Cosmos Episode 3: Dr. Tyson's Knowledge Fails to Conquer His Fear

Episode 3 of Cosmos, like previous ones, is rife with sarcasm—most directed toward religious views of course. This iteration is filled with the usual presuppositions about God: how a cosmic designer should have created the universe, and how its constituents would appear if the universe were designed. Neil implies that if a divine being existed, He would have made the universe by doing thus and such; and, because we don’t observe that—whatever that is—we should not infer design when looking at the universe. God should have utilized dissimilar components, instead of making use of the same basic building blocks over and over; things like quarks, atoms, DNA, etc. I suppose Tyson’s would have the deigner thrown away the mold each time he made a novel creature; the modern equivalent to an automaker's reinventing the wheel with each new model.

Dr. Tyson’s insinuation—it turns out to be a major strawman—goes something like this: God would have made the universe just large enough for man to exist in. We would not observe this enormous, incredibly wasteful, and potentially infinite universe, replete with uninhabitable planets in a realm of ever-expanding dimensions. In other words, if a hypothetical creator acted differently than Tyson thinks he should have, it follows—at least for Dr. Tyson—God does not exist. This very odd conclusion is doubly strange in light of the fact that theologians—Christians in particular—have always posited an immense God, unbounded by space and time, who transcends the very universe he created. The God of traditional theism is really, really, big! Why this inestimably powerful designer should have chosen to create a miniscule universe—one in which every facet is readily discovered and easily quantified--as Tyson seems to suggest, is beyond me. This characterization seems antithetical to the very notion of God.

Nearly seven minutes into the third episode, and after several peculiar statements like the following, Neil ultimately begins his speech on some positive aspects of scientific inquiry. “During the 40 thousand generations of humanity…the best we could do was look up in helpless wonder; prisoners of earth with nowhere to turn…beyond our guilt and our fears.” Until…a permanent revolution in human thought…Newton and Halley…their collaboration…ultimately set us free from our long confinement of this tiny world.” Of course, this oversimplification has nothing to say of the continued wonder with which most of us still view the universe and all its marvelous sights, like the comets of which he speaks. It's as if Neil thinks we should be able to constrain these fiery beasts, simply by virtue of knowing what materials they consist of. Knowledge may indeed conquer fear; it may not, however, conquer the implacable physical laws of our universe. 

According to Dr. Tyson, creatures evolved over eons of time, and over innumerable generations, to recognize patterns. Sometimes their pattern recognition goes too far, causing them to see designs where none exist. We see patterns in the sky, and at the cellular level, as well as in the rainbow, on the zebra, and on the butterfly. We indeed create in our mind patterning that isn't really there. Sometimes, Dr. Tyson continues, we erroneously visualize pools of water in the desert, or the Virgin Mary in a soufflé. This ability—or disability in these cases—caused our predecessors, looking up at the stars, to find shapes, and figures, and eventually, gods. Science is able to describe exactly what causes these appearances—both real and invalid—and, it provides a rational basis for why people generally see them. Therefore, designs—and hence gods—in the universe are illusory, not real. Neither we nor the universe are designed. Neil's conclusion is rather simplistic; and, it is based on fallacious reasoning.

Just before the three minute mark—in true Dawkins like fashion—Neil  further elucidates his suggestion that religious peoples were (and are) foolish to believe in what he deems superstitions. What he doesn't seem to grasp, however, is that his methodology invalidates all erroneous thinking, not just religious points of view; and, that means the thinking of Charles Darwin (and others) who thought the fossil record would vindicate his theory; that soon the record would prove replete with transitional species.  Neil also fails to account for the fact that he, too, is necessarily ignorant, when compared to future generations, who will likely have programs of their own undoubtedly depicting our generation's errors. The professor should understand that his basis does not at all cast doubt on religious beliefs, any more than it renders dubious current scientific theories. Neil’s reasoning here provides us with a classic example of what philosophers call "the genetic fallacy."

