Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World

Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World

giancarlo3000
from giancarlo3000 More from this publisher
04.10.2012 Views

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD The continuity between atomic physics, molecular chemistry, and that holy of holies, the nature of reproduction and heredity, has now been established. No new principle of science need be invoked. It looks as if there are a small number of simple facts that can be used to understand the enormous intricacy and variety of living things. (Molecular genetics also teaches that each organism has its own particularity.) Reductionism is even better established in physics and chemistry. I will later describe the unexpected coalescence of our understanding of electricity, magnetism, light and relativity into a single framework. We've known for centuries that a handful of comparatively simple laws not only explains but quantitatively and accurately predicts a breathtaking variety of phenomena, not just on Earth but through the entire Universe. We hear - for example from the theologian Langdon Gilkey in his Nature, Reality and the Sacred - that the notion of the laws of Nature being everywhere the same is simply a preconception imposed on the Universe by fallible scientists and their social milieu. He longs for other kinds of 'knowledge', as valid in their contexts as science is in its. But the order of the Universe is not an assumption; it's an observed fact. We detect the light from distant quasars only because the laws of electromagnetism are the same ten billion light years away as here. The spectra of those quasars are recognizable only because the same chemical elements are present there as here, and because the same laws of quantum mechanics apply. The motion of galaxies around one another follows familiar Newtonian gravity. Gravitational lenses and binary pulsar spin-downs reveal general relativity in the depths of space. We could have lived in a Universe with different laws in every province, but we do not. This fact cannot but elicit feelings of reverence and awe. We might have lived in a Universe in which nothing could be understood by a few simple laws, in which Nature was complex beyond our abilities to understand, in which laws that apply on Earth are invalid on Mars, or in a distant quasar. But the evidence - not the preconceptions, the evidence - proves otherwise. Luckily for us, we live in a Universe in which much can be 'reduced' to a small number of comparatively simple laws of 260

Newton's Sleep Nature. Otherwise we might have lacked the intellectual capacity and grasp to comprehend the world. Of course, we may make mistakes in applying a reductionist programme to science. There may be aspects which, for all we know, are not reducible to a few comparatively simple laws. But in the light of the findings in the last few centuries, it seems foolish to complain about reductionism. It is not a deficiency but one of the chief triumphs of science. And, it seems to me, its findings are perfectly consonant with many religions (although it does not prove their validity). Why should a few simple laws of Nature explain so much and hold sway throughout this vast Universe? Isn't this just what you might expect from a Creator of the Universe? Why should some religious people oppose the reductionist programme in science, except out of some misplaced love of mysticism? Attempts to reconcile religion and science have been on the religious agenda for centuries - at least for those who did not insist on Biblical and Qu'ranic literalism with no room for allegory or metaphor. The crowning achievements of Roman Catholic theology are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles ('Against the Gentiles') of St Thomas Aquinas. Out of the maelstrom of sophisticated Islamic philosophy that tumbled into Christendom in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were the books of the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, works even on casual inspection of high accomplishment. Was this ancient learning compatible with God's Holy Word?* In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas set himself the task of reconciling 631 questions between Christian and classical sources. But how to do this where a clear dispute arises? It cannot be accomplished without some supervening organizing principle, some superior way to know the world. Often, Aquinas appealed to common sense and the natural world, i.e., science used as an error-correcting device. With some contortion of both common sense and Nature, he managed to reconcile all 631 problems. (Although when push came to shove, the desired answer was simply * This was no dilemma for many others. 'I believe; therefore I understand' said St Anselm in the eleventh century. 261

Newton's Sleep<br />

Nature. Otherwise we might have lacked the intellectual capacity<br />

and grasp to comprehend the world.<br />

Of course, we may make mistakes in applying a reductionist<br />

programme to science. There may be aspects which, for all we<br />

know, are not reducible to a few comparatively simple laws. But<br />

in the light of the findings in the last few centuries, it seems foolish<br />

to complain about reductionism. It is not a deficiency but one of<br />

the chief triumphs of science. And, it seems to me, its findings are<br />

perfectly consonant with many religions (although it does not<br />

prove their validity). Why should a few simple laws of Nature<br />

explain so much and hold sway throughout this vast Universe?<br />

Isn't this just what you might expect from a Creator of the<br />

Universe? Why should some religious people oppose the reductionist<br />

programme in science, except out of some misplaced love<br />

of mysticism?<br />

Attempts to reconcile religion and science have been on the religious<br />

agenda for centuries - at least for those who did not insist on Biblical<br />

and Qu'ranic literalism with no room for allegory or metaphor.<br />

The crowning achievements of Roman Catholic theology are the<br />

Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles ('Against the<br />

Gentiles') of St Thomas Aquinas. Out of the maelstrom of sophisticated<br />

Islamic philosophy that tumbled into Christendom in the<br />

twelfth and thirteenth centuries were the books of the ancient<br />

Greeks, especially Aristotle, works even on casual inspection of high<br />

accomplishment. Was this ancient learning compatible with God's<br />

Holy Word?* In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas set himself the task<br />

of reconciling 631 questions between Christian and classical sources.<br />

But how to do this where a clear dispute arises? It cannot be<br />

accomplished without some supervening organizing principle, some<br />

superior way to know the world. Often, Aquinas appealed to<br />

common sense and the natural world, i.e., science used as an<br />

error-correcting device. With some contortion of both common<br />

sense and Nature, he managed to reconcile all 631 problems.<br />

(Although when push came to shove, the desired answer was simply<br />

* This was no dilemma for many others. 'I believe; therefore I understand' said<br />

St Anselm in the eleventh century.<br />

261

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!