Recently (in fact, right after I cashed my first paycheck here at Umass), I walked into a book store and found of copy of John Brockman’s “What We Believe but Cannot Prove”. For those of you who dont know, John Brockman is not a writer, but rather an editor who focuses a lot on the “Third Culture” (his term). The third culture refers to the scientists in the world who are taking the forefront of public interest by publishing their ideas in ways that are accessible to most people (popSci books). He runs this site, edge.org, which always has a bunch of articles related to science, mathematics, or the culture surrounding the two. As part of the edge’s activities, every year he poses a question for which he collects responses from leading thinkers in a lot of fields and publishes their responses in a book. Before this one I just got, I had purchased “What is Your Dangerous Idea”, which turned out to be pretty good. The responses to these questions range from half of a page to about three pages, with most responses being a page and a half. Obviously, these works aren’t intended to give you any real scientific thought, but they leave you with some cool things to think about.
While reading “What We Believe but Cannot Prove”, I noticed that many authors chose to write about the afterlife (or rather the lack thereof). Now, I suppose this is the ultimate example of something that we believe but cannot prove, but I was very discontented by these responses. First of all, the response is a cop-out from writing something more interesting and intellectual. Secondly, many of the responses went on to implicitly, if not explicitly, insult those who believe in a higher power or an afterlife. It almost seems that the authors would welcome a continuation of the schism that rests between “persons of reason” and “persons of faith” (quotations meant to emphasize the fact that I find both of these terms to be an unfortunate use of language). I believe that the world would be a better place if everyone valued the scientific method and the knowledge derived from it. Certainly our nation would be better off if we had more people pursuing science as a career. However, those in the scientific community who help drive the wedge between the two existing cultures do nothing but hurt that goal. By publishing books with titles such as “The God Delusion” and telling people they are stupid for believing in a god will never get us anywhere. In fact, I understand the need for a god in people’s lives. I understand the fact that people want to believe in the afterlife and want to believe that humanity is not just some chance happening. Its really not that unreasonable (of course, there are those in religion that take it too far, but I am talking about faith not religion). People who hold faith as their #1 belief are going to be reluctant to join a community full of people who will consider them inherently stupid for their belief.
What I believe, but cannot prove is that those in science who feel that they must ridicule a belief in a higher power are only following a crude and primitive human desire for conflict. Furthermore, I believe they are necessarily stupid in some ways for viciously fighting over something that is inherently unknowable. But perhaps they need that. To quote John Lennon, “whatever gets you through the night, it’s alright.”