from Magonia 82, August, 2003
The Pelican does not like being described as a sceptic. This is because so many people who call themselves sceptics simply cannot confine their criticisms to matters which they understand, usually the hard sciences, such as physics, astronomy or biology. They persist in blathering on about matters of which they evidently know very little with the result that, instead of recruiting people to the cause of logic and honest scientific research, they merely succeed in arousing hostility, and for no good reason.
Many examples of this can be found in The Skeptic. In the latest issue is a serious and objective article about ganzfeld experiments, which attempt to establish whether or not people can send information to one another without using any known means of communication. (1) In other articles, however, the arguments are somewhat less clear and straightforward. For example, Steve Stewart-Williams attempts to show that life must have begun as a result of natural processes, urging us to reject "the traditional Judeo-Christian view that God created the earth and all life around 6,000 years ago". (2) That people who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old would be subscribers to The Skeptic strikes The Pelican as being very unlikely. The author's real purpose appears to be just one of the sceptics' routine religion-bashing exercises. He writes of creationists when he obviously means to include all those who believe, or are willing to consider, that the universe was created by God rather than being the result of the Big Bang (you are not allowed to ask what caused it).
So far as the origin of life is concerned, Stewart-Williams points out that because it is as yet unexplained, some people assume it must be the result of divine intervention. This approach to gaps in human knowledge is known as semi-deism, the belief that God created the universe which is capable of running on its own, although He occasionally intervenes to make adjustments or to introduce new features. However, mainstream Christianity generally agrees that our lack of knowledge of the first steps in the origin of life are due to our ignorance rather than divine tinkering. In other words, modern theology is too sophisticated to require inexplicable gaps in nature to allow for marvellous events.
The only real difference between sceptics and religious believers concerning the origin of life is that sceptics believe its origin was purely fortuitous, whereas believers consider it to be a part of the Divine Plan. There is no serious disagreement about the facts which have so far been established, and most of the arguments about evolution concern some of the details of the theory rather than the theory itself. Thus the question of whether the origin of life was divinely ordained or not is a matter of faith or a matter of opinion, or speculation, rather than a scientific question.
In Wendy Grossman's column (3) we get treated to a little sermon about credulity concerning the paranormal which, curiously, begins with a tale which strains not only The Pelican's credulity but also his ability to attain a temporary suspension of disbelief. We are asked to believe that her friend Matt had "gone to the kind of weekend gathering where lots of rich, famous, or interesting people . . . get together to entertain each other." We are told that "at meals everyone took turns hosting a table, and you picked the table you thought would be most interesting." Wouldn't some tables get rather crowded, The Pelican wonders? Or do they fight for their places?
And, even more implausibly, we are informed: "Matt immediately discovered that no matter whose table he picked and no matter how apparently erudite and sane the person sitting next to him might be . . . he would immediately find himself listening to him or her swap names and experiences of homeopaths, pet psychics, and astrologers, or questionable theories about crystals, 'toxins', and 'forces'."
Grossman tells us: "Belief in the paranormal has nothing to do with intelligence." So, what are these gatherings of the great and the good where everyone babbles new-agey drivel? The Pelican thinks we should be told.
Another of The Skeptic's columnists, Steve Donnelly, engages in another religion-bashing exercise, though less sophisticated than the one by Stewart-Williams, his approach to the subject being more like that of a sniggering adolescent. It seems that Donnelly's eldest daughter witnessed scenes in Sydney, Australia, where crowds gathered to look at a fence post which, to some people, when squinted at with eyes slightly unfocused, resembled traditional images of the Virgin Mary. Donnelly's treatment of a complex subject with a long history is typical of sceptics - flippant, mean-spirited and superficial.
Perhaps The Skeptic's sceptics could pause in their desperate endeavours to convince one another that that there is no such thing as the paranormal or supernatural beings, and no meaning or purposes in life apart from those which they devise for themselves. Let them ease up a bit and maybe they'll feel better and be able to stop taking the tablets.
Meanwhile, The Pelican would like to leave with them this thought: "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." (4)
1. David Marks, 'What are we to make of exceptional experience? Part 2: Ganzfeld studies', The Skeptic, Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 2003
2. Steve Stewart-Williams, 'Life from non-life: Must we accept a supernatural explanation?', Ibid.
3. Wendy M Grossman, 'Skeptic at large . . .', Ibid.
4. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.44
No comments:
Post a Comment