What I believe but cannot prove
By Michael Shermer
I believe, but cannot prove, that reality exists independent of its human and social constructions. Science as a method, and naturalism as a philosophy, together create the best tool we have for understanding that reality. Because science is cumulative, building on itself in progressive fashion, we can achieve an ever-greater understanding of reality. Our knowledge of nature remains provisional because we can never know if we have final Truth. Because science is a human activity and nature is complex and dynamic, fuzzy logic and fractional probabilities best describe both nature and our approximate understanding of it.
There is no such thing as the paranormal and the supernatural; there is only the normal and the natural and mysteries we have yet to explain.
What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions. In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty fleeting. That is the heart of its limitation. It is also its greatest strength. There are, from this ultimate unprovable assertion, three additional insoluble derivatives.
1. There is no God, intelligent designer, or anything resembling the divinity as proffered by the world’s religions. (Although an extraterrestrial being of significantly greater intelligence and power than us would probably be indistinguishable from God).
After thousands of years of attempts by the world’s greatest minds to prove or disprove the divine existence or nonexistence, with little agreement among scholars as to the divinity’s ultimate state of being, a reasonable conclusion is that the God question can never be solved and that one’s belief,
disbelief, or skepticism ultimately rests on a nonrational basis.
2. The universe is ultimately determined, but we have free will.
As with the God question, scholars of considerable intellectual power for many millennia have failed to resolve the paradox of feeling free in a determined universe. One provisional solution is to think of the universe as so complex that the number of causes and the complexity of their interactions make the predetermination of human action pragmatically impossible. We can even assign a value to the causal net of the universe to see just how absurd it is to think we can get our minds around it fully. It has been calculated that in order for a computer in the far future of the universe to resurrect in a virtual reality every person who ever lived or could have lived (that is, every possible genetic combination to create a human), with all the causal interactions between themselves and their environment, it would need 1010 to the power of 123 (a 1 followed by 10123 zeros) bits of memory. Suffice it to say that no computer in the conceivable future will achieve this level of power; likewise, no human brain even comes close.
The enormity of this complexity leads us to feel as though we were acting freely as uncaused causers, even though we are actually causally determined. Since no set of causes we select as the determiners of human action can be complete, the feeling of freedom arises out of this ignorance of causes. To that extent, we may act as though we were free. There is much to gain, little to lose, and personal responsibility follows.
3. Morality is the natural outcome of evolutionary and historical forces, not divine command.
The moral feelings of doing the right thing (such as virtuousness) or doing the wrong thing (such as guilt) were generated by nature as part of human evolution. Although cultures differ on what they define as right and wrong, the moral feelings of doing the right or wrong thing are universal to all humans. Human universals are pervasive and powerful and include at their core the fact that we are by nature moral and immoral, good and evil, altruistic and selfish, cooperative and competitive, peaceful and bellicose, virtuous and nonvirtuous. Individuals and groups vary in the expression of such universal traits, but everyone has them. Most people, most of the time, in most circumstances, are good and do the right thing, for themselves and for others. But some people, some of the time, in some circumstances, are bad and do the wrong thing for themselves and for others.
As a consequence, moral principles are provisionally true, where they apply to most people, in most cultures, in most circumstances, most of the time. At some point in the last 10,000 years (most likely around the time of the advent of writing and the shift from band and tribes to chiefdoms and states, some 5,000 years ago) religions began to codify moral precepts into moral codes and political states began to codify moral precepts into legal codes.
In conclusion, I believe but cannot prove that reality exists and science is the best method for understanding it; that there is no God; that the universe is determined but we are free; that morality evolved as an adaptive trait of humans and human communities; and that ultimately all of existence is explicable through science.
Of course, I could be wrong…
I believe, but cannot prove, that reality exists independent of its human and social constructions. Science as a method, and naturalism as a philosophy, together create the best tool we have for understanding that reality. Because science is cumulative, building on itself in progressive fashion, we can achieve an ever-greater understanding of reality. Our knowledge of nature remains provisional because we can never know if we have final Truth. Because science is a human activity and nature is complex and dynamic, fuzzy logic and fractional probabilities best describe both nature and our approximate understanding of it.
There is no such thing as the paranormal and the supernatural; there is only the normal and the natural and mysteries we have yet to explain.
What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions. In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty fleeting. That is the heart of its limitation. It is also its greatest strength. There are, from this ultimate unprovable assertion, three additional insoluble derivatives.
1. There is no God, intelligent designer, or anything resembling the divinity as proffered by the world’s religions. (Although an extraterrestrial being of significantly greater intelligence and power than us would probably be indistinguishable from God).
After thousands of years of attempts by the world’s greatest minds to prove or disprove the divine existence or nonexistence, with little agreement among scholars as to the divinity’s ultimate state of being, a reasonable conclusion is that the God question can never be solved and that one’s belief,
disbelief, or skepticism ultimately rests on a nonrational basis.
2. The universe is ultimately determined, but we have free will.
As with the God question, scholars of considerable intellectual power for many millennia have failed to resolve the paradox of feeling free in a determined universe. One provisional solution is to think of the universe as so complex that the number of causes and the complexity of their interactions make the predetermination of human action pragmatically impossible. We can even assign a value to the causal net of the universe to see just how absurd it is to think we can get our minds around it fully. It has been calculated that in order for a computer in the far future of the universe to resurrect in a virtual reality every person who ever lived or could have lived (that is, every possible genetic combination to create a human), with all the causal interactions between themselves and their environment, it would need 1010 to the power of 123 (a 1 followed by 10123 zeros) bits of memory. Suffice it to say that no computer in the conceivable future will achieve this level of power; likewise, no human brain even comes close.
The enormity of this complexity leads us to feel as though we were acting freely as uncaused causers, even though we are actually causally determined. Since no set of causes we select as the determiners of human action can be complete, the feeling of freedom arises out of this ignorance of causes. To that extent, we may act as though we were free. There is much to gain, little to lose, and personal responsibility follows.
3. Morality is the natural outcome of evolutionary and historical forces, not divine command.
The moral feelings of doing the right thing (such as virtuousness) or doing the wrong thing (such as guilt) were generated by nature as part of human evolution. Although cultures differ on what they define as right and wrong, the moral feelings of doing the right or wrong thing are universal to all humans. Human universals are pervasive and powerful and include at their core the fact that we are by nature moral and immoral, good and evil, altruistic and selfish, cooperative and competitive, peaceful and bellicose, virtuous and nonvirtuous. Individuals and groups vary in the expression of such universal traits, but everyone has them. Most people, most of the time, in most circumstances, are good and do the right thing, for themselves and for others. But some people, some of the time, in some circumstances, are bad and do the wrong thing for themselves and for others.
As a consequence, moral principles are provisionally true, where they apply to most people, in most cultures, in most circumstances, most of the time. At some point in the last 10,000 years (most likely around the time of the advent of writing and the shift from band and tribes to chiefdoms and states, some 5,000 years ago) religions began to codify moral precepts into moral codes and political states began to codify moral precepts into legal codes.
In conclusion, I believe but cannot prove that reality exists and science is the best method for understanding it; that there is no God; that the universe is determined but we are free; that morality evolved as an adaptive trait of humans and human communities; and that ultimately all of existence is explicable through science.
Of course, I could be wrong…
Comments
I say this because I have actually had people say this to me in regard to religion. And look at evolution; many reject that as simply a belief system.
What I am saying is this: Even if we could prove without a shadow of doubt that a god didn't exist, many would still believe in their god.
We must take reality for what it appears to be. It is not a question of belief, and not a question of proof. What we see and experience around us is what really is. Leave proofs to the mystics.
About evolution; determinism; morality. If there is no god, we are sophisticated animals on our hind legs. That's it. It stops there. I can no more help being what I am, or stop being what I am, than a jackal can help or stop eating carrion.
To return to my second paragraph: my favorite story is about the philosopher Sartre and his friends having a few drinks in a hotel bar. Their new friend, Raymond Aron, had joined them. Aron was a phenomenologist, and was trying to explain this approach to Sartre, who was either resisting or not comprehending to begin with. Finally, Aron picked up his drink and said "Look, old fellow......when you become a phenomenologist, you'll make philosophy out of this cocktail".
Sitting beside him, de Beauvoir said he went dumb and turned pale.What more did Aron say, except that what we see--what we touch or hold in our hand--is all there is, and there is no meaning behind it? Philosophy cannot go beyond that.
Happy to be a comment here.
Great Post, thanks....Ericherich
Now and then I encounter disbelief, mockery and outright hostility towards my philosophy of "despair" and "hopelessness"; how can you live without meaning; how can you be a defeatist; so on and on.
I try to explain that the pleasure in my life is just as real as theirs is to them. I simply don't need some sort of transcendent meaning from one day to the next.
And I was raised to believe that the meaning of life was the salvation of my soul from hell. Glad to be rid of that.
Have fun.
This is one insoluble derivative that has never ceased to bug my mind.
I can never think of the universe [or space] as being other than infinite; can anyone think of the universe/space having a boundary? If so, what is on the other side?
Whether the universe/space is infinite is beyond proof of course.
But if it is infinite, there is no question of it being determined.
Anyone mystery that can never be resolved and leads us to nowhere
Typo error: term "Anyone" should be read as "Another"
I think we are in agreement concerning the boundless nature of space, but as far as universe is concerned, I think that since it [the matter and energy that the universe is composed of] is definable that it definately has a boundary. Since infinity is boundless, undefinable - so is space but the matter and energy within that space is definable and that is what I concider the universe to be. I think that is where a lot of peoples get the idea that the universe is expanding [or even contracting] - to expand means to have boundary. Here's something to think about - where is the center of space if it has no boundary? The answer is much more simple than you would think - the center of space is everywhere! Where is the center of the universe? Again, simple answer: Where ever the big bang occured.
I once had a roman catholic roommate who would ask me the goddamnest questions. He once asked me if I thought the universe was infinite in both directions.....is it infinitely
large, and infinitely small. At this point I felt like Nomad on Star Trek TOS: "Error; Error".
I think the universe is infinite. It is an intellectual convenience--I cannot imagine what the "end" of the universe would be: a wall? a force field? It would be impossible to speak in terms of "beyond" the end of the universe. It would be nothingness, and philosophically, I cannot grasp the idea of nothingness.
To be consistent, of course, I would have to deny that the universe is either expanding or contracting, and that there is no big bang.
And telmi, yes, the universe is determined. I believe that we, in this universe, have all the free will of an amoeba. To re-state my post of yesterday, I have been accused of being dismal and defeatist. But again, to re-state, the birdsong outside my window is just as sweet.
I would love to contine this; this is more attractive than the errands I have to run. Later. Maybe tomorrow.
Facinating stuff - I hope you don't mind me chiming in. I studied physics and astronomy at uni years ago - I never used my degree but I still try to keep up with it a bit.
Another weird and wonderful bit of physics comes with the notion of 'quantum entanglement' which ultimately has it that, at a quantum level, every point in the universe is immediately and non-causally connected with every other. Fun stuff, I wish I understood it better!
Maybe that's just me being arrogant, but I'm willing to accept the believe system that I have formed based off of a rational observation of my reality as true. I could be wrong (if my view of reality or my ability to reason is fundamentally flawed) but if so, there's no basis for human knowledge whatsoever, and we may as well give up the idea of "purpose."
Even a person who is mentally insane can see the discrepencies between what they see and what others see, so long as their logical reasoning faculties are somewhat intact.
My point is this. Don't be afraid to consider your point of view as true. You could be wrong, but oh well. Nihilism is not the answer.
Interesting. My only question is in what space did the big bang exist if it created space? All matter/energy needs space in which to exist. Time, energy, and matter AS WE KNOW IT are the result of the big bang, but there must have been space for the original matter involved in the big bang to exist in. I guess that is to say that if space did not exist, there would be no place for any of the original matter.
Webmaster - Every time I post, my password is unrecognised and I have to make a new account - any ideas?
The commenting system is part of the Google network of products. You can go to Blogger.com to research what might be going on, but my guess it is something on your end.
The curvature I was refering to is actually something a bit more counter-intuitive than simply the shape of a supposed boundary. Think of representing our 3 dimentional universe on the suface of a sphere to get some intuitive idea of the picture.
Empty space, apparently, is far from empty but essentially a seething cauldron of virtual matter being continuously created and destroyed within the bounds of Heisenburgs 'Uncertainty principle'.
P.S. Thanks Webmaster, I'll look into it.
"Okay, this is good. So we're saying that there is a limited amount of matter--stars and planets and space junk--but an endless expanse of empty space. That helps. I had assumed that endless space meant endless matter."
Endless space can doubtless mean endless matter and is not illogical.
What we cannot see beyond the capacity of our best telescopes we can only speculate or imagine. But what we cannot see is not telling us much, right? We just don't know.
Post a Comment