ErikPleijel.se
ENGLISH VERSION
Reason and Faith in a Unique Alliance Against Toxic Demagogues
Long-form essay
Chapter 10
10. X-FACTOR: Remove an Obstacle to Find the Counterforce
In the Beginning
It seems that many believers are uncomfortable with the Big Bang theory. The whole world was created with a bang, just like that. Science has explained everything and there is no need for God, say some atheists. Many believers feel provoked, while many atheists feel vindicated.
But it could also be the other way around. The person who coined the term ”Big Bang” was the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist. He was initially very sceptical about the whole theory and suspected that its proponents had deeply religious motives. In an interview with the BBC, he said: “The reason why scientists like the ‘Big Bang’ is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis [i.e. the creation story in the Bible]. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis.” He invented the term as a mockery.
For an atheist that really understands science, the Big Bang can be a rather provocative theory. The Big Bang is not about the creation of the universe, but about its history. Specifically, what happened in the first microseconds, hours and years, and how the universe expanded and cooled.
How it all began, how the ”explosion” itself was initiated, how matter and the laws of nature were created – these are questions about which science finds it difficult to even speculate. If a miracle is an event without a natural cause, then the entire universe is one gigantic miracle.
The Big Bang does not explain the creation of the world, but its historical evolution. Similarly, Darwinism does not explain the creation of life, but its evolution. How the first living cell came into being is a notoriously difficult puzzle for science to solve.
The two most important questions – the creation of the world and of life – are unanswered by science. These huge gaps in knowledge can be a source of discomfort for atheists.
Beware of The Illusion of Understanding!
Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee blames the mass media and popular science for spreading false ideas about evolution. In an article in the journal Nature, he writes:
What Gee objects to is that such images give the false impression that evolution is some kind of progressive principle of improvement. Nature is seen through the lens of human optimism. You are led to believe that there is an inherent force in nature that pulls everything towards the higher, the better, the stronger.
Evolution is of course a historical fact, but popular science sometimes gives explanations that have nothing to do with serious science. For example, they use phrases like ”the struggle for survival leads to the improvement of species as weaknesses are gradually eliminated” and ”nature’s blind watchmaker randomly produces new prototypes” and ”nature uses the principle of trial and error”. And so on.
This brings to mind competing companies that are driven to constantly improve their products. Or innovators creating and refining their inventions. You see similarities between very different things and get a strong sense that everything fits together – ”synthesis without analysis”. It is believed that competition among animals is similar to competition among humans, and that both cases lead to the same kind of progress and development.
Nature is thought to work in much the same way as human creativity and invention, which is rational and goal oriented. Many people therefore believe – unconsciously – that nature is imbued with a human-like intelligence and will.
It becomes somewhat comical when one realises that many who claim to be atheists actually believe in a supernatural vital force. Needs that are denied in the conscious mind often play their tricks in the subconscious.
The Mysterious X-Factor
Over hundreds of millions of years, bacteria have evolved into lions, birds and humans. The question is, how did this happen? Everyone should agree that mutation and natural selection are at least part of the explanation. It is a combination of law and chance. But scientists disagree about which is more important. So there are two schools of thought, one emphasising law and the other chance.
To understand the difference, imagine a casino where the player is pitted against the ”house” (i.e. the casino owner). A game like roulette is designed so that the house always wins in the long run. In order to make a profit, the house must ensure that the odds and laws of probability are in its favour. However, the player can win if he is lucky. So he has to rely on chance. Or he can hope for a miracle.
Serious scientists look for regularities in nature and try to explain them. Their reasoning is analytical. It revolves around observations, experiments, DNA molecules and proteins. Like the casino owner, they are interested in mathematical calculations of the odds.
On the other side there are those who have a strong belief in the creative power of chance. ”Chance believers” do not calculate the odds or think analytically. They make no distinction between what is possible and what is plausible. They are arguing less like scientists and more like gambling addicts.
If evolution is a law-based process, then it is hard to escape the idea that everything has been planned from the very beginning. Why are the laws of nature formulated in such a way that matter is self-creating and develops life?
Law-evolution can lead to the idea of God as the legislator of nature. Once he has set everything in motion, he lets nature take care of itself. This is called deism.
In the second case, chance-evolution, there is no need for a God. This is something that fits well with atheism. The path from bacteria to birds depended on a long series of lucky accidents.
But how can you tell whether an improbable event was the result of blind luck or a godsent wonder? Who can tell the difference between chance and miracle? Chance-evolution leaves the door wide open for God!
Guided evolution means that species were created by an intelligence. This position fits well with the idea that God creates everything with his finger, i.e. theism. A related alternative is living force evolution, which is similar to pantheism. It is also known as vitalism.
Whichever way you look at it, it is hard to escape a mysterious X-factor. It is difficult to find a position that provides a safe and comfortable foundation for atheism. So if you choose to be an atheist, just know that it can be quite stressful.
The True, the Good, the Beautiful
If evolution were driven solely by the principle of survival of the fittest, we would presumably value those qualities that favour our physical survival. But everything does not fit into this pattern.
How is it possible that a brain shaped by life in the jungle and savannah could produce such sophisticated intellectual endeavours as algebra, quantum physics and space exploration? How can you ascribe almost divine qualities to the mind while claiming that man is nothing more than an animal?
Think about how we care for others, even if they do not directly contribute to our survival. We care for all children, regardless of ability, and we care for the elderly, whether they are productive or not. This is a clear sign that we value more than just survival. Many of us react with resistance to cold, rational calculations that suggest we should get rid of the weakest.
Also, why is it in our genes to love music? Isn't this an unnecessary trait for a ‘survival machine’? Music has been man's constant companion throughout history. It is deeply rooted in the human soul. The value of music is enormous, even if it serves no direct practical purpose.
Science is a quest for truth. Ethics is the quest for what is good and right. Art is the quest for the beautiful. The true, the good, the beautiful – this is sometimes called ”the Platonic Trinity”. Does it originate from the mysterious X-factor?
There is no doubt that the Darwinian principle (random mutation and natural selection) can explain a lot. But what happens when Darwinism becomes a 'theory of everything' and an ideology? Isn't there a danger that the whole world will be forced into this mould?
Some people think there are simple explanations for things like art. They say that music has had evolutionary benefits, such as strengthening group cohesion or promoting pair bonding. Are such explanations plausible, or are they ‘synthesis-without-analysis puzzles’ that create the illusion of understanding? Are there atheists who – like many religious people – have fallen into the ‘follies trap’?
True and False Enlightenment
Many people subscribe to the creed that we must resolutely and stubbornly reject any notion of the supernatural. Then we will achieve true rationality. There is no room for the unknown, no X-factor. They say the stakes are incredibly high, for if we move an inch away from this belief, civilisation will drown in superstition. These “great defenders of the Enlightenment” believe that everything can be explained in the light of human reason.
It's a bit like the man looking for his lost key by the light of a street lamp one evening. Are you sure you dropped the key right here? someone asks. It must be here somewhere, he replies, it only makes sense to look where there is light. This 'false enlightenment' creates the illusion that all reality is within the realm of reason. What you don't know doesn't exist.
Excessive faith in reason can damage reason. If we demand answers to everything, we often settle for bad answers. Anything goes, as long as you don't have to admit your ignorance.
We need to let go of the intellectual desire for control. I think Albert Einstein had this insight when he said:
We have to accept that there are some things we can never grasp. Part of reality is beyond our grasp. Only when we let go of the need for intellectual control can we embark on a search for truth. Then we will go from false enlightenment to true enlightenment.
