'God and Astronomy' - What Bob Berman Gets Wrong

ASTRONOMY Magazine Contributing editor Bob Berman,  in an article in the latest issue (August, p. 11, God and Astronomy) , literally steps into a cultural quagmire almost as treacherous as lax pundits have done in the political minefield of the JFK assassination. That is, he interjected the issue of God in trying to literally tone down empirical and observational science and its claims for confident knowledge,  while seeking some kind of putative accommodation with America's vast population of God believers. (And creationist know-nothings.)

Let me say ahead of time this is about like trying to square a circle, especially given that this nation's believers along with their religiosity, are outliers in terms of their peers in other industrial nations. The graphic below shows this:

Showing successful societies in relation to degree of religious beliefs (from Free Inquiry, Vol. 29, No. 1 Jan. 2009). Basically, for  18 out of 19 of the most prosperous democracies,  the share of population reporting absolute belief in a god or gods ranges from between as little as a few percent to at most one-half. In some of these nations, mainly in western Europe, two-thirds proclaim to be either atheists or agnostics. Compare this to the outlier U.S. (U) where 83 percent express solid belief- and this is for the patriarchal, personal version of a hyper-engaged deity.

Hence the stage is set already for strife and much debate, argument.  He starts out by describing how the very first COSMOS episode, with the animated segment on Giordano Bruno, irritated hordes of believers (mostly devout Christians) when Bruno - while being tortured - turned his head away from a crucifix in disgust. Well, uh duh!  You are getting some delicate parts roasted and broasted with assorted fiery implements and what do you expect him to do? Smile and shout, 'Thank ye, Jeezus!" Come on!

He then notes that "it's not lost on them that the original COSMOS was hosted by a proclaimed agnostic, Carl Sagan".  Which of course, is a common misperception - since Sagan was as much an atheist as I am. He just didn't want to disclose it for a very sensible reason: he knew by the time he'd become a famous popularizer that he had a very successful enterprise going with all his books. He didn't want to foul it up by spooking too many of his countrymen by saying the A-word. So he played it coy, much like Einstein before him (with his "God of Spinoza") and didn't let on - though if you parse his words it's clear he's an implicit or agnostic atheist.

At other times, and in assorted other interviews, it seems Sagan himself isn't clear what he is. For example, on one occasion he stated:

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

Also:

"An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God."

Which suggests Sagan wasn't really au fait with either atheism or agnosticism. In fact, an agnostic atheist is exactly someone who withholds belief until there is evidence for a claim. A pure agnostic is one who asserts there is an impossibility of ever knowing enough to confer belief.  He subscribes to the tenet that our brains are simply not up to the capacity to ever be in such an ultimately knowing position.

Moreover, Sagan is wrong that an "atheist is someone who knows there is no God." This is the cartoon version of atheism.   What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of God is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions. (The closest to what Sagan identified as atheism relates to the explicit atheist who maintains there can never be any evidence for a God because the natural sciences can have nothing to do with the supernatural.)

The gist of it is that the atheist maintains the probability is very high that there is no ultimate force out there, and we are on our own. Which is precisely the point Carl Sagan makes in the last segment shown of the final new COSMOS episode ('Unafraid of the Dark'), with the focus on the 'pale blue dot' of Earth.

 Anyway, Berman also misfires on a number of other levels. He writes, for example,  that the new COSMOS’ series  “continues the series’ conviction that a belief in God is a superstition anathema to science”. But as I noted in my own ASTRONOMY magazine article:  ‘The God Factor’ (Astronomy Forum, March, 1990), science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, which is neither measurable or verifiable, falls into this category and that includes ‘God’. More to the point, we tend to regard such entities held by virtue of belief alone – as opposed to evidence - as evocative of superstition.  The latter encompasses such beliefs, especially when the supernatural realm is populated by invisible beings which can supposedly affect and interact with our world. To the empirical scientist this is the very epitome of superstition.

This is reinforced by the fact that astronomy, like most physical sciences, still operates on the principle of materialist reductionism. Thus, our job and duty is to remorselessly cull all dross or irrelevant issues that clutter as opposed to expose, what our objects of inquiry are about. This means all invisible, unapproachable entities must go into the dumpster.