Not quite four minutes into the program, and Dr. Tyson’s ship of the imagination lurches into hyper drive as he elucidates thus: “Every ancient human culture made the same mistake. A comet must be a message sent by the gods or one particular god…ancestors concluded that the news was not good.” No matter the culture within which one is raised, “We’re all too eager to deceive ourselves…” according to the professor. Of course it is quite easy to look at past cultures and criticize their beliefs from the present. This does not mean, however, that all their beliefs were false, or that scientific ideas were better. Truth is we apprehend knowledge of most subjects gradually and incrementally; and, no single discipline—whether science, or philosophy, or theism—has all the answers. What if we have yet a long, long, way to go in our understanding of the cosmos? What if the next generation of cosmologists tells us that our current modes of inquiry are completely wrongheaded? Or, that our best theories are nonsense? Such is the nature of acquiring knowledge in any field of inquiry.

Suppose I can tell you exactly how a diamond is formed, or how a Ferrari is built, or the precise relevant parameters involved during a Super Bowl winning touchdown pass and catch? Are any of these depreciated because I can elucidate them? Of course not. Knowledge about the particulars of a phenomenon is simply irrelevant to whether or not it is designed, or whether it is the product of intelligence. Think of a robotic arm in an automobile factory, or a conveyor belt used to transfer parts. Even these seemingly mundane transporters—we can easily understand them—are designed for a particular purpose. They truly are the products of intelligence. Though the conveyor mobilizes parts in a seemingly innocuous fashion, it is finely crafted with specific (production) goals in mind. Perhaps, DNA and RNA are of this sort—not that these are simple mechanisms.

Dr. Tyson’s charge that ignorant people once thought gods directly and continuously engaged heavenly bodies—moving stars, comets, and planets about—and, his subsequent declaration that we have discarded these false impressions because of scientific incursions, carries no weight. The fact that we know more about the universe in no way implies God’s nonexistence. I would say that the assertion is indeed a non sequitur? We could find numerous examples in science of similar gaffes, to which we could appeal, in order to invalidate the scientific method on the same grounds. If this is the measure by which to judge the veracity of a methodology, Dr. Tyson undercuts his own warrant for trusting the scientific method, so called. To give an example, the prevailing view of scientists—and of most everyone else—before Redi and Pastuer was that spontaneous generation was natural and occurred with regularity. Flies, it was thought, miraculously appeared on rotting meat after it had been stored in containers. Of course it was later discovered that flies lay tiny, nearly microscopic, eggs that hatch and produce more flies. Would anyone consider abandoning the scientific method because we now have a better explanation of this phenomenon?

Finally, at the 29:00 mark, Neil doesn't disappoint with this dubious doozy, “His law swept away the need for a master clock-maker, to explain the beauty and precision of the solar system.” Huh? What did he say? This strikingly odd proclamation—one that has absolutely zero relevance to the question of whether or not the “clock” was designed—leaves us with somewhat of a mystery as to the point the professor is making. Even if we could discover every law (so called) of nature, the laws themselves could yet require a designer. This is exactly the line of reasoning most theists use today, in fact; just as they did in Newton’s time. So, it is just false that we need jettison every vestige of belief in a Designer to better understand the intricacies of the universe. This is quite evident when one considers the fact that science—big bang cosmogony in particular—is quite confirmatory of theism. By the way, Dr. Tyson employs a similar line of reasoning to ameliorate theistic implications of perceived fine tuning, elsewhere.

Neither clock, nor bicycle, nor anything else, ceases to be designed merely because we can describe any, or even all, of its components. According to Dr. Tyson, “Gravity is the clockmaker.” Yes, in the same way internal combustion is the mechanism for acceleration in a Ferrari. Of course, this tells us nothing of the origin of the exotic masterpiece. In reality, gravity is a single constituent—one that presupposes relationships at that—of the grand machine we call our universe. Describing a law does not bring it into existence, by the way. Dr. Tyson seems to be arguing, here, that because I understand how a Ferrari’s engine develops horsepower, it is, therefore, not designed. Come on Neil. You can do better than this.

“Matter obeyed commandments we can discover; laws the Bible hadn't mentioned.” Perhaps Seth McFarland is doing the script-writing for this module; but, someone needs a new editor. In case you are wondering, there are many things the Bible doesn't mention. The Bible, for certain, speaks nothing of House Resolution 499 (On marijuana usage). If the Good Book were held to Neil’s queer standard—to explicate the laws of gravity etc.—it would still be under construction. Perhaps the kind Dr. should expound a bit on what should and should not be included in the Bible. For now, I’ll leave with you this exoneration from St. John’s gospel, chapter 21, verse 25: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose...even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”