No More Einsteins?

Will there ever be another Einstein?  Science writer John Horgan thinks not.

Is it because there are no geniuses out there?  No.  Ed Whitten, for example, is considered to be the most mathematically gifted human being since Sir Isaac Newton.

So why?

Some, like writer James Gleick, think that it is getting harder to stand apart from the pack.  Einstein raised the bar.  Now there are many brilliant scientists (e.g. physicist Ed Whitten) around.  Gleick, and Horgan to some degree, think that it is simply a case of the pack catching up to an intellectual outlier like Einstein.

Horgan goes further.  He speculates that it is not a case of physicists getting smarter, but a case of physics getting smaller.  In other words, Einstein was a major player in an era when physics really mattered.  In the first half of last century, physics gave insights into nature with history-jolting technologies like the atomic bomb, nuclear power, radar, lasers transistors and all the gadgets that make up the communications and computer industries.

Contrast that with today.  Government spending on physics research has stagnated.  The number of Americans pursuing doctorates in physics has plunged to its lowest levels since the 1960s.  Modern physicists are captivated with strange things like strings,  cat states,  multiverse , and unifying the highly successful, but hopelessly disparate, theories of quantum physics and general relativity.  In fact, concern is mounting that physicists have lost touch with reality as they wander into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality.  Physicist Lawrence Krauss is concerned that modern physicists belief in theories in spite of the lack of evidence will "encourage that insidious notion that science is merely another kind of religion."

Perish the thought!

In short, Horgan thinks that modern physics is suffering from irrelevance.  Biology has displaced physics as the glamor science.  Biology has given us the thrilling and chilling technologies of genetic engineering, stem cells and cloning.  Biology is the scientific enterprise where the intellectual, economic and political clout exists in today's world.

Horgan rightly points out, however, that no modern biologist ever seems to transcend science the way Einstein did.  When Einstein spoke, people listened.  He used his fame to weigh in on nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and militarism.  The Israeli cabinet even asked Einstein to become the country's second president in 1952.  Can you imagine what would have happened if Einstein had accepted?

Will any scientist ever carry that kind of clout again?

Horgan writes,

"It is hard to imagine any modern scientist, physicist or biologist, being lionized in this way. One reason may be that science as a whole has lost its moral sheen. We are more aware than ever of the downside of scientific advances, whether nuclear power or genetic recombination; moreover, as science has become increasingly institutionalized, it has come to be perceived as just another guild pursuing its own selfish interests alongside truth and the common good."

I think this is true.  People don't idolize today's scientists the way they did Einstein.  Nor should they.  Science clearly has a dark side in more ways than one.  Not only is technology used just as much for evil as well as good, but the practioners of science are plagued by the same moral failures that afflict the rest of humanity.  Case in point, the stem cell scandal in South Korea.

Bioethicist Ben Mitchell comments,

“The scandal shows how important it is that science not be done in a moral vacuum. Science divorced from ethics is technological tyranny. Hwang was apparently the victim of his own aspirations for fame and the media hype surrounding embryonic stem cell research. Both contributed to his downfall."

Scientists can't speak with moral authority in today's culture, furthermore, because science has no moral authority.  It exists in a moral vacuum because that is what we are told good science is.  It is value free.  Indeed.

Will there be more Einsteins?  There will be brilliant mathematical thinkers like sixteen year old (homeschooler) prodigy Micahel Viscardi. But will there be thinkers who can transcend science, think holistically about life, and speak with authority and influence to our culture?  Like Horgan, I remain doubtful.

Comments

[Rick]

I think that there is definitely the possibility for someone like Einstein to come along again completely revolutionizing the way we understand the universe. Einstein didn't just extend the theories of his day...his theories were ground-breaking and explained things that we had not even found existed in nature (such as black holes).

I think the potential is out there for another great mind in physics... but I think it will be someone who takes us in a completely new direction, not just extending on the current body of knowledge.

[Brian]

I found this today which somewhat relates since some of these folks are presenting "dangerous" ideas.

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html

[Nickl]

Interesting question. I think there are still scientists who are making valuable contributions outside of science. For instance, Jared Diamond with Guns, Germs, and Steel which considers questions that are usually the province of historians and humanists -- and deals with some very touchy political issues. I'd also put E.O. Wilson and Stephen J. Gould in the category of people with interesting things to say about society in general, whether one agrees with them or not.

Then there was Primo Levi: chemist, author, and poet. He died in 1987, but he is definitely post-Einstein.

But, part of the problem may be the very real and dramatic growth in scientific knowledge over the past two centuries. The age of the polymath or renaissance man is probably over. Mere mortals spend their entire life learning one subdiscipline. And the problem isn't just limited to scientists who aren't contributing to the humanities. Are there many current theologians or philosophers who are making original ground-breaking contributions to science?

Where Einstein's contributions to political and ethical thought really groundbreaking? Or was the surprising thing that he had anything at all to say on the subject? Real question, not rhetorical -- I don't know.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"I think the potential is out there for another great mind in physics... but I think it will be someone who takes us in a completely new direction, not just extending on the current body of knowledge."

What gives you such hope? Just curious.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

I found this today which somewhat relates since some of these folks are presenting "dangerous" ideas.

I found the same link to the Edge questionnaire over on Prosthesis. Great stuff. Last year's questionnaire was even better. Superb blogging material. I bookmarked the link.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"I think there are still scientists who are making valuable contributions outside of science."

Perhaps, but none which even come close to carrying the kind of authority Einstein did even in areas outside his expertise.

I would say Stephen Hawking is quite famous and influential in the area of cosmology and physics ... but he carries little weight and authority outside his area.

Wilson and Gould had interesting things to say about society. But are they really household names? Polyani went from professor of Chemistry to professor of Philosophy and influenced epistemology, but his work is not that accessible to the average man. Sagan was a popularizer of science, and he influenced some towards looking for extra-terrestrial life, but even his impact was somewhat limited to a narrow segment of society.

"Are there many current theologians or philosophers who are making original ground-breaking contributions to science?"

I can't think of any, but given our culture's two-tiered view of truth (i.e. science is knowledge, philosophy is opinion), this hardly comes as a surprise.

I think there is a real opportunity for a giant to emerge on the scene. The person who can bring reconciliation and harmony between science and theology, and have the respect of everyone in both disciplines, will be an influential figure indeed.

[Rick]

"What gives you such hope?"

I appologize for not having sources to back any of this up, but you'll just have to go with it.

Prior to Newton devloping what we now know as Newtonian Physics and Calculus, there was not a way to explain the phenomena in our world. It just happened. Over a stretch of time in which Newton's University (Cambridge I believe) was closed due to the plague, these were developed. Were people actively working in these areas? Nope.

Einstein is well known for his revolutionart theories on relativity. His Nobel prize though related more to quantum physics... also a realm of physics that was not even thought of years prior.

In the area of Biology, we need to remember that DNA is a relatively new (1953). All of our current research into the human genome, genetic engineering, etc. have been thoroughly revolutionized by this.

Towards electronics which is more my area, the development of the semiconductor transistor has changed the world. Without transistors, there could be no microprocessors meaning no computers, no electronics gadgets (like my TiVo that's recording a good football game right now), or safety enhancements in vehicles such as anti-lock brakes. And I won't even get started on how hard developing telecom gear (my full-time profession) without transistors.

So from my understanding is that there are some of us that will bring about 'evolutionary' changes in the world. We take what is there and find small, but signifigant ways to extend.

Then there are the revolutionaries that bring the disruptive ideas and technologies to the table... the world is not the same afterwards.

I would love if someone could figure out fusion or teleportation or a variety of things, but I figure that the next diruptive idea will come in an area that none of us expect.

