In previous accounts of WSJ book reviews, I noted the inability of the reviewers to correctly come to grips with either the author's atheism, or materialist humanism, e.g.
In the latest example, ('All Or Nothing', March 13-14, p. C11) we behold reviewer Andrew Crumley unable to correctly parse theoretical physicist Alan Lightman's new book, 'Probable Impossibilities: Musings on Beginnings and Endings'. For example, at one point he takes some issue with Lightman writing:
"Of course, one would expect most quantum cosmologists to be atheists, like the majority of scientists."
Interjecting: "But he offers no data to back it up."
In fact, a 1998 survey of biological and physical scientists sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences found that while 7 % believed in the existence of a deity, some 72.2% did not, while 20.8% expressed agnosticism. Crumley then goes on to zone in on Lightman's reference to a 2013 Harris poll which found that "74 percent of Americans believe in God and 72% believe in miracles" adding "The implication seems to be that most Americans aren't scientifically minded."
Well, duh! Just look at the placement of Americans in internationally administered math and science tests. According to a 2015 Pew Research report:
The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.
The performance in national standardized tests also bears out U.S. students poor performance in math and science. (Performance in physics is especially poor, but then physics is the most mathematical of sciences. Most Americans, perhaps understandably, never see the inside of a physics lab in high school.)
Crumey also seems to have issues with Lightman's professing to be "an atheist and materialist" while adding "I still consider myself a spiritual person." But there is no mystery here. Indeed, in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God', I noted the basis for "emergent Materialism" in which an irreducible, multi-dimensional consciousness - predicated on quantum mechanical wave states, i.e.
Free Will And Quantum Mechanical Brain States: Wha...
provides a kind of scaffolding for a "spiritual" POV. Such a holistic quantum consciousness has been best articulated in David Bohm's book, available as a pdf here:
Wholeness and the Implicate Order
Lightman's most critical points in defining is own spirituality are quoted by Crumey:
"By spirituality I mean believing in things that are larger than myself, appreciation of beauty, commitment to certain rules of moral behavior such as the Golden Rule. Spirituality does not require belief in miracles."
The last, of course, meaning the interjection of supernatural forces or agents into the natural world, a big No-No for physical scientists, as I noted in my contribution to a discussion in Physics Today, e.g.
Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6
At the opposite pole from Alan Lightman is religious (evangelical) biochemist Francis Collins. In contrast to Lightman's basic humility regarding his unbelief position I found Collins' claim (TIME, Feb. 15-22, p. 40) that: "Atheism for scientists is difficult because it is the assertion of a universal negative."
Totally unenlightened in respect to scientific atheism. To wit, no one is making an assertion of a 'universal negative' but rather simply withholding investment of belief, of mental energy, in an extraordinary supernatural claim. Thus, if a neighbor or friend claims he has seen a ghost in his back yard I am not under any logical compulsion to accept it. On the contrary, he must provide the extraordinary evidence to support his claim if he wishes to secure my conviction. The exact same applies to a supernatural entity or agent. This is why I wrote in my letter to Physics Today:
"One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms"
In the case of Alan Lightman, one must applaud that - as Crumey notes- he believes in the 'Central Doctrine of Science'- that all properties and events in the physical universe are governed by laws. Also, these laws are true at every time and place in the universe (cosmological principle). The point here, a crucial one, is that these laws are natural not supernatural. While Francis Collins may believe in the need for a supernatural underpinning of natural laws, Alan Lightman - like me - accepts they can stand on their own.
Crumey writes at the end of his review:
"It does leave us wondering why the universe is so admirably law abiding".
But perhaps he ought to wish fervently the universe wasn't so "law abiding"! Alas, by focusing on the efficacy of the laws, he ignores their negativity aspect, or how they prohibit things which defy the laws. Like miracles or other supernatural intrusions into the natural world. See e.g.
No comments:
Post a Comment