Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap
The New York Times ^ | January 4, 2005

Posted on 01/05/2005 9:14:33 AM PST by snarks_when_bored

The New York Times



January 4, 2005

God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap

"What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" This was the question posed to scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers by John Brockman, a literary agent and publisher of Edge, a Web site devoted to science. The site asks a new question at the end of each year. Here are excerpts from the responses, to be posted Tuesday at www.edge.org.

Roger Schank
Psychologist and computer scientist; author, "Designing World-Class E-Learning"

Irrational choices.

I do not believe that people are capable of rational thought when it comes to making decisions in their own lives. People believe they are behaving rationally and have thought things out, of course, but when major decisions are made - who to marry, where to live, what career to pursue, what college to attend, people's minds simply cannot cope with the complexity. When they try to rationally analyze potential options, their unconscious, emotional thoughts take over and make the choice for them.

Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University; author, "The Ancestor's Tale"

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

Judith Rich Harris
Writer and developmental psychologist; author, "The Nurture Assumption"

I believe, though I cannot prove it, that three - not two - selection processes were involved in human evolution.

The first two are familiar: natural selection, which selects for fitness, and sexual selection, which selects for sexiness.

The third process selects for beauty, but not sexual beauty - not adult beauty. The ones doing the selecting weren't potential mates: they were parents. Parental selection, I call it.

Kenneth Ford
Physicist; retired director, American Institute of Physics; author, "The Quantum World"

I believe that microbial life exists elsewhere in our galaxy.

I am not even saying "elsewhere in the universe." If the proposition I believe to be true is to be proved true within a generation or two, I had better limit it to our own galaxy. I will bet on its truth there.

I believe in the existence of life elsewhere because chemistry seems to be so life-striving and because life, once created, propagates itself in every possible direction. Earth's history suggests that chemicals get busy and create life given any old mix of substances that includes a bit of water, and given practically any old source of energy; further, that life, once created, spreads into every nook and cranny over a wide range of temperature, acidity, pressure, light level and so on.

Believing in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is another matter.

Joseph LeDoux
Neuroscientist, New York University; author, "The Synaptic Self"

For me, this is an easy question. I believe that animals have feelings and other states of consciousness, but neither I nor anyone else has been able to prove it. We can't even prove that other people are conscious, much less other animals. In the case of other people, though, we at least can have a little confidence since all people have brains with the same basic configurations. But as soon as we turn to other species and start asking questions about feelings and consciousness in general we are in risky territory because the hardware is different.

Because I have reason to think that their feelings might be different than ours, I prefer to study emotional behavior in rats rather than emotional feelings.

There's lots to learn about emotion through rats that can help people with emotional disorders. And there's lots we can learn about feelings from studying humans, especially now that we have powerful function imaging techniques. I'm not a radical behaviorist. I'm just a practical emotionalist.

Lynn Margulis
Biologist, University of Massachusetts; author, "Symbiosis in Cell Evolution"

I feel that I know something that will turn out to be correct and eventually proved to be true beyond doubt.

What?

That our ability to perceive signals in the environment evolved directly from our bacterial ancestors. That is, we, like all other mammals including our apish brothers detect odors, distinguish tastes, hear bird song and drumbeats and we too feel the vibrations of the drums. With our eyes closed we detect the light of the rising sun. These abilities to sense our surroundings are a heritage that preceded the evolution of all primates, all vertebrate animals, indeed all animals.

David Myers
Psychologist, Hope College; author, "Intuition"

As a Christian monotheist, I start with two unproven axioms:

1. There is a God.

2. It's not me (and it's also not you).

Together, these axioms imply my surest conviction: that some of my beliefs (and yours) contain error. We are, from dust to dust, finite and fallible. We have dignity but not deity.

And that is why I further believe that we should

a) hold all our unproven beliefs with a certain tentativeness (except for this one!),

b) assess others' ideas with open-minded skepticism, and

c) freely pursue truth aided by observation and experiment.

This mix of faith-based humility and skepticism helped fuel the beginnings of modern science, and it has informed my own research and science writing. The whole truth cannot be found merely by searching our own minds, for there is not enough there. So we also put our ideas to the test. If they survive, so much the better for them; if not, so much the worse.

