Neil Degrasse Tyson, near the two minute mark of the first episode in the revitalized series, Cosmos, blithely admonishes viewers to question everything. Of course, questioning everything isn't really what the good professor and astrophysicist has in mind. What Tyson really means to say is, I think, question religion; not the scientific method. Though—I agree with him on this point—we shouldn't take everything we are taught as gospel, necessarily, there is an inherent danger in subjecting every aspect of reality to rigorous experimentation like that found in the physical sciences. Especially when science cannot even in principle explain these things.
Let’s, for the moment, turn the tables on this somewhat ironic imperative given us by the current Hayden Planetarium Director. What exactly are we supposed to question; and, what is off limits to questioning? At the 32:00 mark of Cosmos, Episode 1, Dr. Tyson, tells us that we don’t know where life came from; but, for all we know, it began in some far away galaxy, and was delivered to earth by some intelligence—a tip to Directed Panspermia. Where life originated, in Neil’s case, is a philosophical issue that appears to be off limits to questioning, for now. If we ponder long enough about life’s ultimate origin, we realize that this question is not really a scientific one anyway; not in the sense Tyson wants us to believe. Nevertheless, we dare not introduce some Creator hypothesis, lest we be accused of God of the gaps reasoning.
Think about this admission in light of the confidence and fervor with which Tyson and other scientists—not to mention laypersons—promote their naturalistic agenda, while ridiculing anyone who dares to make mention of God, or even hints that life may have originated via intelligent design. It is especially ironic, considering the fact that Directed Panspermia—Neil’s ostensible starting point—would entail some sort of intelligent deliverer, if not intelligent designer. That Dr. Tyson’s position is based on his tremendous faith in numerous underlying assumptions seems to get lost in the shuffle; quite a surprise considering the degree of conviction he has toward them would make the average Sunday churchgoer marvel in humiliation.
Later, around 15:00 of the episode, Tyson appeals to the idea of a multi-verse, or meta-verse, suggesting that humans are accidental byproducts of the cosmos. Shortly afterwards, he tells us—paradoxically—to rejoice over the fact that we are highly insignificant. Now before I critique the many worlds hypothesis in its various forms, I will tell you that I believe a multi-verse will eventually be discovered—or rather demonstrated. Even so, such a finding would hardly affect my theistic approach, except to perhaps further reinforce the awe and wonder with which I view the Creator’s glory and might. Why wouldn't it? After all, isn't a God who creates many worlds exhibiting far greater power than one who only creates a single universe?
The multi-verse, and just about anything else for that matter, can be demonstrated mathematically. It is in fact conceivable that God—or at least some characterization of Him—could be demonstrated in this fashion. Mathematical calculations, however, merely describe incidents or entities; they don’t bring these phenomena into existence. Numbers, because they have no causal connection to real events within or without calculations, are said to be causally effete. Therefore, any multi-verse hypothesis is reducible to a mathematical construct of metaphysical assumptions; one that is on par with the idea of Creator of the universe.
If the mathematics of a particular hypothesis are instantiated it is an incidental correlation to reality. Neither the formula nor calculation actualizes that reality. On the contrary, the description will either represent something that has ontological status; or, it will represent a concept. A concept, however, cannot be reified by the accompanying mathematical description. As such the multi-verse, or meta-verse, to which Tyson is referring, is, in principle, undetectable, un-measureable, un-falsifiable. These facts place the hypotheses outside the purview of the scientific method (so called), alongside the God hypothesis. Multi-verses are therefore subject to the same criticisms levied by scientists toward the latter.
Obviously, a “many worlds” hypothesis carries with it a great number of philosophical implications—more so for the physicist than for the theist. The theist can continue merrily on his way, upon considering whether or not an all-powerful God decided to create multiple universes, or a single space-time continuum. Cosmologists, like Neil Degrasse Tyson, however, depend on the multi-verse hypothesis, not only to counter fine-tuning arguments, but to avert theistic implications of an absolute beginning of the universe at t = 0: The Big Bang.
In summary, it is quite clear that cosmologists—and indeed all scientists—rely on underlying, and sometimes un-falsifiable assumptions, just as they accuse theists of doing. I would like, also, to point out the fact that although Dr. Tyson calls himself an agnostic, he tends to be rather dismissive of theistic arguments, generally exhibiting a derisive tone. My purpose here is not an indictment of the good physicist’s character; but, I must point out the obvious: Tyson needn't impugn theists in order to promote his stance on the scientific method. Thinking Christians are, in fact, some of science's greatest advocates. When Neil admonishes theists as know-it-alls, his tenor, ironically, exemplifies the very thing he rails against: arrogance. So, on subject of his integrity, I’ll employ the aforementioned advice, and question it.
No comments:
Post a Comment