Is the Universe fine-tuned for life?

The answer to this question will depend on what one means by the significant terms used in the question.
First the universe. We live in the only universe we know. It is entirely possible – and some theories in physics make this a not implausible possibility – that there are several other universes, There may or may not be any life in many of them. So there is nothing unique in the phenomenon of life to warrant a universe that is specially intended to make life a possibility in a remote niche of its stupendously vast stretch.
Next is fine-tuned. The implication is that conditions and parameters that could be arbitrarily arranged have been given optimal values for the attainment of a specific goal. Indeed, if the initial assignment of values had been different ever so slightly, the intended goal or current situation would and could not have been achieved. Note that the verb is used in the passive voice, but the customary by X has been omitted. That is to say, one leaves open the question: fine-tuned by whom? Perhaps the implication is that it was by an intelligent designer, but this is not a phrase one dares to use in scientific discussion these days. This is also a reason why most hard-core atheist physicists and biologists shudder to contemplate this sort of anthropic or biopic principle.
The third important word is life. That life is a remarkable property of agglomerations of inert matter on our planet is undoubtedly a perplexing situation. We know that life emerged on our planet because of the external conditions of temperature and atmospheric pressure for a sufficiently long time period of time, and the abundant availability of certain elements and compounds. Unique as life seems to be on our solar system, one can also imagine other entities in the universe that are unique to some planets and satellites: volcanoes, atmosphere, water/ice, common salt, and clay. Or again, orbiting planets and comets may be unique to some stars. On the basis of these could one argue, for example, that the universe was fine-tuned for rings around Saturn or planets with satellites?
In sum, then, the question cannot be answered with a simple yes or a no, although in probabilistic and cosmic history terms it seems highly unlikely that parameters were fine-tuned for such a late and fleeting event that was to occur several billions of years after the big bang genesis.
But the simplistic answer to the question could be, of course yes. Otherwise how could life have arisen at all?
May 9, 2009

On the Rational and the Non-Rational

Belief and behavior that contradict reason may be called non-rational. But it is important to realize that there are two ways of being non-rational, i.e. two ways in which one might deviate from rationality.

The first is through the irrational mode. Here, one adopts positions or engages in actions which are grotesque, absurd, silly, and even dangerous. Abusing others through words or deeds, regarding groups of people as inferior, refusing to accept evidence against one’s cherished beliefs (such as the earth’s rotundity, or biological evolution), subscribing to belief systems that have been proved to be clearly unscientific are all examples of irrationality. Any individual or system that preaches  hate and hurt also qualifies as an irrational entity. Whether scientists, mathematicians, scholars, intellectuals, or whatever, none of us is altogether immune from spurts of irrationality. Sometimes institutions, political ideologies, economic schemes, religious systems, or even governments, may become irrational.

The second way in which one may digress from rationality is through beliefs and actions that are non-hurtful, fulfilling, uplifting, enriching, or helpful to others. I call this transrationality. Thus, while some elements in the religious framework may be non-rational, religious behavior need not always be irrational. It can be transrational. Praying for the well-being of others or even for rain, and going through the rites and rituals of a tradition are instances of transrational acts. Doing an act of sacrifice, giving up one’s own interests for the service of the sick and the needy are transrational acts. Religious doctrines which call for the death and destruction of those who don’t subscribe to particular tenets or prophets, which deny salvation to non-believers, or deny spiritual rights to some members of one’s own group, are  examples of irrationality in religious systems because these denigrate and dehumanize fellow beings. On the other hand, singing hymns to the Divine and reading from time-honored texts are instances of transrational elements in religions. Transrational belief and behavior are meaningful and fulfilling.

Art, poetry, words of good wishes, prayer to the Cosmic Mystery, and the tales in mythology are transrational in so far as they add to our aesthetic experience, inspire us to ethical conduct,  and elevate our vision of the world. However, it is important reckon the distinction between the real which is related to rationality and perceptual verification and the ideal and  the imagined which may be transrational. Rationality must be respected for intelligent living, irrationality must be scrupulously avoided for sane and wholesome living, and transrationality cherished for richer experiences and nurtured for meaningful and purposeful life, as also for comfort in times of anguish and crisis.

 

Agnosticism, Atheism, Religion, and Science

Agnosticism is an expression of humility, and does not imply an attack on what others believe in.Atheism is a strong attack on a deeply cherished and long-held-as-sacred belief (in the existence of a Divine Principle).

Therefore,   atheism sounds (even if it may not actually be) arrogant to the ears of believers, because it is an explicit rejection and repudiation of a belief that is dear and sacred to believers. With all the well-recognized negative impacts on society and civilization, religions have also done (and continue to do) much good for billions of people, at least as they see it. Atheists have every right, in a free society, to articulate their profound faith in the non-existence of any God, but if they do this with claims that science proves atheism, they should expect a diminution in respect for science from the public which may not be all that equipped to understand what is meant by their statement.One can be an atheist without knowing any science.One can be a theist while being a good scientist. There are ample instances of both kinds.Both atheists and religious people have the responsibility to condemn all the atrocities that have been done and are still being done in the name of God and religion. But atheists will be doing a great service if they don’t associate this with science, not only because there are a good many scientists who are theists, but also because one can make the atheist argument without hanging on to the coat-tails of science. Indeed, many keen thinkers from ancient Greece, China, and India to the modern world have written eloquently and convincingly on the atheist position without saying that atheism is the only possible or inevitable conclusion to which Science takes us.It is only when scientists explicitly attack religion that antagonism to science arises. So long as science goes about its creative and exploring business, people are not against science.

If scientists say that there is biological evolution which is one of wonders that Almighty God has wrought in the Universe, many deeply religious people would embrace evolution and respect science also. But when scientists (on however valid a ground) keep publishing books to the effect that God is a delusion, God is not great, or people who believe in God are under a spell, while they may make fellow atheists feel great for expressing their own disbelief more cogently and eloquently, they are also likely to turn more people against Science. Science is not an offensive word, but atheism is to many people. If anything, we need to use the word science more and more and explain to the public what a fine, noble, and enlightening enterprise science really is, rather than shy away from it because a few brilliant writers are using it as a weapon against people’s religious beliefs. Respect for science and a clear understanding of its framework are more important for civilization and more urgent for society than the cessation of periodic visits to church, mosque, synagogue,  and temple, or the termination of the celebrations of Christmas, the Ramadan, Hanukkah, and Divali.

On the Intertwining of Science and Religion

The undeniable fact is that all through the ages, in practically all cultures, human beings have behaved in modes that assume the existence of invisible forces and intangible factors governing their lives and destinies. Some of these convictions  became organized, codified, and formulated in what we call the religions of the human family. Religions have flourished and evolved in practically all societies during the past six millennia or more, suggesting that they have served humanity in a number of ways.What is remarkable is that even after the rise of what we call modern science, and the not insignificant spread of scientific knowledge some which blatantly challenge and give the lie to certain religious beliefs (in all religions), traditional religious beliefs and practices continue, in some quarters with greater intensity than ever before.Given that science is in the business of studying and explaining not only physical but also human-related occurrences, the challenge for it is to account for this phenomenon in consistent ways. Biology may find the molecular (genetic) basis for religious and other beliefs; psychology may explain why religious beliefs are more soothing to vast numbers of  people that irreligious;  cultural anthropology may shed light on how religions have arisen, evolved, and spread among different peoples;  sociology could explain how religions get established in new contexts;  and neuroscience may be able to tell us which part of the brain triggers which kind of neurons for what is described as  spiritual experience.  They are all trying, with already some successes. However, whereas physicists have been quite successful in explaining the structure and components of music, and chemists have explained the sources and structures of molecules that titillate the tongue and the nose, the other sciences have only recently begun to delve into the roots of religious belief and experience, and have been only modestly successful in their theories. But it is important to realize that the deeper fulfillment that traditional religions provide are not to be trivialized by scientific explanations. It is okay to say that the peculiar structure of glucose is what causes sweetness, but that knowledge cannot be used to eliminate glucose from sweets. Any science that is not user-friendly to religions will be regarded as more foe than friend by a great many people. Unintelligible Latin liturgy or archaic Sanskrit shlokas will be more welcome by the majority of the people than scientific explanations that trivialize religious beliefs as abnormal brain behavior.Granting that in its more mindless modes, religions have done havoc in human history and continue to do so relentlessly even today, it is also a fact that religions were the ones that first put constraints on our instinctive urges for self-gratification, self-aggrandizement, and cruelty towards fellow humans. Most traditional religions foster the values of caring and compassion for others, marital loyalty, restraint from promiscuity, adherence to truth, and such other wholesome virtues. Leaving aside the question of whether these values can be nurtured with or without the doctrinal paraphernalia of religions, humanity (and that includes scientists) would do well to practice some of these in whatever activity they are engaged in. It would be in our interest if scientists worked in the highest ethical framework that religions can provide – especially in the context of the actual and/or potential impact of their findings on society and civilization.Furthermore, religions (as I see them) also provide a cosmic vision in humanity’s interaction with the world around. It is not a misuse of the term to say that anyone who lives with an understanding and deep-felt conviction of human frailties, finiteness and fallibility, and with deep reverence for the world and the universe wherein we come and go with apparently no rhyme or reason, and feels a sense of gratitude for the fleeting consciousness with its capacity for love and laughter, science and music,  a consciousness that is his or her privilege for a brief span of time, and anyone who is touched by  a profound sense of mystery as to what is yet to come, such a person is religious in the best sense. And yes, in that sense religion can permeate the being of thoughtful scientists also.

On the Intertwining of Science and Religion

The undeniable fact is that all through the ages, in practically all cultures, human beings have behaved in modes that assume the existence of invisible forces and intangible factors governing their lives and destinies. Some of these convictions  became organized, codified, and formulated in what we call the religions of the human family. Religions have flourished and evolved in practically all societies during the past six millennia or more, suggesting that they have served humanity in a number of ways.

What is remarkable is that even after the rise of what we call modern science, and the not insignificant spread of scientific knowledge some which blatantly challenge and give the lie to certain religious beliefs (in all religions), traditional religious beliefs and practices continue, in some quarters with greater intensity than ever before.

Given that science is in the business of studying and explaining not only physical but also human-related occurrences, the challenge for it is to account for this phenomenon in consistent ways. Biology may find the molecular (genetic) basis for religious and other beliefs; psychology may explain why religious beliefs are more soothing to vast numbers of  people that irreligious;  cultural anthropology may shed light on how religions have arisen, evolved, and spread among different peoples;  sociology could explain how religions get established in new contexts;  and neuroscience may be able to tell us which part of the brain triggers which kind of neurons for what is described as  spiritual experience.  They are all trying, with already some successes.

However, whereas physicists have been quite successful in explaining the structure and components of music, and chemists have explained the sources and structures of molecules that titillate the tongue and the nose, the other sciences have only recently begun to delve into the roots of religious belief and experience, and have been only modestly successful in their theories.

But it is important to realize that the deeper fulfillment that traditional religions provide are not to be trivialized by scientific explanations. It is okay to say that the peculiar structure of glucose is what causes sweetness, but that knowledge cannot be used to eliminate glucose from sweets. Any science that is not user-friendly to religions will be regarded as more foe than friend by a great many people. Unintelligible Latin liturgy or archaic Sanskrit shlokas will be more welcome by the majority of the people than scientific explanations that trivialize religious beliefs as abnormal brain behavior.

Granting that in its more mindless modes, religions have done havoc in human history and continue to do so relentlessly even today, it is also a fact that religions were the ones that first put constraints on our instinctive urges for self-gratification, self-aggrandizement, and cruelty towards fellow humans. Most traditional religions foster the values of caring and compassion for others, marital loyalty, restraint from promiscuity, adherence to truth, and such other wholesome virtues. Leaving aside the question of whether these values can be nurtured with or without the doctrinal paraphernalia of religions, humanity (and that includes scientists) would do well to practice some of these in whatever activity they are engaged in. It would be in our interest if scientists worked in the highest ethical framework that religions can provide – especially in the context of the actual and/or potential impact of their findings on society and civilization.