Robert Sapolsky
Neuroscientist, Stanford University, author, "A Primate's Memoir"

Mine would be a fairly simple, straightforward case of an unjustifiable belief, namely that there is no god(s) or such a thing as a soul (whatever the religiously inclined of the right persuasion mean by that word). ...

I'm taken with religious folks who argue that you not only can, but should believe without requiring proof. Mine is to not believe without requiring proof. Mind you, it would be perfectly fine with me if there were a proof that there is no god. Some might view this as a potential public health problem, given the number of people who would then run damagingly amok. But it's obvious that there's no shortage of folks running amok thanks to their belief. So that wouldn't be a problem and, all things considered, such a proof would be a relief - many physicists, especially astrophysicists, seem weirdly willing to go on about their communing with god about the Big Bang, but in my world of biologists, the god concept gets mighty infuriating when you spend your time thinking about, say, untreatably aggressive childhood leukemia.

Donald Hoffman
Cognitive scientist, University of California, Irvine; author, "Visual Intelligence"

I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.

The world of our daily experience - the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds - is a species-specific user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential character is conscious. It is unlikely that the contents of our interface in any way resemble that realm.

Indeed the usefulness of an interface requires, in general, that they do not. For the point of an interface, such as the Windows interface on a computer, is simplification and ease of use. We click icons because this is quicker and less prone to error than editing megabytes of software or toggling voltages in circuits.

Evolutionary pressures dictate that our species-specific interface, this world of our daily experience, should itself be a radical simplification, selected not for the exhaustive depiction of truth but for the mutable pragmatics of survival.

If this is right, if consciousness is fundamental, then we should not be surprised that, despite centuries of effort by the most brilliant of minds, there is as yet no physicalist theory of consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless matter or energy or fields could be, or cause, conscious experience.

Nicholas Humphrey
Psychologist, London School of Economics; author,"The Mind Made Flesh"

I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

Philip Zimbardo
Psychologist, emeritus professor, Stanford; author, "Shyness"

I believe that the prison guards at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, who worked the night shift in Tier 1A, where prisoners were physically and psychologically abused, had surrendered their free will and personal responsibility during these episodes of mayhem.

But I could not prove it in a court of law. These eight Army reservists were trapped in a unique situation in which the behavioral context came to dominate individual dispositions, values and morality to such an extent that they were transformed into mindless actors alienated from their normal sense of personal accountability for their actions - at that time and place.

The "group mind" that developed among these soldiers was created by a set of known social psychological conditions, some of which are nicely featured in Golding's "Lord of the Flies." The same processes that I witnessed in my Stanford Prison Experiment were clearly operating in that remote place: deindividuation, dehumanization, boredom, groupthink, role-playing, rule control and more.

Philip W. Anderson
Physicist and Nobel laureate, Princeton

Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be? It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized math, and doesn't on that basis justify the incredible amount of effort expended on it.

My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do.

The sad thing is that, as several young would-be theorists have explained to me, it is so highly developed that it is a full-time job just to keep up with it. That means that other avenues are not being explored by the bright, imaginative young people, and that alternative career paths are blocked.

Alison Gopnik
Psychologist, University of California, Berkeley; co-author, "The Scientist in the Crib"

I believe, but cannot prove, that babies and young children are actually more conscious, more vividly aware of their external world and internal life, than adults are. I believe this because there is strong evidence for a functional trade-off with development. Young children are much better than adults at learning new things and flexibly changing what they think about the world. On the other hand, they are much worse at using their knowledge to act in a swift, efficient and automatic way. They can learn three languages at once but they can't tie their shoelaces.

David Buss
Psychologist, University of Texas; author, "The Evolution of Desire"

True love.

I've spent two decades of my professional life studying human mating. In that time, I've documented phenomena ranging from what men and women desire in a mate to the most diabolical forms of sexual treachery. I've discovered the astonishingly creative ways in which men and women deceive and manipulate each other. I've studied mate poachers, obsessed stalkers, sexual predators and spouse murderers. But throughout this exploration of the dark dimensions of human mating, I've remained unwavering in my belief in true love.

While love is common, true love is rare, and I believe that few people are fortunate enough to experience it. The roads of regular love are well traveled and their markers are well understood by many - the mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice and the desire to combine DNA. But true love takes its own course through uncharted territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement and seems scientifically woolly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: edge; evolution; extraterrestriallife; god; psychology; religion; science; whatscientiststhink
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
This New York Times article is based on the January 4, 2005, edition of Edge. Go to the Edge website for additional resources.
1 posted on 01/05/2005 9:14:40 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

As mathematician Dr. David Berlinski said 12/19/97 on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s Firing Line show on PBS:

"Darwin's theory of evolution [macro - not micro evolution] is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudianism and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in that dark dungeon where disgarded gods gather."


2 posted on 01/05/2005 9:16:44 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; PatrickHenry

Ping


3 posted on 01/05/2005 9:16:51 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; PatrickHenry

Ping


4 posted on 01/05/2005 9:17:32 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

I think, therefore I ain’t.

5 posted on 01/05/2005 9:20:00 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it.

Neither can I.

*sigh*

6 posted on 01/05/2005 9:23:16 AM PST by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
I'm taken with religious folks who argue that you not only can, but should believe without requiring proof. Mine is to not believe without requiring proof.

Sir, please prove two plus two equals four, or that you're a human being and not actually an asteroid. Here's a simple one, prove that your mental stimuli is accurate to the world around you. Can't prove it? Then what in blazes can you do?

Everything one knows is based on an element of faith that can't be proven.

I swear the more brilliant the scientist, the most insanely idiotic his metaphysical views. Must be a pride thing.
7 posted on 01/05/2005 9:37:52 AM PST by DarkSavant (It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Berlinski's an interesting guy, and I have a certain fondness for him because of his book Black Mischief, but he's also a bit of a flake.
8 posted on 01/05/2005 9:39:15 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Some of these people sound downright dangerous.


9 posted on 01/05/2005 9:40:59 AM PST by 7thson (I think it takes a big dog to weigh a hundred pounds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

Remember, the premise is: What do you believe but cannot prove?


10 posted on 01/05/2005 9:42:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

While love is common, true love is rare, and I believe that few people are fortunate enough to experience it. The roads of regular love are well traveled and their markers are well understood by many - the mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice and the desire to combine DNA. But true love takes its own course through uncharted territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement and seems scientifically woolly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it.

___________________________________________________________

I liked this one. :)


11 posted on 01/05/2005 9:50:34 AM PST by exnavychick (I'm no expert, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavychick

Agreed. That was pretty eloquent.


12 posted on 01/05/2005 9:56:13 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

I took the blue pill by accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.


13 posted on 01/05/2005 10:03:21 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

From a scientist, no less, LOL!


14 posted on 01/05/2005 10:03:50 AM PST by exnavychick (I'm no expert, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

>>I took the blue pill by accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.<<
Oops. I meant the RED pill...

I can only know that the Matrix exists, I cannot prove it to you until you come with me to the real world...


15 posted on 01/05/2005 10:07:51 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"...the premise is: What do you believe but cannot prove?"

There are rational and irrational beliefs.

Since I can't scientifically prove it, is it irrrational for me to believe that others beside myself have minds and aren't just pre-programmed robots?

Since I can't scientifically prove it, is it irrational for me to believe that God exists?

16 posted on 01/05/2005 10:09:52 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

I believe that I am what I am because you are what you are !!!

Oak Hay, smartypants... prove me wrong !!! ;-))


17 posted on 01/05/2005 10:19:31 AM PST by GeekDejure ( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
"I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives."

The speaker self negates
I do not think therefore I am not
Why for heavens sake would anyone believe the thoughts
of one who does not believe his own thoughts are legitimate?
18 posted on 01/05/2005 10:28:23 AM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Too many pseudoscientists on this list. Got my hopes all up, then . . . BANG! . . . in march the "emotionalists." Huh?


19 posted on 01/05/2005 10:28:26 AM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Would it be your view that belief in 'other minds' is neither more nor less rational than belief in a deity?


20 posted on 01/05/2005 10:36:40 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson