CarderPlanet
Professional
- Messages
- 2,552
- Reaction score
- 710
- Points
- 83
What to do with questions that are difficult to answer unequivocally, such as the existence of God, the interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the origin of consciousness? You can rely on faith or authoritative opinions. But science historian, science journalist and director of the Stevens Institute of Technology's Science Journalism Center John Horgan in Scientific American advocates agnosticism as the best approach to controversial issues.
When I was twenty, I was friends with one person. Let's call him Gallagher. He was smart, charming, educated and wealthy. He could do whatever he wanted. Gallagher studied neuroscience, law, philosophy, and other disciplines. But he was so critical, so picky, that he never stopped his choice on anything. Nothing suited him. For this reason, he also did not find his love. In addition, he criticized the choices of his friends and eventually pushed them away from him, becoming lonely and embittered.
Too much discrimination - in work, relationships and food - is harmful: even the most fastidious people must eat something. Gallagher's example taught me this. But when it comes to important issues, most of us are not picky enough. We accept answers based on extraneous considerations: for example, because our parents, priests, or teachers think so.
It seems to us that we should believe in something, although in reality it is not so. We may well conclude that we are not satisfied with any answer. In that case, we will be agnostic.
Some confuse agnosticism (ignorance) with apathy (unwillingness to know). Take geneticist Francis Collins, who heads the National Institutes of Health, for example. He is a devout Christian who believes that Jesus performed miracles, died for our sins, and was resurrected. In his bestselling book, The Language of God (2006), Collins likens agnosticism to escapism. During an interview with him, I told him that I am agnostic and do not agree with his definition.
Collins apologized: “This disparaging characterization does not apply to true agnostics who have researched all the facts and are still not satisfied with existing interpretations of them,” he said. "I wrote about the prevailing agnosticism in the scientific community, which is not preceded by careful analysis of the facts."
As for me, I have studied the arguments given in the Christian texts and do not find them convincing. Nor do I find compelling creation stories that describe our cosmos as a bubble in an endless multiverse.
People I admire have often criticized me for being overly skeptical. One such person is the late religious scholar Houston Smith, who said that I suffered from a "disorder of beliefs." Another is my old friend, the journalist Robert Wright, with whom I often argued about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Once he got angry and asked me: "Do you at least believe in anything?" In fact, I believe in a lot - for example, that the war needs to end.
As for theories about objective reality, here I am on the side of Voltaire, who said: "Doubt is unpleasant, but the state of confidence is absurd." Skepticism protects us from dogmatism, which very easily develops into bigotry and into what William James called "the premature closure of our accounts with reality."
Below I advocate agnosticism as an approach to the question of the existence of God, interpretations of quantum mechanics, and theories of consciousness. In assessing the potential answers to each of these three questions, we need to be as selective as my old friend Gallagher.
The problem of evil
Where did we come from? According to the main monotheistic religions (including Catholicism, in the traditions of which I was raised), we were created by an omnipotent, transcendental being. God loves us as much as a father loves his children and wants us to act in a certain way. If we behave well, he rewards us. If it is bad, it punishes.
My main objection to this view of the world is the problem of evil. A cursory review of human history reveals tremendous injustice and suffering. If God loves us and is omnipotent, why is the life of so many people so terrible? The answer is usually that God has given us free will, and we have the power to choose whether to be virtuous or sinners.
The late physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg, who passed away in July, criticizes the free will argument in his book Dreams of the Ultimate Theory. Noting that the Nazis killed many of his relatives during the Holocaust, Weinberg asks: “Did millions of Jews have to die for the Nazis to use their free will? This is not fair. What about children with cancer? Are they suffering because cancer cells are also endowed with free will? "
On the other hand, life is not always full of suffering. She also has love, friendship, adventure and beauty. Is it possible that all these things are just a random collision of particles? Even Weinberg admits that sometimes life is "more beautiful than it needs to be."
Just as the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, so the problem of beauty prevents me from being an atheist, like Weinberg. This is why I am an agnostic.
The problem of quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics is the most advanced scientific theory of reality. The only problem is that physicists and philosophers cannot agree on what exactly it says about the structure of the world. Most physicists adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation formulated by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. However, it can be considered more of an anti-interpretation, since it says that you do not need to try to understand quantum mechanics - you need, as David Mermin once said, "shut up and count."
Philosopher Tim Modlin disagrees. In his book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory (2019), he notes that some interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GDV (Girardi - Rimini - Weber) theory, David Bohm's pilot wave theory, and Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation. But the irony is that Modlin is so diligent about listing the flaws of these theories, which only reinforces my skepticism.
Modlin does not parse the interpretations that present quantum mechanics as a theory of information. For more on these interpretations, read More Than Weird by journalist Philip Ball and Rise of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf.
But, in my opinion, such interpretations of quantum mechanics sound even less plausible than those that Modlin writes about. The concept of information is meaningless without animate beings who would exchange it.
The introduction of the concept of consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. In addition, as far as we know, only a few organisms that have arisen relatively recently are endowed with consciousness. So if quantum mechanics is a theory about information, not matter and energy, then how can it be applied to the entire universe since the Big Bang?
Information theories look like a return to geocentrism, according to which the entire universe revolves around our planet. Given the shortcomings of the above interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism in this case seems to me the most reasonable approach.
Mind-body problem
The subject of consciousness is surrounded by even more uncertainty than quantum mechanics. How does mind arise from matter?
A few decades ago, it seemed that a consensus had finally emerged on this issue. The philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his self-confident book Consciousness Explained, argued that consciousness arises from electrochemical impulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christoph Koch suggested that it is generated by the synchronous oscillation of networks of neurons.
But empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness has never been found. As I wrote in my recent book The Psychophysiological Problem, there are an incredible number of theories of consciousness today.
Christoph Koch supported the theory of integrated information , according to which all matter, not just the brain, is endowed with consciousness. This theory has the same disadvantages as the informational interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Roger Penrose, who last year won the Nobel Prize in physics, along with several other physicists, believes that consciousness is based on quantum effects, but there is even less evidence in favor of this theory than in favor of integrated information theory.
Researchers cannot even agree on what a theory of consciousness should look like. Should this be a philosophical treatise? Or a mathematical model? A giant.
Bayesian algorithm ? Should she borrow the concept of anatman (not-I) from Buddhism?
Consensus seems more elusive than ever. And this is good. The question of consciousness must be approached without dogmatism.
So how am I different from my old friend Gallagher? I prefer to assume that the difference is in style.
Gallagher despised other people's beliefs. He was like those evil atheists who hate believers for their faith.
I try not to be dogmatic in my disbelief and be tolerant of those who, like Francis Collins, have found answers that suit them. Also, I like the ingenious theories of anything, like John Wheeler's it from bit theory or Freeman Dyson's principle of maximum diversity, even though I disagree with them.
I am definitely a skeptic. I doubt that we will ever be able to answer questions about the existence of God, the meaning of quantum mechanics, or the emergence of mind from matter. It seems to me that these three mysteries are simply different aspects of the same unknowable mystery underlying being.
One of the joys of agnosticism - perhaps the main joy - is that it allows me to keep looking for answers, hoping to experience revelation one day.
When I was twenty, I was friends with one person. Let's call him Gallagher. He was smart, charming, educated and wealthy. He could do whatever he wanted. Gallagher studied neuroscience, law, philosophy, and other disciplines. But he was so critical, so picky, that he never stopped his choice on anything. Nothing suited him. For this reason, he also did not find his love. In addition, he criticized the choices of his friends and eventually pushed them away from him, becoming lonely and embittered.
Too much discrimination - in work, relationships and food - is harmful: even the most fastidious people must eat something. Gallagher's example taught me this. But when it comes to important issues, most of us are not picky enough. We accept answers based on extraneous considerations: for example, because our parents, priests, or teachers think so.
It seems to us that we should believe in something, although in reality it is not so. We may well conclude that we are not satisfied with any answer. In that case, we will be agnostic.
Some confuse agnosticism (ignorance) with apathy (unwillingness to know). Take geneticist Francis Collins, who heads the National Institutes of Health, for example. He is a devout Christian who believes that Jesus performed miracles, died for our sins, and was resurrected. In his bestselling book, The Language of God (2006), Collins likens agnosticism to escapism. During an interview with him, I told him that I am agnostic and do not agree with his definition.
Collins apologized: “This disparaging characterization does not apply to true agnostics who have researched all the facts and are still not satisfied with existing interpretations of them,” he said. "I wrote about the prevailing agnosticism in the scientific community, which is not preceded by careful analysis of the facts."
As for me, I have studied the arguments given in the Christian texts and do not find them convincing. Nor do I find compelling creation stories that describe our cosmos as a bubble in an endless multiverse.
People I admire have often criticized me for being overly skeptical. One such person is the late religious scholar Houston Smith, who said that I suffered from a "disorder of beliefs." Another is my old friend, the journalist Robert Wright, with whom I often argued about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Once he got angry and asked me: "Do you at least believe in anything?" In fact, I believe in a lot - for example, that the war needs to end.
As for theories about objective reality, here I am on the side of Voltaire, who said: "Doubt is unpleasant, but the state of confidence is absurd." Skepticism protects us from dogmatism, which very easily develops into bigotry and into what William James called "the premature closure of our accounts with reality."
Below I advocate agnosticism as an approach to the question of the existence of God, interpretations of quantum mechanics, and theories of consciousness. In assessing the potential answers to each of these three questions, we need to be as selective as my old friend Gallagher.
The problem of evil
Where did we come from? According to the main monotheistic religions (including Catholicism, in the traditions of which I was raised), we were created by an omnipotent, transcendental being. God loves us as much as a father loves his children and wants us to act in a certain way. If we behave well, he rewards us. If it is bad, it punishes.
My main objection to this view of the world is the problem of evil. A cursory review of human history reveals tremendous injustice and suffering. If God loves us and is omnipotent, why is the life of so many people so terrible? The answer is usually that God has given us free will, and we have the power to choose whether to be virtuous or sinners.
The late physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg, who passed away in July, criticizes the free will argument in his book Dreams of the Ultimate Theory. Noting that the Nazis killed many of his relatives during the Holocaust, Weinberg asks: “Did millions of Jews have to die for the Nazis to use their free will? This is not fair. What about children with cancer? Are they suffering because cancer cells are also endowed with free will? "
On the other hand, life is not always full of suffering. She also has love, friendship, adventure and beauty. Is it possible that all these things are just a random collision of particles? Even Weinberg admits that sometimes life is "more beautiful than it needs to be."
Just as the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, so the problem of beauty prevents me from being an atheist, like Weinberg. This is why I am an agnostic.
The problem of quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics is the most advanced scientific theory of reality. The only problem is that physicists and philosophers cannot agree on what exactly it says about the structure of the world. Most physicists adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation formulated by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. However, it can be considered more of an anti-interpretation, since it says that you do not need to try to understand quantum mechanics - you need, as David Mermin once said, "shut up and count."
Philosopher Tim Modlin disagrees. In his book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory (2019), he notes that some interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GDV (Girardi - Rimini - Weber) theory, David Bohm's pilot wave theory, and Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation. But the irony is that Modlin is so diligent about listing the flaws of these theories, which only reinforces my skepticism.
Modlin does not parse the interpretations that present quantum mechanics as a theory of information. For more on these interpretations, read More Than Weird by journalist Philip Ball and Rise of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf.
But, in my opinion, such interpretations of quantum mechanics sound even less plausible than those that Modlin writes about. The concept of information is meaningless without animate beings who would exchange it.
The introduction of the concept of consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. In addition, as far as we know, only a few organisms that have arisen relatively recently are endowed with consciousness. So if quantum mechanics is a theory about information, not matter and energy, then how can it be applied to the entire universe since the Big Bang?
Information theories look like a return to geocentrism, according to which the entire universe revolves around our planet. Given the shortcomings of the above interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism in this case seems to me the most reasonable approach.
Mind-body problem
The subject of consciousness is surrounded by even more uncertainty than quantum mechanics. How does mind arise from matter?
A few decades ago, it seemed that a consensus had finally emerged on this issue. The philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his self-confident book Consciousness Explained, argued that consciousness arises from electrochemical impulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christoph Koch suggested that it is generated by the synchronous oscillation of networks of neurons.
But empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness has never been found. As I wrote in my recent book The Psychophysiological Problem, there are an incredible number of theories of consciousness today.
Christoph Koch supported the theory of integrated information , according to which all matter, not just the brain, is endowed with consciousness. This theory has the same disadvantages as the informational interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Roger Penrose, who last year won the Nobel Prize in physics, along with several other physicists, believes that consciousness is based on quantum effects, but there is even less evidence in favor of this theory than in favor of integrated information theory.
Researchers cannot even agree on what a theory of consciousness should look like. Should this be a philosophical treatise? Or a mathematical model? A giant.
Bayesian algorithm ? Should she borrow the concept of anatman (not-I) from Buddhism?
Consensus seems more elusive than ever. And this is good. The question of consciousness must be approached without dogmatism.
So how am I different from my old friend Gallagher? I prefer to assume that the difference is in style.
Gallagher despised other people's beliefs. He was like those evil atheists who hate believers for their faith.
I try not to be dogmatic in my disbelief and be tolerant of those who, like Francis Collins, have found answers that suit them. Also, I like the ingenious theories of anything, like John Wheeler's it from bit theory or Freeman Dyson's principle of maximum diversity, even though I disagree with them.
I am definitely a skeptic. I doubt that we will ever be able to answer questions about the existence of God, the meaning of quantum mechanics, or the emergence of mind from matter. It seems to me that these three mysteries are simply different aspects of the same unknowable mystery underlying being.
One of the joys of agnosticism - perhaps the main joy - is that it allows me to keep looking for answers, hoping to experience revelation one day.
