Universal history that we can now look at will be forever lost, and the knowledge of its very existence will be gone.

Sagan notes a reference from Dostoevsky - "So long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as someone to worship." The will to believe, the want to believe is very strong in people. The burden of existence is then removed from one's shoulders and left to the creator. The question of what to do is then answered by the directives of the divine. Besides this psychological motivation, there is also a political one. Religion provides a sense of contentment, and this is a useful tool for the ruling elite. People are pacified by the concepts of an afterlife and divine justice. The status quo can be maintained easier, of course the danger is that real injustices are not fought. Another quote is presented by Pierre Simon from The System of the World - "far from us be the dangerous maxim that it is sometimes useful to mislead, to deceive, and to enslave mankind to ensure their happiness." He asks why isn't there a commandment to educate oneself. It would seem that intellectual education and scientific awareness of reality are not something valued by religion.

The crucial point in the Drake equation is the longevity of Technical civilizations. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. The difference for humanity is that we have means of our own destruction, which only increases the chances of our extinction. In reference to nuclear weapons, Sagan asks "where are the religions?" There seems to be no larger moral question than our continued survival. Any other endeavor - goodwill to our fellow humans, the elimination of suffering, moral and intellectual development as a species, are completely futile unless we contain our internal destructive tendencies. Not only has religion done very little to prevent catastrophe, but has in some ways increased its likelihood. The conservative, fundamentalist government that has been in power for the last 30 years is ready to use WMDs in the name of their religion, to bring about God's plan prophesied in Revelation. Sagan points out that the non-religious state of the Soviet Union is less inconsistent with their policies of WMDs.

So, what kind of God could exist? Professor Sagan notes that not all of God's qualities can be true. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient or not benevolent. An immortal creator that would create beings and subject them to suffering and death would be apparently cruel. If he allows civilizations to be regularly destroyed in galactic explosions, then he is at least incompetent. Furthermore, he remarks that the God portrayed by religions is really too small for the universe we know. He is more the God of a planet. He notes that Christians were called "atheists" by the Romans because they did not worship a real god. Something for current to Christians to remember. A more accurate God would be of a pantheist nature, as seen in the ideas of Spinoza and Einstein, something related to the universe and the physical laws governing it.

I think the best response a theologian could enact would be the Kierkegaardian existential leap of faith, and not try to justify their beliefs rationally. Sagan does acknowledge that religion could exist purely in this realm, but then they should not challenge the findings of science and make claims that our ultimately false. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on the problem of evil - I think it's still conceivable that this is the best of all possible worlds, but only if we realize how important our own future is, as he argues.

I have been asked many times why an atheist would earn a degree in Religious Studies. A question that, to me, seems like an easy one. First, it would be impossible to study the entire sphere of humanity - philosophy, art, politics and history itself without an understanding of God and religion. Secondly, it would be just as hard to understand those disciplines external to humanity without the same ideas. The works of Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking constantly refer to the concept of God- it is inseparable. I'll end with a quote about professor Sagan from the foreword, "
he took the idea of God so seriously that it had to pass the most rigorous standards of scrutiny . . . His argument was not with God but with those who believed our understanding of the sacred had been completed."

No comments: