“Evolution is true, it happens, it is the way the world is, and we too are one of its products. This does not mean that evolution does not have metaphysical implications;
I remain convinced this is the case. To deny, however the reality of evolution and more seriously to distort, deliberately, the scientific evidence in support of fundamentalist tenets is inadmissible.” [i]
I remain convinced this is the case. To deny, however the reality of evolution and more seriously to distort, deliberately, the scientific evidence in support of fundamentalist tenets is inadmissible.” [i]
Part of me realizes that any fruit stand of beliefs I set up here
will be overturned, cabbage leaves stuck in the windshield wipers of
my life's Volkswagen minibus mocking my life as my audience laughs
along. Another part of me accepts the inevitable wreckage but does not accept
the mockery.
I should in humorously similar movie language call my belief system "a willing suspension of
disbelief." It is a willingness to believe in
something, God or something higher that is beyond my reach, rather than another
something of more or less equal likelihood but with far less viability for my life
and family, and which goes opposite to my experience.
My parents, and a great deal of parents who believe they are doing
the best thing for their children, encouraged their kids towards positivism in
their actions. No matter how intimidating that bully seemed, no matter how
insurmountable the problem, I was encouraged to attempt to overcome.
Before I lead the reader down a winding primrose lane of blatantly
unnecessary verbiage, which is my favorite thing outside of raindrops on roses
and whiskers on kittens, I should quickly weed out those casuals who might not
want to be confronted by my disrespectful insolence. I would do this by simply
saying that I have made a choice out of a range of possibilities and this judgment
call leaves out atheism in its core form. At best, I give strict atheism a 50/50
chance of being correct given a perfect error free conception. At worst, I
would guess that anyone’s specific conception of atheism has bad odds.
As a proviso, let it be known that I loathe atheistic hero Christopher
Hitchens, author of God is Not Great, if not for the book
itself, then definitely for one rabid moment of incomprehension in a Vanity
Fair article.
“In contrast
with this clarity and purity, however, [Isaac] Newton spent much of his time dwelling
in a self-generated fog of superstition and crankery. He believed in the lost
art of alchemy, whereby base metals can be transmuted into gold, and the
surviving locks of his hair show heavy traces of lead and mercury in his system,
suggesting that he experimented upon himself in this fashion, too. (That would
also help explain the fires in his room, since alchemists had to keep a furnace
going at all times for their mad schemes.) Not content with the narrow views of
the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life, he thought that there was a
kind of universal semen in the cosmos, and that the glowing tails of the comets
he tracked through the sky contained replenishing matter vital for life on
Earth. He was a religious crackpot...." [ad nauseum] [ii]
Whether some, many, or all of the facts are correct or incorrect,
any logical reader cannot help but wonder what Hitchens is on about here
besides the utter character assassination of an icon of science from an age of
turmoil and high danger, and more significantly one of the refiners of the
highly lauded scientific method, (which I will defend in most all points.)
Hitchens apparently has written the classics of all classics in his books
which I will probably never read. He has elevated himself above the Newtons of earlier times.
Even speculating that this quote is out of context, there is still a
"Wow" factor that is amazingly non-journalistic if we drop ourselves
down to that level of authority.
As quickly as I can, I will attempt to refute this quote using my
own limited knowledge on hand, and just move on. Taken out of historical
context, one might learn in grade school that alchemy was only the search for
transmuting elements into gold. We might compare this to modern day
capitalistic pharmacology. Alchemy is, however, the precursor of chemistry, one
of the most important sciences of our time. Even as a trial and error system,
it helped develop the scientific method. Remember, historical figures were not
born with Christopher Hitchens' grasp of modern 5th grade science; they were
busy creating it as best they could. "Crankery" of course is merely
character assassination by ad hominem. There is no true scientific definition
or even unbiased journalistic definition of "crankery " as anything
other than an epithet. Hitchens carefully words his next sentence to suggest
that Newton was experimenting on himself rather than just experimenting in
alchemy. Even if Newton was into self-experimentation for some medical reason,
there is also a fine tradition of this in science.[iii] I suspect his
chemistry experiments and the knowledge of poisons were less than modern and
that is all. “Self harm” reminds one of Marie Curie, not a madman. The
connection of fires in his room is used to further to assassinate his
character. He could do equally well with my chemistry teacher had my teacher
used ancient equipment instead of Bunsen burners in a controlled lab. "Philosopher's
stone" and "elixir of life" [iv] seem particularly
relevant to modern physics, chemistry, and medicine if we merely take them out
of the falsely modern historical context that Hitchens has invented for the past.
Perhaps he was assuming his 5th grade science book could have been sent back in
time for Newton to realize a more proper way to invent the stuff that is now in
the 5th grade textbook. The final irony of this short quote is that Newton, while
a "religious crackpot", manages to brilliantly come up with a modern
scientific theory way ahead of its time with the comet idea.[v]
I apologize for not reading the entirety of God is Not Good while
still criticizing Christopher Hitchens and his views, but I have come to
realize I am the better for less argument with atheists, fundamentalist Christians,
or people who forward idiotic emails, for that matter. I will similarly apologize
for not reading the entirety of the Holy Bible in one of its many contradictory
translations. I am not equating things here but followers of each seem to have
the same degree of elixir of brick wall.
If Hitchens is as wildly loose with facts as it seems ... why read
more? I loudly disagree with some nouveau methodology of science. The nouveau method encompasses
the classic scientific method itself (in which logic prevails) and adds on later stages
of satisfaction in a completeness of knowledge after some limited proof of a smaller part of the whole. This
new methodology encourages views that seem to explain everything but have
contradictions and a vast history of older “knowledge” being overturned by newer
evidence.
It is good to have an open mind. You must agree with this. But an
open mind is not forcing beliefs on others based upon transient conclusions
discovered by the correct "method." My belief is that so far science
has not proven that there is no God because the jury is out forever. Meanwhile, recent theories have
actually turned the tide a bit towards some underlying intelligence which may exist. Science can disprove fundamentalist
interpretations of text that was written far before even the science of writing
history was established. I could do that when I was a pre-teen. It does not
take science to do this.
If you believe me to be loose with the facts or embarrassingly simple
minded, please move on. There are lots of blogs out there.
Sometime when I finish all the books I have backlogged, I'll try
to dip into God is Not Great but if you are reading this and
have found better books to provide an argument for atheism, please let me know,
because the last thing I want to do is read more of Hitchens, and what I would
really like to do is understand how atheists think beyond what I already know
from my own experience. I have studied Christianity extensively. I have studied
science extensively, but I have never studied atheism.
I guess if you have an open mind, and have not surfed away; it is
possible you might want to put up with my humble blog. Keep in mind that casual perusers might
especially dislike this blog if they enjoy using science as a cudgel against
religion, be you atheist or undecided. Conversely, those to whom the Christian
Holy Bible is a literally true account of historical facts should not read this
blog either. The last thing I want to do is destroy someone's faith over what is essentially
minutia to me. I do not see God in a this very narrow way.
[i] Conway Morris, Life’s Solution, pp.292-5. Simon Conway Morris is a Professor of
Evolutionary Paleontology at Cambridge University’s Depart of Earth Science,
and Fellow of the Royal Society.
[ii] Christopher Hitchens, “Flaws of Gravity”, Vanity Fair, http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/hitchens_newton200804?mbid=social_tumblr
