"Though we may not be [philosophers]," said Vroomfondel, waving a warning finger at the programmers.
"Yes, we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is, mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. You want to check your legal position, you do, mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job, aren't we? I mean, what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
"That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Let me tell you that this is a battle that I fight all the time in the college classroom. Teaching research in a writing class, I am constantly butting up against the notion that computers can provide all the answers. Nowadays, people don't seem to question information that they find via Google. I actually had a student say to me once (only half-jokingly), "If it's on Google, it has to be true."
I don't think that any computer is going to be able to provide the answers to the big questions like "Does God exist?" or "Is there life after death?" or "What is the meaning of life?" Philosophers can rest easy on that point. However, computers have made us (myself included, sometimes) more complacent about those questions. Science thinks it has all the answers. Ditto people of faith. Just ask Google.
I have scientist friends who completely refute the idea of God. It's all about verifiable, quantifiable information. Anything that can't be explained through science is either myth or hysteria or cultural constructions that have no basis in reality. I have religious friends who refute all kinds of scientific truths like evolution or climate change. Anything that contradicts the Biblical narrative in any way is heresy. Thus, we are all descendants of Adam and Even, and, therefore, we are all brothers and sisters--man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, Republican, Democrat, Muslim, Jew, or Christian. (That one can be quite problematic for fundamentalists.)
Me? I walk the line between these viewpoints. I think that science and faith are both essential to understand the nature of the universe. To hold to science and completely turn a blind eye to faith is wrong-headed. It dismisses eternal questions about good and evil and the purpose of life. If I'm just a collection of cells that will simply decay and cease to exist at the end of my life, I'd be more likely to be a self-centered egotist, pursuing my interests alone to the detriment of everyone and everything else. In short, I'd be Donald Trump.
On the other hand, if I'm a religious fanatic, dismissing all scientific knowledge and truths that contradict my view of the universe, I would be allowed to ignore the shrinking polar icecap, carbon emissions. I could use my faith to justify all kinds of terrible things like racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, and anti-Semitism. In short, I'd also be Donald Trump.
No, I think faith and science are two legs that propel a full understanding of the universe. One without the other would inhibit my ability to fully embrace the wonders that exist on this rock of a planet in this little speck of a solar system in this particle of a galaxy. Science enhances our ability to see and understand the complexity of creation. Faith enhances our ability to love and respect this creation and maybe become a little better than we are right now.
Here's a little food for thought on this relationship. Pope Francis has spoken about science and climate change. He has said this about the beginning of the universe: "The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God, on the contrary it requires it."
This whole post was inspired by something I saw this morning in the parking lot of McDonald's. As I pulled my car into a parking space, there was a seagull on the pavement in front of me. I expected the bird to fly away quickly. Instead, it hopped off. Yes, hopped. When I got out of my car, I approached the gull and realized that it was missing a leg. It was balancing on one foot, using its wings to steady itself. It wasn't wounded or bleeding. It had obviously adapted to this physical challenge, because it appeared well-fed and strong. But it looked slightly unsteady, off-balance. In a flock of seagulls, it would be the weak one. The one that wouldn't survive an attack by a predator.
Yes, I got this all from a one-legged seagull. That's the way my mind works. Maybe I'm a scientific philosopher. Maybe philosophic scientist.
Or maybe Saint Marty is simply a poet with too much time on his hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment