It's interesting, but recently I've noticed when
engaged in discussions of magical thinking (faith), the more intellectual
masters of credulity tend to pull what I like to call the "quantum
card." Quantum psychics might be a sexy and somewhat intellectually
stimulating conversational topic, but I don't see it as anything more than an
irrelevant distraction, feebly utilized as an attempt to give unverifiable
beliefs more credibility: by trying to make inherently magical
assumptions sound more "science-y" (as if the average person on the
internet could ever fully grasp something that most esteemed scientists
continue to have difficulty fully understanding). For me, quantum
discussions (or discussions regarding higher powers) are merely abstract,
mental speculations that accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of addressing
the deeper issues of humanity, such as how to alleviate needless human
suffering or to deepen compassion and understanding of one another, and make
meaningful connections. If I really wanted to have existential
discussions, I’d grab a bong, or drop acid and head for the nearest college
dorm room (no thanks).
Science is by no means perfect (and I don't think anyone
is saying it is) but it's the closest we can get in our quest for truth. Scientists
have biases and beliefs (like every human), but science has an inherent
self-correcting mechanism that adjusts its views based on what's observed
(biased studies inevitably get tested and retested by follow up studies that
correct any flaws in the original study design). Faith on the other hand, is
generally a belief which is held without verifiable evidence, or quite often,
the preservation of a belief through the denial of observation (the "word
of God" is generally seen as more convincing than contradictory evidence
because "he" works in mysterious ways that mere humans couldn't
possibly comprehend - which to me seems to be a relatively arrogant and self-preserving view that lacks inherent awareness of its own hubris). There's are major difference between how informed belief and blind
credulity approach the "truth." To me, the answers from Bill Nye (the Science Guy)'s
recent, ill-informed "debate" with Creationist, Ken Ham sum it up
best:
Question: "What would make you believe the others
premise?"
Ken: "Nothing."
Bill: "Evidence."
To me, that's the main difference
between the glorification of voluntary ignorance (pure belief without evidence)
and a scientific understanding based on empirically validated evidence. With
that said, I don’t think any good scientist denies that they maintain
the own set of subjective values judgments or beliefs when approaching a
problem. This is why we have controls built into the scientific method, and
hypothesis are continually tested and retested. But belief should never be mistaken for faith.
I can have a belief, such as the fact that the earth is currently heating at an
alarming and unsustainable rate. This is based on concrete, empirically
validated evidence and is a hypothesis shared by roughly 97% of the planets
scientists. My “faith” in the conclusion (if you wish to call it that) is based
on verifiable evidence. Religious faith on the other hand, is a belief often
based on dogma or doctrine (unsubstantiated hypothesis). Such doctrine often
states something to the effect that humanity’s values/morals were endowed to
humans by a supernatural deity, and without such a deity, humans could not tell
right from wrong. I completely reject this hypothesis. Values are not
intrinsically faith-based. Multiple disciplines of science have shown that they
arose directly from a basic understanding of cause and effect and were shaped
by millions of years of evolutionary pressures.
Without understanding, we can not have compassion. Values come from understanding the suffering
of another, not faith of any sort.
Complexity theory states
that evolution (from the atomic level, to humanity, and outward into the
Universe) is shaped much more by cooperation than it is by conflict. Many
religions may claim one must have faith to have values/morals, but these human
qualities have been shown to predate the dawning of the planets major religions.
Evolutionary science has
shown that our species social reactions were developed long before we developed
a complex brain able to process any concept of faith. Animals do not require
faith to respond to others in meaningful way. It is a product of their evolutionary
history. There is ample evidence of primate fossils, for example, which appear
to have survived well into adulthood with physical deformities, which should
have killed them, suggesting their fellow primates had compassion and valued
life enough to care for them. We are
merely another animal inhabiting this planet, sharing a common ancestor, which
we’ve inherited our compassion from.
I think the question “what
is the meaning of life” is an erroneous and disingenuous one that completely
misses the point. Humans ask questions like that, when animals already know the
answer. As you said, the Universe does not care. Evolutionarily, the meaning is
“to live and pass on your genes to the next generation.” That’s it. Everything
else is merely icing on the cake. Neil DeGrass Tyson’s explanation of the
meaning of life is based on the fact that humans have evolved to “make”
meaning, which initially enabled us to survive. Many animals have the ability
to make meaning out of pure coincidence as well (see B. F. Skinner’s
“superstitious pigeons”). I don’t see that as faith. It’s simply one animal out
of millions that has been wired to respond to its environment to enhance
survival. Without compassion, our species would have never survived.
Let me sum it up with an
example. A person sees an unrelated, helpless child being physically abused by
an adult. For most people, the injustice is immediately apparent (understood),
felt by the body, compassion naturally arises, and there is an overwhelming
desire to move to end the child’s suffering (no divine intervention required).
The same can be applied to animals, as one sees a helpless puppy being kicked
by an angry human. The belief that humans are more valuable than animals is
based primarily on ignorance (i.e.: lack of understanding of the suffering of
animals). One does not need for a religious faith to value life (human or
otherwise). We could not have evolved as
a species without our capacity to feel another’s pain. This is where our values
intrinsically stem from, not any sort of faith. Faith can guide humans to
values, but it is not where they stem from. Compassion arises naturally within
our species (and animals when you take away environmental/survival pressures).
The only requirement for compassion is understanding (which is consequently the
primary goal of science as well, but I digress).
