Scientists Chime in about unproveable truths - PhillyBlog

peacemover · #1 (**permalink**) 01-05-2005, 01:14 PM

There was a fascinating article yesterday in the NY Times about what scientists believe to be true even though they cannot prove it. What do you make of this article? What truth or truths do you believe even though you cannot prove it? What other questions does this truth raise?

The article was called "God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap," and provided some fascinating insights and discussion topics. Here is an excerpt from the article dealing specifically with the question of the existence or non-existence of God:

Quote:

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

January 4, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/sc...d6f9af07d62078

"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.

. . .

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.

WashWestDad · #2 (**permalink**) 01-05-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

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.

I don't have much to add to this, but i highly recommend Sapolsky's book. It's entertaining and moving. I never knew baboons could be so interesting. Read it today.

peacemover · #3 (**permalink**) 01-05-2005, 02:06 PM

WashWestDad,

That perspective and others like it certainly raise some interesting and difficult questions to answer. Regarding unproveable beliefs, though, it is ultimately a deeply personal matter that we all, scientists included, need to approach with a sense of humility and openness.

I believe in God, even though I cannot prove God's existence, I have certainly experienced God's presence working in and through my life providentially.

By the same token I want to understand more deeply the perspectives of people who believe there is not a God.

I hope to read the book you suggested in the near future.

skroah · #4 (**permalink**) 01-05-2005, 02:50 PM

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)
by Julian Baggini

Is supposed to a clear and concise explanation of atheism. I've not read yet but it's on the list.

http://tinyurl.com/6ft4r

peacemover · #5 (**permalink**) 01-05-2005, 05:10 PM

A classic book that effectively assert the case for the existence of a loving, compassionate God, I believe is:

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...s&n=507846

He also wrote a book where he addresses the whole debate on naturalism vs. supernaturalism is his book Miracles:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...563798-6597623

I do intend to take a look at the books on atheism, because I want to better understand the beliefs (or unbeliefs) of people who subscribe to that particular school of thought. We can all learn from one another, I believe.