Furthermore, religions (as I see them) also provide a cosmic vision in humanity’s interaction with the world around. It is not a misuse of the term to say that anyone who lives with an understanding and deep-felt conviction of human frailties, finiteness and fallibility, and with deep reverence for the world and the universe wherein we come and go with apparently no rhyme or reason, and feels a sense of gratitude for the fleeting consciousness with its capacity for love and laughter, science and music,  a consciousness that is his or her privilege for a brief span of time, and anyone who is touched by  a profound sense of mystery as to what is yet to come, such a person is religious in the best sense. And yes, in that sense religion can permeate the being of thoughtful scientists also.

On the Intertwining of Science and Religion

The undeniable fact is that all through the ages, in practically all cultures, human beings have behaved in modes that assume the existence of invisible forces and intangible factors governing their lives and destinies. Some of these convictions  became organized, codified, and formulated in what we call the religions of the human family. Religions have flourished and evolved in practically all societies during the past six millennia or more, suggesting that they have served humanity in a number of ways.

What is remarkable is that even after the rise of what we call modern science, and the not insignificant spread of scientific knowledge some which blatantly challenge and give the lie to certain religious beliefs (in all religions), traditional religious beliefs and practices continue, in some quarters with greater intensity than ever before.

Given that science is in the business of studying and explaining not only physical but also human-related occurrences, the challenge for it is to account for this phenomenon in consistent ways. Biology may find the molecular (genetic) basis for religious and other beliefs; psychology may explain why religious beliefs are more soothing to vast numbers of  people that irreligious;  cultural anthropology may shed light on how religions have arisen, evolved, and spread among different peoples;  sociology could explain how religions get established in new contexts;  and neuroscience may be able to tell us which part of the brain triggers which kind of neurons for what is described as  spiritual experience.  They are all trying, with already some successes.

However, whereas physicists have been quite successful in explaining the structure and components of music, and chemists have explained the sources and structures of molecules that titillate the tongue and the nose, the other sciences have only recently begun to delve into the roots of religious belief and experience, and have been only modestly successful in their theories.

But it is important to realize that the deeper fulfillment that traditional religions provide are not to be trivialized by scientific explanations. It is okay to say that the peculiar structure of glucose is what causes sweetness, but that knowledge cannot be used to eliminate glucose from sweets. Any science that is not user-friendly to religions will be regarded as more foe than friend by a great many people. Unintelligible Latin liturgy or archaic Sanskrit shlokas will be more welcome by the majority of the people than scientific explanations that trivialize religious beliefs as abnormal brain behavior.

Granting that in its more mindless modes, religions have done havoc in human history and continue to do so relentlessly even today, it is also a fact that religions were the ones that first put constraints on our instinctive urges for self-gratification, self-aggrandizement, and cruelty towards fellow humans. Most traditional religions foster the values of caring and compassion for others, marital loyalty, restraint from promiscuity, adherence to truth, and such other wholesome virtues. Leaving aside the question of whether these values can be nurtured with or without the doctrinal paraphernalia of religions, humanity (and that includes scientists) would do well to practice some of these in whatever activity they are engaged in. It would be in our interest if scientists worked in the highest ethical framework that religions can provide – especially in the context of the actual and/or potential impact of their findings on society and civilization.

Furthermore, religions (as I see them) also provide a cosmic vision in humanity’s interaction with the world around. It is not a misuse of the term to say that anyone who lives with an understanding and deep-felt conviction of human frailties, finiteness and fallibility, and with deep reverence for the world and the universe wherein we come and go with apparently no rhyme or reason, and feels a sense of gratitude for the fleeting consciousness with its capacity for love and laughter, science and music,  a consciousness that is his or her privilege for a brief span of time, and anyone who is touched by  a profound sense of mystery as to what is yet to come, such a person is religious in the best sense. And yes, in that sense religion can permeate the being of thoughtful scientists also.

Impact of Science on Religion

Science has helped alleviate and eradicate a good many of our physical ailments, and continues to do so. It has been of considerable help in unhealthy psychological contexts as well. A scientific understanding of the ideas and worldviews associated with religion could, in principle, help us exercise the nobler aspects of religion and diminish its more unsavory dimensions on which Dawkins and company are justifiably, if exaggeratedly, harping.

I say <in principle> because in the past  50 and odd years science has made enormous strides, but our religious expressions have not exactly made proportional positive advances. On occasions they have regressed. If anything, more science and technology have led to more belligerence and vaunting of power, if only because they have endowed fanatics with the wherewithal to bully the world or their opponents. The next religious Hitler will be armed with nuclear weapons.

In other words, as of now, aside from the knowledge that too many people will spoil the planet, too much gas-burning will cause planet-fever, and the like – which are recognitions of enormous import - I am not convinced that  precious scientific information has enhanced the virtues of love, compassion, consoling the afflicted, charity and choir singing in measurable ways that religions try to foster.

So I hesitate to give science a hearty pat on the back for its positive contributions to the practice of religion or of  science’s therapeutic role in refining religion. Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many other ministers of minor repute have perhaps been playing this role in various contexts in more effective ways than the best neuroscientists, astrophysicists, evolutionary biologists and their other scientific cousins.

None of this is to diminish the value, significance and mind-expanding role of science but only to remind ourselves that every human effort  and institution is limited in scope: even the most glorious music or sublime prayer cannot serve all our needs as human beings. That’s why we have different disciplines and a variety of institutions. And let’s not expect science to serve us in every way.

On the Interntionalization of Science and Religion

The Internationalization of Science

The scientific revolution of the 16th century was significant not so much in the discarding of geocentricity though this was one of its earliest steps; not so much in the discovery of elliptical planetary orbits though this opened our visions to hitherto hidden aspects of the universe, not even so much in the formulation of the laws of motion, though these led to a deeper understanding of the physical world; but because it initiated a universality which has transformed the very nature of the enterprise.

Since the emergence of modern science, the enormous range of scientific efforts in different countries, and then in different continents, have come to be subsumed under a single umbrella, made up of an abstract international body of scientific practice and culture. The various nations of the world have their own research laboratories and publications, and yet, the works carried out and published in these geographically separated places are interwoven into a web held firm by invisible bonds that know no borders, that feel no cultural differences. The meter and  the  kilogram in any national bureau of standards are precisely the same, no matter what the religion or form of government may be in the country.

Science certainly has its local interests, narrow nationalism, and petty fights over priorities too. After all, it is only a human enterprise. There are rivalries and races in the pursuit of knowledge and competition in discoveries. There is national pride when a prize is announced. And yet, the technical work of scientists is blind to nationalities, they overlap and mingle like sounds from different instruments in an orchestra to create and constitute the grand symphony that science is. The true strength and stature of modern science lies in its universality. Science is no longer bits of insights here and there, nor imaginative speculations by keen minds in particular cultures. It surely is not parochial ethnic interpretations of natural phenomena, nor narratives from sacred books. Rather, science is  a collective quest, a restless drive to eradicate every misunderstanding in the interpretation of  every occurrence from the micro to the macrocosm, to unravel every mystery and dispel every doubt and darkness from the inquiring mind.

What characterizes modern times is transnational science, and the ubiquity  of modern technology. There is no  member state of the United Nations Organization where science is not taught, or planes don’t land. Whether one understands science or decries it, no serious thinker or leader in the twentieth century can ignore science, or function without its technological offshoots. The primary contribution of science has been the quenching of curiosity through disinterested search, the providing of intellectual satisfaction through its explanatory successes, and the enhancement of creature comforts through ingenious technology.

In spite of all our national differences and cultural diversity, no matter what language we speak and what creeds we subscribe to, the one common thread that connects the minds of men and women in today’s world  is international science. So too, the commonalties in the towns and cities of the modern world are electric lights and communication systems, automobiles and computers.

We live in a world where science and technology hold the sway. If we look around any spot on earth that has found its way into the mainstream of human history,  we cannot escape the presence of  wheels and wires, of gadgets and generators, of vaccines and pills. The material impacts of science, the magic and madness of machines are omnipresent and inevitable. Science and technology are here to stay, and their influences are likely to grow even more in times to come.

In no other context: not in art, nor in music, not in sports, much less in politics, do men and women of all races, languages and religions, hold hands as comrades in a common pursuit. This speaks as much to the glory of the science as an enterprise, as all its technological triumph do. It is important to realize, whether one is from the East or the West, from the North or the South, of India or of the globe at large, that modern science is not Western any more than that the zero is Hindu or that gunpowder is Chinese, except in the accident of their geographical origin. For better or for worse, the scientific revolution merged diverse streams of search into a single surging river, as it were.

 Religion, Separate and Universal

But nothing of the kind happened in the realm of religion. Here the ancient roots stayed separate and sturdy, and the trees grew taller and vigorous too, shooting out branches along different directions, but the branches of the trees drew nourishment from their respective roots. Whether it was Judaism or Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam, each gave rise to different sects and schools, but in each instance, there was a core which was safe and secure.

Unlike with science, there arose no common religious institution to embrace all the faiths of humankind to form a single superstructure unto which all would come and pray. True, there have been efforts to repair old divisions, attempts to heal historical wounds, even movements to bring out the best from all religions. But  Din Ilahis and Unitarians, Bahais, and Brahmos have been elite groups, rather than major religions with mass followings. If anything, over the past few centuries, newer groups have come and gone, new prophets and cult leaders have forged more movements still.

One reason for this is that science is concerned with the external world of cold reality, whereas religion is linked to inner warmth, to local moorings, trusted traditions, and close community. Every religion is affiliated, not only to ancient prophets and personages, but also to time-honored rites and rituals, which have acquired the weight of centuries and the wisdom of ages. To reject all this and embrace a global network is more difficult than to switch from the geocentric to the heliostatic model. To resonate with prayers from alien faiths is more difficult than to use telescopes and microscopes to explore the world. It is a fact of cultural irony that on the issue of Divinity which all religions worship as omnipresent, the local variations are unable to merge.

So we find that in schools everywhere the same laws of nature and the same mathematics are taught, the same facts of anatomy and the same genetic structures are explained, but in places of worship different symbols are venerated, different eschatologies expounded, and different days prescribed for fasting and feasting.

 

Some Reflections on the Scopes’ Trial

Seventy five years ago, something unusual happened: A judge in Dayton, TN, fined a school-teacher $100 for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in a science course.
Recently, the Board of Education in Kansas voted that exam questions on Evolution shouldn’t be mandatory for high-school science students.
It was announced “During Scopes Week, July 9-14, Kansas Citizens For Science, along with other Kansas groups, will host major speakers from across the nation to bring the issues around teaching evolution into sharp focus.”
Reaction to this ranged from laughter to outrage. People could not believe that a Board could dictate what is to be taught and how, what should or shouldn’t be in science courses.
What is important in science education is whether students can explain on what basis they accept or reject Evolution or whatever. We must teach students and school board members (i.e. the public), not the theories of science, but how science works, the criteria by which science accepts or rejects ideas. Then, students and citizens are more likely to accept Evolution, and more meaningfully. They must understand that no other framework adequately explains (as of now) much of what we know about fossils and the variety of biological species.
The religious upholders of scientifically discredited views alienate genuine seekers of spiritual experience, besides giving a bad name to theology. Though well-motivated, when they try to usurp the role of science, and impose ancient poetry and religious metaphor as science, the result is awkward for religion and hurtful to education.
The factors that prompt(ed) the (now defunct) Tennessee law and similar efforts, must be dealt with if we wish to avert them in a nation where science and enlightenment are cherished values:
All people experience genuine emotional attachment to the sacred book of their tradition (Holy Bible, Holy Koran, Sacred Vedas, etc.). They tend to combat any view that questions or tampers with their Scriptures. This is the equivalent of getting upset when a stranger accuses a dear one of a dereliction which one cannot believe could occur. This perfectly human reaction should not be pooh-poohed away as resulting from obstinacy or ignorance.
Scientific thinkers could explain that Scriptural sacredness is not related to its explanations as to how the world came to be: ancient explanations were functions of history, culture, and then-current knowledge. Sacredness is rather associated with a spiritual personage (Christ in this case) who, as far as we know, did not author the Book of Genesis. Nor was he interested in lecturing on cosmology. A biologically evolved being need not be bereft of spiritual dimensions.
Many people feel discomfort at the notion that human beings are related to what they regard as “lower animals.” This is a fairly common cultural phenomenon. Racism, casteism, the idea of a chosen people, etc. are all manifestations of the same superior-uniqueness-instinct, providing pride and ego-boost.
As more and more people are recognizing that all races and cultures belong to the same species, they could also be educated into regarding all creatures as belonging to the same family of interconnected Life. This could alleviate the repugnance linkages with other life-forms.
Many people fear that negative moral impacts might ensue from Darwin’s insights. They are not wrong in their assessment. Some scientific liberals of the 19th century developed the notion of survival of the fittest and of social Darwinism which explained, if not justified, colonialism, slavery, and such. The eugenics movement, with its horrific culmination in Nazi experiments, also took inspiration from Darwin’s theory.
Evolution is good science and must be taught in schools, but we must recognize that some of the motivations of those who oppose the teaching of Evolution are not altogether misguided. Rightly or wrongly, their concern for ethical dimensions outweighs their enthusiasm for teaching what they consider a harmful framework for the moral fabric.
This concern may be exaggerated, its expression may be of questionable liberating value, but it is legitimate and laudable nonetheless.
It would be helpful if scientists take active interest in ethical issues deriving from pure science. To say that science is amoral might be epistemologically valid, but sooner or later, much of science turns out to have ethically significant consequences. Unless scientists persuasively argue that the fundamental principles of morality need not and should not be shaken by the insights and advancement of science, and unless they actively engage in mutually respectful discussions with religious leaders and concerned theologians, the divide will continue, with perhaps grave dangers for both science and religion.

On Weinberg’s Comment about the Universe

I tend to agree with Weinberg’s (in)famous statement:
“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless, ” with or without his later qualifications.
The simple fact remains that the more we come to know about the workings of the physical universe, using the scientific methodology, the more pointless (accidental its emergence and non-teleological its laws) appears to be.
This may be sad or unpleasant to many people.
But as I see it, this need not be.
For one thing, we can surely rejoice about and celebrate the universe that science reveals.
Secondly, it is important to realize that we grasp the universe on two different planes: the intellectual (logical/rational), and the experiential (poetic, artistic, emotional, religious …). Each gives its own version of the world. Each can be enriching in itself without necessarily complementing or confirming the other.
Thus, for example, when we consume food, we may analyze it in chemical terms and discover that all it contains are molecules of various compositions and properties. This understanding need not deter us from enjoying the taste of the food or the happy company of friends and others with whom we may be enjoying the food.
The same may be said of music, the sunset, love or whatever.
Like it or not, this is what it means to be human: the ability and the inclination to be reason-propelled as well as feelings-driven in our interactions with the world.
It is when we claim that one mode of apprehension reveals a greater than the other that conflicts and confrontations arise of the sort that can never be resolved.
So, yes, the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it does seem to be pointless, just as the more we contemplate on the universe as a magnificent creation, the more beautiful and glorious it seems to be, as if that was the ultimate purpose of it all.
The more I analyze The Magic Flute the more pointless it seems, and it is no disrespect to Mozart when I say this. But the more I watch it, the more delightful and meaningful it becomes.
The more I analyze Vedic hymns, the more pointless they seem to be. But the more I listen to them chanted or chant them myself, the more elevated and ecstatic I feel on the spiritual plane. I cannot in good conscience say that the results derived from one mode are better than the experiences derived from the other.