[Carl Holmes]

What makes Einstein so fascinating was his ability to keep a level head, politically and spiritually, while exploring science. He did not take science in a athiestic search of the cosmos, he recognized the patterns of life in the cosmos. Ultimately did that give him a theistic base? That is for another blog.

When science stops trying to disprove God I think some great things will come. I am not saying just all of a sudden recognize a creator, but let it be part of the equasion. Will that happen? Yes, in time, all good things happen in God's time. Michael Behe and the cell was just a start.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:

I think two things are going on here. First, I think you're overstating the impact that Einstein had in non-scientific areas. And I think you're understating (or are not fully aware of) the impact of those who have followed him.

Stephen Jay Gould is actually pretty close to a household name, and Carl Sagan certainly was one; and I'd argue that the latter was highly concerned about matters outside of science, as his last book attests.

But the larger issue here is not that there are no great discoveries left to be made, or that there aren't any great minds any more. Rather, it's the devaluation of science in general in the public consciousness, and this is neither a religious occurrence nor a scientific or philosophical one. As with so many things these days, it's entirely political.

For a wholly non-religious example of what I'm talking about, consider global warming. There is overwhelming acceptance of global warming among scientists in general and climatologists in particular, but there is a small-yet-well-organized group that does everything it can to cast doubt upon the idea of global warming (or climate change, if you prefer). Why? For strictly political reasons.

If global warming is indeed a legitimate problem, and if human activity contributes profoundly to the problem, then all the solutions involve things like regulations and efficiency requirements and pollution taxes, etc., that are highly unpopular with big businesses. The techonology has existed for over a decade to markedly improve the fuel efficiency of cars, for example, without substantially reducing the safety of those vehicles, and most polls show Americans solidly supporting laws requiring such improvements. Yet lobbyists for the Big Three automakers (never mind Big Oil) consistently block such legislation.

Why do they do it? Because they fear that implementing improved fuel efficiency will cut into their profits. And how do they get away with this? By seeding just enough doubt into the American public to stem the outrage. Unfortunately, our media is complicit in this, presenting both sides of the debate as equals when the reality is much different, and creating a false impression of near-equality in Joe and Jane American.

Other examples include CFCs and the ozone layer (where the "reactionary scientists" proved right, despite much ridicule at the time) and the even-more-recent evolution/ID battle (which seems religious on its surface, but I'd argue is also mostly political).

As to science itself, as you say, it's morally neutral. It (and speaking more broadly, knowledge in general) can be used for good as well as for evil. For that reason, I wouldn't necessarily object to an increased focus on teaching ethics -- not just to scientists, but to everyone.

Finally, a nit: You talk about biology and physics as if they're wholly different disciplines, when they're really not. Biology (as my wife will grudgingly attest) is built upon and inextricably intertwined with Chemistry, which itself is built upon and inextricably intertwined with physics. Ultimately you could argue that biology is simply a specific high-level application of physics, even if they look very different to the casual observer.

All that said, I still think physics is the glamor science, even if not in the ways you think. No, the cosmology aspects of physics aren't so sexy to the average joe, but iPods and PSPs are, even if they never pause to consider the inner workings. It's physics, more than any other science, that makes these technologies (which most of us wouldn't have thought possible -- at least not so soon -- as recently as 15 years ago) possible.

[tgirsch]

Sorry, forgot to link evidence of the public's support of improved environmental regulation. Go here and see the Harris Poll from August of 2005 (the third poll down), and also the fourth poll (Gallup).

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"Stephen Jay Gould is actually pretty close to a household name, and Carl Sagan certainly was one; and I'd argue that the latter was highly concerned about matters outside of science, as his last book attests."

I really don't think Gould is anywhere close to a household name. Sagan was much more famous. But again, famous is one thing, influential is another. Sagan was a little too fond of marijuana, and his love affair with extra terrestrial searching made him a little "out there" in more ways than one.

I agree with you that Sagan was very interested in things besides science. I read Demon Haunted World too, and I know you listed it on your seven by seven survey. Sagan had an influence, but he was nowhere near the stature of Einstein in terms of influence in the mainstream.

In my opinion, and I know you disagree, Sagan is depressing. You really must be willing to embrace the possibility of nihilism as a Sagan follower, and nihilism is quite depressing. It is not a worldview dripping with hope ... again, I know you disagree, but that is how many see it.

"All that said, I still think physics is the glamor science, even if not in the ways you think."

I think so too. Too bad the press portrays physicists in a less than favorable light. I think they are portrayed as quacks who play around in giant accelerators and speculate about invisible and irrelevant absurdities like quarks and neutrinos.

I invited my favorite physicist-philosopher over to this thread to comment. Hopefully he will show up and defend physics :-)

[Carl Holmes]

Jeff,

Not to take this totally off the intended subject, but how do you know that the big 3 have the technology for fuel efficiency but will not utilize it for profit reasons? I am a proud employee 1 of the big three and I can not see how it would be savvy to sit on that technology if we have it in todays cultural climate.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"Not to take this totally off the intended subject, but how do you know that the big 3 have the technology for fuel efficiency but will not utilize it for profit reasons?"

Tom made that claim and will have to defend it with empirical evidence.

I noticed BP (I think) trying to position themselves into the environmentally friendly energy company. This supports your claim, Carl, that there is a segment of society interested in buying from environmentally friendly companies -- and any of the Big 3 would be foolish to ignore the profit potential of positioning themselves as the environmenally friendly auto maker.

Tom, you will need to defend your claim that the Big 3 automakers have the technology and are squashing it due solely to profit margins. Esplain the facts which will convince us to accept your claim.

[Regis]

If Einstein will be the last person revered for his scientific accomplishments and personal musings, it will have nothing to do with what those following him can achieve but, rather, what the ambient culture values. In Einstein's time, modernism was the reigning worldview. The world was a giant machine operating according to rational principles that could be unraveled through the scientific method. It was thought that those principles could be packaged in mathematical expressions allowing man to predict the behavior of nature and harness it for the betterment of mankind. In short, the truth was out there and was knowable. Science was omnipotent and the scientist the "savior" who would lead us into a new age of progress and prosperity.

That sanguine outlook began to change after the destructive use of atomic energy in WWII. By the 1970s, full-scale pessimism replaced unbridled optimism. In those intervening years, society experienced enduring poverty, increasing crime, the debacle of Vietnam and government scandals which, collectively, corroded confidence in traditional authoritative institutions, including science and scientists. Further, as the modern physics of quantum theory gained currency it shattered the hope in a metascience that could decipher the mysteries of nature. This, together with Einstein's own relativity theories, fueled a growing sentiment that truth did not exist "out there" as a universal absolute, but "in here" as a matter of personal perspective.

As this postmodern mood swept the cultural landscape, the notion of immutable principles apprehended by logic and the rigors of scientific inquiry gave way to chameleonic and utilitarian preferences determined by personal needs, feelings and experience. Now, in the 21st century the omniscient self reigns supreme, having successfully dislodged the omni-competent authority as arbiter of truth. In such a milieu, it is hard to envision any authority figure engendering the veneration of Einstein.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:Sagan had an influence, but he was nowhere near the stature of Einstein in terms of influence in the mainstream.And here I think you overestimate the influence of Einstein. The average Joe certainly has some idea of who Einstein was, but the vast majority of them have no idea that he ever made any sort of social commentary. And you haven't presented any evidence that the commentary of Einstein on matters non-scientific has had any substantial impact, any more than (for example) Sagan.

And really, if you're going to engage in character attacks on Sagan, why bother? I'm a little surprised you haven't argued that Einstein's agnostic Jewish worldview caused him to lack a "moral foundation."You really must be willing to embrace the possibility of nihilism as a Sagan follower, and nihilism is quite depressing.So's the idea that I'm a pawn for some greater being's amusement whose future is predetermined. I know you disagree, but that is how many see it. But I digress... ;)

Carl:how do you know that the big 3 have the technology for fuel efficiencyWell, that's not exactly what I said. I said that "the technology has existed," not that the big 3 necessarily have it. They probably do, and probably have, but I can't say that for certain. Nor did I say (as Jeff implies) that they quashed the technology, merely that they fought requiring improved efficiency. Nor did I even say that they did this solely for profit reasons, although I think it's safe to say that's a big reason (competitive advantage is another, but I'll get to that later).

What I can say is that the Big Three have a not-so-great history when it comes to adopting technologies, particularly when those technologies are available in more advanced forms from foreign competition (look at the slow response of the Big Three on hybrid vehicles, for a contemporary example, or the butt-kicking they took with compact cars in the 70's and 80's for another).

Mostly, the argument is logical. Any major change in manufacturing and design is expensive, and adjusting for improved fuel efficiency is no different. Absent overwhelming consumer demand, nobody's going to make this type of investment unless they're required to do so. And if for whatever reason domestic automakers lag behind their foreign counterparts in the necessary technologies (they generally do), their competitors gain an even bigger competitive advantage if such requirements are actually passed -- which is incentive for the automakers who are lagging behind to block such requirements. And that's more or less how it's happened.

Of course, there's a consumer component to this, as well. As current hybrid cars attest, fuel-efficient vehicles are more expensive to make (and thus, to buy) than their non-efficient counterparts, and they generally lack the high-performance characteristics of their less-efficient brethren. Which is another aspect of why it's important (for carmakers) to downplay the human impact on global warming. If people begin believing that driving their 18MPG SUV is actually exacerbating problems for their children, then most people aren't going to buy 18MPG SUVs any more. SUVs are a huge profit center for the automakers (and not just the big three), so it's important that people don't believe this. If people don't associate their actions with global warming, or if they think that there's significant doubt about the relationship between one and the other, they'll keep doing what they're doing.

But as to the claim that the technology has been around, I'll take up that gauntlet, and it's quite easy. Let's start with the Continuously Variable Transmission (or CVT) which has been around in varying forms for over a century. Hybrid cars have been around nearly as long, and Toyota's Prius went on sale in Japan in volume in 1997 -- almost nine years ago already.

Those are two big fuel-efficiency improvement which have been around for quite some time. And as to evidence that the automakers fight such requirements here's a recent example where they sued the state of California to block its greenhouse gas requirements. And here's a less recent example.

Jeff:I noticed BP (I think) trying to position themselves into the environmentally friendly energy companyYes, it's BP (they've even rebranded themselves from "British Petroleum" to "Beyond Petroleum"), and to some extent, they're the visionary ones. That said, their lobbyists generally block requiring such technologies. It's actually pretty smart, though: redirecting some of the profits from fossil fuels to position themselves ahead of the competition when (inevitably) alternative energies are required (either because of government regulation, or because of increasing fossil fuel costs).

But the larger point here is that BP is the exception, not the rule. And although they're much better than their competition in this regard, they're still behind the curve from an environmental standpoint.the Big 3 would be foolish to ignore the profit potential of positioning themselves as the environmenally friendly auto maker.But that's precisely the point: unless and until people associate fuel efficiency with environmentalism, the profit potential isn't that great. And since inefficient cars are cheaper to make (thus making potential profit margins higher), it's easier and more profitable to obfuscate the relationship between fuel use and global warming.

And let's not be naive about this: even the recent spike in interest in fuel efficiency and hybrid cars has a lot more to do with the increasing cost of gas than with the environment.

There is one part of my claim that I'm having a harder time substantiating: that big automakers have an active role in seeding doubt about global warming. I'm able to find heaps and gobs of evidence to indicate that Big Oil does so (and ExxonMobil in particular), but the scads of information about this is drowning out any direct links to automakers. So in the absence of direct evidence, I may have to back off that claim a bit. The closest I could find was some history of the Environmental Policy Task Force, public enemy #1 in terms of spreading undue doubt about global warming, but can only find that it was heavily funded by "industry," and not which industries specifically.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

I think Regis made the best point thus far:

"If Einstein will be the last person revered for his scientific accomplishments and personal musings, it will have nothing to do with what those following him can achieve but, rather, what the ambient culture values."

The problem is not the scientists, it is the culture's view of truth.

Part of the reason why Sagan lacked influence was his nihilism ... but a second reason was the culture. To accept Sagan, you had to care about pursuing truth even if the results were hard to bear. If the culture ceases to ultimately care about truth, then Sagan or any other materialist ceases to have much influence. They are viewed as relics of a bygone era.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:If the culture ceases to ultimately care about truth, then Sagan or any other materialist ceases to have much influence. They are viewed as relics of a bygone era.OK, now you've confused me. If this is true, then people not caring about truth is bad for materialists and, by extension, not bad (or maybe even good) for the supernaturalists. That seems to run directly counter to your worldview.

And I answered your challenge about the big three automakers, and this doesn't even elicit any response at all? :)

[tgirsch]

I should add that I don't think Sagan is at all nihilistic; I think you're projecting that onto his philosophy when it isn't really there. Sagan's last book, in particular, speaks at great length about morality and moral obligations. All of his books operate from the assumption that objective truth exists, and that much of it can be known to us (through observation and independent verification, i.e. the scientific method). That's nowhere close to any definition of nihilism that I can find.

Atheistic, yes. Nihilistic, no.

In fact, I think it's fair to say that less the religious aspects, your worldview is closer to nihilism than his. You've repeatedly argued here that all of our "knowledge" is based upon foundational assumptions that we simply cannot know are actually true. If our foundational presuppositions might be false, then everything we base upon them can also be false, and we're falling back into "we-can't-truly-know-anything" land. :)

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"OK, now you've confused me. If this is true, then people not caring about truth is bad for materialists and, by extension, not bad (or maybe even good) for the supernaturalists. That seems to run directly counter to your worldview."

The rejection of the existence of truth and the knowability of truth hurts my Christian worldview as much as it hurts your rationalistic worldview.

Don't get me wrong ... there are plenty of differences between our worldviews. One thing we share, however, is that we are both interested in believing what is true and rejecting what is false.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"And I answered your challenge about the big three automakers, and this doesn't even elicit any response at all? :)"

I was really hoping Carl would help me out, especially since he raised the challenge :-)

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Carl Sagan

"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent."

Carl Sagan

"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."

Carl Sagan

Really cheers you up, doesn't it ;-) ?

Sagan really embraced the nihilism of his worldview in his last days. He faced it bravely, according to his wife. He refused to be comforted by delusions, and slipped back into the nothingness from whence he came.

[tgirsch]

Those examples are atheistic and certainly materialistic, and you might find them pessimistic (even if I don't agree), but they are certainly not nihilistic. After all, if he were arguing from a nihilistic point of view, he couldn't argue that it's better to grasp the universe "as it really is" because he wouldn't be able to do so!

In Sagan's final book Billions and Billions, published posthumously, he writes:Six times now have I looked Death in the face. And six times Death has averted his gaze and let me pass. Eventually, of course, Death will claim me -- as he does ach of us. It's only a question of when. And how.I've learned much from our confrontations -- especially about the beauty and sweet poignancy of life, about the preciousness of friends and family, and about the transforming power of love. In fact, almost dying is such a positive, character-building experience that I'd recommend it to everybody -- except, of course, for the irreducible and essential element of risk.That, to me, does not seem pessimistic, and it most certainly is not nihilistic. Which is why I say you're projecting your prejudices and preconceptions about atheism and materialism onto Sagan when they don't really exist.

Methinks you're operating from an incorrect definition of nihilism.

In an odd way, bringing this back around to the topic at hand, in the same chapter of the same book, Sagan quotes Einstein (noting a reservation about the phrase "feeble souls"), who wrote:I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.It looks to me like Einstein shared the very philosophy, perhaps even more acutely, that you sake makes Sagan unappealing.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

First off, thx for the fresh Sagan quote. I have not seen that one b4. Very interesting.

Second off, Einstein (at most) believed in Spinoza's god ... which is a kind of deism (almost pantheism). I disagree with those who try to assert more than that. Einstein did recognize that the Universe is filled with way too many coincidences to preclude some measure of design ... and by inference, some kind of greater power behind it. But he was never even close to embracing the notion of a personal God; my recollection was that he had issues with the problem of evil and never got those resolved.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

If atheists are agnostics with guts, then nihilists must be atheists with guts ;-)

If you take the presuppositions of pure materialism deadly serious, then you must face the fact that what we experience is entirely reducible to chemicals. Immaterial things like love, character and courage are really chemical byproducts of brain synapses. In that sense, they are not real ... just fabrications of our brains. In fact, we have no basis for really trusting our perceptions that the external world is real. We do, of course, for what is the alternative? Still ... there is no logical basis or rational support. It may as well be an illusion. It is all molecules in motion.

The nihilist gets this and boldly embraces it.

Death has a way of getting people's attention. It certainly got Sagan's attention. I can't help but wonder if Sagan is a type of Lazarus, speaking beyond the grave.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016%20:%2030-31;&version=31;

I find Sagan's use of the term 'transforming power of love' fascinating. I have experienced the transforming power of perfect love. I was transformed by the love of one who served my sentence and offered me the free gift of eternal life in return. That kind of love is real and transforms.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:If you take the presuppositions of pure materialism deadly serious, then you must face the fact that what we experience is entirely reducible to chemicals. Immaterial things like love, character and courage are really chemical byproducts of brain synapses.Man, you were doing so well. Then you had to go on to this non-sequitur:In that sense, they are not real ... just fabrications of our brains.Huh? In what way does this make them "not real?" If I punch you in the face, is the pain any less real because you're "feeling" it as a result of chemistry? It gets worse:In fact, we have no basis for really trusting our perceptions that the external world is real.Why not? It seems to me that you're the nihilist here: to you, it's simply not possible to know or understand anything unless God deigns to "reveal" that knowledge to us. This makes us powerless to really know anything on our own. That's far closer to nihilism than what Sagan espouses.

And for what it's worth, if God exists, then He designed us so that we experience the world through chemistry. Why, then, does it matter if chemistry is God's tool of choice or just nature's?It may as well be an illusion.Here, of course, you're ignoring the fact that the existence of God doesn't change this equation one iota, since all of reality as we know it could just be an illusion created by God, and we wouldn't know any better. In your WV, we still have no rational basis for trusting our senses. Now you can claim that God would never choose to deceive us like that, but how could you possibly know that?The nihilist gets this and boldly embraces it.Right back atcha! :)That kind of love is real and transforms.But how do you know? :)

[Mr. Dawntreader]

It is hard not to get into a contest with you at this point ... especially with the "right back in your face" posture we are both taking.

Why does it always seems to degenerate to this? What would it take for us to take the high road this time?

[tgirsch]

I honestly don't think either of us is taking "the low road" here. I'm merely pointing out that your WV has some nihilistic aspects (at least in the way you've been using the term) as well. I don't think that's unfair, unfounded, insulting, or dirty. I certainly had no intent to offend.

However, if applying the "nihilism" label is insulting, then that's all the more reason for you to reconsider your application of the label to Sagan's (and my) stated worldview.

The reason this gets difficult is because we're right back to some fundamental incompatibilities in our worldviews: the question of what we can know and how we can know it; and the question of what's "real" versus what's "illusion" (and how we would know that).

But that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing! Because we're never going to understand one another unless we understand those key differences, even if we never agree on those points.

The key question we both need to be asking ourselves is "How would I know if I were wrong?" I don't think either of us has an easy answer for that.

[tgirsch]

I missed an important incompatibility: What gives life meaning?