I am regularly reminded that there has to be more to it. It happened again just recently at a relative’s memorial service. The minister, in an insightful eulogy, highlighted the deceased’s positive attributes and deftly skirted the negatives with quirky humane anecdotes. Then she got to the part about being welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven by the hand of God. That’s where I got lost.
Where do those religious images get their power? How can so many otherwise reasonable people swallow these ancient myths? Given our species’ proclivity to cook up bunkum, isn’t there a strong case that, millennia ago, in the smoky murk of their tents, village elders invented these tales to pacify their tribes just as we have invented Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to brighten the lives of our kids, and maybe even, as a side effect, encourage them to “be good.” In spite of this, the most ardently religious among us have taken on the modern scientific community – offering up intelligent design to replace Darwinian evolution. Sadly, that has so infuriated some scientists that they are now making equally hard-to-believe claims.
Most outspoken among them has been Richard Dawkins. He responds to the intelligent designers in his book River Out of Eden: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. ” Then, in The God Delusion, he takes the gloves off: “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.” So now the hand of a personal, all-seeing god has been replaced by blind physics?
Don’t get me wrong. Physics has explained a lot. It has given us lasers, computers, and atomic energy. But can it ever explain self awareness, or love, or fear or the infinitude of other ideas and emotions which are much more palpably part of my reality than, say, electrons. Dawkins, it seems to me, has made a leap of faith as audacious as that of the minister. I imagine that, if asked, he would say that these obvious realities have not YET been explained by the forces of physics, but that they soon will be. Well, good luck.
Once upon a time, sages knew that the cosmos rotated around the earth. Then Copernicus, Galileo and Newton set the record straight, explaining the way the laws of physics explained how the solar system worked. And now our modern sages say the laws of physics, as they know them, explain EVERYTHING.
Of course this claim, which seems to deny the reality of the very house we live in, gets the religious community pretty animated. And, indeed, there is blood in the water and the intelligent designers smell it. They sense the wound in the argument. They perceive a lack of face validity. And they enthusiastically send their legions into the battle for hearts and minds to knock on doors, run for school board and petition their legislatures with an even more cockeyed weltanschauung.
Like civilians caught in a crossfire between warring radicals, this leaves us common folk running for cover. Faced with a choice between equally unsatisfactory alternatives most of us enter denial and go about our lives as though there is no need to think about the big picture. But underneath it all, we know the big picture is pretty important for our peace of mind. And even though it is tempting to think about this stuff as an either or situation, I think that the truth may well lie elsewhere.
I’m no philosopher and I am certainly no physicist but some writings by NYU Professor of Philosophy Thomas Nagel in his book Mind and Cosmos, and other recent ideas put forward by some respected physicists in an article in Scientific American suggest alternatives to those conventional wisdoms and they do so coming from very different disciplinary directions. The philosopher’s ideas appeared in a NYTimes Opinionator piece of August 18, 2013 where he argues convincingly that self awareness and the ability to reason are just as “real” as a chair. He further makes a strong case that an understanding of these things is simply not accessible to the physical sciences. At about the same time in the August 2013 issue of Scientific American, Meinard Kuhlman reviews the ideas of several physicists who, addressing the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, argue that the basic elements of reality are not particles and energy but ……….relationships and qualities!
Perhaps we’re getting somewhere. Or at least we may be on a path out of the two intellectual deserts in one of which we and the rest of the cosmos are a meaningless accident while in the other we are the plaything of a bearded old gent who, like Santa Claus, takes us on his knee and promises to give us what we ask for if we’re good.
I don’t pretend to know where the path ends, or if it ends at all. But I am tempted to believe that along the way a story emerges that takes into account the 95% of mass in the universe that those brainy scientists tell us is “dark matter”, makes clear to common mortals how Schroedinger’s cat in a box can be both alive and dead at the same time, acknowledges the fact that the feelings I have towards those I love are as real as the chair I’m sitting on and proves, unequivocally, that Descartes was right when he said “I think, therefore I am.” And so, by the way, are you!