Neil Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel and
others are hopelessly, ludicrously out of their depth when they speak about
God, or the best way to live, or metaphysics in general.
Most people today think of metaphysics as speculative where
science is firm; metaphysics maintains a very similar status to the paranormal,
ghosts, psychics and the like. But this is simply not the case. “Metaphysics”
simply refers to the field of things which are “meta” to physics. Any time you
have a conversation about what counts as “real,” you are having a conversation
about things that are beyond the physical, tangible portion of reality.
So how does science fit into this? Science is a method that
fits within a context. Any reference to that context must necessarily be “meta”
to the discipline and methods of science itself. Similar to the way that an eye
cannot see itself except indirectly, science is a really lousy tool for talking
about science. It must make use of the context beyond its borders to have a
rationally consistent conversation about itself. This is why great scientists
no not necessarily make good philosophers or consistent thinkers.
I’ll give a concrete example. Richard Dawkins does not like
the idea of Religion or of God. His book “The God Delusion” argues that people
will be better off putting these hopeless delusions out of their minds and
focusing on what is real, which is what is investigable through the scientific
method. I can’t fault his opinion, but I
can fault his defense of that opinion as unscientific, badly reasoned, and more
than slightly offensive to a seeker of truth.
This argument, that the only things that exist are the
material facts of the world, can never be liberating or rationally considered a
good thing for one simple reason: if the supposition that there are no
non-material facts in the universe is correct, then there is no such thing as
good or bad in the first place. Also, accepting the modern version of
materialism means that humans don’t technically exist either, because the only
things that exist are energy, energy gathered into particles, forces, space,
and time. Humans are not on that list. According to the Standard Model, we are
nothing more than an arbitrary designation for a relatively organized bundle of
particles that will eventually find some other orientation after we die.
So nothing is good or bad. In that case, liberty is not
better (more good) than ignorance and captivity, and there is no rationally justifiable
reason to prefer liberty over captivity, other than simple arbitrary
preference. There is no real reason for it. There is no reason to prefer living
over dying, because living is not better than dying. Everything is equally “Meh.”
This means that the liberated Nihilist doesn’t get it. There
is something that is just not clicking in their heads when they speak of the “benefits
of Atheism/moral nihilism/materialism/relativism.” “Benefits” comes from the
Latin “Bene”, meaning “good.” So any
discussion of benefits, and any argument that attempts to show that these
worldviews are somehow better than their alternatives has not swallowed its own
sales pitch. If they actually believed it, they could not rationally argue to
make converts.
This bothers me very deeply. Many clever and seemingly intelligent
people argue for materialism and relativism and nihilism, but they could not
maintain their fervor if they understood or thought deeply about their own
doctrine.
Be consistent, think deeply.
