Cosmology,
Mythology, and Heaven 05/16/2011 May 16, 2011 — Stephen Hawking’s recent comment that heaven is a fairy tale
(see The
Guardian) started blogger keystrokes clicking. But one might ask, what does
he know about it? Are the opinions of a cosmologist any better than those of a
theologian? Hawking told The
Guardian that he considers the brain like a computer that stops working when
its components fail. It was timely that PhysOrg just reported
that Jian-Jun Shu, an engineer Nanyang Technical University in Singapore, thinks
that the next stage of computing should imitate genetics. “For some problems,
DNA-based computing could replace silicon-based computing, offering many
advantages.” Its potential for parallel processing and fuzzy logic are
attractive. Shu is wondering, though, how to plug a monitor into DNA.
Returning to the topic of heaven, the science blogs are focusing not on the
evidence for it, but on whether or not belief in heaven is innate, or is useful
to human beings. PhysOrg
told about 40 studies in 20 countries that indicated belief in an afterlife is
“hardwired” into the human brain. “The studies (both analytical and empirical)
conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,
and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic
impulse of the human mind.” The 57 researchers were not out to
establish the validity of beliefs but to determine whether they are innate or
learned. One researcher commented, “Just because we find it easier to think
in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact.” Even so, why
would an unguided evolutionary process produce belief in god or heaven that do
not exist? Echoes of Anselm’s old Ontological Argument for the existence of God
may come to mind. The article did not discuss how evolution would produce
belief in heaven, but a lively debate arose in the reader comments.
Stephanie Pappas at Live
Science weighed in with her take on Hawking’s statement, saying that his
opinion doesn’t matter, because belief in heaven offers benefits. Pappas
invited responses from Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the
University of Michigan, and Nathan Heflick, a psychology doctoral student at the
University of Florida, who has investigated beliefs in the afterlife. Kruger
noted that belief in heaven provides hope, staves off fear of death, and
promotes a sense of fairness that stimulates society to produce just laws.
Heflick pointed out that heaven enables people to think of themselves as more
than their bodies. “If you think of your body as a machine, it’s kind of
hard to believe in life after death,” Heflick said. “You’re not going to be
able to think of yourself as a spirit.” Nevertheless, such thinking might well
raise questions about the Inventor of the Machine, based on our common
experience that machines come via intelligent design. Thus far, we have
watched scientists trying to analyze a theological question. But how firm a
grip does science have in its own domain? – on reality, even so-called
observable reality, or nature? New
Scientist posted an intriguing article on the many ways our eyes fool us.
Our brain is filling in information and predicting the future for us, reporter
Graham Lawton pointed out, producing in us a “grand delusion” that we see
what is really there. Speaking of cosmology (Hawking’s specialty), Live
Science reminded us that cosmologists are still looking for 96% of an
assumed universe about which they are clueless. It would seem premature for
Hawking to rule out heaven when the reality he believes in is mostly hidden –
even if he could trust his senses. There might be much more in heaven and earth
than is dreamt of in his philosophy (naturalism). Scientists do best when
they stick with the observations. PhysOrg,
echoing a press release from Cardiff
University, provided a mix of news and history in an article about the
Herschel Space Observatory, describing not only the latest observations, but
giving a history of the Herschel family – William, the father of stellar astronomy, who
discovered Uranus and infrared light and catalogued thousands of objects in
space (and many comets) along with his faithful sister Caroline, and John, his son, who extended the observations
into the southern hemisphere. Professor Matt Griffin said, “Two centuries on, I
think William and Caroline would be intrigued and certainly quite pleased to see
how what they started has developed.” Hawking might take note of the fact
that excellent scientific work, both observational and theoretical, was done by
the Herschels who were strong believers in heaven.
Immature Christian to scientist: “if you will
just keep your nose out of our heaven, we’ll keep our hell out of your labs.”
That emotional response should be discarded for a more charitable dialogue, in
which we first invite the scientist to consider his own limitations, such as
flawed eyes, logical fallacies, and tendencies to believe in his own fairy tales
(like 96% of a reality that cannot be seen). Then we turn his attention to his
undeniable sense of justice and truth, and ask how that could evolve.
Once we get him to admit that justice and truth make reference to universals
that are necessary and timeless, we help him to discover that his own reasoning
depends on the assumptions of theology. Having awakened the hapless soul out of
his naturalistic slumbers, we can begin asking the right questions about
eternity, taking advantage of innate
knowledge of such things that had been buried under the academic dusts of
unreasoned assumptions. The response might be heavenly.
[2011/05/16] Cosmology, Mythology, and Heaven
