Letters to the Editor
-
You can always rely on Wilson
He's a strict adaptationist's strict adaptationist and always has been. Everything is an adaptation to him. And so much of what he says is out in the realm of the completely unprovable that it leaves science and enters into faith. Dawkins is somewhat better. Even though his reasoning is often circular much of what he claims could be falsified, at least in theory.
It's a shame that Wilson's experience with religion was largely Protestant Fundamentalism. If he'd been educated in differently he might have learned that Sufis (for instance) consider both heaven and hell to be traps. One of them is certainly pleasanter than the other. But both are dead ends if your goal is the presence of the Divine. Buddhism contains the oath of the Boddhisatva; the advanced practitioner must cleanse himself even of attachment to his own salvation in order to get past a very dangerous sticking point in his development.
I'm a little disappointed in the current crop of philosophers and scientists who talk about religion in general terms but deep down believe that "real" religion is whatever brand of Pauline Christianity they had forced on them as children.
-
The Framemaker
This is my version of an analogy that has been kicked around for some time.
Suppose you go to the art museum to look at your favorite painting. (For me it would be a certain piece by Umberto Boccioni. If you don't have a favorite painting... discover art. It's the best.) You bring a friend. The two of you walk over to your favorite painting and you begin to talk to your friend about the painting, about why you love it, why it moves you. You talk about the interplay of the colors, the work in motion, the artist's use of texture, perspective and form. You talk about its elegance, its emotion. You talk about everything that to you imparts value.
But as you are saying those things you are interrupted by a man. He walks over to you and says "Now listen. I heard what you're saying and it's not true. That painting, sir, is a 19 by 25." The man is a framemaker. He is defining the painting by its dimensions of height and width.
"Oh, I'm sure it is," you reply. "I'm sure you're right. But I was just commenting to my friend about what gives the meaning to the painting for me. See the way the light plays off of the canvas, the way the image changes as you walk around the room."
The framemaker pulls out his measuring tape. He walks over to the painting and measures it. He walks back over to you and smiles. "There. It's just like I told you. This painting is a 19 by 25."
Again you try to explain that you don't dispute either the accuracy of his measurement or the importance of his measuring. You simply want to explain that there is more going on, things that cannot be measured, things that don't fit within his criteria for measurement. You try to explain that it is an important point, because it is precisely the things that he is ignoring that give the painting value and meaning.
He persists. "That painting is a 19 by 25. It is only a 19 by 25. It is nothing more or less than an 19 by 25. If you disagree, you not only reject frames completely, you also reject logic and reason. You reject the PRODUCTS of logic and reason. You're probably just another of those religious nutcases."
That's the position I and many others find ourselves in. Science and its disciples like Mr. Wilson or Daniel Dennett insist on defining the entirety of human experience by the criteria that they find valuable, and by no other. They heap disrespect on those who think otherwise. They say that those who disagree that science should be considered the end all and be all of human existence are charlatans, religious nuts or relativists who not only reject their point of view, but science and reason in full.
I admire and respect the work done by scientists but I confess to a deep and growing unease with the character of the scientifict project. Science is a powerful and incredibly important tool that we use to better our understanding of reality. But it is not reality. It is not True with a capital T. I need science; painting need frams. But I refuse to concede that anything outside of the scientific view is inherently wrong, insubstantial, and unworthy. I believe that the things that are truly of value and meaning in our lives are precisely those things that fall outside of science.
And, no, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to purchase penicilin or work on a computer. Arguing that philosophy of science has lost its way is not a rejection of the tool of science or its products. Of course scientific progress is important. Of course I reap its benefits. I refuse to bend down and worship.
It does not insult science to say that it can not and will not ever contain the sum of the universe. You can't criticize something for not performing a task it is not meant to do. Science is a point of view, created by human beings, and is an incredibly powerful one. But its not my end. Its not the grail. I celebrate science for answering the questions that it does. But I can't be satisfied with it because it will never answer the questions that I truly want answered. Mr. Wilson has everything figured out, except how to live.
-
re: Boy this subject gets me emotional
Patricia Schwarz wrote:
People get spiritual because there are emotional challenges in life. Sometimes the only way to rise above those emotional challenges is to imagine that the universe is capable of love, and you, a mere human being, deserve to receive that love.
Here you are agreeing with Mr. Wilson. To summarize both writers, religion is a psychological trait that people evolved in order to help them deal more effectively with the world.
The people trying to build a spirituality of science go on and on and on about their IMAX universe of awe. Love is a topic they can never broach.
It sounds to me that what you are objecting to isn't the argument, but rather the description of something dear to you in "sterile" scientific terms. What you call "love", Mr. Wilson calls "awe". Trying to describe things scientifically is just what scientists do -- they aren't trying to be dismissive or demeaning, only precise.
-Jeremy Friesner