On the limits of Empiricism
Stephen Hawing’s parting shot, delivered
Posthumously, and also en passant,
Reopened wounds and probably severed
Friendships over whether there’s a God or not.
Still with us, the modest Dawkins declaims
That faith in God creates all schism,
Ignoring contemporary critiques
Of overweening reductionism.
None question their science prerogative,
Their practical work is impeccable,
But I prefer advice less pejorative
Concerning matters ineffable.
Still some wave the lure, others take the bait:
Is God here or not? They’ll argue. We’ll wait.
posted by The Other Front at 8:02 AM
7 Comments:
Wait until when?
I object to conflating Dawkins with Hawking. Hawking didn't make a career out of being an asshole about his atheism. (Because of Dawkins, I don't self-identify as an atheist, anymore. "Thanks a lot, Dick!")
Reductionism can and is misapplied by amateurs, but if you're a theoretical physicist, it's a job requirement. He's entitled to express a professional opinion about what exists and does not exist in the universe. I think he did the right thing by not making it an issue during his lifetime, given the vast majority of humanity believe God does exist in the universe and controls everything that happens in it.
Then there're the pointless arguments with philosophers that want to move the God-exists goalpost off of the playing field, entirely. I ask myself, "What's their motivation, here?"
Until Judgment Day, of course.
Ok, agree that Hawking does not equal Dawkins. I plead poetic license.
My sympathies are more or less Wittgensteinian, that the problem is so linguistically corrupt that it’s insoluble as posed, i.e., when Hawking says “God does not exist” I hear “Zick does not zack” and have about e same reaction. My visceral reaction is to the pose of confidence that accompanies it, and the contempt for us peasant who don’t understand that logically Zick cannot zack.
To your point on motivation, I sompletely agree that many (most?) who INSIST on the existence of God do so not from true religious conviction, but from a desire to leverage the considerable value of social coercion inherent in organized religion. I am planning to organize a conference on this in Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, I still think there’s a god, or a higher power. I cannot give a clear empirical account of why I think this, nor do I feel that the belief is unjustified because I cannot do so. But am resigned to the question never being resolved in the realm of reason.
My next comment on this will be in the form of an interpretative dance.
'When Hawking says “God does not exist” I hear “Zick does not zack” and have about the same reaction.'
That assertion is belied by how you actually reacted. It's natural to have a negative reaction to an assertion that disagrees with your belief. What I'm not buying is the pose of neutrality.
I am neutral on religious belief. Some do, some don't, I have no basis for assessment of anyone else's situation, and in my own tradition we have the extremely clear admonition to "judge not, lest ye be judged." So I don't.
But yes, I do strongly object (and do not feign neutrality) in the matter of scientists signing themselves up as priests. The claim that "God does not exist", or if you like "Zick does not zack", implies expertise in a matter where Hawking and his colleagues have none, and claims a privileged place in the realm of values (and therefore politics and social engineering) that has not been earned.
If Hawking had said "I have reviewed studies of cancer outcomes and have found death rates are comparable for religious and non religious people," I would not have the slightest objection. Or if he had said "the workings of the cosmos - so far as my models and empirical observations are concerned - have no need of the construct of a god to motivate them" - fine, I have no objection whatsoever. Those are defensible statements in the context of his expertise.
As I think about what could be argued about fruitfully here, I come up with two area:
1) Are there some kinds of knowledge or belief where empiricism should have little standing? I believe the answer to that question is yes, and I believe that's where modern philosophy ends up as well, e.g.,
* Rationalism vs. Empiricism
2) Might a religious and technically unsophisticated society be better off than an advanced one devoid of religious belief?
Hawking (and Dawkins, I think) are "no" and "no" on these. I'm a "yes" and "yes".
But they're both trickier than they look: On #1 of course philosophers agree with me because if it's just empiricism who needs philosophers. On #2 I'd probably point to someplace like Kerala, but Hawking could make a pretty strong case that it's a fool's paradise and that we are nearing our sell-by date unless we make a much more concerted effort to understand the universe around us.
There's a third topic where I see no clear way forward - my equating (at least in practical terms) values with religious belief. In empirical terms I think they're the same thing, i.e., non-empirical. But lots/most of modern philosophers believe you can have a viable values system without some form of religious belief. I'm not so sure - it's turtles all the way down for me on that one.
So what did Hawking actually say that you've been referring to in these two blog posts?
Because what I can find is more along the lines of, "the workings of the cosmos - so far as my models and empirical observations are concerned - have no need of the construct of a god to motivate them," that you said you had no objection whatsoever to.
Post a Comment
<< Home