 Another cartoonish error Berman makes is when he claims that  “atheism cannot prove God’s nonexistence”  (i.e.. cannot disprove God’s existence) but as anyone who’s studied logic knows, you cannot prove a negative anyway.  Once again, atheism doesn't claim to prove God's nonexistence, only point out that the concept is superfluous to the advance of empirical science - which like it or not is inherently materialistic. This is the very emphasis that Neil deGrasse Tyson made in repeated episodes of COSMOS.

Berman is more or less aghast at this, as when he remarks: "The advocacy segments in shows like COSMOS may be well intentioned but I fear they may merely harden those who think science is a 'position' or 'view' of the world rather than an impartial portal to truth." 

But Berman doesn't seem to grasp here that science DOES take a position or view (naturalistic or materialistic) which undergirds its naturalistic approach to inquiry - in order to take an impartial approach to the natural world. If it allowed subjective beliefs to hold sway, or adopt any openness to supernaturalism, the impartial search for natural truth would be destroyed.

 What Berman reveals here is a tacit fear that science will alienate the American yahoo masses if it too explicitly declares its naturalistic basis in the approach to scientific inquiry. But know what? Tough shit! That is the way science works, like it or leave it - and go back to statues, crosses, and King James bibles. Moreover, I fail to understand why Berman is trying so desperately to appease and appeal to the American believer masses, when most educated Europeans have long past moved into a post-Christian era. (See above).

This unfortunate strain of timidity and unwillingness to upset the little godly believers also explains Berman's recalcitrance in acknowledging science' advance even when the probability is overwhelming that such advance is real. He states we need to more often respond "I don't know" to a lot of areas of inquiry like dark energy, etc. Which is true, but you can't be saying that ALL the time, or even most of the time, just because you're intent on projecting false humility to not scare away the religious masses!

This is also why he declares that the Big Bang is not the birth of the universe - as many cosmologists have described it - but "the birth of the observable universe" - which seems like extreme hair splitting to me. If one uses the cosmic microwave radiation to trace back the thermodynamic conditions in time, as Steven Weinberg shows in 'The First Three Minutes' - one definitely comes to a super dense, hot state with the cosmos the rough size of an atom.(If this isn't a 'birth' I don't know what is!)

Berman also seems not to grasp that the invocation of God in any domain is laden with peril because even if we did agree some ultimate power started at all (as I pointed out in my 1990 Astronomy article) there’d still be no agreement on the entity’s attributes, nature or powers. Even Berman acknowledges this observing that some see a ‘creator’ that stands apart from the universe, while others see an underlying intelligence in nature.( Sagan, for his part, equated 'God' to the physical principles and laws that govern the universe, which let's be clear, is more a physical God.)  The point here is that it makes more sense not to interject the issue of 'God' at all, because no two people can even agree on what the noun means.

Berman makes the further statement that:  “some astrophysicists are agnostics or atheists”  (implying the numbers are too small for believers to worry over) but this misses the larger point: that while 83 percent of Americans believe in God, only 33 percent of physical scientists do (according to a 2006  NY Times study). This bifurcation of belief is what we ought to be most concerned about. It sets the stage for an ongoing tension between scientists and the bulk of the American populace (which let us also recall, as I showed above, is an outlier compared to the rest of the advanced industrial world in terms of God belief and religiosity)

As for Bob Berman's claim that “the majority of the world regards the universe as suffused with intelligence” let’s bear in mind that popularity alone has never led to objective truth. At one time, the majority of the world also believed that the world was flat and that the Earth was actually the center of the universe. I am not saying here that the cosmos is not imbued with intelligence, it well might be (as I indicate in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'). What I am saying is that you cannot arrive at objective truth by means of assessing a poll or a vote then saying a "majority" decided it. This also means the IAU Pluto vote - to dethrone that small orb from proper planethood - was off base and wrong-headed.

 Science, including astronomy, proceeds by a certain methodology and is inherently naturalistic. The problem will always be that this delimitation will never satisfy those who espouse a supernatural domain or alternate supernatural  “universe”.

The sooner Bob Berman and other popularizers understand that, the quicker we can allow scientific inquiry to proceed without fretting over public alienation or loss of funding because a certain segment of the populace will go ballistic if their magic realms are marginalized.  Look at it this way: an advancing nation on the road of progress embraces the REAL. A backward, declining nation - one heading toward oblivion and collapse-   embraces the UNREAL.

That's the choice we have, and it ought to be easy,  though after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, I am not sure it can be. Those five Justices have clearly shown not even they can discern the real from the unreal. And if they can't,  how many millions of others (many clapping and cheering the decision) are in the same unreal boat?

Xtianoid Twitterati Strike Back at 'COSMOS'

I must admit to being wrong, in my post about the new 'COSMOS' series when I wrote:

My take is there won’t be any such ‘pushback’ because these close-minded dolts won’t bother to watch it in the first place!  They are too sure of their blind faith based on nothing but superstition and old wives tales elaborated by primitive, semi-literate nomads in an ancient book.

This was in response to Denver Post reviewer Joanne Ostrow's take that 'pushback' would come from "conservative religious quarters" who didn't like the graphic animation of how the Roman Catholic Inquisition put Giordano Bruno to death for his conception of an infinite universe. The segment was very well done, especially the scene where Bruno is dragged in front of his accusers - all Bishops - who also had the appearance of psycho perverts with their dark-rimmed beady eyes and reptilian pupils and the exaggerated five o'clock shadow with some drool coming down over the lips. It was well done but I didn't think any of these idiots would respond because well, they wouldn't watch it!

But I was wrong! According to a salon.com report, these Neanderthals came out guns blazing. According to the report:

"Some of the poor souls oppressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson’s return to the promised land first pioneered by Carl Sagan took to Twitter with their predictable grumblings. My favorite: “Dear #cosmos, the origin of the universe actually is not mysterious. God had Moses write about it in the #Bible. You should read it sometime.”


Well uh, okay, if you're going by the old wives' tales of Genesis, it's not mysterious. But, to those of us who've studied physics, we'd still like to know the Earth can exist BEFORE the Sun, when the Sun's origination is essential to spin off the Earth and other planets.  We know from modern astrophysics that the solar proto-nebula had to collapse first to yield the SUN. (No planets, since they had yet to spin off the collapsing nebular cloud – it hadn’t cooled enough to allow it). As the proto-solar nebula collapsed it also began spinning and gained angular momentum. This angular momentum was then transferred to regions of the nebula that cooled and separated from the whole, and these regions became separate clouds of dust and gas that aggregated into the planets. Under a combination of electrostatic attraction (between larger charged particles) and gravity (attracting the whole mass from the center of the cloud) each planet was formed as what we call a “planetesimal”.

As more angular momentum was transferred – the planetesimals (each one) acquired their own spin (in a period of revolution) and specific shapes. The giant planets (e.g. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus) garnered more spin momentum than the more dense, terrestrial planets. Thus Jupiter’s planetesimal ended up as an oblate spheroid with diameter of about 88,000 mile and rotating rapidly with a day of ~ 10 hours. Earth meanwhile ended up as a relatively spherical orb with diameter of ~ 8,000 miles and day approaching approach 24 hrs. Mars ended up in a similar shape to that of Earth and a diameter of 4200 miles and day ~ 24 hours.

Thus, the Earth spun off about 1.1 billion years after the solar nebula fully collapsed, and it could not have come BEFORE the Sun.

Yet Genesis (1:1-5)proclaims :

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light and there was light....

which is nonsense. . It is clear from this that Gen.1:1-5 has stated a patent impossibility which violates all known laws of physics and dynamics and is therefore WRONG! It is clear from this that the Bible must be in error, certainly in this one passage – and if here then likely in many other places too. If this is so then it must have been written by flawed humans using limited conceptions of space, time and astrophysics which accounts are not even correct in their most general form.

The actual origin of the cosmos is indeed a deep mystery because it entails the fact that we may inhabit a multiverse, not just a universe.  Thus, the mystery enters by way of the inherent complexity of the theories, including for M-branes, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-could-universe-originate-from.html

Another howler in the salon.com report is the Evolution News and Views take,  published by The Discovery Institute - backward bunch of Seattle-based goobers who are all for "intelligent design" but refuse to explain who or what this 'designer' is. Anyway, their take on COSMOS is that  Giordano Bruno "wasn’t even really a scientist, and he was burned to death because of his theological heresies and not his belief in Copernican theory," (SO HE DESERVED IT!)

Also,  "the main reason he showed up on “Cosmos” at all was because he was the only one with even a passing association with a scientific controversy to be burned at the stake during this period of history.”

Of course, this is nonsense. According to Henry Lea, the author of 'The Inquisition of the Middle Ages' we don't really know how many of those expressing scientific theories (say based on Copernicus' heliocentric theories) might have been burned at the stake. It could run into the thousands, as records weren't always kept. Also, their property was also confiscated first, and there was little to go by in ascertaining their identities.  Bruno then is likely the most major and significant example, representing all  those of scientific temperament burned at the time.

The argument that he "wasn't really a scientist" also rings hollow and uninformed. What is science, after all? It is based on open inquiry, asking questions and finding out ways to pursue the answers. Giordano Bruno may not have had the empirical tests available to test his concept of an infinite universe, but he did extrapolate to his concept from Copernicus' results. Yes, his idea of untold numbers of populated worlds was speculation, but it was scientific speculation little different from Carl Sagan's own speculations, written about in his assorted books.

The dumbest aspect of the knuckle dragging religious Twitterati is that Cosmos is labeled “a glossy multi-million-dollar piece of agitprop for scientific materialism” as if that’s a bad thing.   In fact, scientific materialism is the ONLY philosophy that puts us in touch with reality, all else is superstition and tomfoolery.

It is precisely scientific materialism that provides and energizes the drive to make measurements to confirm that what we think we observe, is actually there- and then accounting for it in a physical setting.  For example, it enables us to grasp that the "Miracle at Fatima" was no miracle at all.

In his essay collection Unweaving the Rainbow biologist Richard Dawkins, Britain's most prominent atheist, chose to examine the Fatima miracle of 1917, where 70,000 people "reportedly saw the sun move", to apply Hume's principle: As Dawkins observed:

"On the one hand, we are asked to believe in a mass hallucination, a trick of the light, or mass lie involving 70,000 people," Dawkins writes. "This is admittedly improbable. But it is LESS improbable than the alternative: that the sun really did move...If the sun had moved in truth, but the event was seen only by the people of Fatima, an even greater miracle would have been perpetrated: an illusion of NON-movement had to be staged for all the millions of witnesses not in Fatima."

The dual –tandem improbability associated with the Sun actually moving is less than getting a royal flush in poker 6.5 million times in succession. It is actually less than the proverbial monkey on a typewriter re-typing Hamlet in its entirety, and with no errors. It is indeed, beyond the realm of physical possibility especially as NO solar observatories around at the time - detected ANY motion! Hence, it had to be all in the believers' heads.

This comports with David Hume's principle of what it would take to accept any "miracle":

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish."


In other words, given a mass hallucination by those at Fatima that day is LESS miraculous than that the Sun actually moved even a centimeter -- then clearly THAT is the only explanation the rationalist can accept!

Hence, we see here the sheer power of scientific Materialism at work. Observations, REASON and formulating a consistent conclusion based on them!  Contrary to most fundies' misperceptions, scientists do not willy-nilly accept violations of physical laws without demanding empirical support for the claim. If you insist that water can be changed into wine, a scientist (or scientific Materialist)  will demand to see your evidence for such a feat. The same applies to the claim of a man "walking on water", or "brought back to life". In each case, the evidence by which a natural law is violated must be thoroughly scrutinized.

In this process, all alternative natural explanations must be considered-- including outright trickery or fraud, before the actual violation of a physical law is conceded. If you instead simply quote an ancient text, you will be summarily dismissed as a babbling idiot.

The 'Cosmos' complainers, if they have any sense, will go back to their enclaves and rethink their nonsense, and also realize this is one contest they can't win.   As the author of the salon.com piece put it:

"All we need to do to see our world descend into a real pit of hellfire is to continue to let the nonsense propagated by The Discovery Institute stand uncontested, while we greenhouse gas ourselves to the boiling point. Kudos to “Cosmos” for calling bullshit."

New 'COSMOS' Series Is Well Worth A Look!

For years I have been patiently waiting for an update of Carl Sagan's 'COSMOS' series, given the many discoveries in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology that have transpired since 1980. Now that has arrived with a timely and streamlined re-do narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and broadcast on FOX (which I usually never watch) and The National Geographic channel (which re-broadcasts the FOX episodes on Monday night).

The update – at least from the first episode- is well worth watching. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an engaging host who's more than able to fill the shoes left by the original host, Carl Sagan. Having watched the original, the first thing that strikes the viewer in the new series is the vivid use of graphics, including computer SGI visuals (such as in one scene with Tyson near the sea, discussing abiogenesis,  as a fishlike creature ambles out on land).

 

Some reviewers, e.g. Joanne Ostrow (Denver Post, Mar. 8) have bemoaned the attention to “so much astrophysics” noting:

                                                                                      

“Marvel at the stunning visuals, be stirred by the grand concepts, but don’t expect to really comprehend astrophysics. The producers assure us it’s enough to come away feeling a respect for science.”

 

My quarrel with that view is that first, it's way too myopic. It dumbs down the Americans who would be attracted to watching the series, and second, it is hard to ‘come away with respect for science’ unless one at least has a workable, basic understanding of what the science is about!  This is why, for example, I did extensive past work on  introducing basic and intermediate astronomy concepts to blog readers, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/tackling-simple-astronmoyh-problems.html

 

Also I did a series introducing readers to astrophysics earlier, in 2010, followed up by more advanced astrophysics: e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/introducing-some-advanced-astrophysics-1.html

 

But ‘Cosmos’ surely won’t veer anywhere near this level of detail, hence the astronomy and astrophysics ought to be understandable to most viewers who've at least had some high school science under their belts, and exposure to a bit of algebra and geometry.

Two aspects in this first episode were particularly useful and captivating: nailing down our own planet’s cosmic ‘address’, i.e. Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo cluster, universe, and the way a ‘cosmic calendar’ is presented to grasp (or try to) the vast stretches of cosmic time. Thus, the Big Bang occurs the first instant of ‘January 1^st’,  while humans don’t appear until Dec. 31^st and recorded history only occupies the last 14 seconds of ‘December 31^st’. Nearly the entire cosmic ‘year’ has elapsed before humans have appeared.

 

Ostrow is correct that ‘Cosmos’ “is not a documentary so much as a cinematic journey” and this was also appreciated by Sagan in his original series. There simply aren’t the details to qualify as a genuine documentary which should mean even a greater viewership than say, Brian Greene’s PBS series ‘The Elegant Universe’ (in which the equations for cosmic string theory are also featured)

 

One of my favorites segments, as a confirmed atheist and free thought advocate, featured the graphic animations depicting Giordano Bruno’s vicious treatment at the hands of the Inquisition. Merely because Bruno visualized an infinite cosmos and that the stars were other suns (likely with populated planets too), he was hounded for his views. After continuing to express them and refusing to recant, we see the Inquisitors – depicted as demonic looking perverts - interrogating and torturing Bruno,  then burning him at the stake.   To me, the segment graphically exposed how science and religion differ and why the two can never, ever be 'bedfellows' - but rather eternally at each other's throats.  Thus, the recent memes spewed out that attempt to show how religion helped "advance" science are so much hooey and balderdash. Science helped itself primarily by breaking away from the constraints of thought and inquiry peculiar to religion!

Ostrow warns, also commenting on this:

"Expect pushback from conservative religious quarters- this series unapologetically takes a stand for science versus blind faith"

 

But why pushback against the TRUTH? My take is there won’t be any such ‘pushback’ because these close-minded dolts won’t bother to watch it in the first place!  They are too sure of their blind faith based on nothing but superstition and old wives tales elaborated by primitive, semi-literate nomads in an ancient book.

I only had a couple of quibbles with this first episode: first the banishing of Pluto to a sub-planet sized,  'asteroid type' rock, which Tyson himself was partly responsible for, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html

 

 and second,  depicting the big bang as an explosion when it actually wasn’t.  It is more an unfolding in space and time.  The standard analogy, i.e. to a terrestrial explosion - while attention grabbing is inaccurate.  A good article ('Cosmology's 5 Big Things You Need to Know')    will be of help in grasping this, found in the May, 2007 issue of ASTRONOMY magazine. As noted therein, p. 31:

 

"The universe's beginning wasn't an explosion. It was closer to an unfolding or creation of matter, energy, time and space itself. "

 

The last is especially important as it is consonant with the expansion of space with time. The lead astronomer of the Wilkinson Microwave Array Project quoted in the piece also adds:

 

"The Big Bang is not an accurate name for the theory. What this theory describes is the expansion and cooling of the universe. It doesn't describe an explosion at all."

 

Thus, a better analogy would be depicting a hot, very dense gas inside a confined container or bag, then letting it all out. The dense gas escapes, expands into the larger volume  available and cools as it does so. Of course, this is no where as entertaining or riveting as an explosion!

 

 

Never mind, this series re-do is welcome and at least ought to get again get people’s minds expanding outwards beyond their limited terrestrial lives and everyday concerns.