Humanists4Science: Can science answer 'what is the meaning of life? "On Being" by Peter Atkins

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Can science answer 'what is the meaning of life? "On Being" by Peter Atkins

source: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/03/peter-atkins-vs-mary-midgley-on-
whether.html

In this 6 minute interview on Today, John Humphrys talks with Mary Midgley to Peter Atkins about his new book 'On Being' (still available May 2014). Its the best 6 minutes Radio 4 I've heard for some time! The discussion includes: the origin of the universe, why philosophy is dead, the scientific method, myths, truth .... & reliable wonder!

But Peter Atkins misses the chance to point out a humanist meme: Whilst the universe has no purpose, we, within it, can decide our own meaning & purpose to life (not relying on a holy book to tell us). Peter Atkins needs to brush up on his Humanism (he is a BHA Distinguished Supporter)

How about this for a strapline for Humanists4Science? 'Is there nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate?'

Reference: Atkins, P., On Being, 2011, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 104 (available from Amazon.co.uk):-

'My own faith, my scientific faith, is that there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate'

Oxford scientist Prof Peter Atkins and philosopher Mary Midgley discuss whether there is anything more than facts, facts and more facts.

my synopsis of interview by John Humphrys, Today.
All quotes from Peter Atkins, except where indicated. My additions in [ ].

philosophers have tried for millennia, to answer the great questions e.g. where did we come from?, why are we here?. Should philosophers bother ... just leave it to the scientists who deal in facts? That's the argument of Peter Atkins book 'On Being'. (JH)
3 ways of getting knowledge about the world:

1. refer to holy books [religion]

2. think about what it should be [philosophy]

3. go out and see what it's like [science] - favoured by Peter Atkins - that's what science is all about

Myths that emphasise the importance of these great questions [religion], have given way to truth [revealed by science]
Myths such as? (JH)
myths about afterlife and creation of universe have given way (but not completely) to scientific investigation, not completely but as an optimist, shows the way to the future understanding of the world
As a scientist can you answer: 'why are we here?' (JH)

Yes I could. It's just by accident! We just tumbled into being, the universe somehow came into existence. We don't know that, but its not outside the reach of science to consider the grand question: what is the origin of the universe? Science in due course will come up with verifiable theories about how universe came into being .... it was inevitable that we and our brains would tumble into existence [evolution by natural selection]

this is not a scientific view - a philosophical view - not science! (MM)
imperialistic view (MM)

can physical science give us knowledge about everything eg 'history'? No! (MM)

for a logical or maths question - ask a scientist (MM)
most of the questions we ask are about the working of human life not about physical detail (MM)

philosophical obfustification!
science goes out to answer the really deep questions about existence
whereas a philosopher, typically a pessimist, is like a traffic warden...

Are you an optimist, as a scientist, with all the dire warnings about how the world & universe could end? (JH)
We can have fun before the world expires! Part of the fun is understanding the nature of the world, how it works, how it came into existence!
the really deep questions that philosophers try to answer is 'the meaning of human life' and putting together the elements of the human life so they make sense. These are more important than the causal nature of the universe. (MM)
science identifies the really deep questions of existence, philosophers typically are pessimists (like traffic wardens), philosophers obfuscate, philosophers verge on edge of being theologians!
Science identifies deep questions
there is no meaning of human life (PA) 4m40s
Philosophers focus on the non-questions like the meaning of life. What is the meaning of human life? This is a philosophical non-question! There is no meaning to life!
And you're an optimist? What a bleak assessment! (JH)
Yes, being bleak is part of the pleasure of being alive!
MM get us out of that one! (JH)
This talk about accident is rubbish! You can talk about a car accident but we can't talk about the whole thing being an accident, it's unintelligible. (MM)
it is much more understandable that the universe is an accident, the universe fell into existence somehow, rather than, for example, there being a creator who somehow nudged it into existence.
But you said "I think, not I can prove". Surely science should say more? (JH)

science does not rush into explanations, it edges towards answers in a very self confident authoritative way
humanity should be deeply proud that it stumbled upon a way [the scientific method] of discovering the truth about the universe

Mary Midgley, in less than 30 seconds tell us why we are here! (JH)

this is a big question but.. (MM)
physical science answers small questions (MM)

a tiny part of the view of the worldview (MM)

science adds wonder to the world

... that was there before (MM)
science adds reliable wonder!

1 comment:

Averageprotestant@gmail.com said...: Preserve us from the loud-mouthed learned ignorance of the likes of Professor Atkins.
He clearly does not take seriously the things he says ("life is meaningless", etc.). There is clearly nothing which inspires wonder in him, except perhaps his own feeling of omniscience.; 23 February 2014 at 09:05

About Humanists4Science (Hum4Sci)

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society."

H4S Vision "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

H4S is for humanists with an active interest in science. We believe that science is a fundamental part of humanism but also that it should be directed to humane and ethical ends. Science is, in our view, more a method than a body of facts.

H4S take a naturalistic view and believe, like 62% of the UK population, that science, the scientific method & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe.

H4S are a Special Interest Group of the British Humanist Association (BHA).

Since 2008 H4S members have discussed many Humanist-Science topics in our Yahoo Group.

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili - 11TH BHA President - On Scientific Method

'I have a rational unshakeable conviction that our universe is understandable, that mysteries are only mysteries because we have yet to figure out, the almost always logical answers. For me there is simply no room, no need, for a supernatural divine being to fill in the gaps in our understanding. We’ll get there, we’ll fill in those gaps with objective scientific truths: [with] answers that aren't subjective, because of cultural or historical whims or personal biases, but because of empirically testable and reproducible truths. We may not get the full picture, we may never get the full picture, but science allows us to get ever closer.’ Jim Al-Khalili, BHA AGM 2013

"A lot of people say science is just one way of looking at the world, at reality, and poets and musicians and, of course, people of faith, have said there are other ways. I don't buy that. For me there is an objective reality that is there and real. For a theoretical physicist who's trained in thinking about quantum mechanics, which involves the idea that by observing something you alter its nature, you have to have some sort of working definitions of reality"
Jim Al-Khalili in New Humanist magazine Mar Apr 2013

Lord Taverne

Science depends on reason and regard for evidence. For me, the scientific approach lies at the heart of humanism as well as atheism. We all accept that science has made us healthier and wealthier. What has been seldom acknowledged or realised is that since the Enlightenment, which it helped to bring about, science has played an essential part in making us more civilised.

Science is the enemy of autocracy because it replaces claims to truth based on authority with those based on evidence and because it depends on the criticism of established ideas. Scientific knowledge is the enemy of dogma and ideologies and makes us more tolerant because it is tentative and provisional and does not deal in certainties. It is the most effective way of learning about the physical world and therefore erodes superstition, ignorance and prejudice, which have been causes of the denial of human rights throughout history. Science is also the enemy of narrow nationalism and tribalism and, like the arts, is one of the activities in this world that is not motivated by greed.

What can compare, for example, with the recent achievement of the Large Hadron Collider, a venture of collaboration by 10,000 scientists and engineers from 113 countries, free from bureaucratic and political interference? Those people put aside all national, political, religious and cultural differences in pursuit of truth and for the one purpose of exploring and understanding the natural world.

Without the contribution of science, which is, in my view, the rock on which atheism and humanism are built, we would be less inclined to be critical, tolerant and understanding and more prone to prejudice, bigotry and tribalism. We would be a less civilised society.

Lord Taverne, 25th July 2013, House of Lords debate on contribution of Humanism and Atheism

Pages

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Can science answer 'what is the meaning of life? "On Being" by Peter Atkins

1 comment: