It's a sign of respect for a public intellectual that when they say something incautious, on any subject, no matter where their own expertise (if they have any) lies and how far it may be from the topic of conversation, that they are criticized. John Stewart interviewed Marilynne Robinson (whose novels i love, but whose forthcoming book about science and faith sounds self-indulgent) and said the following.
I've always been fascinated that the more you delve into science the more it appears to rely on faith. You know and they start to speak about the universe, they say..."Well, there's uh, it's actually, most of the universe is antimatter" "Oh really, where is that?" "Well, you can't see it"..."Well where is it?" "It's there." "Well, can you measure it?" "We're working on it."... and it's a very similar argument to someone who would say "God created everything" "Well, where is he?" "Well, he's there." And i'm always struck by the similarity of the arguments at their core.
I'm no atheist, nor any scientist, but it has to be said that Stewart is flat wrong. The similarity that Stewart is pointing to may be there, but it is not at the "core" of the two pursuits. The similarity is skin deep at best. Scientists sometimes posit an entity because their models require them. Those models are astoundingly intricate and experimentally verified beyond any standards of accuracy to which their intellectual ancestors ever held themselves. When not-fully-explained variables (such as antimatter) play necessary roles in such models, they are posited as promissory notes so that the model's other predictive powers can be utilized. Religious discourse, on the other hand, is premised on the inexplicable. God isn't posited to make other theological doctrines coherent, or to preserve other virtues of a theological worldview. God is the central entity with which such discourses are concerned. When the religious person won't answer the God question, it's because the question is asking the discourse to justify itself internally. That cannot be done from the inside. On the other hand, the scientist is simply conceding that there are yet unanswered questions.
Sorry Jon, just like Rachel Maddow "I love me some Jon Stewart". But we have a hard time getting people to take scientific practice seriously (and to accord it the authority it deserves where it deserves that authority) because people think of it as just another way of seeing the world, one that is no different from their own haphazard set of platitudes, and one to which they are not beholden if their own ignorant speculations conflict with its verdicts. You, more than anyone, should know that this trend is leading us down the path to ruin. Please do not grease the wheels.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Marilynne Robinson | ||||
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment