Revive a lost counterforce, part 1:
Embrace the Mystery Beyond the Reach of Reason
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.
False Enlightenment
Atheism as a belief should be respected. It is a perfectly understandable response to the evil and misery of the world. But atheism with scientific claims is usually associated with a belief in the omnipotence of reason.
The Big Bang, the origin and evolution of life, the mysteries of matter and consciousness – nothing is beyond the reach of science, some say.
It’s a bit like the man looking for his lost key one evening by the light of a streetlamp. 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 is false enlightenment. It creates the illusion that all reality is within the realm of reason. What you don’t know doesn’t exist.
The philosopher Bryan Magee criticised religious people for their intellectual laziness, but at the same time he had little patience with those who have turned faith in reason into a kind of ideology:
It is wise to accept that part of reality is beyond our comprehension. Excessive faith in reason can damage reason. If you insist that everything must have an understandable explanation, you will be satisfied with any explanation, no matter how flawed. Anything goes, as long as you don't have to admit your ignorance.
Science at the crossroads.
We should be ready to embrace uncertainty. There is an unknown X that we can never grasp. Those who dare to lose control on this point can more easily distinguish between rational thought and mere rationalisation.
The Illusion of Understanding
When the omnipotence of reason becomes an ideology, everything can be ”explained”. Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee blames the mass media and popular science for spreading misconceptions 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. ”Popular Darwinism” we might call it.
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.
It is very easy to get caught up in the illusion of understanding.
Law or Chance?
Over hundreds of millions of years, bacteria have evolved into lions, birds and humans. Is life the result of blind and soulless forces of nature?
Serious scientists reason in an analytical way. Mutation and natural selection are a combination of law and chance. However, 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. They believe that it doesn’t just happen a few times, but over and over again throughout natural history. ”Chance believers” do not calculate the odds or think analytically. They think more like gambling addicts.
The Mysterious X-factor
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.
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?
Embracing the Mystery Makes Us Wiser
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?
There is no doubt that the Darwinian principle of random mutation and natural selection can explain a lot (‘Darwinism light’). But what happens if you impose its principles on everything in life? What are the consequences if Darwinism becomes a totalitarian ideology?
Suppose we reject the idea that there is an X-factor and deny that there are things that are beyond the reach of reason. In that case, we demand that everything must be within the power of reason. Then we risk getting intellectual satisfaction from any explanation, good or bad. Those who demand answers to everything often settle for poor answers.
The belief that the world is a great mystery is to let go of the intellectual desire for control. It is something that actually make us wiser. I think Albert Einstein had this insight when he said:
Kindle ebook
Paperback