Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 5
The New World Reader
An Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition
April 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 5
Contents-
From the Editor: The Critique of Science
Communications:
Feature Article: The Deification of Humanity
Short Fiction:
Diagnostic Commentary: 1995 Walker Percy Symposium
Scientific Currents:
Books: Science as Salvation by Mary Midgley
___________
From the Editor: The Critique of Science
Paul R. Gross, University Professor of Life Sciences and Director of the Center for
Advanced Studies at the University of Virginia, pointed out the two main problems
that face science in his article in the February 1995 APS News entitled "Scientists
Can't Afford To Ignore the Writing on the Wall." The two main problems as
perceived by the public are "(a) communications by 'science' with the public, that
which, they remind us, pays for it all, and to which we fail to explain what we do
and why; and (b) honesty."
Who is the public? Certainly not your average TV watcher. The public which Gross
is talking about are the makers and shapers of public opinion: the politicians, the
columnists, the social "scientists," the lawyers, and the comedians.
Gross' solution for dealing with this critique is to recruit a qualified force of
individual who can answer the criticism. He describes the people who should do
the talking: "They should include, at least, getting a decent number of scientists--
notable, *working* scientists--to stop what they're doing and become synthesizers,
writers, arguers with lawyers and politicians, competents in discourse of policy, the
humanities, and the social sciences, *as well as* in science."
The important idea here is not writing and arguing but synthesis. Science needs
people capable of bringing ideas together. As John Locke so astutely pointed out,
real genius is not seeing that this or that is true, but seeing the connection between
the two. If science does not make room for those with the talent for synthesis, then
the critique will go unanswered and the future could be dim for science. Gross's
warning should be heard and considered seriously. Science has enjoyed a privileged
position for a long time now. Perhaps a synthesis of important ideas in science and
the humanities will deliver science from this critique by finding a more realistic
position for science to occupy. Perhaps it is the wild hubris of science, the pretence
to authority, which endangers it most. When science sets itself up as the savior of
mankind, it is setting itself up for a dangerous fall. This is the topic of consideration
for this issue, below Jack Lang has a discussion of "The Deification of Humanity"
which takes on this problem science setting itself up to answer all of humanities
great questions.
I have a few announcements to make concerning NWR. Those of you who have
been reading this humble electronic journal since last November have seen it go
through some changes. At our editorial meetings, we have joked that our mission
seems to be changing with each issue. The mission certainly has changed
completely from NWR's original conception back in 1992. Last month, when we
joined together with The Diagnostic Society we changed our subtitle to "An
Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition." Even though
we tend to discuss science a great deal and aim much of the content of NWR to the
scientific community, we mean for this to be a publication devoted to stimulating
discussion about humanity. Science is one aspect of humanity; it is an activity
humans engage in. As I was talking with Thomas Newland, he pointed out that
Walker Percy once asked the question: "Who is watching the scientists?" Isn't it
amazing that we humans do science? Why is that? I have never seen a
chimpanzee studying the universe! Perhaps NWR as it struggles for identity can
find it in looking at this phenomenon of humanity and trying to understand what
we humans are up to. This leaves our mission wide open and provides room for a
great deal of interpretation. So if you have some thoughts on the subject of humans
and their activities, please share them with us.
The next announcement is of a practical nature. Our publisher, Donavan Hall, who
is our ticket onto the Internet, is working on setting up a World Wide Web
connection for NWR, so soon you will be able to access NWR in a hypertextual
format. The first couple of issues have been prepared and are available at
http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/NWR/nwr_index.html. This WWW server is "part
time" in the sense that it is not always running due to the fact that when it is being
used as a data taking device the HTTP software is disabled. So if you try to make a
connection and fail, just try again later. Also, if you would like to receive a
hypertextual version of NWR via e-mail, let us know. The hypertext versions will
be tested on Mosaic 2.0.0 Beta 3. We know that Web browsers such as MacWeb 1.0
will not be able to read the files properly as it doesn't support the latest version of
HTML.
We hope you enjoy this month's NWR and we would love to hear from you.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
\\\Send your comments to NWR at NEWORLDR@aol.com.///
__________
The Deification of Humanity
By JACK LANG
Science, the God-Maker
"How science has made a god of humanity" could be another title of this
short essay. The idea that man has sought to become like God or to posses the
power of a god is not new--history is replete with world-historic figures who have
stepped forward to claim ultimate power for themselves. A seemingly benign
manifestation of the wish to be a god is egocentrism. Take this to the extreme and
you have solipsism. If you were the only conscious being in the universe, then
wouldn't you be God? How do we know of the consciousness of others? The Self
has a view on the universe which no one else can share. It sees itself at the very
center of all things. Everything that happens, happens in full view of the Self.
Events that take place outside of its sensing are somehow secondary to the primary
reality which it directly knows. The Self begins to view itself as omnipotent and
omniscient. This view is vanity to all but the insane; we always have a sneaking
suspicion that others are just like we are.
Gaining control over a few nations or the bias that we are the center of
existence is not wholly satisfying. Man has developed a method by which true
deification of the Self can be accomplished; this method is science.
The shift in the role of science from the discovery of nature to the control of
nature began about three hundred years ago. The methods of science were honed,
and it was realized that the cosmos was an orderly place. Science possessed the
necessary power to predict events, and with prediction came control. With control
over nature man placed himself in the same position as God--as the arbiter of
natural events. Francis Bacon stated that knowledge is power; to know nature is to
control nature, to use it to one's own benefit. This worldview developed in the
context of Cartesian idealism. Descartes's statement "I think; therefore, I am" made
it possible for man to eliminate God from the picture entirely and to step into His
place. Descartes began his philosophy with the principle that he would doubt
everything until he found that which he could not doubt; upon that indubitable
proposition he would base his worldview. He decided that the most sure thing was
that the fact that his thinking and reasoning proved his existing. This was the anti-
Copernican revolution. The center of being was relocated from "out there" to inside
our minds. The relocation set the stage for the deification of humanity. To explore
how science accomplishes this deification, let us first consider what deification
means.
Five characteristics are commonly attributed to God: (1) immortality, (2) that
God is the creator of all things, (3) omniscience, (4) omnipresence, and (5)
omnipotence. Science promises all these to humanity. The guarantee of science is
that it will by its power deliver these gifts to man just as Prometheus delivered the
gift of fire.
We should bear in mind the problem of being a deity is that we must then
find meaning within ourselves; meaning for the god is identical to its being. We are
faced then with a difficult task: the creation of meaning.
The Pretence to Authority
Science is the most aggressive of the academic disciplines in its claim to
intellectual authority. The practitioners of science have worked hard to secure a
position of irrefutability in the world of knowledge. Scientists appeal to the
objectivity of observation. How can one argue about the way things are? The laws
of nature are points of fact that can be discovered and understood but cannot be
argued with. Thus the scientist when she is certain that she is absolutely right will
proclaim to the world her discovery and defy anyone to say that she is wrong. This
scientific authority is achieved through impartiality. The scientist pretends not to
have any personal emotional attachment to any preconceived notion of how the
universe should work. In their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John
Barrow and Frank Tipler write, "Whereas many philosophers and theologians
appear to possess an emotional attachment to their theories and ideas which
requires them to believe them, scientists regard their ideas differently." Mary
Midgley, in her Science as Salvation, asks in response to Barrow and Tipler, "Do
they then mean that scientists have no duty to take seriously the things they put
into print?" Barrow and Tipler cite "emotional attachment" to theories as a
weakness. Tipler takes detachment to its extreme when he says of his Omega Point
theory (which we will discuss later) that he is just presenting facts; he would be just
as happy as his detractors to find a legitimate experiment which would contradict
his conclusions. Tipler makes this claim with impunity knowing full well that
many generations will pass away before we are technologically advanced enough to
test his theory. Until we know otherwise, who can argue with the facts?
For at least the last five hundred years science and religion have been at odds.
The point of contention is the claim to certain knowledge and ultimate authority.
Given the vastly different subject matter of theology and science, it is not readily
detectable what the source of competition would be. If religion and science are
viewed properly with respect to their aims, this competition is meaningless. But
religion and science are both guilty of making attempts to invade each other's
intellectual territory. One of the territorial lines that seems to be in dispute is the
question of human mortality. Both theology and science aim to deliver mankind
from death--they each promise immortality.
Immortality
Religion, unlike science, claims immortality for the individual. The spirit
lives on after the body passes away. Science, not being able to comment on the
spiritual self as it evades scientific observation, denies the existence of the spirit and
ascribes immortality to the human race as a whole. The object of science then is to
equip man with the tools necessary for his collective perpetuation. If science cannot
discover a way to extend immortality to biological humans, it will content itself
with the development of mechanized humans, computers and machines will be the
logical evolutionary descendants of the human race.
In the title of his recent Scientific American article, Marvin Minsky asks,
"Will Robots Inherit the Earth?" His answer is supplied in the teaser, "Yes, as we
engineer bodies and brains using nanotechnology. We will then live longer, possess
greater wisdom and enjoy capabilities as yet unimagined." Who is the "we" of
which Minsky is speaking? He certainly is not talking about humanity since he goes
on to say that "Once delivered from the limitations of biology, we will decide the
length of our lives--with the option of immortality--and choose among other,
unimagined capabilities as well." The limitations of biology? Humanity is
biological. To eliminate biology is to dispense with life.
Tipler has worked out an elaborate theory as to how through science
humanity or even individuals will be able to enjoy immortality when the Omega
Point arrives. What is this Omega Point that keeps cropping up? The actual term
Omega Point was introduced by Teilhard de Chardin to indicate the end of time.
Such terms are useful in teleology. Tipler has adopted the term as the title of his
own theory about the end of time. He argues that we must consider the universe as
a whole whenever we make our scientific (and philosophical) inquiries into its
nature. That the universe is a spacetime object requires us not only to consider all
of space as the whole but all of time as well. This is where Tipler starts to get
creative. He speculates that human beings or their mechanized offspring will
spread throughout the entire universe and inhabit every possible nook and cranny
of all that is. Humanity will be able to stretch out its hand and grasp "the whole" of
existence. Depending on which version of the end of the universe you like, one can
then imagine that such a life form which has made it presence known everywhere
would be likely to make some attempt to avert the natural demise of the cosmos.
Since human life will be everywhere it is reasonable to think that it would have
some role to play on the cosmic scale. Tipler imagines that our descendants (billions
of generations distant) will be able to come up with a way of perpetuating the
universe. This, as Tipler attempts to demonstrate, will lead them to "resurrect"
everyone who has ever lived to inhabit this eternal place which we have made for
ourselves. We will eventually give immortality to ourselves. We are not God right
now, but someday we will be. This is Tipler's Omega Point theory and, of course, he
has equations to prove it.
Man as Creator
The anthropic principle in its strongest form places primacy on the necessity
of conscious observers in the universe. Some proponents of this principle go so far
as to say our observing of the universe today plays a profound role in forming the
universe.
According to John Wheeler, the physicist who coined the term "black hole,"
"Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of
dynamic development it gives rise to oberservership. Acts of observer-participancy -
- via the mechanism of the delayed choice experiment -- in turn give tangible
'reality' to the universe not only now but back to the beginning." Thus the
observations of a few physicists have given shape and form to the universe. We
have created ourselves in an act similar to Baron von Munchausen lifting himself
into the air by his bootstraps.
This defiance of natural causality can only be achieved when science
abandons ontological interpretations of her theories in favor of epistemological
interpretations. The most recent shift to epistemological interpretations in science
came this century when scientist began grappling with the ideas of quantum
mechanics. The work of Niels Bohr and others established the reigning
interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) as it is
called. The CI is riddled with all sort of problems and inconsistencies with our
experience. This is not because quantum mechanics is weird, but because quantum
mechanics has been interpreted in such a way as to make it appear weird.
Now let's take a look at how science delivers the remaining characteristics of
God to man.
The Four O's: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and the Omega Point
Neo-man will be mechanized. This is the consistent message that scientists
(who engage in this sort of speculation) give us. Von Neuman probes will go forth
and populate galaxies and star systems on our behalf. The penultimate point in the
development of neo-man is called by Barrow and Tipler, the Omega Point. Life,
human life, they explain "will have stored an infinite amount of information,
including all bits of information which it is logically possible to know... A modern-
day theologian might wish to say that the totality of life at the Omega Point is
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient." Is this real science or have Barrow and
Tipler watched too many reruns of Star Trek? In the course of researching this
essay, I ran across Mary Midgley's book, _Science_as_Salvation_ (reviewed below),
which puts this sort of thinking in perspective. One doesn't have to agree with
every one of Midgley's complaints to see the point of her argument--scientists who
go this far into futuristic speculation are getting into dangerous areas and arriving at
bizarre conclusions, all cloaked in an undeserved air of authority. It is this pretense
to scientific authority which makes this sort of speculation so sickening. If, as
Midgley points out, Barrow and Tipler were writing science fiction there may be
some excuse for their claims, but it is clear that they don't view their work to be
taken simply as entertainment. So what do we do with them? Are they really doing
any harm? Does the public actually pay attention to these futurists? These are
difficult questions and hard to assess quantitatively, but if Internet newsgroups are
any indication of whether these ideas are making it out into the "public," then we
can conclude these futurist ideas have a great deal of appeal. This sampling might
be skewed since those on the Internet seem to be by in large sympathetic to
technological speculation. A need for responsible scientists to come forward and
offer intelligent counter arguments to those of the futurists certainly exists.
Information versus Real Things
This Omega Point is the natural conclusion of thinking that the universe is
Information and our sole functions as humans is to be possessors of Information.
Minsky in his article talks about Wisdom, but when he refers to mental powers he
discusses the human capacity for memorization. Midgley says that information
gathering is not an end in itself, it is to be used for something. Gaining an education
does not aim at simple information consumption; an education is learning how to
think for ourselves. This was one of the goals of the Enlightenment, to be self-
sufficient thinkers. The modern descendants of the Enlightenment have gotten the
message garbled and profess that the fulfillment of life is full conversion into
information acquisitors. Science teaches the collection of data is the goal and in turn
teaches students to simply acquire the data without trying to understand it. The
problem with understanding is that it is subjective. Not everyone understands in
the same way. No one can understand something for you. Inasmuch as science
seeks to be objective, then understanding is outside of science. What is to be
understood about a collection of facts? To be human is to respond and ask the
question: How do I live my life in light of these facts?
Re-entry into the Real World: The Advantages of an Ontological Interpretation
We have taken an excursion into the realm of epistemological thinking and
seen the sort of problems that arise when the observer is placed in the position of
being the judge of all that is. All these problems are cured with a proper ontological
interpretation of physical reality. In an ontological interpretation man takes his
proper place in the order of things--not outside of the order to breathe being into it
by knowing.
Humanity cannot be made into a god, nor can individuals be deified without
adopting a faulty metaphysics. When man finds himself back in the order of things,
then he can begin again to search for meaning with a new hope that he will find it
in the reality that exists outside and apart from his own existing.
__________
Short Fiction
\\\Send your fiction to NWR at NEWORLDR@aol.com.///
__________
Diagnostic Commentary: 1995 Walker Percy Symposium
by Thomas Newland
In the small town of Covington, LA home of one of America's greatest novelists
and semioticians, a group of about a hundred friends and admirers gathered in the
rustic Masonic Hall to honor the memory of Walker Percy and celebrate his "knack"
for writing. This year's symposium is the fourth annual gathering of Percy fans and
scholars. The event began two years after the author's death and is organized by the
Public Library of St. Tammany Parish.
This year's symposium featured Dr. Edward Dupuy, a recent graduate of LSU and
Director of Communications at St. Joseph Abbey, who spoke on "The Enduring
Percy Legacy." Other presentations were made by Brady Fitzsimmons, a poet and
Judge; Suzanne Parson did an interpretive reading of a selection from _The
Moviegoer_; Fr. Patrick Samway, Percy's official biographer, spoke on a period
during Percy's medical training during which Percy received psychiatric counseling.
Fr. Samway's presentation will form part of the upcoming biography of Percy which
should soon be published. The most exciting presentation of the day was given by
Henry P. Mills, a Percy scholar currently working on a book entitled
_Worldviews_in_Revolution_, who has established in cooperation with the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill a World Wide Web site which is
devoted to providing information about Walker Percy to the Internet community.
Mills has many plans for the Walker Percy Internet Project which you can read
about on the WWW at http://sunsite.unc.edu/wpercy/.
As I talked with Patrick Samway during the reception which followed the
symposium our conversation strayed to a topic that might be of general interest: that
of observership in novels. Invoking the popular metaphor from quantum theory
that we live in a participatory universe, Samway described a reader's approach to
and experience of a novel as being shaped by the existential situation he finds
himself in while reading. He went on to say that critics never take this into account
when they review a book. Each reading of the book is a different experience.
If I may be allowed to use Samway's comments as a springboard to launch us into a
specific direction, let's ask the questions, "What is a novel and how is it like a
quantum object?" A novel before it is read is a potentiality, a space/time event
waiting to happen and residing in some indeterminate state. The reader must pick
up the book and read it, measure it. In this act the reader determines content of the
novel by fusing the collage of images contained therein with his own gestalt. The
reader's experience of the action can differ greatly from those of the author. What
the reader gets out of the novel is dependent on his interpretation which is
ultimately based on his own experiences. As the reader's experiences change,
successive readings of the novel may produce different impressions; in physical
terms a series of measurements could produce a distribution of results.
Viewing a novel as a participatory event can also give us some insight into how to
view the universe properly. Even though our experience of the universe is largely
participatory in that our experiences shape our present and in some complex way
form our future, we cannot conclude from this that our act of participation is the
creative act which brings the universe into being. The universe still stands outside
of us as an objective reality like the events contained in a novel. We do not create
the universe anymore than the reader writes the book in his act of reading.
__________
Scientific Currents
__________
Books
Science as Salvation: a Modern Myth and its Meaning
by Mary Midgley
Routledge, 1992
ISBN 0-415-06271-3
It is becoming somewhat fashionable for scientists to write books about the future.
The popularity of the anthropic cosmological principle has given license to science
to engage in something that heretofore has been looked down upon--wild,
unfounded speculation. Mary Midgley, a moral philosopher, takes on this cottage
industry of scientific fortune tellers and their army of crystal balls and exposes the
fallacies in the Omega Point theories of John Barrow and Frank Tipler, the
inconsistencies in Freeman Dyson's futuristic mythology, and the misdirections of
many other attempts in the history of science to invade the intellectual territory of
religion to provide humanity with meaning for its existence.
Some parts of the book seem to stray into some of the author's pet areas, such as a
seemingly feminist attack on the male violence of science. Even though one might
get a strange feeling that Midgley is trying to tear down the venerable edifice of
science in these passages, that's not really what she is doing. She has a deep respect
for science--science done properly and directed to some useful end. She makes a
plea to science to put is house back in order and concentrate on real problems like
preserving our ecosystem rather than fantasizing about the end of the universe and
how we humans are going to colonize the galaxy.
Midgely has an important point to make with respect to the Bernal's, the Haldane's,
and the Tipler's of science, but how much of a problem is this that she has
identified? The future fantasists are an extreme minority in science and for the
most part of looked down upon by their contemporaries. Most of these scientists
have been encouraged by the apparent blessing of Enrico Fermi and Paul Dirac.
These early father's of physics were justified in speculating about life in the universe
and the future of the cosmos, but their off-spring have gone too far. Despite the fact
that Tipler and Dyson are clearly a minority in science, they are certainly more in
the public eye then your run of the mill scientist who is working on trying to save
the ecosystem from destruction. The fantastic ideas which sell books and capture
the imaginations of nerdy teenagers must be dealt with and put in their proper
place. These scientists may mean well, but their ideas stand in the way of people
discovering true meaning in their lives. Midgely desperately wants science to stop
the insanity and return to productive thinking and problem solving. Leave the
moralizing to the philosophers and theologians.
__________
NEXT ISSUE:
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to SubNWR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR are
available via FTP at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory
/pub/Zines/NewWorldReader.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays
should be 1000 words or less; book reviews and letters 500. Short stories up to 5000
words in length will be considered.
Donavan Hall, Publisher
Danford A. Hall, Senior Editor
Trevor Austin, Editor
Jack Lang, Managing Editor
Adam Fisher, Religion Editor
Red Drake, Subscription Coordinator
Denise Hall, Editorial Assistant
copyright, 1995 FMI Publishing
